The obvious aside, Francis has made statements on homosexuality, birth Control, salvation, abortion, freedom of expression, and.... animals in heaven yes/no that quickly been clarified, re-translated, re-attrirbuted, or retracted. To me, this does not demonstrate alot of clarity
Or merely a lack of subtlety and political acumen. Nothing he has said has actually been retracted. There's merely been clarifications.
He's simply not the political type. He speaks his mind rather than choosing his words wisely.
Thumbnail biographic sketches are not alot of information when seleting an absolute monarch who will reign until death.
But they covered all of these things that you claim cardinals didn't know before electing him. We knew them and we aren't even cardinals. Imagine how much more they knew.
No doubt the voting cardinals had more information. But even still, unless the Cardinal was a prolific writer (and then if his writings have been translated- not all Cardinals are multi lingual) or an outspoken activist, there is not going to be alot of information about him when weighed against the absolute nature of his potential future role.
I don't know if this is true or not. You're building this on a lot of assumptions. Beginning with assumptions about how much time cardinals actually spend together, how much correspondence there is between them, etc. Do you actually have some of this data or are you guessing?
Most Cardinals dont work in Rome either. That would have included Francis and John Paul II
I meant Rome in terms of the RCC, not Vatican City.
Do you really think Francis has not given any surprises?
That's not what I said.
Your claim was about Francis' mind starting to slip and how he's beginning to act erratic.
I countered this by pointing out that he's acting the way he's always acted and that this is the type of Pope the conclave knowingly chose (ie. one that acts the way he does). The way he speaks his mind has not been a surprise and that's what I'm referring to.
If his thinking truly mirrors the Cardinals, then why did the position on Homosexuality (rammed through a committee without concensus, ey advocated for by Francis) need to be retracted?
I never claimed his thinking mirrors the cardinals. I claimed that they got the type of pope they wanted to have. An honest, humble, Latin American pope who shoots from the hip and has a reputation for being a man of the people with a heart for the poor and downtrodden. They got exactly what they were after.
Maybe you think they should not have valued such things and perhaps should have valued political ability or a strong theology more highly. That's a reasonable opinion to have. But it's just an opinion. What is unreasonable is to claim Francis' mind is slipping when he's just acting the way he always has, or to claim that the cardinals were surprised that he would act this way when we've always known this is how he is.
At the same time, my bet (and yes, that is an opinion) is that few Cardinals anticipated his rapid statements regarding major doctrinal issues , followed by his equally quick "clarifications" or "re-translations".
I'm sure they were as aware of his weaknesses as the rest of us were and probably even more so. I'm sure that, on the balance, they decided to take those weaknesses because they felt that, all things considered, he was the best candidate, weaknesses and all.
