Brilliant! As usual.......

Good note, dude. A few comments.

First, an answer to your question.

The Pope does not have to be elected by Cardinals. The college of Cardinals was instituted during the eleventh century Church reforms by Nicholas II to insulate the Church from outside influences. It took a while to actually start working as designed, as Gregory VII (for instance) was elected by popular acclamation.

Having a good pope is critical. While the Church is protected from the pope’s errors in doctrinal or moral matters, no such protection is afforded to his pastoral and managerial skills. Would the Great Schism of 1054 happened if Leo IX had not listened to the monk Hildebrand? I think maybe not. There are lots of other examples of colossal political errors throughout history (aligning with the fascists during WWII comes to mind).

Now let’s get to your first point. I agree with the concept you illustrate wholeheartedly, completely... but I need to set you straight on the facts. You exhibit the same confusion that seems to grip the US media (and, sadly, many US Catholics). It is forgivable for you, since you're not Catholic and not in the business of information; it's unforgivable that the media or Catholics should fail to understand some of these matters (and betray their ignorance publicly)

The Catholic Church has rules that are borne of two sources (this is an oversimplification, but I won’t write a doctoral thesis in a blog): Divine and merely ecclesiastical. These are both binding for Catholics. Nevertheless, while the former can’t be changed or dispensed, the latter can.

Divine law is what God ordained. Contraception is an offense against Divine law as expressed in the natural law. Its prohibition cannot be changed nor can it be dispensed from. Ordination of women is against revealed Divine law. It can’t change.
Abortion is a violation of what God wrote for Moses in the tablets. It is not going to change!

Ecclesiastical law, on the other hand, is instituted by the Church to govern itself, keep itself ordered, and most efficiently pursue its primary goal (salvation of souls). It is binding on all Catholics (disobedience is a serious sin and can make a Catholic subject to canonical penalties) but can be changed or dispensed from. Celibacy of priests is an example of this kind of law. In fact, there are married priests in the Catholic Church; most are in the Eastern Catholic Churches (the Catholic Church is made up of some 24 Churches sui iuris although the Latin Church is the most visible and best known) but a few married priests exist even in the Latin Church by virtue of dispensations. The rule could change (although I would not think it wise) but until it does, it binds.

Liturgical rubrics are an example of rules that contain both, changeable and non-changeable components. In the Latin Church alone, for instance, there are (at least) 3 approved liturgies for the Eucharist (novo ordomass, the Ambrosian liturgy, and the Tridentine liturgy). These differ where they can, but are all the same in the fundamental components required for validity (subject, minister, form, matter – but I’ll try to avoid digressing to a discussion of sacramental theology)

I think the media (and lots of American Catholics) do not understand the difference in origin Church rules; they see change in ecclesiastical law and assume anything is subject to change. It’s not. And which is which is very well understood within the Church (and the Holy Spirit keeps it straight to boot).

A few more comments I think worth making about the new pope.

Benedict is an established theologian – possibly one of the greatest alive today. John Paul II was a theologian. It appears we may be in for a string of theologians (popes often follow patterns – we’ve had strings of canonists, liturgists, philosophers, etc.) This is probably exactly what the Church needs. JPII’s development of the Theology of the Body was both brilliant and timely. It provides an affirmative, easy to understand, answer to modern relativistic views of Natural Law. It’s also so obvious that it makes you wonder why it took two thousand years to articulate…

JPII was horrified by the idea of schism. One of his greatest desires was reunification with the East and he did not accomplish it. I think he dreaded a Western schism with the American Church and as a result he treaded very lightly. He did not discipline bishops aggressively (which he seems to have regretted, based on some of his latest writings) and thus ended up implicitly tolerating American heterodoxy. Benedict is not likely to follow this pattern. I’ve read much of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writing and he appears to have little tolerance for dissent (which in years past was called Protestantism). He also seems to think that reunification with the East is hindered by lacking orthodoxy. I expect (and hope) to see major house cleaning in the US. Benedict is old but in good health – don’t expect a mild papacy.

Finally, I’m disappointed I did not get elected (as a baptized male I was eligible). I will have to rethink my campaign strategy.

Salus animarum suprema lex.

First of all don't go MSM on the issue. Conservative and Liberal do not apply to the Catholic Church.

No I am not even a Christian any longer. But it infuriates me to think that people will apply political terms to a religious institution that is older then all other Christian churches.

The faith of the church cannot change to conform to current social norms, for the Church to do so would make the church irrelevant.

The Catholic Church is about faithful devotion to Christ and the origin of the foundation of the church.

Let us all remember the Catholic Church was founded by the apostles.

Luther was the first to break from the Catholic Church and every other christian faith broke from that church. That is is just factual history.

But I do not hold that against Christians. But do other Christians hold that against the Catholic Church?