There was a lot of analysis after the death of JPII saying that the choice would send a message both in his doctrinal stances and in his age.The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm not Catholic, but I pay attention to the news. I had no idea he was going to be "transitional." Got anything to support that?Redneck_Buddha wrote:The search for a new Pope should have commenced on April 19, 2005, the day Benedict took office. If they are scrambling now, well, they've had nearly eight years and knew that he was going to be "transitional".
After JPI died, they purposefully chose a younger Pope to allow for a longer tenure. JPII held the office for a notably long time, and the analysts (read: talking heads on cable news) were saying it was unlikely that they would choose a successor that was also as young.
By choosing Ratzinger, they were purposefully choosing a man who was doctrinally conservative and unlikely to hold the post for decades.
I can't cite any sources, but I remember those discussions during the last selection process. It was the basically the papal affairs equivalent of Bob Costas or Chris Collinsworth doing play-by-play color commentary.
