People such as Cardinal-elect Dr Desmond Connell, who have found `the courage of nonconformism', will prosper under Ratzinger and the Pope, irrespective of how many empty churches and seminaries they oversee.

In 1982, the US Bishops' Conference attempted to draft a pastoral letter on women. The bishops wanted their document to reflect the experiences and perspectives of women and, over a two-year period, more than 75,000 US women were consulted.

The first draft, issued in 1988, included some criticism of the Catholic Church and its ban on the ordination of women. Pope John Paul II -- as the bishops sought reaction to the draft -- urged them to stress the "complementary" role of women in the Church.

The second draft was a watery version of the first. It reaffirmed Church teaching on birth control; it dropped an earlier clause that women's experience would contribute to Church teaching on sexuality and it distinguished between "Christian feminism" and "radical feminism".

For the Vatican, it still wasn't watery enough. In 1991, almost ten years after the bishops had attempted to draft the pastoral letter, the six bishops involved were summoned to the Vatican to explain themselves.

The two-day session was chaired by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the powerful Vatican `enforcement' body which less than 100 years ago was known as the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition.

Alongside Ratzinger were three of what journalist John Allen recently described (in his biography of Ratzinger) as "ecclesial heavy-hitters". They were German Bishop Walter Kasper, Australian Archbishop Eric D'Arcy and Irish Archbishop -- and now Cardinal-elect -- Dr Desmond Connell.

What followed was later recounted to Allen by one of the US bishops. "We were set up," he told Allen. "I thought we were going to go in there and educate the hierarchies of other countries, share with them what our women were telling us. Instead I was battered around. There was no way we were going to get an open hearing."

Allen wrote: "The American bishop, who did not want to be identified in this book for fear of further harassment from Ratzinger's office, said he had described in this meeting the answer he had heard from educated and self-aware Catholic women. When he finished, an Italian prelate told him flatly: "We do not have this problem in Italy'."

Ratzinger and his colleagues specifically objected to the draft letter's failure to be absolutely clear on the ban on women's ordination, and complained that it went too far in the use of inclusive language. A third draft was similarly dispatched. A fourth draft was written by one of Ratzinger's former prote(ge(s and went so far to the right that many women hoped the entire project would be dropped. This time it was, when it failed to secure sufficient support from the bishops.

For biographer Allen, the incident served to highlight both Ratzinger's power, reach, adherence to fundamental Catholic teaching and insistence on obedience to the Vatican. Swiss theologian Hans Kung -- one of Ratzinger's fiercest critics -- has compared the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Ratzinger to the Soviet KGB. Ratzinger himself has stated that there is no right to dissent within the Catholic Church. He is arguably a more powerful and polarising figure within the Church even than the Pope himself.

Many believe that the next papal conclave will be as much a referendum on Ratzinger as a ballot on John Paul II's successor. As Allen tells it, Ratzinger has played a pivotal role in some of the greatest controversies the Church has faced in the last two decades. He helped to undermine the liberation theology practised by certain Catholic priests and Bishops in central and South America in the 1980s; he shored up the Church's ban on women's ordination; he led the anti-homosexual charge within the Church throughout the 80s and 90s; and it was Ratzinger's signature that appeared at the end of the Vatican's recent Dominus Iesus document, widely seen as a slap in the face to ecumenism.

For Irish Catholics -- for whom Vatican politics remain largely obscure -- the incident points to some of the reasons for Connell's appointment as cardinal. A long-time member of the Congregation, Connell has at least acquiesced in many of Ratzinger's more controversial stances and statements.

Like Ratzinger, Connell thinks in centuries rather than decades; both men share a belief that the Church must always protect itself from the trap of adapting its doctrine to the cultural mores and morals of any one period in history.

Much of Ratzinger's opposition to liberation theology was based on that particular premise. Connell's critical remarks on President McAleese's taking of communion in a non-Catholic church sprang from a similar philosophy.

Connell himself has praised the present Pope for his insistence on preaching standard Catholic teaching, no matter how unpopular it may be. Those who are puzzled at Connell's elevation -- despite the fact that he has presided over a massive decline in religious practice in this country -- miss the point.

Ratzinger and his ilk are used to this sort of thing; they expect the faithful to desert them in a period that Ratzinger would see as characterised by hedonism and self-obsession. But he expects the clergy and the hierarchy in these periods not to bow to the lowest common cultural denominator in order to win transient popularity, but rather to stick to the script of 2,000 years ago -- at least as interpreted by the Congregation -- no matter how out of touch that might seem.

In 1984, Ratzinger wrote: "It is time to find again the courage of nonconformism, the capacity to oppose many of the trends of the surrounding culture ... I am convinced that the damage we have incurred (since Vatican II) is due ... to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West; the success of the upper middle class, the new `tertiary bourgeoisie' with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp."

Therefore, people such as Connell -- who have found "the courage of nonconformism", who are against women's ordination, wary of ecumenism, who absolutely toe the line on contraception and abortion -- will prosper under Ratzinger and the current Pope, irrespective of how many empty churches and seminaries they oversee.

The truth of this is best seen in the aftermath of the liberation theology battle. In his biography of Ratzinger, Allen points out how much it pays to be Josef Ratzinger's friend.

He writes: "His Latin American allies in the liberation theology fight have gone on to high Church offices. Four now run curial offices themselves ... All four are today mentioned as papabile, or potential candidates for the papacy.

"Meanwhile, opponents have been driven to the margins: Miguel D'Escoto, Ernesto Cardenal, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and Leonardo Boff are out of the priesthood. Uriel Montana runs a Nicaraguan pre-school, and Fernando Cardenal does Jesuit retreat work. The godfather of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, keeps a low profile in Lima in order to avoid clashes with his Opus Dei bishop. The contrast is obvious to any Catholic with eyes."

In his time, Ratzinger has excelled in discipline, removing priests and bishops from their various academic or Church positions if they have failed to toe the doctrinal line, silencing them and even marking them out for excommunication. There is no comeback, no right of appeal. The only `remedy' is public attack.

In this regard, Allen outlines the case of US Dominican theologian Mathew Fox who invented what what he called "creation spirituality", flirted with New Age ideas and generally lined himself up for a drubbing. In 1998, the Vatican silenced him after Ratzinger had objected to his writings.

Fox responded with a 16-page open letter to his silencer in which he accused the Vatican of everything from a scandalous obsession with sex to fascism. He said the Vatican played mind-games and appointed bishops "whose only gift is their blind obedience to Vatican edicts".

Allen wrote: "Fox said he found signs of `creeping' fascism in your [Ratzinger's] method of dealing with diverse opinion by attempting to silence persons and abort meaningful dialogue. In a healthy and inspirited organisation one would expect discussion and dialogue . . . Your treatment of scholars is not unlike the burning of books by fascist regimes'."

Ratzinger's response is not recorded.