The Tenth Anniversary of the Conclave

I have been an avid reader of Rocco Palmo's blog. (Remember he is basically using the same media as we are).  His role model was a Philadelphia reporter who did an excellent job of giving an insider's view to Philadelphia politics; his aim to do the same for the hierarchy of the Church. 

A few days ago, he retweeted his post on the eve of the Conclave. In retrospect, it is a very convincing explanation that the choice of Francis was on the mark.

In Conclave, The Curia vs. The World

In short, the path begins with a question in each elector's mind: "What is the situation of the church?"  It ends with which melding of those answers in human form can make it to 77.

Still, assembling them almost always tends to begin at the center, with the strengths and weaknesses of what just came before. And this time, when one of the group quietly exclaimed that, in the wake of the series of debacles in the Curia over recent years, "We need someone who can take the Vatican back," it's not hard to see that sentiment as being nearly electable on its own.

Add in that, to an even greater degree than last time, the skill-set is everything and the symbolic would be little more than incidental; should a candidate have the desired qualities, the once-powerful arguments of age and nationality are looking to be practically irrelevant.

If all that leads one to think this could be a week of surprises, you just might be onto something.

In another shift of the scene, the elections of 1978 and 2005 saw ideology – of course, as determined by the legacy of the Council – as a key factor. That's not the case this time – as ecclesial issues go, "reform" of governance usually belongs to the progressive camp, but many who wouldn't be considered "liberal" by any stretch appear to be on-board.

In this election, the fault line can duly be termed "The Curia vs. The World." And as a corollary to it, even if the scene remains immensely uncertain, yet another great upending of what's long been taken for granted is thought to be taking place.

On another front, what’s emerged as the second key quality will likely require some trade-offs with the first: a charismatic choice able to compellingly and convincingly present the faith – in word and through media, both at home and on the road.

That might sound like an evolution of style, but this time around, the concerns of a prior reign hobbled by isolation make one's ability to keep appraised a key matter of substance in determining a viable candidacy among their own.

And then, there is the ultimate ad intra watershed. Fifty years since Vatican II opened, for the first time since the Council, the new Pope will not have been present at it – and the way things are looking, he might not have even entered seminary before its close.

In other words, after decades of its interpretation by pontiffs who were Fathers or periti and the resulting wider fights over the legacy, the Roman pontiff will now effectively have the post-Conciliar church as his sole reference-point

  

My Comments

1. Certainly, the last ten years have been a constant battle of Francis against the Curia. This is not recognized that well by the media which prefers cultural wars or the sexual abuse scandal as its framework. Think about how much care Francis has taken to reshape the role of the Curia.

First, the whole course of honors whereby people got promoted to various jobs in dioceses and in Rome has been dismantled. It was so entrenched that "being promoted in order to be removed" witnessed the fact people did not get fired because they did poorly.  

In the choice of cardinals, Francis has ignored the tradition of appointing archbishops from certain large dioceses.  Gomez remains an archbishop even though LA is the biggest diocese. Philadelphia has lost its cardinal's hat.  Francis appointed Tobin and McElroy as cardinals without moving them to larger dioceses. 

In dealing with current curia officials Francis has not made the mistake of thinking that simply getting new people was the solution. He has very carefully worked with existing officials, and when their term ends has simply not reappointed them, sometimes to anything! His constant practice gives the message that appointees should not feel entitled. 

He has constantly preached to Vatican officials that they are the servants of the bishops around the world not their overseers.  He has worked to change the Vatican culture rather than just its personnel. 

2. For Francis, if Vatican II indicated a clear direction, then things are settled. Vatican II clearly wanted a reform of the Curia. Paul VI said he would do it and failed. JP2 spent his time globe-trotting rather than reforming the Curia. The cardinals thought B16 as an insider would reform the Curia, but he failed. Francis has whole heartedly accepted the job of reforming the Curia.

The bishops of Vatican II wanted the college of bishops to work collaboratively with Rome. Paul VI give them a weak Synod which was maintained by JP2 and Benedict. Francis has made synodality of bishops based on his experience in Latin America as the new model for world-wide synods.  His model for them is very Vatican II. Like Vatican II he wants bishops to face issues, make compromises and move on.  He does not want synods that are going to be constantly relitigating issues, or popes who ignore what synods have said because they were part of the deliberative process. 

Vatican II clearly reformed the liturgy. Yet Benedict thought he could use the Extraordinary Form to promote a "reform of the reform." For Francis Vatican II has settled the issue, there is only the reformed liturgy. The past is history. 

Clerical celibacy and birth control were issues that the bishops wanted to discuss at Vatican II. Paul VI took them off the table, then made a decision on birth control against the advice of his own Papal Commission that alienated many Catholics.  Rome has spoken, but the issue has not ended.  Francis thinks we need to face issues in discernments that take us beyond those issues with decisions that stick. He clearly wants those decisions to be decisions of the people of God not only those of the bishops, and certainly not those solely of the Pope.

3. Francis certainly has a charismatic style that has captivated the media. Whether or not one agrees with Francis, he certainly gets the attention of everyone both inside and outside the church. Francis has used the Vatican's extensive media operation well, but regularly gets around it by doing interviews, writing book introductions, making phone calls, etc. He is certainly not the captive of his own handlers. 

I recently viewed the speech by Cardinal McElroy at ND on war. In the discussion afterwards an Imam from South Africa noted that Francis in the midst of the Ukrainian War went to the Congo which is also in a deeply divisive conflict ignored by the Western Media.  As a third world person the Imam shared his view that the West is only concerned about Ukrainians because they are White. Francis acted differently even if largely ignored by the Western Media.  I suspect most of the Third World Cardinals saw things more like the Imam, and that will be on their minds in the next Conclave.