At the National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters has an excellent analysis:
The axiom "he who enters the conclave a pope, leaves a cardinal" is as wrong as it is ubiquitous.
In the conclaves of 1939, 1963 and 2005, the person who "entered the conclave a pope" did, in fact, emerge as pope
In 1939, the cardinals turned to the church's most seasoned diplomat, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli. It was the shortest conclave of the 20th century, with Pacelli winning the papacy on the third ballot.
In 1963, the first session of the Second Vatican Council had been tumultuous, with a huge majority of the world's bishops refusing most of the draft texts prepared by the Vatican Curia. When Pope John XXIII died, the question facing the cardinals was whether or not to rollback the direction the council was taking or to proceed. They elected the leading papabile, the archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, on the fifth ballot, the second day of voting.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was the clear front-runner going into the 2005 conclave. The 27-year tenure of Pope John Paul II loomed large in people's minds, and the cardinals selected a man who had worked closely with the Polish pope. He was elected on the fourth ballot.
The first conclave of 1978, in August, was also a two-day affair. In advance of the conclave, Cardinal Giovanni Benelli, who had served as Paul VI's right-hand man for ten years before becoming archbishop of Florence in 1977. But, Benelli was the kingmaker, not the king, in the August gathering. His candidate, the patriarch of Venice, Albino Luciani, was elected on the fourth ballot. He took the name John Paul I but died about a month later.
In the conclave that followed, Benelli sought the top spot but it became clear at the end of the second day that neither he, nor his rival, the archconservative Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Genoa, could garner the necessary votes of two-thirds plus one. Suddenly, the unthinkable, electing a non-Italian, became possible and necessary and Cardinal Karol Wojtyla's candidacy gained steam. He was elected on the eighth ballot, on the third day of voting.
The 1958 conclave that elected the patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, was the longest of the last century: Roncalli was elected on the 11th ballot.The lesson for 2025? Sometimes, if the conclave deadlocks on Day 2, a broadly acceptable, compromise candidate emerges on Day 3, one who, like Roncalli, is older and likely to serve for a relatively short time, as a kind of placeholder.
Which brings us to the 2013 conclave that elected Jorge Bergoglio, on the fifth ballot at the end of the second day of the conclave The front-runner going in had been the cardinal-archbishop of Milan, Angelo Scola. We later learned that Scola underperformed expectations even on the first ballot, and Bergoglio overperformed. Scola's numbers declined and Bergoglio went on to win.
2025 most resembles a cross between the 1963 and 2013 conclaves. Like the situation of the church in 1963, when the conclave was a referendum on John XXIII's decision to convoke Vatican II, this conclave is a referendum on Francis' reforms. But, unlike that conclave, there is no equivalent of a Montini this time, someone who is the clear and obvious favorite to take the baton. In that regard, next week's conclave is more like 2013, with several candidates with varying strengths and weaknesses.
This week's (or maybe, by now, it is last week's) Jesuitical podcast from America Magazine is quite good - it featured Fr. James Martin and Fr. Sam Sawyer on Pope Francis. One of them - I can't remember which - called for the next Paul VI (shall we hypothetically call him Paul VII?): just as Paul VI implemented Vatican II's vision, the next pope might be expected to implement Francis's vision. Part of that thought was: Francis was more interested in being with people and helping them than he was in the business of reforming bureaucracies. Maybe the next pope should be willing to do some of that blocking and tackling to ensure Francis's vision moves forward.
ReplyDeleteWho that person would be, I don't know. But such a prelate could just as easily come from the developed world as the developing world. If the conclave's desire is to carry Francis's programs forward, personal characteristics and abilities seem more important than geography.
While Pope Francis was very patient with people in his bureaucracy, he was very good at slowly making good appointments around the world. He destroyed the old system of choosing cardinals for traditional sees. The electors now come from very diverse backgrounds. He chose bishops based upon their pastoral rather than academic or administrative abilities.
ReplyDeleteHowever, his unwillingness to push ahead for the ordination of married men really limits the pool of talent available to church at the diocesan and parish level. Maybe the next pope will be willing to do that?
His unwillingness to grant the preaching role to women also has severely limited the pool of persons available to lead the church at liturgy. I think you can do allow lay preaching at Mass without tackling the issue of ordaining women as deacons. Technically women can preach in church for example give a "homily" at the Liturgy of the Hours. Historically Hildegard and others preached extensively outside of Mass. The decision to allow qualified men and women who are not ordained to preach the homily at Mass would bring a great amount of new talent into the church leadership.
The best we can hope for is that the person who is elected Pope will be seen as someone who is going to pick pastoral bishops and cardinals and who is going to be willing to follow Francis in the Joy of the Gospel
“I dream of a ‘missionary option’, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures
can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world
rather than for her self-preservation.”
Without being assisted by married priests and lay men and women preaching at Mass, the present cohort of priests will be holding us back.
NCR update
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/conclave-roundup-parolins-star-falls-spotlight-synodality-cardinal-propaganda
On the day after Pope Francis' funeral, Cardinal Pietro Parolin celebrated a Mass for some 200,000 young people in St. Peter's Square, where he said the late pontiff's legacy of mercy must live on in the church.
While the cardinal's words may have offered a ringing endorsement of the late pope, his stilted style left him unable to connect with a crowd. As one cardinal-elector told the National Catholic Reporter, the Mass was a reminder of Francis' charisma and communication gifts and that Parolin lacks both.
Around the Vatican, many curial officials have backed the idea of a Parolin papacy; their argument is that the 70-year-old Italian cardinal is "Francis, but quieter."
But writing today (April 30) in the Argentine daily, La Nacion, Elisabetta Piqué observed that many question the idea of Parolin as a "continuity candidate."
"Although Parolin was appointed by Francis as his deputy in August 2013 and brought (him) back to Rome from Venezuela, where he was nuncio (Vatican ambassador), many know that, over the years, they have grown apart," Piqué wrote.
Despite Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re's strong backing of Francis' top priorities during his funeral Mass April 26, the dean of the College of Cardinals failed to offer one mention of what many see as Francis' legacy: synodality.
Some of the strongest backing of synodality during the general congregations, the daily meetings that precede the conclave, has come from younger cardinals, according to cardinals who spoke on condition that they not be named.
Some might like to slow down the Francis agenda by backing a centralist, Parolin, who would likely pursue issues of peace, environment and migration through diplomacy, while emphasizing unity within the church by sidelining hot button issues.
DeleteSynodality, walking together through honest conversations, may be the issue that discerns who is really in continuity with Francis and with Vatican II. Who is really to lead conversations among the continents, all of which have very different agendas? Who has the charisma to also lead on the world stage on issues of peace, environment, migrants, and economic and social justice?
I don't want to wade in too deep here, but Jack makes an interesting point about selecting a pope who can lead on global issues. The strength of Francis, istm, is that he recognized global problems and demonstrated an individual Catholic response to them.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Francis made the point that migration causes upheaval and suffering worldwide when he visited Lampedusa. He also demonstrated that individuals have an obligation to respond when he took three migrant families back to Rome.
He also acknowledged that much of the world is trying to come to terms with the fact that not all humans fit neatly into the Church's teachings on binary gender identity and complementary sexual attraction. His "who am I to judge?" demonstrated that individuals are not called to demonize. His bringing trans women and other marginalized individuals forward to meet his coffin at his tomb also underscored his willingness to meet people where they are.
Unfortunately, the reputation of the Church, at least to outsiders, is still foundering on the rocky shore of the sex abuse scandals. How the Church repairs its moral authority to evangelize the world is not a problem that the next pope (or the next five popes) is going to solve, especially since factions within the Church can't really agree on the best course.
Moreover, those outside the Church are much more skeptical about its authority or claims that the Holy Spirit picks the popes. So a pope who hopes to evangelize the world has to maintain the pomp expected of the vicar of Christ by Catholics while being able to respond to outsiders as a good man with good news. Hard balancing act!
Good point about recognizing global problems. He was the foremost voice in the world regarding the most global of problems, Climate Change, aka Global Warming, Global Heating, the Climate Crisis. I would hope that his successor keeps that prioritization. Only the occurrence of a WWIII could be more significant for the future of civilization. It is a problem that MUST be solved by real programs. And capitalism, if it is to exist at all, must be entirely subservient to tge cause, as American industry was durin WWII. I don’t see how these changes can happen without parallel movement in the religious sphere.
DeleteWe are increasingly a society that thinks choosing not to believe in scientific facts and to ignore social realities is a valid life choice. The pope is in a unique position to get the big picture and demonstrate a Christian response that dispels fear and helplessness.
DeleteIf talking about 'faith in science' isn't a contradiction, then the loss of faith in science among so many people is truly perplexing. Perhaps part of it in a certain childish, "If I wish hard enough that it isn't so, maybe it will go away". Is that immaturity or fear?
DeletePart of it may be a nihilistic, "f*ck all the elites of all stripes, with their access to wealth, power and knowledge that I lack".
Among the right-wing populists, there is a belief that the scientific establishment has 'sold out' for ideological reasons: that the scientists lie to us if it suits their ideological purposes. Some bright and serious right wing thinkers think that the public health establishment did this during COVID. FWIW, this perception is one of the many factors that has fueled Donald Trump's political resurrection.
And mentioning Donald Trump brings to mind a character trait of his that many other people share (and which I believe is characteristic of his voters): they are low-trust people who are prone to disbelieve other people, including those with scientific expertise. (And yet they may the ones who are susceptible to religious hucksters and grifters, so it's a little hard to figure.) I wouldn't use the word "skeptic" to describe them, because I think inherent in the meaning of "skeptic" is a certain openness to be persuaded, even if the opening is a bit crabbed and narrow. Trump appears to be impervious to fact and reason. He is the epitome of the "I go with my gut" person.
I don't know why the Tea Partiers fell off a cliff and started believing YouTubes about reptilian humanoids drinking youth serum made from children's blood. But they are scared, stressed, and angry. People don't make good decisions under those circumstances, and they can become dangerous.
DeleteI hope Catholic clergy engage parishioners about what they hear and who from. They might be able to help MAGAs see how they can direct some energy toward helping their communities instead of wallowing around in resentments and conspiracies. People are usually less fearful when they are helping others.
Scientists are human, too. they can be mistaken and even accepted science can and has been mistaken. but, for the most part, like most human beings, they are probably trying to do their best. If the science of climate change were to be found grossly mistaken by some new discovery ( I really doubt that}, I would expect the top climatologists would be the first to announce it. Exxon scientists came up with the same projections as the academics, but they were muzzled until a few years ago. Anytime big bucks are involved, some skepticism toward in-house scientists is not out of order. But, at bottom, there is a real physical world which seems to be consistent, coherent and, to some extent, understandable. Conspiracy theorizing, the hermeneutic of suspicion on steroids, is not useful for discovering scientific truths. I think the best thing is to learn some science. I would never tell anyone to believe me based on my degrees. The science is explainable for those who'll listen.
Delete"Science" got a lot of things wrong trying to respond to COVID as it unfolded. For instance, the CDC was using flu models to predict infection and spread of COVID. In addition, the US has no centralized reporting system of local health departments. As I understand it, these problems have not been fixed, and "lessons learned" from COVID have been about nil. Imo, that was Biden's greatest failure. Lack of good info leads to confusion and feeds conspiracies. With RFK/Trump/Musk running things, we are in bad shape for the next pandemic.
DeleteRegarding possible candidates to be the next pope, I think charism is sometimes overrated as a desirable characteristic. Case in point: Donald Trump is said to possess charism. I'm not seeing it, personally. But is said to be part of the secret sauce that got him elected.
DeleteCardinal Parolin is not reputed to be very charismatic. But he is said to be a calm, friendly, and reasonable person. He is a seasoned diplomat, having served in Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and China. He speaks five languages. Among other things he is said to be open to the discussion of revising the priestly celibacy requirement. Conservatives think he is too liberal. Liberals think he is too conservative. Sounds about right.
I don't know a lot about the various cardinals, but I am favorably impressed by Parolin
I did not find JP2 or Francis as charismatic as the press made them out to be. But I suppose charisma is seen as a trait that helps win converts. If evangelizing the world is the goal, maybe charisma is important, all other things being equal. If it's more important to keep various Church factions together, better to have a serious, unflashy person with good admin skills and the ability to get people to push compromise.
DeleteWe need experts in fields like public health and economics, where people's general education (or lack thereof!) cannot substitute for specialized knowledge. There can be good faith disagreements about how the specialized knowledge is applied - that is (or should be) the stuff of politics. But to attack the expertise itself is simply foolish.
DeleteYes, I understand why some Catholics don't want to get their kids vaccinated because some vaccines decades ago were developed with stem cells from aborted fetuses. Their religious scruples about abortion trump their desire to prevent their kids from getting certain diseases. I disagree with their decision fairly vehemently, but they're not denying facts or making up info.
DeleteI don't understand people who won't get vaccines because they believe that all illness is an illusion wrought by demonic forces. Or that "the government" falsely inflated morbidity and death rates from COVID in order to foster dependence on the government so it could inject chips into our heads and control us.
I did not ever find trump to be charismatic or attractive in any way. To me he was a second rate reality star and I couldn’t imagine why anyone wasted time watching his show. I couldn’t imagine anyone voting for him either in 2016 because he was so awful, not to mention clueless about international affairs and economic policies. Obviously I was out of touch with mainstream America. He appealed to a whole lot of people whose worst instincts were being said aloud and affirmed. I have been heartbroken by my fellow Americans.
DeleteI could see some of JPIIs charisma, but he quickly lost me with his policies and desire to center all the power in the papacy and not tolerate dissent. Just like trump. He praised Maciel though complaints and reports had been made for years even before his papacy. He said the sex abuse in the US was the result of American culture and comforted the poor, innocent persecuted priests but ignored the victims. He praised Maciel because he toed the line on “orthodoxy” on sexuality, contraceptives, and women. Ratzinger kept silent when ordered to by JPII even though he was well aware of the horror that Maciel represented. One of his own first moves as Pope was against Maciel. He and JPII silenced more than 130 Theologians and religious. JPII, like trump, demanded absolute loyalty and no check on his own authority or power. The vows of obedience made by Cardinals to popes and priests to bishops and to silence to protect the church should all be done away with. I have never found Francis to be charismatic. I liked him from the beginning because he didn’t go along with all the traditional Royal papal pomp from the moment he appeared on the balcony without the ermine cape and asked the people to pray for him. I liked him even though he also held a traditional view of women’s roles in the church (unsurprising given his cultural heritages of old Italy and old Argentina) but his choices to discard the royal trappings in his living quarters, attire, etc, even his car, and his focus on the gospel teachings underlying the church’s (mostly ignored at the parish level and by American bishops) social justice teachings attracted me. He is also the first pope I have ever known of to admit he had been wrong about something - after the Chilean sex abuse debacle. And about his actions as a young Jesuit superior in Argentina. A Pope who has admitted mistakes and apologized. He appealed to the global church and to the marginalized and to the poor. So I will miss him.
So some more drama ensues, Cardinal Beniamino Stella has said that he opposes non-ordained people being appointed to leadership (I suppose"dicasteries" would be the term?) Seems kind of a posthumous back stab to Pope Francis, who appointed lay people to some of these positions, which were administrative jobs. He also is public in backing Cardinal Parolin as a candidate. As far as I know Parolin has said nothing about opposing lay people in leadership positions. Stella may have just tanked his candidate's chances. Maybe that was his intent.
DeleteStella is 83, too old to be an elector, but even so I thought they were all supposed to be under confidentiality, and not politicking around outside of their meetings?
I always had a visceral dislike for Trump even when he identified as a Democrat and I WAS a Democrat. He was pushing the sleazy pseudo-industry of casinos while the US manufacturing base was being destroyed. . Also, his taking out an ad in the NYT vilifying the black men who turned out to be innocent. Then came the fake reality show. I never watched the show but I saw clips. Enough.
DeleteI thought JPII charismatic in the early years, but, as he cracked down on the theologians he didn’t like, promoted his own favorite devotions and sainthoods, I just fell into a general funk about the man. A pope does not have to be charismatic for me. Holy and compassionate will do.
Jean says: Moreover, those outside the Church are much more skeptical about its authority or claims that the Holy Spirit picks the popes.
ReplyDeleteOn the last point Ratzinger before he was elected Pope pointed out that we can only say the Holy Spirit guides conclaves in a general way because there are so many cases of bad Popes in history. It is unlikely many of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Yah, you and I know that. But the Church and individual Catholics do a terrible job engaging with people outside their own denominations. The diocesan magazine has been running some variation on the "do Catholics really worship the BVM?" article for 25 years. Why? Cuz Catholics are not correcting basic misperceptions at large.
DeleteArticle at America about the Vonclave and Synodality
Deletehttps://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2025/05/03/synod-synodality-conclave-250576
Cardinal Tagle one of the favorites in this Conclave was supervised for his Theology Doctorate by none other than Joe Komonchak. Joe called him his best student and said that if he did not become a bishop he would have been a great theologian. Is Joe still on this blog?
ReplyDeleteNo, and I don't recall Fr K ever participating. People from an old Commonweal group were invited here when that folded, but most declined to participate at the outset. Several people drifted away from lack of interest, illness, or death. There are only about five or six of us still keeping up a desultory conversation about politics and culture.
DeleteWhat brings you here?
I used to belong to the Commonweal blog
ReplyDelete