In a few short days the Conclave will begin and, hopefully,
within an equally few days white smoke will appear, church bells will sound all
over Rome, and the cry “Habemus Papum) will be heard from the balcony at St
Peter’s. Who will emerge in his hastily fitted Gammarelli white cassock, no one
knows but looking back over the consistories in "modern" times, there
are instances when it appears the Pope was chosen for a specific purpose (es)
and not often from the "papabile", the list of potentials as seen by
those other than the voting cardinals.
The exception was Pope Pius XII. As Secretary of State,
Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli was seen as the natural successor to an aging Pontiff.
He had an in-depth understanding of fascism both in his own Italy and in
Germany in the immediate period before his election when he met with its
leaders. Shortly before his election, he had visited the US, something that no
other potential Pope had done and was well received. Now, whether or not his
pontificate was beneficial to the Church or to the world is still an area of
great debate, especially as to his silence on the pogroms against the Jews in
Italy, let alone the rest of Europe.
John XXIII was initially seen as an interim Pope, an older
chap who would be the breathing space before a long term successor was chosen.
He was that but much more as it was he who called for the convening of Vatican
II and as such probably changed the Church more than it had been in centuries.
He also reached out to other faiths and began the process of inclusion of other
Christian denominations along with the Roman Church into a “Christian
Community”. He even “loaned” the Pieta to America for its World’s Fair,
something that could not even be considered a few years before.
Writing during
the Cuban Missile Crisis, he implored: “We beg all governments not to remain
deaf to this cry of humanity.” It became the headline story in Pravda and with
his plea, John XXIII had given Khrushchev a way out.
Paul VI continued these efforts and opened the management of
the Church to include lay persons at the parish level. Still no way like our
other Christian brethren do but it was a start. He also travelled outside the
Vatican in a way that no other Pope had done and established for the first time
in centuries, links with the Church of England and other groups.
He began the process of involvement of sub groups to study
issues and make his final choice in part on what they found. The one glaring difference
was on the subject of birth control where he decided against the views of his
advisors. Still, his pushing forward of Vatican II issues was monumental
including the vernacular at Mass and a major change in liturgy from the old
Tridentate rite that had been with us since the middle ages.
Moreover, he began to interact with the Jewish community in
a quiet way that set the path for his successors. However, as he aged and
became infirm, it allowed other factions within the church to take advantage
and out of that arose the Vatican Bank issues etc. Perhaps it was watching what
happened with Paul that was the impetus for Benedict to retire more than John
Paul II.
Not much can be said about Cardinal Albino, John Paul I,
except for his almost immediate passing, conspiracy theories and all. It also I
think this happening made the Church determined to look elsewhere for his
successor.
Much like Pius XII and his understanding of the evils of fascism,
Cardinal Karol Wojtyla understood communism and had also been a major
contributor to Vatican II. His choice was made more for the external needs of
the Church, the universal Church, then for the historical and mostly unseen
happenings within the Vatican hierarchy.
His works were monumental, and with the help of Jesuits in
DC (including Secretary of State Al Haig’s brother), support was funneled to
the insurgents’ movement in Poland and later into other historically catholic
countries (Hungary, Baltic States, etc.). He became a world statesman more than
any Pope in history but his last several years saw the unwinding of some of the
reforms he had instituted not unlike the last years of Paul VI. The scandals
that became open discussion points such as pastoral abuse and financial
mismanagement were catastrophic.
So then we had Benedict XVI and it is much too early to see
his impact except for the decision to resign and even that is too early to
judge. Forget the emeritus title, the fact he is still held in reverence by
much of the leadership, many of whom he appointed, surely has to influence the
choosing of the next Pope.
The election is not a plebiscite, nor should it be and if
history is a guide, the fact that the Church has grown significantly in South
America and Africa will be ignored. Furthermore, the Church has become
increasingly conservative under Benedict and to some extent John Paul II and it
is expected that will continue so that eliminates a number of "papabile
".
Where to look? Perhaps again outside Italy. I do not think
another Germanic candidate, even a reformer such as Cardinal Christoph
Schönborn of Austria but Perhaps Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Canada, even though
he once said that being Pope “would be a nightmare.”
I do not see an American in part because of the all
too-recent (in Vatican terms) cover-up of the sex scandals and the mere fact
that Cardinal Mahony is there and voting even as he is been called before a
Grand Jury in California. However, the one name perhaps is the Cardinal of Boston, Sean O’Malley, a Franciscan and thus outside the normal non-religous order candidates. He also cleaned house after Cardinal Bernard Law (who remains an embarrassment to many but will also attend the conclave).
The nuns taught us the Holy Spirit guides the selectors.
Let’s hope they were right. 