The discussions in the Sistine Chapel are likely to center not on whether he should be Italian, European, Latin American or Asian but on the more substantive issues of where the new Pontiff personally stands on doctrinal matters, and the role he sees for the Roman Catholic Church in today’s world.
One of John Paul II’s major legacies is that he transformed the Church into a major international player. As leader of more than a billion Catholics all over the world, the Pope’s pronouncements inevitably influence national leaders, wherever their country is located and whatever their religion. At the same time, the Pope must shepherd a multinational flock with diverse and often conflicting interests and concerns.
It is hard enough to lead a nation. One can imagine the burden placed on the shoulders of an individual human being who is looked upon not as political leader but as spiritual beacon, and yet is expected both to inspire to greater personal sanctity, as well as reduce poverty, eliminate oppression and remove injustice wherever any of these ills are encountered.
The Pope must accomplish all this at a time when mankind itself is experiencing profound changes at virtually break-neck speed. These changes frequently put in question traditional values and one’s understanding of society and of the world as a whole.
As John Paul II’s long papacy demonstrated, the Vatican is at the center of many of these questions, frequently from Catholics themselves. From the liberalization and modernization championed by John XXIII and Paul VI, the Pope eventually found himself taking firm stands against what he saw as reform gone berserk, on diverse levels from centuries-old traditions of the Church to basic concepts of life itself.
The new pope will in the thick of this continuing storm of controversies and wrenching debates. Like John Paul II, he will have to unchain himself from the rituals and bureaucratic preoccupations of the Vatican and, without entirely dissociating himself from his duties as head of the world’s smallest state, immerse himself in the ferment which the late Pope seemed to flourish in.
In this context, all this talk about the Italian cardinals allegedly lusting after a return of the papacy to one of their kind, or of the non-Italian Europeans being intent on keeping the throne of St. Peter within Europe, or of an African clergy bent on proving to the world that its time has come, strikes me as no more than idle gibberish. Some in the media like doing this because the coming conclave of cardinals is conveniently reduced to a mere local election where power is the primary goal and principles are irrelevant.
But the identity and thinking of the next pope is all-important to the future of the Church. I do not see the new Pontiff just "freezing the ball" while the entire Church watches and waits where the currents bring us. It is a time for leadership and engagement, in at least the same level of intensity and credibility that John Paul II evinced. While the new pope might seek to establish his own identity and even surpass his predecessor, he won’t be able to sequester himself in the Papal apartments busying himself with the finer points of canon law or dogmatic theosophy.
What does all this mean in terms of the election of the new pope? Well, quite a lot actually. For one thing, some otherwise eminently qualified cardinals just might not be viable candidates.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and John Paul II’s "enforcer of the faith," or "God’s Rottweiler" has an image of doctrinal rigidity which turns off moderates and liberals alike. Besides, at 78, he seems too old for the rigors of the papacy. The thinking that he would be an ideal transitional pope, one who will neither depart too much from his predecessor’s views nor put his personal stamp on the papacy, seems out of synch with what appears to be the vision of most cardinals of an activist papacy deeply engaged in critical problems of poverty, injustice and oppression.
The Nigerian Francis Cardinal Arinze, now based in Rome as head of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, is not only the candidate of the African Church but is said to be a worthy representative of the Third World. However, as a staunch conservative in doctrinal matters, he may be at odds with African lay and clerical leaders who believe that the devastating AIDS problem in that continent requires, among other responses, the widespread use of condoms, an idea Arinze firmly opposes.
Also, for some reason, the cardinals don’t seem ready to accept an African or an Asian as pope. The consensus is that this is not the time for an American. The Europeans reportedly want to keep the papacy in Europe and are not averse to returning an Italian to St. Peter’s throne. As it happens, there are a number of attractive candidates from Italy, Austria and Belgium.
Latin America also has at least two prominent candidates. One of them, Claudio Cardinal Hummes, archbishop of Sao Paolo, Brazil is an early front-runner. But the Latin Americans, on their own, don’t have the numbers and it is far from certain that they will be able to get the Asians, Africans and North Americans to form a formidable bloc.
A Latin American pope would focus the Vatican on fighting poverty and the effects of globalization and help counteract emerging evangelical churches throughout the globe. But the Italians seem bent on reclaiming the papacy. They have a popular champion, the moderate Diogini Cardinal Tettamanzi who is already the bookies’ favorite. If I were a betting man, my money would be on either Hummes or Tettamanzi.
However, it is said that one who enters the conclave as a papabile emerges a cardinal. Which is another way of saying that ambition is not appreciated. Indeed, a total unknown could be chosen. But the ultimate choice will be a clear indication not so much of political maneuvering among the cardinals but of the direction the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will have chosen for itself.