I read John Allen's Conclave two weeks ago. It's an interesting look at the process of electing popes, the current state of the Catholic hierarchy, the "political parties" in the church, and the leading candidates to succeed John Paul II. If, like me, you find the palace politics in the Catholic Church interesting, it's well worth picking up.
There are a lot of things in the book worth blogging on, but for now I'll just note the following. First, looking at the voting pool (all the cardinals under 80) it is immediately clear that John Paul has moved the church to the right (from an American perspective). He has appointed almost all of the cardinals who will vote in the next conclave. I think there are still 4 who were appointed before his papacy and who are under 80, including Cardinals Ratzinger and Sin. While he has named a handful of left-leaning cardinals (like the new one from Scotland, and, finally, Lehmann), almost all of the cardinals on that side of the spectrum are now quite elderly, and many are over 80. So the conclave is going to be overwhelmingly dominated by conservative (again, using the American perspective) John Paul II appointees. Now as Allen notes, there are different types of conservatives, and that could be very important in the election. However, it looks like in all likelihood the next pope is going to be someone with whom many American Catholics will have strong policy disagreements. Who would the Americans like? Well, of the supposed contenders I'd say that Cardinal Daneels and Cardinal Kasper would go down well here. But I'm doubting either one of them gets the nod.
While it seems extraordinarily unlikely to happen, personally, I'd favor the election of Cardinal Sin. Actually he has much to recommend him. But on top of that, can you imagine what the New York Post would do with that choice?
Posted by armand at July 6, 2004 11:20 AM | TrackBack | Posted to BooksDoes Allen discuss the increasing non-European membership of the Church? I read somewhere that the vast majority of members of the Catholic church are in Africa, Latin America and (to a lesser degree) Asia. The wealth still resides in Europe/America, but the bodies are in other parts of the world. Will the next Conclave give any nods in this direction (by, for example, choosing a Pope from one of those areas) or will they continue to choose Europeans?
Anyway, sounds like an interesting book.
Posted by: baltar at July 6, 2004 10:51 PM | PERMALINKWell, one of the things he mentions is how the conclave will include many more 3rd world cardinals than have ever taken part before. Though of course they were one of the blocs that was key to John Paul II's election.
And yeah, he does talk about there likely being a strong interest in electing someone from the 3rd world. A list of the top 10 candidates from last November only included 4 Europeans:
• Francis Arinze (Nigeria, 71), prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship
• Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Argentina, 66), archbishop of Buenos Aires
• Godfried Danneels (Belgium, 70), archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels
• Ivan Dias (India, 67), archbishop of Mumbai (Bombay)
• Cláudio Hummes (Brazil, 69), archbishop of Săo Paolo
• Walter Kasper (Germany, 70), president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity
• Norberto Rivera Carrera (México, 61): archbishop of México City
• Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga (Honduras, 60): archbishop of Tegucigalpa
• Christoph Schönborn (Austria, 58), archbishop of Vienna
• Dionigi Tettamanzi (Italy, 69), archbishop of Milan
Oh, to be specific that was a list made by Allen from his reporting (he's the Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter).
He touched on this issue again in a March column saying that one basic choice facing the conclave was the question of electing an Italian or someone from the 3rd world. His top contendors at that time (in order of electability):
Italians: Tettamanzi, Antonelli (the new archbisop of Florence), Bertone (Genoa), Scola (Venice), and Re.
3rd world: Arinze, Bergoglio, Dias, Hummes, and Rodriguez Maradiaga.
So, which matters more (for everyone, not just the Catholic Church): a non-European being made Pope, or one of the more hard-line Bishops being made Pope?
Posted by: Baltar at July 7, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINKHe's not clear on that. But since there's a great deal of overlap on the venn diagrams involving those two groups it might not matter. It's quite possible we'll get both (we definitely will if it's Arinze or Dias).
Posted by: at July 7, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINKAnd will the church continue in the direction it is presently going (open to connections with other religions, but extremely closed to discussions within the church about any changes), or will it move in some direction?
Maybe you should just lend me the book, so I stop pestering you with these questions.
Posted by: Baltar at July 7, 2004 11:19 AM | PERMALINKHe doesn't get at that directly, but I think those dynamics will probably persist. Though if someone from the "Reform" camp gets elected you could see some internal changes (provided that the new pope has the power to really take on the Curia).
Posted by: armand at July 7, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINKOf course, it has long been prophesyed that the next Pontif will be African!...perhaps Bishop of Nigeria?...a good world inclusive move on the surface, but one might be right about his right-sided leanings!...a mixed bag I think
Posted by: at April 1, 2005 07:23 AM | PERMALINK