Given news reports, it appears that later this month we will have a new pope for the first time since 1978. The conclave that will choose the successor to John Paul II will meet approximately 15 days after his death, and if it holds to historical patterns, a new pope will be elected after a few days of deliberations, prayers and votes. In the coming weeks media outlets are likely to be filled with stories about potential pontiffs. I thought I’d start off Bloodless Coup’s coverage of this issue by simply putting forth the names listed by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter as the ten leading candidates back in 2003. There may have been some changes to his list in the interim, but all ten still make some lists I’ve seen more recently. Considering that, you may want to carefully watch coverage of these ten cardinals in the coming weeks: Arinze (Nigeria), Bergoglio (Argentina), Danneels (Belgium), Dias (India), Hummes (Brazil), Kasper (Germany), Rivera Carrera (Mexico), Rodriguez Maradiaga (Honduras), Schonborn (Austria) and Tettamanzi (Italy). While I have listed the country that each of these men comes from two of them, Arinze and Kasper, are perhaps more figures of Rome than the rest given that their primary leadership role is as a head of a church organization, not as archbishop of a large archdiocese. Kasper, 72, is President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Arinze, also 72, is Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (he was President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue from 1985-2002).
Many of the issues that dominate the politics of the church do not conform neatly to American perceptions of liberal/conservative divides. Instead, key disputes include matters such as which issues to prioritize, the level of control that should be exerted from Rome, the level of pressure that should be exerted on governments to enforce church policies, and what areas of the world should be prioritized in trying to expand the church (do you try to win back what is seen as a wayward Europe, or do you give up on Europe and move more vigorously into the Third World). And of course by the measures of the American media most of the likely candidates are “conservative” (and something like 98% of the voting cardinals have been appointed by John Paul II). Even so, the American press will still undoubtedly try to frame this election at least partially in terms of a whether or not the church is going to move in a more liberal or conservative direction. Given the way those words are generally understood in the United States, it’s my perception that Arinze and Rivera Carrera are the most conservative of the Third World candidates with Schonborn being the most conservative European. Danneels and Kasper are probably the most liberal of Allen’s ten, though in terms of economic issues Cardinals Hummes and Rodriguez have long highlighted the plight of the poor, the costs of globalization and the difficult conditions facing the people of the Third World.
For some of the early thumb-nail press sketches of these men, and other possibilities, you can look here, here and here.
Posted by armand at April 2, 2005 11:16 AM | TrackBack | Posted to ReligionGreat analysis ... but I wonder what you think of the "meta" question whether the cardinals will pick another pope who will likely have a long tenure to put his own stamp on the church (say a younger candidate such as Schonborn), or will appoint a "caretaker" who is not likely to remain pope long as kind of a "breather" after JPII's larger-than-life papacy (an older functionary like Ratzinger, say). In the church's long game of chess, somtimes there are steps sideways.
Also, the new electoral rules -- a simple rather than 2/3 majority suffices after something like 12 days of balloting -- merit a brief game-theoretical analysis: all the voting cardinals know that if they can hold the game off for the requisite number of rounds, they can get to this simple-majority state. Thus, assuming there is a candidate already likely to receive a simple majority (but not 2/3), a game theorist would expect to see the voting continue with trivial (and ultimately unknowable) results up until the critical simple-majority round. Put another way, there is no reason other than the (unlikely?) existence of a 2/3 candidate, that we should expect the voting game to end sooner than the point at which the simple-majority procedure kicks in. JPII essentially designed a game that renders functionally (though perhaps not spiritually) irrelevant the first (2/3) stage of voting, no?
Posted by: arbitransom at April 5, 2005 11:41 AM | PERMALINKIf I understand the rules correctly they don't have to switch to the 50%+1 majority rule. I think they get to decide at that point (around the 12th day) whether or not to switch to it, or go to keep with the 2/3's system. Still, if there is a candidate who can maintain a firm majority - but not 2/3's - that's what game theory would predict they would do.
However, I'm not entirely confident that they (the supporters of such a candidate) will necessarily do that (wait it out) since if, for example, this simple majority candidate is found by day 2 of the conclave ... well, there will be many days and even more votes before you get to the possibility of electing this candidate with just a majority. And in that time and over those votes it's certainly possible that various votes would shift and new alliances could come to the fore.
Still, the possibility is certainly there, you're right. And if there is a stable, firm majority for someone in particular - it makes perfect sense that they'd hold to that candidacy until they could change the voting rules and elect that cardinal.
As to the "meta" question ... that's so hard to guess. I wish I knew some of the voters! My insinct though is that Schonborn, Rivera Carrera, Scola and Rodriguez Maradiaga may be too young. I think all things being equal, the majority would likely prefer someone in their late 60's or 70's, so that would see to strengthen the candidacies of Hummes, Arinze, Tettamanzi, Kasper, Re and Bergoglio (as examples). That said, I think they'd fear that someone too old (late 70's or 80's) might not be a dynamic enough choice.
Posted by: Armand at April 5, 2005 12:06 PM | PERMALINKHmm ... yes, provided we can get an inkling of what actually happens with the voting (especially whether the switch to simple majority is necessitated or made), this might be a nice test of a particular game theory concept: in actual practice (other than observed practices of economics students), will the cardinals play strategy (essentially prevent a 2/3 candidate from emerging long enough to get to the simple majority voting) or lose patience? The role of spiritual guidance and meditation made conciously part of the voting would be especially interesting.
Of course we won't get full details, so it'll all be speculation anyway. But watch closely to see whether a name is only forthcoming shortly after the time at which majority voting is allowed (you are right to note that the switch is not automatic). If that's the case, there will be good basis to speculate that the new pope was not a 2/3 choice.
Posted by: arbitransom at April 5, 2005 12:16 PM | PERMALINKYikes Joshua - that's a scary comment if ever there was one.
Posted by: Armand at April 6, 2005 11:31 AM | PERMALINKwhat, i thought latin men were all the rage!?
Posted by: joshua at April 6, 2005 11:55 AM | PERMALINKSpeaking of Latin men, and somewhat tangentially, has anyone else heard that in some places (I've been told Mexico and Uruguay, though I haven't investigated myself) a legend goes roughly like this: if there is ever a black pope, upon his death, the Apocalypse begins? Would make Arinze an interesting choice indeed.
Posted by: arbitransom at April 6, 2005 12:13 PM | PERMALINK