A few thoughts to keep in mind over the next few days about the election of the successor to John Paul II.
First, this conclave is different than its predecessors in some key respects. There are fewer Italians, more cardinals from the developing world, there are simply more cardinals than there have ever been before in a conclave, and the cardinals will be staying in vastly more comfortable conditions than they did previously. So this one might work differently than previous conclaves. However, if it follows the patterns of conclaves in the 20th century we should have a new pope by the end of the week.
Presuming that the conclave doesn't go on for more than 10 days, any candidate who is opposed by more than one third of the conclave can't be elected.
Prior to the death of John Paul II the candidate most often tipped to succeed him was Cardinal Tettamanzi, the Archbishop of Milan. In the last week or two the name that has been coming out of Rome most often is the Dean of the College of Cardinals and the long-serving Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
There appears to be an interest in the next pope being media-friendly, multilingual and open to more "collegiality". While Ratzinger is the stalwart leader of the "Border Patrol" party and thus an obvious exception to this last belief, many cardinals, irrespective of their doctrinal views, appear to want less centralized control coming from Rome. And many of the cardinals have talked of the importance of having a pope who knows what it is like to run a large diocese.
Cardinals are well aware of the fact that the main areas of growth in the Church are in the developing world, but some (especially some of the relatively liberal Europeans) are also worried about the decline of Catholicism in Europe.
Some cardinals are wary of another very lengthy papcy coming on the heels of one of the longest in history.
Put that all together and ... who knows? Tettamanzi still seems the likeliest candidate, though I've had a strong gut feeling about Bergoglio for quite some time. And there are several other names that would one could see being elected, though of course the order in which they are proposed (something we may never know) will affect the result as well. In any event it will likely be over in a matter of days (the election of John Paul I only took 4 ballots), but of course this one is different from those that occurred before, so ... we'll see.
Posted by armand at April 18, 2005 12:29 PM | TrackBack | Posted to ReligionTettamanzi would be my bet too. His comments during the G-8 meetings in Rome gave him credibility with those interested in "social justice" issues. Yet he is also considered conservative on most moral and theological issues.
My guess is that this combination would be appealing to Latin American and African cardinals, who if they can't garner enough votes for someone from their region, might unite around Tettamanzi.
Popes often emerge as compromise choices. For this reason my hunch is that Ratzinger is not a likely choice, at least if the voting goes more than a couple of days. Everyone knows where he stands. If his supporters don't have enough votes to ram him through in the first couple of rounds then they will also begin looking around for an acceptable alternative.
Tettamanzi seems like a choice that would be acceptable to a variety of these voting blocs.
The new rule allowing a majority to elect a Pope after 10 days does change the calculation though. If a bloc with a majority (but not a 2/3rds) emerges they will have to decide whether or not to wait out the ten days or not. Since this is a new rule, I wonder how many cardinals would wish to depart from the tradition of election by 2/3 majority?