On the Conclave and Papal Selections Redux:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a continuation thread of sorts to the previous post on the conclave.

I kinda have a feeling that a Cardinal that was made in 2003 will be Pope. Maybe Bertone? It's kinda "fun" guessing. Just wished it wasn't as serious as which person would be the next vicar of Christ, who has the responsibility of making sure that when Christ comes, there will be faith in the world.

Hi XXXXXXXX:

It is very difficult for me to see how a newly minted cardinal will be elected. History does not countenance it and the latter is instructive of the likely patterns that this conclave will follow. To start with, you have to have some cardinal experience as a rule first. (I will get to the exceptions in a moment.) It also does not hurt to trace out the recent history of who was elected to learn from the past. With that in mind, consider the past as a reference point:

--In 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla had been cardinal for eleven years, archbishop for fifteen years, and bishop for twenty years. He had also made a presence on the world stage since the third and fourth sessions of Vatican II -became close to Paul VI, and even preached the Lenten retreat for the Vatican in 1976. In short, he had made his presence known but even then, he would not have been elected if an Italian candidate (whose name I cannot recall at the moment){1} did not indicate after he became the conclave favourite that he would not accept if elected.{2}

--In 1963, Cardinal Montini had been a cardinal for five years. He had rejected the red hat in 1953 when Pius XII offered it to him and Tardini for their services in the Secretariat of State. I note this because actual history (as if often does) contradicts contra various so-called "traditionalist" lies about animosity between Pacelli and Montini.

Furthermore, by 1958, Montini had already built a reputation. He did this initially in the Curia as a future papablile -including as one half of the Montini-Tardini dream team in the secretariat who were influential for twenty-eight years as a duo.{3} Montini was also a very successful Archbishop of Milan (the second largest dioceses in Italy) for nearly nine years. He was the heavy favourite going in but it still took six ballots to elect him.

--In 1958, Cardinal Roncalli had been a cardinal since 1953, had long served in a variety of diplomatic posts from Propaganda Fide under Benedict XV to Nuncio of Bulgaria under Pius XI and as Patriarch of Venice under Pius XII. He was elected as a compromise candidate on the seventh ballot but would not have been elected if the Armenian Cardinal Peter Agagianian (one of the initial favourites in 1958) had not been viewed as being of too poor a health to serve.{4}

--In 1939, Cardinal Pacelli had been cardinal for ten years. He had also served in several posts of responsibility including as Secretary of Extraordinary Affairs at the Secretariat of State (the same position that Montini served in), as Cardinal Gasparri's right hand man in codifying the 1917 Code of Canon Law under Pius X, as nuncio of Belgium and then of Germany under Benedict XV, as Assistant Secretary of State to Cardinal Gasparri under Pius XI, and then as Secretary of State under Pius XI. He was also cardinal camerleno of the 1939 conclave and the heavy favourite -elected on the fourth ballot.{5}

--In 1922, Cardinal Ratti had been a cardinal for only a year. But do not let that deceive. Prior to that, he had had several posts with the Ambrosian Library and also the Vatican Library (he was eventually prefect of both), was apostolic visitor to Lithuania and Poland and then nuncio of Poland. He followed this up with a year as Archbishop of Milan. In the stormiest conclave of modern times, it took fourteen ballots to elect him for various reasons -which is too much to go into here.

--In 1914, Cardinal della Chiesa had been cardinal only three months. But again, he had a long career in service to the Holy See. He had served many years in the Secretariat of State much as Pacelli and Montini before him had. He also was assistant to Secratary of State Rampolla in the pontificate of Leo XIII from 1877-1901, was a consultant to the Holy Office from 1901-1906, and was Archbishop of Bologna for seven years after that.

Della Chiesa was elected after one of the stormiest conclaves in recent history{6} was accused of nasty crimes such as voting for himself and violating the rules of the conclave by those partisans of Pius X who did not like the fact that he was a student of Cardinal Rampolla and was of the Leo XIII outlook instead of the Pius X outlook. Nonetheless, it took eight ballots (if I recall correctly) ten ballots to elect him.

--In 1903, it took six ballots to elect Cardinal Sarto after the Austrian emperor vetoed the selection of Cardinal Rampolla (who was building momentum and was growing more likely of being elected). Cardinal Sarto had spent a good chunk of his earlier career in the dioceses of Treviso until 1884 when he was consecrated and appointed Bishop of Mantua. Upon being appointed cardinal in 1893, he was transferred to the patriarchial see of Venice which he held until he was elected pope.

--In 1878, Cardinal Pecci had been a cardinal for twenty-five years. He had a career of diplomatic posts and a few episcopal sees under Gregoru XVI who transferred him in 1846 to the see of Perugia. He was given the red hat in 1853 and was an influential cardinal for years prior to his election.{7} He was cardinal camberleno of the 1878 conclave that elected him.

--In 1846, Cardinal Feretti had been cardinal for six years.{8} He had consecrated to the bishopric of Spoleto in 1827 and was transferred to the see of Imola in 1832. (Interestingly enough, after Cardinal Feretti had been elected and had taken the name "Pius IX", the Austrian emperor's delegate arrived with his veto to the 1846 conclave against the very same Cardinal Feretti.)

As we trace the modern papacy out -and Pius IX was to some extent the first of the modern popes albeit he was a transitional pope ala Pius XII later on- a few things become quite clear. First of all, there usually has to be a long trackrecord of having status in the church before one is elected. Clerics from the Secretariat (as Benedict XV, Pius XII, and Paul VI were) have risen to be pope in the last hundred and fifty years. Likewise, Holy See nuncios (Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII) are good picks as well as cardinal camerlengos of contemporary conclaves (Leo XIII, Pius XII). And of course the archbishops of major sees such as Venice (Pius X, John XXIII, John Paul I), Imola (Pius IX),{9} and Milan (Pius XI, Paul VI).

With Italian picks (and everyone has to agree that Italians are to be favoured at the conclave), it has to be someone akin to the above position wise. That is why I picked as my default Italian pick the vicar of Rome Cardinal Camillo Ruini after Cardinal Ratzinger who as I noted previously is my non-Italian European pick and number one choice).

In the case of the pick of Cardinal Ratzinger, he was Prefect of CDF for 24 years and Archbishop of Munich (one of Germany's largest sees) for four years prior to that. I do not see it as likely that we will have a non-European this time around but if we did, I doubt it would be Cardinal Pell. The reason is because of where he is stationed (Australia) which is the smallest continent and much more remote than either Africa or South America which are themselves long shots even though they have the most cardinals voting in the conclave.

I know you can point to John Paul I as being a conclave surprise and indeed he was. But he had already been a cardinal for five years and he was patriarch of a major see -one that had seen two popes in the past hundred and fifty years elected. (Pius X and John XXIII.) It is also true that he was elected in four ballots as Pius XII was in 1939 (and this is akin to acclimation if you know the process) but a huge part of the reason was that the main pope maker in the conclaves of 1978 (Cardinal Benelli) just happened to find out that one of his ideological enemies (Cardinal Felici) was favouring Cardinal Luciani.

In other words, it happened to be a case of two ideological opposites with conclave influence viewing from the beginning the same candidate for different reasons. In the case of Benelli, he probably viewed Luciani as a holy man who would make a good pope -and someone he could manipulate to some extent. In the case of Felici, Luciani was a good friend of his (personally much more so than ideologically) and he probably viewed it as a case of "having the pope's ear." This was also a situation of manipulation yes but more of the classical Italian indirect kind of persuasion than that of Benelli who was viewed by many in the first conclave of 1978 as quite papabile: something that he destroyed before the second conclave for various and sundry reasons.{10}

On the other side of the spectrum (to use the woefully inadequate "spectrum" analogy), Felici was of the same general outlook as Siri and Ottaviani to some extent.{11} That contingent had long been able to manipulate Paul VI when the latter was undecided about something by appeals to "inviolable tradition." Usually this was merely them dressing their own whims and personal preferences up as "unviolable tradition" but that did not matter: it was a psychological manipulating of Pope Paul VI who for all of his innovations never sought to compromise tradition. (Felici and his allies knew this and used it to their advantage on the occasions where Paul was undecided to get their way.)

For those reasons, there was a four ballot election which as I noted already is as close to an acclimation as one can get in a conclave considering the diplomatic overtures and respect that have to be shown in the process to prepare the way for building a consensus for a candidate.

For example, the first ballot of conclave one in 1978 contained a large courtesy vote by some cardinals for Cardinal Siri out of respect for his age and consequent stature in the college.{12} This was also something that repeated itself in the second conclave of 1978 where Cardinal Wojtyla was elected on the eighth ballot. Those kinds of overtures were (and are) necessary to pave the way for consensus building in the conclave. It is highly unlikely in light of the polarization in the church today that you will have ideological opposites of great conclaval power starting off supporting the same candidate or limited pool of candidates.

Nonetheless, we will probably have a six to ten ballot election in the conclave. The media has made a big deal of the thirty-first (or thirty-fourth: I cannot recall offhand which it is) ballot being simple majority. Howeverm, the odds of getting that far without a candidate are darn slim if you know how the mechanics of the conclave tend to work. Anyway, these are just some points to ponder.

Notes:

{1} [Update: It was Cardinal Giovanni Columbo, Archbishop of Milan. -ISM]

{2} I note this for those who think a non-Italian is a given after the present papacy: the latter will still be a long shot for decades to come.

{3} From 1944-1954 they were the actual Secretaries of State contra the pious but inaccurate common assertions that Pius XII was his own secretary of state during that time.

{4} He outlived Roncalli by about eight years interestingly enough.

{5} The shortest papal conclave until the one which elected Luciani in 1978 which was also a four ballot election.

{6} And certainly among the nastiest along with the one in 1963.

{7} He is believed to have compiled many of the propositions that later made it into the 1864 Syllabus of Errors.

{8} He was reserved in peccatore at the 1839 consistory and this was published in 1840.

{9} Imola has not been a major player in the modern papal elections; however historically it had been prior to the election of Pius IX.

{10} Plus, let us not forget that Benelli was Pope Paul VI's hatchetman for ten years -before being shipped off to Milan and given the red hat- and thus was accustomed to getting his way.

{11} A gamut that ran from uncomfortable to downright hostile to the Second Vatican Council.

{12} Siri had been cardinal for twenty-five years and was the only cardinal to have partipated in the conclaves that elected John Paul I's two predecessors. Some have even opined that he was actually elected pope in 1958 before Roncalli. These run the gamut from those who think he was compelled to step aside for Roncalli (the crackpot fringe of the so-called "traditionalists") and those who believe he refused on account of viewing himself at the time as too young and the church needing an interim caretaker pope after the long reigns of Pius XI and Pius XII. (The latter is a theory that has been advanced to me by parties that on the surface veteran readers of this weblog may find surprising to say the least.)

Nonetheless, Siri was the senior cardinal at the conclaves of 1978 and protocol to some extent required that he be respected with a strong first ballot showing out of respect. (Something I might add that he got both times.)

"The Framers Know Best" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This post was written in late March in the days prior to the death of Terri Schiavo -ISM]

It bears noting that the United States of America may well be a "nation of laws" but that many of the so-called "laws" promulgated in the name of "the law of the land" are in fact pseudo-"laws." For this reason, they are a gross perversion of the very notion of law in a just society. However, in this age of an increasingly poll driven public square, it needs to be noted that not only the law is perverted in this culture but also foundational perceptions which permeate the arena of ideas. The purpose of this post is to address one of these perceptions and set the record straight on it. In light of the national tension over the Terri Schiavo incident,{1} it seems particularly opportune to do this since so much of the opposition to her life being spared comes came from a flawed pair of societal lenses that her enemies happen[ed] to be wearing. These lenses skew the notion of the proper role of law in a just society, the proper role of the judiciary, and also the role of public opinion in the matrix. It is the latter that We want to focus on in this post at the present time.

For at Rerum Novarum the subject of judicial perversion has been discussed possibly more than any subject except the subject of the war on terror and war in general.{2} Nonetheless, as the "Kill Terri Contingent" (KTC) is trying to sought to spin this subject as a case of "most people" supporting her killing, it seems appropriate to note here two things (i) polling data can easily be manipulated and (ii) truth is not (and cannot be) determined by polls. And in dealing with the latter point, it seems appropriate to once again point out that this country is not a democracy but instead it is a representative republic -both in fact and also by the design of its Founders.

Now previously this was admittedly done in passing at this weblog.{3} However, at the current time, it seems appropriate to revisit this subject with a followup to the Framers Know Best series inaugurated on July 1, 2003 and (for a variety of reasons) not followed up with additional installments in the weeks and months subsequent to that initial installment.{4} The current circumstances dictate that the aforementioned series be resumed to settle this point at the present time; therefore, without further ado, let us get to it.

To start with, a consideration of the particular individuals whose views will be consulted seems to be in order. As one who believes in going back to the sources whenever possible,{5} this has been done with reference to an authoritative source often neglected today by those with pretentions to being knowledgable on these matters. We refer here of course to The Federalist Papers which were written by three of the most influential men in the history of the United States.{6} And two of those are the men to whom we will appeal on the subject of whether the United States of America was or was not a democracy -starting with Alexander Hamilton:

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: -- The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union -- The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object -- The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government -- Its analogy to your own state constitution -- and lastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention. [Alexander Hamilton: From Federalist #1 (circa October 27, 1787)]

Now then, for those who do not know of him, Alexander Hamilton (i) proposed the first Constitutional Convention to meet in May of 1787 where he and Jay were two of New York's three representatives, (ii) served as President Washington's first Secretary of the Treasury, (iii) was the primary influence behind the tiebreaking vote that determined the presidency of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and (iv) was perhaps the most vigorous defender of the new Constitution among the original framers -equalled only by one of the other contributors to The Federalist Papers.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Constitution with a passion that few will ever remotely approach. As far as he was concerned, he saw the proposed Constitution{7} as (i) conforming to the true principles of republican government as well as (ii) as additional security of this very form of government. For these reasons, it is impossible to credibly argue that the first Secretary of the Treasury (and one who was not only involved in the drafting of the Constitution but was arguably its fiercest defender) saw that document as a governing instrument for a United States founded as a democracy. Now let us consider the view of James Madison:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

...

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists. [James Madison: From Federalist #10 (circa November 22, 1787)]

In the above text, we have James Madison who (i) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, (ii) served as the fourth President of the United States, (iii) is often referred to as "the Father of the Constitution", and (iv) is the only Framer with whom one could argue was a more zealous a defender of the Constitution than Alexander Hamilton was.

Essentially, there is no credible way to misconstrue what James Madison says about the proposed Constitution -his words on this matter are clear and unambiguous. For those who may believe that We have misconstrued the views of Alexander Hamilton in the short extract from Federalist #1, the following from an address he gave encouraging the state of New York to ratify the proposed Constitution should remove any doubts on the matter. And with that, on the subject of whether the framers of the Constitution (represented here in the two most zealous defenders of the proposed Constitution) saw the nation it was to serve as a democracy or as a republic, We as the prosecution opposing Ourselves to this common (but erroneous) presumption, will now rest.

I am persuaded, Mr. Chairman, that I in my turn shall be indulged in addressing the committee. We all in equal sincerity profess to be anxious for the establishment of a republican government on a safe and solid basis. It is the object of the wishes of every honest man in the United States, and i presume that I shall not be disbelieved when I declare that it is an object of all others the nearest and most dear to my own heart. The means of accomplishing this great purpose become the most important study which can interest mankind. It is our duty to examine all those means with peculiar attention and to choose the best and most effectual. It is our duty to draw from nature, from reason, from examples, the best principles of policy, and to pursue and apply them in the formation of our government. We should contemplate and compare the systems which in this examination come under our view; distinguish with a careful eye the defects and excellencies of each, and, discarding the former, incorporate the latter, as far as circumstances will admit, into our Constitution. If we pursue a different course and neglect this duty we shall probably disappoint the expectations of our country and of the world. [Alexander Hamilton: To the State of New York on the Adoption of the Constitution circa June 24, 1788)]

Notes:

{1} As this post was pretty much written prior to the death of Terri Schiavo, please excuse any present tense parts that were overlooked in retouching what was written then for posting at this time.

{2} A subject recently recapitulated at Rerum Novarum was that of the various war related threads which have been blogged at this humble weblog. Though not all of the threads were listed; nonetheless, the sixty-two that were give a good outline of how this writer has approached the subject of war in general as well as the war in Iraq. As it did not seem fitting to post this thread during the week leading up to Easter, it was "backdated" if you will to March 20th -a spot where a duplicate draft of a previous post happened to be located.

For those who wonder what else at this weblog has been "backdated" in posting, it was noted in that thread that this constitutes only the first time in two and a half years that your host can recall any post being "backdated" at Rerum Novarum. (With the exception of the occasional audiopost which posts a day or two after it was recorded. In the latter cases, this writer tries to backdate in those situations as close to the day and time of its recording as can be recalled.)

{3} We can only do so much at any one time here unfortunately.

{4} Essentially it was a private discussion thread that was formatted for posting to Rerum Novarum. The intention there was merely to make the point, not argue it with much in the way of evidences from founding sources.

{5} For a brief sketch of what is meant by the term ressourcement, see the post located HERE.

{6} To start with, all three were contributors to The Federalist Papers which (along with the writers themselves) were influential on the development and eventual ratification of the US Constitution. As it is, John Jay wrote only a few of the papers and in none of them touched on the subject we are currently discussing.

{7} The term "proposed Constitution" is used here because the Constitution would not be formally adopted as the law of the land until 1789. (The writings making up what is called The Federalist Papers were all penned in 1787 and 1788.)

On the Conclave and Papal Selections:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: The following with a few minor adjustments are from a private discussion thread and were originally written prior to this weblog post. While more than just this has been disclosed privately to select individuals, at the present time this writer is not certain how much of the other stuff will be blogged here at Rerum Novarum. Nonetheless, the following post will make clear the outlines of how this writer views the upcoming conclave as well as his picks to be the next pope. -ISM]

To start with, this writer is not sure the Church is ready for an African pope yet. It seems much more probable that they will elect an older pope this time -hopefully a non-Italian again. Our Italian brethren had four and a half centuries in a row and we need to make it clear in the coming decades that the Church is not Europe as much as some in the past opined that it was (i.e. Belloc). However, as it is doubtful that it will be a non-European this time around -and further as Europe is in the worst shape of all the continents faithwise- it will probably (and should probably) be a European though hopefully not an Italian.

Interestingly enough, while there has been only two curialists elected pope in the past hundred and fifty years (Paul VI and Pius XII) and only one who went straight to the papacy from the Curia (Pius XII), it is the sense of this writer that we may see an interim older pope from Europe but not Italy -and perhaps a curialist.

For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum would love to see Joseph Ratzinger be that pope because he was intimately involved with the papacy of Pope John Paul II and his strong interest in liturgical matters would make him likely to implement the new missal translations and enforce Redemptiones Sacramentum as they need to be done.

Futhermore, who better than a Pope Ratzinger (or "Leo XIV" perhaps) to:

---Put a first calibre theologian in the chair who could then slap the pseudo-"theologians" around with papal authority{1}

---Turn his supposed "theological opinion" about how to properly understand Ordinatio Sacerdotalis into an authoritative papal position by reiteration of it{2}

---Provide papal as opposed to merely theological weight to many of the positions he took in the 1998 CDF Doctrinal Commentary -particularly in the modern climate the subject of Anglican orders being invalid{3}

---Give papal as opposed to theological weight to many of his liturgical observations

---Put on the papal cathedra another highly influential prelate from the Second Vatican Council to assist in completing the implementation of said Council

---Put him over the wayward German episcopate (particularly Cardinal Kasper) who were continually snubbing JP II who was too nice to slap them around in his later years where they needed it{4}

---Give one final window of grace for the SSPX to straighten up and fly right by reconciling with the Church{5}

---Scare the hell out of all those pansy so-called "progressivists" who were scared of him as Chief Inquisitor ;-)

It helps to remember that Ratzinger has demonstrated an amiable personality in recent years which clashes with the stereotypes that were common in the first decade plus of his role at CDF. So it would not be a case of an unpersonable person succeeding Pope John Paul II. And as John Paul II's implementation of Vatican II remains incomplete, who better to give force to the documents of the pope's final years (including Dominus Iesus in the ecumenical sphere and Redemptiones Sacramentum in the liturgical sphere) than his right hand man for 24 of his 26 years.

Cardinal Ratzinger is 77 so we would probably have (if the past is an indicator) about seven years of papacy from him and then the path would be set for a non-European pope (such as a Cardinal Arinze) to reign. (The next pope will probably be a transitional one with a shorter reign than JP II or Paul VI.) Of course if Arinze is elected, We would hardly be disappointed of course -though if it is a Walter Kasper sort, Our mood would be anything but enthused to put it mildly.

In closing, a good friend of this weblog (Pete Vere) reminded the present writer on the Saturday after the papal funeral of the "glory of the olive" prediction of Malachy and has predicted that the next pope will be Cardinal Martini ;-)

Notes:

{1} While JP II was an excellent theologian, he was first and foremost a philosopher. Ratzinger by contrast is first and foremost a theologian and a non-Thomist theologian at that. On this front, the reissuing of the CDF Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian in the form of a papal apostolic letter would not hurt in Our opinion.

{2} This would also help to also undercut the attempts of those who sought to claim that Ratzinger's responsum on women priests was incongruent with the manifested intention of the previous pope. (The fact that they collaborated on the original apostolic letter and John Paul II gave explicit approval of His Eminence's interpretation of that text notwithstanding of course.)

{3} If the Anglicans want to continue to make dialogue difficult on their side, let us reaffirm Leo XIII's judgment in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae that they indeed are not valid priests. Certainly in light of the recent promotion on their part of an openly gay "clergy", it seems appropriate to give a swift kick of this sort to their pretentions of "apostolicity."

{4} Not to mention the rest of the European episcopate who are presiding over a dying Europe.

{5} This writer senses that anyone but Cardinal Ratzinger (or another cardinal involved with Ecclesia Dei) will seal the casket on any future reconciliation of the SSPX. For pastoral as well as personal reasons, We do not (at the present time) want to see that happen.

Addendum:

We should further add that in light of Italian dominance of the papacy in recent centuries that anyone going with a non-Italian should have one Italian as their choice in the event that recent history repeats itself. Ergo, while We have selected Our European non-Italian transitional pope to bridge pontificates of John Paul II and a future Arinze papacy, if that does not happen, Our Italian selection is Cardinal Ruini. For those not familiar with him, here are some articles from Sandro Magister's archive:

Exclusive Interview with Cardinal Camillo Ruini: "My Battle for Man"

The Religious Geopolitics of Cardinal Ruini

The Pope and His Two Consuls

Let it be noted that the "two consuls" in the above link were Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Ruini. It should go without saying that if either of the two are elected, it is Our hope the other one serves as CDF prefect for the new pope. (If Cardinal Christoph Schönborn OP is not selected to fill that role of course.)

Notes on Filibusters

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On the Upcoming Conclave)

The words of my interlocutor will be in shale font.

Shawn,

Hello XXXXXXX:

As inappropriate as it may be, I can't help but be totally fascinated by the run up to the conclave and I cannot get away from speculating on whom our next pontiff will be. As a long-time Rerum Novarum fan, I would be very interested in knowing your take on the whole matter.

Well, I have been publicly silent on the matter up to now.

Of course, I certainly would understand if you had no interest in sending your thoughts out to just any unknown fan of your blog.

Most fans of a site are "unknown" to a certain extent initially. And many of the dialogues I have posted in the side margin and/or in the archives at Rerum Novarum are from people who were at one point "unknown" to me. A lot of what gets posted depends on my mood and what I want to discuss at a given time -though current events to some extent drive that determination. And as we have a conclave upon us, my thoughts have been on it in the days since the passing of Pope John Paul II (RIP).

For what it's worth, here's my quick and dirty take on the whole matter. Ratzinger is by far the best man for the job. However, his age may be an issue. The next Pope will have quite a load of work to accomplish, and Ratzinger may not have the strength to do it. I do not expect to see an Asian, African, or Latin American Pope yet. Maybe down the road, but not now. My guess is that the next Pope will likely be an Italian, not too old, not too young, intellectual, orthodox, with some working knowledge of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. And so, I think Angelo Scola stands out as a very strong possibility.

Interesting analysis.

I think that many of the "top contenders" such as Tettamanzi, Hummes, Bergoglio, and Maradiaga really are not as strong as some seem to think. If I had to pick a Latin American, I would say Hoyos has the best shot. Arinze remains a strong candidate, but I wonder if his bluntness has turned some off. And as for the libs like Daneels, Kasper, et al., I don't think there's much of a chance. I doubt someone like Daneels could win even with a simple majority. Way too much of a loose cannon, and the Cardinals know it.

I do not see Danieels or Kasper being elected in this conclave. The latter has clearly been doing the kind of indirect "campaigning by not campaigning" in recent months. But he has too many public utterances that he has not distanced himself from (or qualified the context of) to be a likely heavyweight in this competition.

Of course these views are subject to frequent and radical change between now and the election of a new pontiff.

That is true. There is an old dictum that "whomsoever enters the conclave a pope leaves it a cardinal." But as there are 117 voting in the election (and even more who can be elected pope) so one of them has to be elected. The dictum though is worth considering because there have probably been more darkhorses elected historically than favourites.

Having noted all of that, though I had previously noted a probability of posting my previously enunciated private musings on this matter to Rerum Novarum after the election of the new pope, I will instead post at least some of them on Friday or Saturday. on or prior to Friday or Saturday. As they have been witnessed to by not a few people already, I could hardly pull a fast one by changing them now even if I wanted to.

All the best. Keep up the fine work on RN.

Thankyou XXXXXX for the thought-provoking analysis on the upcoming conclave. (And of course I extend to you and yours my best as well.)