(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
--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.)