Monday, April 18, 2005
Fr. Neuhaus has a Rome Diary
Fascinating reading.
As of this writing, Ratzinger is, according to the rumor mills, very much in the lead, with 40 or 50 electors indicating their support. The main mills are run by the Italian newspapers and especially by Corriere della Sera. It is reluctantly admitted by other reporters that the Italian papers have the edge in getting inside information, the claim being that they are on the good side of a talkative cardinal or two.
According to Dublin bookmakers, the odds favor Lustiger of Paris and Martini, formerly of Milan, but nobody here in Rome gives their prospects much credence. One Italian daily is puffing Angelo Sodano, secretary of state under John Paul, as Ratzinger's chief rival, but that, too, is viewed as highly improbable in Rome. Yet another Italian daily claims the American cardinals are forming a bloc in opposition to Ratzinger, but I find that hard to credit since in recent years the American cardinals have not formed a bloc on much of anything, and at least a couple of them are great admirers of Ratzinger. Yesterday one cardinal said the meetings are "tranquil and cordial" while another described the cardinals as "divided and gravely concerned." Take your pick. I imagine the Holy Spirit is amused by the chattering speculation.
This way of selecting a pope is criticized in some circles for being antiquated, secretive, and undemocratic. There is something to that, but then one must ask what would be a better way. Some who are identified as champions of collegiality have proposed that there should be a worldwide consultation of the 4,000 bishops of the Church, including provisions for the contributions of priests and the lay faithful. One can imagine the nightmare of having a three-or six-month campaign season upon the death or retirement of a pope. Presumably the cardinals would be something like the electoral college in the American system, with each casting a vote in accord with the expressed wishes of his region. Such proposals are, in addition to being unworkable, a formula for unbridled politicking and factionalism.
The present procedure is to gather the cardinals, who are the senior bishops of the universal Church and chief consultants to the late pope, for a few days of prayer and getting to know one another, followed by a conclave in which, protected from the media and outside influences, they elect one of their own whom they trust to lead the Church for undetermined years into the future. People who are put off by the inevitable maneuverings and counter-maneuverings are lacking a Catholic and incarnational sensibility that is not offended by God's use of very human means to achieve His purposes. This does not mean that a bad pope cannot be elected. There have been more than a few bad popes in the past. The promise is that nobody will be elected who will be able to destroy the Church or betray what Catholics call the deposit of faith. And maybe, please God, he will be another saint.
It is a cliché to say that the Church is not a democracy, but it is a cliché because so many recognize that it is true. There is always the danger of the arrogance and abuse of power, and patterns of consultation and collaboration can always be improved. But those who claimed after the Second Vatican Council that the Church's affirmation of democracy in the secular realm required, for the sake of consistency, the extension of democracy in the governance of the Church were wrong--and they are still wrong. The political sovereign in the temporal and temporary realm is "we the people." Christ is the sovereign of the Church. Of course, if Christ is Lord, he is Lord of all, but only in the Church is his sovereignty institutionalized, so to speak. In everything, and certainly in the choosing of a successor to Peter, the goal is to discern the will of Christ. And that I have no doubt is what is happening--not despite everything, but through everything--during these days in Rome.
As of this writing, Ratzinger is, according to the rumor mills, very much in the lead, with 40 or 50 electors indicating their support. The main mills are run by the Italian newspapers and especially by Corriere della Sera. It is reluctantly admitted by other reporters that the Italian papers have the edge in getting inside information, the claim being that they are on the good side of a talkative cardinal or two.
According to Dublin bookmakers, the odds favor Lustiger of Paris and Martini, formerly of Milan, but nobody here in Rome gives their prospects much credence. One Italian daily is puffing Angelo Sodano, secretary of state under John Paul, as Ratzinger's chief rival, but that, too, is viewed as highly improbable in Rome. Yet another Italian daily claims the American cardinals are forming a bloc in opposition to Ratzinger, but I find that hard to credit since in recent years the American cardinals have not formed a bloc on much of anything, and at least a couple of them are great admirers of Ratzinger. Yesterday one cardinal said the meetings are "tranquil and cordial" while another described the cardinals as "divided and gravely concerned." Take your pick. I imagine the Holy Spirit is amused by the chattering speculation.
This way of selecting a pope is criticized in some circles for being antiquated, secretive, and undemocratic. There is something to that, but then one must ask what would be a better way. Some who are identified as champions of collegiality have proposed that there should be a worldwide consultation of the 4,000 bishops of the Church, including provisions for the contributions of priests and the lay faithful. One can imagine the nightmare of having a three-or six-month campaign season upon the death or retirement of a pope. Presumably the cardinals would be something like the electoral college in the American system, with each casting a vote in accord with the expressed wishes of his region. Such proposals are, in addition to being unworkable, a formula for unbridled politicking and factionalism.
The present procedure is to gather the cardinals, who are the senior bishops of the universal Church and chief consultants to the late pope, for a few days of prayer and getting to know one another, followed by a conclave in which, protected from the media and outside influences, they elect one of their own whom they trust to lead the Church for undetermined years into the future. People who are put off by the inevitable maneuverings and counter-maneuverings are lacking a Catholic and incarnational sensibility that is not offended by God's use of very human means to achieve His purposes. This does not mean that a bad pope cannot be elected. There have been more than a few bad popes in the past. The promise is that nobody will be elected who will be able to destroy the Church or betray what Catholics call the deposit of faith. And maybe, please God, he will be another saint.
It is a cliché to say that the Church is not a democracy, but it is a cliché because so many recognize that it is true. There is always the danger of the arrogance and abuse of power, and patterns of consultation and collaboration can always be improved. But those who claimed after the Second Vatican Council that the Church's affirmation of democracy in the secular realm required, for the sake of consistency, the extension of democracy in the governance of the Church were wrong--and they are still wrong. The political sovereign in the temporal and temporary realm is "we the people." Christ is the sovereign of the Church. Of course, if Christ is Lord, he is Lord of all, but only in the Church is his sovereignty institutionalized, so to speak. In everything, and certainly in the choosing of a successor to Peter, the goal is to discern the will of Christ. And that I have no doubt is what is happening--not despite everything, but through everything--during these days in Rome.
