Conclave

In my previous post one week ago, I remarked: "As a non-Catholic, it might seem strange for me to weigh in on the pros and cons of Francis' legacy and the qualities I hope his successor will possess." Yet here I am today, to kinda do exactly that.

Here in the USA, an obsession with politics has long poisoned the cultural well from which we drink, and that poison made it hard for the average person to get an accurate read on the Francis papacy as it unfolded. It also makes it hard for the average person to get an accurate read on what is transpiring during the current interregnum because: 1] the mainstream media filters everything through its exclusively political lens, while being helplessly ignorant that any other lens exists; and 2] the Christian media (both Catholic and non-Catholic) applies the politically loaded terms "liberal" and "conservative" to theological matters without distinguishing what those words mean theologically from what they mean politically. This leads many to import secular political presumptions into their thinking about a topic that is neither secular nor political.

We are all caught up in this knot to one degree or another, and there is no way to untie it in a blog post. Nevertheless, I will try to write this without getting snagged.

*     *     *     *     *

A lot of proverbial ink has been spent praising Francis for his sense of mercy, affection for the poor, sympathy for "outsiders," and concern for those who have not been taught "the gospel." I use quotation marks for "outsiders" and "the gospel" not because those terms are suspect, but because they are inherently broad and can be used differently by different people.

In my opinion, Francis really did possess the above traits for which he was praised. But there's always a flip side, and for him it was a maddening tendency to be vague for no apparent reason, combined with an even more maddening tendency to be selectively partisan when his authoritarian impulses reared up.

Make no mistake: There is zero doubt Francis had such impulses and bedeviled people with them. In this interview, when reflecting on his tenure as leader of the Jesuits in Argentina, he said of himself that "my authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems...it was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems."

With a backdrop like that, we can't dismiss the many grumbles that percolated during Francis'  papacy about him issuing swift and puzzling edicts without bothering to offer a coherent explanation. When he threw his weight around, he was quick to throw it at loyal, traditional Catholics and unwilling to throw it at self-indulgent "cafeteria Catholics" quicker to throw it at traditional Catholics than he was at "cafeteria Catholics." But as we shall see, that wasn't the whole story.

*     *     *     *     *

America's mainstream media longed for the Argentine pope to behave like a garden variety, left-wing, Democrat politician. As a result, it took every opportunity, no matter how ill-fitting, to liken him to one.

America's right-wing punditry embarrassed itself by granting too much credence to the mainstream media narrative, and therefore feared Francis might be like a garden variety, left-wing, Democrat politician. As a result, America's right-wing punditry took every every opportunity, no more how ill-fitting, to portray him as a Commie wolf in sheep's vestments.

Many salivated for him to get wobbly and permissive about abortion. In reality, he called Belgium's law permitting first-trimester abortions "homicidal," and added: "Doctors who do this are - allow me the word - hitmen. They are hitmen. And on this you cannot argue."

Many salivated for him to grant, and many claimed he did grant, some seal of approval for sexual relationships between same-sex couples. In reality, what he did with his much ballyhooed Fiducia supplicans was assert that individuals in such relationships may be blessed as individuals but their relationships may not - in other words, he confirmed that the church's position remains exactly what it has always been.

Many salivated for Francis to drop the hammer on what I will broadly, and politely, refer to as sexual impropriety by clergy. In reality, he relaxed the banishment his predecessor had imposed on Theodore McCarrick.

I could go on for hours, but it would serve no purpose. Like all human beings, Pope Francis was a mixed bag whose actions bore some good fruit and some bad. The main thing to realize is that he never issued an ex cathedra statement - which, in plain Protestant English, means he never uttered a single word the Catholic Church would consider beyond reproach. Everything Francis did is undoable, and everything he didn't do is of course doable.

Contrary to what most Protestants think, popes are not considered infallible. Only their ex cathedra statements are. The last time any pope issued such a statement was 75 years ago, and the last time before that was 171 years ago. The enormously consequential (and controversial) Second Vatican Council, aka Vatican II, generated no ex cathedra statements, and neither did the First Vatican Council which pre-dated it by almost a century.

In light of such facts, I think Catholics are right to say we Protestants doth protest too much about the doctrine of papal infallibility. It simply is not what so many of us have cracked it up to be.

*     *     *     *     *

So, why all the hullabaloo about who serves as pope, what thoughts are in his head, and what he says when speaking off the cuff?

Simple. Christianity is the world's largest religion; the Catholic Church is by far Christianity's largest, widest-reaching, and most stable organization; Christianity's  enemies (who are legion) are tireless in their determination to topple the faith; and those enemies sense - correctly, I believe - that getting a kindred spirit of theirs in the papacy is their only chance to succeed.

Many of us Protestants don't want to admit it, but, five centuries downstream from the Reformation, Protestantism has become Christianity's Achilles heel. By and large our denominations are engaged in a continuous downward spiral of doctrinal compromise that has inevitably led to confused parishioners and fractured churches. When you look at how malleable the foundations on which we've built our institutions have proven to be, there's scant reason to think this downward spiral can be reversed other than in limited pockets.

Doctrinally speaking, the Catholic Church has remained consistent through the centuries despite its shortcomings and abuses, whereas one Protestant church after another has gone weak-kneed and crumbled.

It is Catholicism, not Protestantism, that has remained steadfast in its support of human life and sexual ethics, and it is Catholicism that's growing globally while most Protestant denominations are shrinking or stuck in the doldrums.

Catholicism has structures and procedures designed to root out false teachings, whereas Protestantism does not; and thus it's the latter which has become a prolific breeding ground for teachings that are often diluted and sometimes heretical.

We are supposed to be Christians first, not Protestants first. And if we're being honest with ourselves, we must admit what I've said before, that the state of the Christian faith on Earth is inseparable from the state of the Catholic Church on Earth. For this reason, we must all take an interest in what transpires during the papal conclave that is set to start on Wednesday.

*     *     *     *     *

What is a conclave? In short, it's the process by which a new pope is selected.

How does it work? In short, everybody eligible to vote (cardinals who were under the age of 80 when Francis died) gathers in the Sistine Chapel, is forbidden from communicating with anyone outside, and casts votes in a series of elections that continue until somebody wins one with a two-thirds majority.

After each election, its result gets relayed to the world by setting the ballots on fire in a stove whose chimney releases smoke above the chapel roof. The ballots are chemically treated to generate a specific color of smoke. When spectators see black rising from the chimney, they know an election has ended without a winner; when they see white, they know a pope has been chosen. 

Shortly thereafter, a designated official (usually the protodeacon of the College of Cardinals) steps onto the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica and speaks the words "Habemus Papam," then the new pope steps onto the balcony and is introduced to the crowd.

This is not like a presidential or parliamentary election where we know who the candidates are. Technically, there aren't any candidates when the conclave begins because nobody announces he's running and nobody campaigns for the job. The names of possible candidates, or papabili, are determined organically through the deliberations of the cardinals, and a man who does not even want the job might find himself receiving votes simply because people think he's the best choice. (In case you're wondering, yes, a man who gets elected pope is free to decline on the spot.)

Any male Catholic is eligible. Therefore, in theory, the cardinals could make Mark Whalberg the next pontiff. In reality, however, they are almost certain to choose one of their own: The last time a non-cardinal "won" was 1378, when Archbishop Bartolomeo Prognano was elected and became Pope Urban VI.

*     *     *     *     *

There is no sound way to speculate about who will emerge as pope from this week's conclave. Especially when the person speculating is an American Protestant who's lived most of his 54 years in the Sunshine State of Florida and did his college matriculating in the Yellowhammer State of Alabama (Auburn University, c/o December '92, War Eagle fearless and true!). But I can share some thoughts, can't I?

Trying to read the tea leaves of the conclave bears an unnerving similarity to trying to read the tea leaves of the US Supreme Court. We know there will be 133 cardinals voting, with more than 100 of them having been appointed to their posts by Francis, and 89 votes are needed to "win." That might cause your gut to feel they will choose a pope similar to Francis - until you think about the fact that far more cardinals than ever before hail from the so-called global south, i.e. from places other than Europe and North America.

With cardinals coming to Rome from far-flung corners of the globe, gone are the days when they all knew each other and were aware of their tendencies. Back when most of them lived in Europe and a disproportionate number resided right there in Italy, familiarity ruled the day; but with unfamiliarity now in full swing, an unprecedented wild card has been introduced to an event that already has a history of being upended by wild cards.

People from the global south tend to be more on the orthodox side of the theological spectrum than Francis, and more tradition-minded as well. Combine this with the fact that the Church has been growing by leaps and bounds in the global south while generally waning in the heterodox West... and with the fact that, despite the general Western waning, this past year has seen a spike in conversions in the UK and US, driven specifically by people being drawn to Catholicism's hard adherence to time-honored virtues, in contrast to Protestantism's soft slinking away from those virtues... and one is tempted to figure that the Church will choose the robust path over the suicidal one.

But then again, who knows?

It would be cool to have an American pope, but I think the odds of that are only slightly higher than the odds of Norwegian reindeer migrating to the Bahamas. My dream candidates are African prelates Robert Sarah and Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, both of whom are deeply respected; but Sarah turns 80 next month so he's probably too old to step into the role.

Then I remind myself I'm Protestant, and therefore maybe I don't have a vested interest in this and shouldn't be paying close attention to it.

But then I remember I'm Christian, which means I do have a vested interest and should be paying close attention.

Every Christian, in fact every human being, will eventually be affected in one way or another by what the cardinals decide in Vatican City this week. So let us all hope and pray they act wisely.