Electing a Pope

In the wake of Pope Benedict's abdication of the Throne of Peter, the Mad Monarchist had some thoughts on the upcoming Conclave. 

From The Mad Monarchist (21 February 2013)

As the days slip by we are approaching ever closer to the end of the month when the resignation (as it has been officially termed) of Pope Benedict XVI will officially take effect, leaving the Holy See vacant until the end of the next conclave. One of the problems I have with this is illustrated by the specific choice of the term “resign” rather than “abdicate”. As I have said before, I am not very wild about monarchs abdicating in general for the very reasons, often enough, that are usually offered to justify it. One of my worries is that if such a thing becomes the norm, with pope resigning once they reach a certain age or level of physical weakness, it makes the See of Peter seem more like “just a job” rather than the sacred, dreadful calling that I had always thought the position of Sovereign Pontiff to be. With secular monarchs it is a little bit different because the hereditary succession will always make them stand apart. However, if papal resignations become standard operating procedure, taken together with the fact that the pope is elected and that the papal coronation has been done away with (probably permanently, though I hope such is not the case) and it seems to me that the risk is taken of the papacy being seen as a much more earthly and ordinary occupation than it should be. I prefer a matrimonial view of monarchy (and the papacy) as a commitment to the throne ‘till death do you part’. A husband or wife should not separate or divorce just because they are no longer physically able to perform their “marital duties” after all.

So far, I seem to be the odd man out on this score though, which is probably for the best. I actually received more criticism of the Queen of The Netherlands abdicating than I have of the Pope “resigning”. Surprised me. I hardly expected the very vocal internet-champions of tradition to be so positive about such an un-traditional move. However, even under the normal circumstances, papal elections are never a good time for me. Not because of anything the Church necessarily does but by the way the media invariably covers it. Everything seems to take on a very political, secular and just rather dirty and unsavory atmosphere when these things happen. Who is ahead? Who has said or done things likely to disqualify them? To what extent has the last Pope “packed the college”? What countries will have the most influence? It all seems very degrading to what is supposed to be a very solemn, sacred and ancient duty. Of course, I could be wrong, as so far most seem to have no problem with the papal resignation, most seem very positive about it and maybe I have just always held an incorrect view of what the papacy is supposed to be. Wouldn’t be the first time, but until I find out otherwise, I can only go on from here and I still don’t like the way people behave concerning the election and, compared to the recent past at least, it seems to me to be getting worse.

I will explain why in my usual, frustrating, way. One of the names that I have heard tossed around is the Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Angelo Scola, a native of Lombardy and former Patriarch of Venice. I don’t know much about him but I have heard that some at least think that he is a favorite of Benedict XVI. As far as I’m concerned, I would be positive about Cardinal Scola simply for being an Italian. Why does that matter? It should not, but here is why; I have been rather alarmed at some of what I have heard about another so-called front runner for the papacy in Cardinal Peter Turkson yet he is often talked about because he is from Ghana and everyone in the media (possibly due to a case of Obama-fever?) is excited about having a Black Pope -and they don’t mean the guy in charge of the Jesuits either. I do hope we have not become that race-obsessed. There have been popes from Africa before and they might have been Black for all we know. But it is not only that. We also have people talking about the possibility of the first Canadian Pope, who would also be the first “North American Pope”, some have suggested the Archbishop Dolan of New York as a potential first American Pope and, given the numerical dominance of the population in the Catholic Church, many people are saying “it is time” for the first Latino Pope.

Now, call me crazy (it’s true), but on that front, haven’t the vast majority of popes throughout history been Latinos? I know it is not what they mean, but if we are being accurate here, would not the Italians be considered the original Latinos? This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it makes me long for the days when it was just taken for granted that the Roman Pontiff would almost invariably be an Italian and everyone accepted that. It hardly seems unreasonable given that his primary “office” is being Bishop of Rome, but I am certainly not saying the Italians are any more capable than anyone else; indeed, given Italian predominance in the Curia, many consider it a handicap after the state of things there, but the election of a Polish pope, followed by a German pope seems to have made many think that the centuries of Italians being the norm are over and now everyone is dividing up along national or racial lines to push for a pope who is one of “their” people. Again, I may be out of step on this subject, but it seems in terribly bad taste to me and displays a totally incorrect attitude for someone to say that “it is time” that “we” had a Black, Latino or American Bishop of Rome. And, again, this, combined with my (hopefully unfounded) fear that resignations will become more common now, just makes the Throne of St Peter seem more like just another job which I would think most people should be able to see (regardless of their religious background) that it is not.