A Catholic website for the modern reader
Papal Election
Francis I--Could He Have Said NO?
13/03/13 14:45
Almost as soon as Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires was announced as Pope Francis I, the speculation began. There was some knowledge of who he was. After all, he placed second in the last conclave, behind Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI. But what kind of Pope Francis will be, remains unknown. Still, this has not prevented the Papal watchers and pundits from filling the airwaves with predictions, most of which will almost certainly be proved false, for once elected, the Pope is beholden to no man. The ability to alter Church teaching, and, consequently history, resides uniquely with him.
I thought it would be a nice break to step back from speculation and discuss what we know. Let’s start with the question, “Could Bergoglio have said no?” This is not an idle query. It originates from a conversation I once had with another bishop. He was lamenting that the job of being bishop was not what he expected. He felt that the administrative demands of his office removed him too far from pastoral ministry to the people of God. He felt disconnected from the priestly work that he so loved.
In our conversation, I asked why he did not say no. His response? He was not given the opportunity. Of course, such a response is nonsense. No one can force another to become a bishop. And yet, as difficult as it might be to understand, there is a theological concept at work here. In Catholic belief, the selection of bishops (and popes) is guided by the Holy Spirit.
When one looks back over Church history, it is difficult not to conclude that the Holy Spirit has made some mistakes. I do not speak merely as a liberal unhappy with the conservative appointments that have dominated the hierarchy in recent years. There simply have been bad choices over the centuries, e.g. Urban VI. Still, I admit that the word “mistake” might be too harsh. Perhaps an analogy would be better.
The Holy Spirit is probably the hardest working person of the Blessed Trinity. As such, she deserves an occasional vacation. If the selection of a bishop or pope occurs during that respite, so be it. But really. I don’t care how hard the Holy Spirit works. Isn’t 35 years a long enough vacation? She should get back to work. Anyway, it seems that whether or not the Holy Spirit guides papal conclaves, Cardinal Bergoglio could have said, “No”. And yet…
There is another side to this question. 77 votes were required to elect a pope at this conclave. If Bergoglio had said no, his supporters would have lined up behind someone else, probably pushing the man with the next highest number of votes over the top. Who was that runner up? Who else might have been elected?
Since the Sistine Chapel was sealed off last week, after having been swept for any kind of electronic bugs, no 47% video will be surfacing. But is anything ever secret anymore? One piece of information has seeped from behind the walls of that ancient edifice. A block of cardinals numbering a mere 25 (22%) had banded together to re-elect Benedict XVI. Although 25 is far short of the required 77, it is possible that Bergoglio’s refusal would have shifted some of his supporters to the 25? That 22% might have become 47%, then 50% + 1. That alone is reason to rejoice in Bergoglio’s acceptance.
Benedict’s resignation was an unexpected step forward. His re-election would have been an unwelcome step backward. If the Holy Spirit does, indeed, guide papal elections, then I want to be among the first to welcome her back to work. I am in no position to advise the Holy Spirit, but as many cardinals and bishops approach retirement and death, they will need to be replaced. I humbly want to suggest that she not take any more of these long vacations. The Catholic Church has need for forward looking and theologically liberated bishops.
Let’s hope we have reason to rally around Pope Francis I.
Let’s hope we have reason to celebrate that Bergoglio did not say no!
I thought it would be a nice break to step back from speculation and discuss what we know. Let’s start with the question, “Could Bergoglio have said no?” This is not an idle query. It originates from a conversation I once had with another bishop. He was lamenting that the job of being bishop was not what he expected. He felt that the administrative demands of his office removed him too far from pastoral ministry to the people of God. He felt disconnected from the priestly work that he so loved.
In our conversation, I asked why he did not say no. His response? He was not given the opportunity. Of course, such a response is nonsense. No one can force another to become a bishop. And yet, as difficult as it might be to understand, there is a theological concept at work here. In Catholic belief, the selection of bishops (and popes) is guided by the Holy Spirit.
When one looks back over Church history, it is difficult not to conclude that the Holy Spirit has made some mistakes. I do not speak merely as a liberal unhappy with the conservative appointments that have dominated the hierarchy in recent years. There simply have been bad choices over the centuries, e.g. Urban VI. Still, I admit that the word “mistake” might be too harsh. Perhaps an analogy would be better.
The Holy Spirit is probably the hardest working person of the Blessed Trinity. As such, she deserves an occasional vacation. If the selection of a bishop or pope occurs during that respite, so be it. But really. I don’t care how hard the Holy Spirit works. Isn’t 35 years a long enough vacation? She should get back to work. Anyway, it seems that whether or not the Holy Spirit guides papal conclaves, Cardinal Bergoglio could have said, “No”. And yet…
There is another side to this question. 77 votes were required to elect a pope at this conclave. If Bergoglio had said no, his supporters would have lined up behind someone else, probably pushing the man with the next highest number of votes over the top. Who was that runner up? Who else might have been elected?
Since the Sistine Chapel was sealed off last week, after having been swept for any kind of electronic bugs, no 47% video will be surfacing. But is anything ever secret anymore? One piece of information has seeped from behind the walls of that ancient edifice. A block of cardinals numbering a mere 25 (22%) had banded together to re-elect Benedict XVI. Although 25 is far short of the required 77, it is possible that Bergoglio’s refusal would have shifted some of his supporters to the 25? That 22% might have become 47%, then 50% + 1. That alone is reason to rejoice in Bergoglio’s acceptance.
Benedict’s resignation was an unexpected step forward. His re-election would have been an unwelcome step backward. If the Holy Spirit does, indeed, guide papal elections, then I want to be among the first to welcome her back to work. I am in no position to advise the Holy Spirit, but as many cardinals and bishops approach retirement and death, they will need to be replaced. I humbly want to suggest that she not take any more of these long vacations. The Catholic Church has need for forward looking and theologically liberated bishops.
Let’s hope we have reason to rally around Pope Francis I.
Let’s hope we have reason to celebrate that Bergoglio did not say no!
We Have a Pope!
02/03/13 15:10
In Latin, “Habemus Papam”. These are the words the whole Catholic world has been waiting to hear. But hold on. This is not a futuristic blog. As of this hour, the conclave has not yet convened; the new pope has not been elected. And, no. I do not know who he will be. However, this much is clear. When the world hears those two Latin words proclaimed from the Vatican, the Catholic Church will either change, or die.
Much has been written (including by this author) about the regression of the church under the leadership of the last two popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The issue, though, is not whether the church continues its backward movement. The real question is whether or not the institutional church still has vision; whether or not the new pope has the ability to see. Period.
There is a common misperception, particularly among Catholics, that the church never changes--that it has been the same for more than two thousand years, and that this is reflected in its teachings. This contributed to the difficulty many people had with accepting the Second Vatican Council. The truth, however, is that the church is like the rest of life, at least in this regard: Change is the only constant.
Even in the last 30 years, the church has been changing, albeit in a reversal of the classic two-step dance. The Catholic version has been two steps backward, one step forward. That dance has been inching the Catholic Church into irrelevance, and the proclamation of the Gospel has suffered. A sober judgement is that John Paul II and Benedict XVI failed in their efforts to lead. At least in sum. On individual issues, they succeeded, sometimes even advancing cogent arguments, most notably on issues of social justice.
They also attempted to distinguish the Christian Faith--specifically the Catholic Church--from other religions, contending against a relativistic attitude toward religion and arguing that all religions are not equal; that they are not merely different pathways to the same goal. That position is debatable, but both popes presented sustainable arguments for discussion.
Their failure occurred primarily in the internal structure of the Church and in their inability to recognize the overlap of that structure with the reality of the outside world. In an ongoing attempt to shore up papal power they entrenched themselves in authoritarianism. In the process they sought to stifle discussion and creative thought. The role of women serves as example.
At a Wednesday audience, John Paul II made the declaration that the question of women priests was decided. Therefore, further discussion was to end. That was a stroke of arrogance that made even this writer blush. No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to tell people what they can and cannot talk about and certainly not what they can or cannot think. That is a viewpoint more becoming of dictators and despots than of popes.
A second example is homosexuality and the turning of a blind eye to science. The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the idea that homosexuality is part of God’s creative process, not a moral choice. The Catholic Church possesses a rich and unequaled heritage in scriptural scholarship and biblical interpretation. Yet sadly, the area of sexuality (both hetero and homo) is an aberrant example of literalism. Particularly on the issue of gay rights, the church’s arguments are not supportable. Although many people are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, that bias is rooted primarily in prejudice and ignorance. Not to mention resistance to the Holy Spirit.
The world as a whole is moving toward more democracy and greater transparency. The Catholic Church must embrace elements of both if it wants to continue being a voice for truth; if it wants to continue to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a divided world. So...
Habemus Papam. Maybe. The words themselves will mean nothing if the new pope cannot see--an ability that should be a pre-requisite for electing anyone pope.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope no longer ignores one half of the world’s population--women.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope recognizes the hand of God in all elements of creation.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope recognizes the presence of Jesus in every human being.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope does not attempt to control everyone’s life--especially in the bedroom.
Habemus Papam? Maybe.
Much has been written (including by this author) about the regression of the church under the leadership of the last two popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The issue, though, is not whether the church continues its backward movement. The real question is whether or not the institutional church still has vision; whether or not the new pope has the ability to see. Period.
There is a common misperception, particularly among Catholics, that the church never changes--that it has been the same for more than two thousand years, and that this is reflected in its teachings. This contributed to the difficulty many people had with accepting the Second Vatican Council. The truth, however, is that the church is like the rest of life, at least in this regard: Change is the only constant.
Even in the last 30 years, the church has been changing, albeit in a reversal of the classic two-step dance. The Catholic version has been two steps backward, one step forward. That dance has been inching the Catholic Church into irrelevance, and the proclamation of the Gospel has suffered. A sober judgement is that John Paul II and Benedict XVI failed in their efforts to lead. At least in sum. On individual issues, they succeeded, sometimes even advancing cogent arguments, most notably on issues of social justice.
They also attempted to distinguish the Christian Faith--specifically the Catholic Church--from other religions, contending against a relativistic attitude toward religion and arguing that all religions are not equal; that they are not merely different pathways to the same goal. That position is debatable, but both popes presented sustainable arguments for discussion.
Their failure occurred primarily in the internal structure of the Church and in their inability to recognize the overlap of that structure with the reality of the outside world. In an ongoing attempt to shore up papal power they entrenched themselves in authoritarianism. In the process they sought to stifle discussion and creative thought. The role of women serves as example.
At a Wednesday audience, John Paul II made the declaration that the question of women priests was decided. Therefore, further discussion was to end. That was a stroke of arrogance that made even this writer blush. No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to tell people what they can and cannot talk about and certainly not what they can or cannot think. That is a viewpoint more becoming of dictators and despots than of popes.
A second example is homosexuality and the turning of a blind eye to science. The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the idea that homosexuality is part of God’s creative process, not a moral choice. The Catholic Church possesses a rich and unequaled heritage in scriptural scholarship and biblical interpretation. Yet sadly, the area of sexuality (both hetero and homo) is an aberrant example of literalism. Particularly on the issue of gay rights, the church’s arguments are not supportable. Although many people are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, that bias is rooted primarily in prejudice and ignorance. Not to mention resistance to the Holy Spirit.
The world as a whole is moving toward more democracy and greater transparency. The Catholic Church must embrace elements of both if it wants to continue being a voice for truth; if it wants to continue to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a divided world. So...
Habemus Papam. Maybe. The words themselves will mean nothing if the new pope cannot see--an ability that should be a pre-requisite for electing anyone pope.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope no longer ignores one half of the world’s population--women.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope recognizes the hand of God in all elements of creation.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope recognizes the presence of Jesus in every human being.
Habemus Papam. If. The new pope does not attempt to control everyone’s life--especially in the bedroom.
Habemus Papam? Maybe.
+/- Benedict XVI
11/02/13 20:09
The Papacy. It’s been called the most exclusive club in the world. The members never meet, since there is only one living at a time—until now. Pope Benedict XVI has announced his retirement and resignation as Pope effective on the last day of the month--February 28th.
This is not quite as shocking as the secular media would have us believe. True, it is an extremely rare occurrence. Although Gregory XII resigned in 1415, that was in the interest of healing a church divided by multiple claimants to the papal office. The last pope to voluntarily resign was Celestine V in 1294. Still, this is not really shocking news. In an interview in 2010 for the book “Light of the World”, he indicated that he would was open to resigning if his health impaired his role in the Church. That is what has happened. So what does this all mean?
Once again we find the media looking for some sensationalist angle. Will there be a schism within the church—one group loyal to Benedict, the other to his successor? This is utter nonsense. There will be only one Pope. When Benedict resigns, he will no longer be the leader of the Catholic Church. Period. The Cardinals will elect a new Pontiff, and Benedict cannot change his mind should he not personally approve of the choice.
The new pope may choose to consult with Benedict. That is unlikely. After all, the pope has a unique exercise of power and authority. But even if Benedict’s successor chooses to consult with him, the consultation will have no more sway than any other papal advisors. In any event, it will be only advice and opinion. To borrow a phrase from George W. Bush, whoever is elected will be the final decider. What is far more important is what kind of person the College of Cardinals choose to succeed Benedict and what direction he wants to move the Church.
When John XXIII was elected, he was expected to live only long enough for Cardinal Montini to secure enough votes for his own election, which he did after John’s death, thereby becoming Pope Paul VI. However, the real shock wave to hit the Church was John XXIII’s announcement that he intended to call an Ecumenical Council. Caretaker Popes are not supposed to do that! He recognized that the Church needed modernization or else risk irrelevancy in the world. It was a two-crested wave. Shock was in the air, but so was hope.
Most people only know the Second Vatican Council for its document “Sacrosanctum Concilium--Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”. This is because most Catholics primarily interact with the Church at Mass and when celebrating the other sacraments. And indeed, that document was significant. Praying in a language that both God and laity understood enabled a much fuller participation by worshippers.
But there are other, arguably more important, documents that emerged from the Council and altered the course of Catholic history. Among those are the documents “Lumen Gentium--The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, “Nostra Aetate—Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”, “Unitatis Redintegratio--the Decree on Ecumenism”, “Dei Verbum—Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation”, and “Dignitatis Humanae--Declaration on Religious Freedom”.
Combined with its other ten documents (sixteen in total), the Council unleashed a radical overhaul of the entire Church. The Church redefined itself as the “people of God”. Power was decentralized with the establishment of Conferences of Bishops, the laity assumed more responsibility—however limited—in Church administration. Scripture scholars and theologians were consulted and occasionally deferred to by bishops who lacked the expertise of academics. Finally, respect was given officially to the individual conscience and to non-Catholic religious bodies.
But the hope that was bred from the Council was not to last. Pope Paul VI presided over the second part of the Council, but he lost his nerve when it became necessary to decide on the morality of contraception. He chose to reject the recommendation by the majority of the commission’s members to modify the Church’s teaching. This majority included every layman and laywoman, the only ones who were married. Archbishop Karol Wojtyla was appointed to the commission by Paul VI. He later became John Paul II.
John Paul was a worldwide phenomenon, traveling more than any of his predecessors and bringing the presence of the Papacy to all corners of the globe. However, he also began an effort to retract from the Second Vatican Council, particularly in the area of Church authority. Benedict XVI furthered that effort. Not unlike the Council, itself, most people notice the regression while at worship. In an example of full-circle metaphor, the English-speaking world now prays in a language that, while officially English, is understood neither by the people nor by God—and the Conferences of Bishops let it happen. John Paul II and Benedict XVI appointed the most conservative and intellectually vacuous men available as bishops, and they succeeded in fully emasculating the national and regional Conferences of Bishops.
To be fair, change is rarely easy, and many people welcomed this regression. There is illusory comfort to restriction and absolute, definitive answers to complex questions. Most people do not enjoy uncertainty. John Paul II and Benedict XVI gave many people what they wanted, but in the process failed to lead. And yet, even Benedict’s detractors must admire his deep commitment to the Church and his willingness to hand over responsibility to someone in better health, someone more capable of the modern demands of the papacy. Not many people can relinquish the kind of power that comes with being Pope.
So the real question facing the Church in the next couple of months has nothing to do with the fact the Benedict will resign rather than die in office. There is no threat of schism. There will be no competing claims to authority or decision-making. The real question is what kind of Pope the cardinals will elect. Will it be someone who recognizes the present and looks to the future, or someone who can only see the past? The Catholic Church does not believe in re-incarnation or we might hope for John XXIII to return. I think I would settle for someone less authoritarian. It does not matter that Benedict XVI will still be alive. Let’s see if the Holy Spirit is alive.
This is not quite as shocking as the secular media would have us believe. True, it is an extremely rare occurrence. Although Gregory XII resigned in 1415, that was in the interest of healing a church divided by multiple claimants to the papal office. The last pope to voluntarily resign was Celestine V in 1294. Still, this is not really shocking news. In an interview in 2010 for the book “Light of the World”, he indicated that he would was open to resigning if his health impaired his role in the Church. That is what has happened. So what does this all mean?
Once again we find the media looking for some sensationalist angle. Will there be a schism within the church—one group loyal to Benedict, the other to his successor? This is utter nonsense. There will be only one Pope. When Benedict resigns, he will no longer be the leader of the Catholic Church. Period. The Cardinals will elect a new Pontiff, and Benedict cannot change his mind should he not personally approve of the choice.
The new pope may choose to consult with Benedict. That is unlikely. After all, the pope has a unique exercise of power and authority. But even if Benedict’s successor chooses to consult with him, the consultation will have no more sway than any other papal advisors. In any event, it will be only advice and opinion. To borrow a phrase from George W. Bush, whoever is elected will be the final decider. What is far more important is what kind of person the College of Cardinals choose to succeed Benedict and what direction he wants to move the Church.
When John XXIII was elected, he was expected to live only long enough for Cardinal Montini to secure enough votes for his own election, which he did after John’s death, thereby becoming Pope Paul VI. However, the real shock wave to hit the Church was John XXIII’s announcement that he intended to call an Ecumenical Council. Caretaker Popes are not supposed to do that! He recognized that the Church needed modernization or else risk irrelevancy in the world. It was a two-crested wave. Shock was in the air, but so was hope.
Most people only know the Second Vatican Council for its document “Sacrosanctum Concilium--Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”. This is because most Catholics primarily interact with the Church at Mass and when celebrating the other sacraments. And indeed, that document was significant. Praying in a language that both God and laity understood enabled a much fuller participation by worshippers.
But there are other, arguably more important, documents that emerged from the Council and altered the course of Catholic history. Among those are the documents “Lumen Gentium--The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, “Nostra Aetate—Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”, “Unitatis Redintegratio--the Decree on Ecumenism”, “Dei Verbum—Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation”, and “Dignitatis Humanae--Declaration on Religious Freedom”.
Combined with its other ten documents (sixteen in total), the Council unleashed a radical overhaul of the entire Church. The Church redefined itself as the “people of God”. Power was decentralized with the establishment of Conferences of Bishops, the laity assumed more responsibility—however limited—in Church administration. Scripture scholars and theologians were consulted and occasionally deferred to by bishops who lacked the expertise of academics. Finally, respect was given officially to the individual conscience and to non-Catholic religious bodies.
But the hope that was bred from the Council was not to last. Pope Paul VI presided over the second part of the Council, but he lost his nerve when it became necessary to decide on the morality of contraception. He chose to reject the recommendation by the majority of the commission’s members to modify the Church’s teaching. This majority included every layman and laywoman, the only ones who were married. Archbishop Karol Wojtyla was appointed to the commission by Paul VI. He later became John Paul II.
John Paul was a worldwide phenomenon, traveling more than any of his predecessors and bringing the presence of the Papacy to all corners of the globe. However, he also began an effort to retract from the Second Vatican Council, particularly in the area of Church authority. Benedict XVI furthered that effort. Not unlike the Council, itself, most people notice the regression while at worship. In an example of full-circle metaphor, the English-speaking world now prays in a language that, while officially English, is understood neither by the people nor by God—and the Conferences of Bishops let it happen. John Paul II and Benedict XVI appointed the most conservative and intellectually vacuous men available as bishops, and they succeeded in fully emasculating the national and regional Conferences of Bishops.
To be fair, change is rarely easy, and many people welcomed this regression. There is illusory comfort to restriction and absolute, definitive answers to complex questions. Most people do not enjoy uncertainty. John Paul II and Benedict XVI gave many people what they wanted, but in the process failed to lead. And yet, even Benedict’s detractors must admire his deep commitment to the Church and his willingness to hand over responsibility to someone in better health, someone more capable of the modern demands of the papacy. Not many people can relinquish the kind of power that comes with being Pope.
So the real question facing the Church in the next couple of months has nothing to do with the fact the Benedict will resign rather than die in office. There is no threat of schism. There will be no competing claims to authority or decision-making. The real question is what kind of Pope the cardinals will elect. Will it be someone who recognizes the present and looks to the future, or someone who can only see the past? The Catholic Church does not believe in re-incarnation or we might hope for John XXIII to return. I think I would settle for someone less authoritarian. It does not matter that Benedict XVI will still be alive. Let’s see if the Holy Spirit is alive.