Pope Francis’s recent announcement that he will create 21 new cardinals on August 27, 16 of whom would vote in a conclave held after that date, set off the usual flurry of speculations about the shape of the next papal election. Much of that crystal ball-gazing was less than useful, based as it was on numerous myths about conclaves. Demythologizing those tropes will, I hope, function as a stabilizer, as the waters surrounding the Barque of Peter will likely get more turbulent before the next conclave meets in the Sistine Chapel beneath the stern gaze of Christ the Judge.
Myth #1: A pope who names a significant percentage of the cardinals who elect his successor thereby determines the succession. Not true.
In 1878, the cardinal-electors were all nominees of either Gregory XVI or Pius IX; they elected Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci who, as Leo XIII, took the Church in a very different direction than his two immediate predecessors. In 1903, 61 of the 62 cardinal-electors who chose Pope Leo’s successor had been named by the man who, over 25 years, launched the Leonine Revolution and Catholicism’s engagement with modern culture and politics — cardinals who might have been expected to elect a man in Leo XIII’s image. Instead, after an interfering veto cast by that paladin of contemporary Catholic integralists, the Habsburg emperor, they elected Giuseppe Melchiore Sarto, who as Pius X firmly applied the brakes to Leo’s bolder initiatives.
In 1958, the cardinal-electors were all nominees of Pius XI and Pius XII, and it was widely assumed that the next pope would be in that line (Pius XII, as Eugenio Pacelli, having been Pius XI’s Secretary of State). Instead, the cardinal-electors chose an elderly placeholder, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli. As John XXIII, he led the Church into an ecumenical council that both Pius XI and Pius XII had considered summoning before rejecting the idea; the rest is the history of our Catholic moment.
In 2013, the overwhelming majority of electors had been created cardinals by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The man they chose, who took the unprecedented papal name Francis, has quietly but determinedly dismantled the legacy of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in numerous respects.
Myth #2: He who enters the conclave a pope leaves the conclave a cardinal. Not true.
In 1878, Leo XIII was chosen quickly, which suggests that he must have been very papabile before the conclave. Giacomo Della Chiesa, the cardinal-archbishop of Bologna and a veteran papal diplomat, was certainly papabile entering the wartime conclave of 1914, although it took a bruising struggle to get him elected. Just about everyone who knew anything expected Eugenio Pacelli to succeed Pius XI (including Pius XI), and he was indeed rapidly chosen. Giovanni Battista Montini was certainly very papabile in 1963, in part because many cardinal-electors had regarded him as the logical successor to Pius XII in 1958; but for some yet-unexplained reason, Montini, though archbishop of Milan, was not a cardinal when Pius XII died.
For those free of prejudices and appropriately skeptical of Italian media fantasies, Joseph Ratzinger entered the conclave of 2005 very papabile, and left the conclave as pope after brief balloting. Similarly, in 2013, those with real sources (which usually do not include Italian newspapers) knew that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ, was a prime contender, and his election after a brief conclave was no surprise to them.
Myth #3: A lengthy, contentious conclave leads to a disempowered pontificate. Not true.
Giacomo Della Chiesa, Achille Ratti, and Karol Wojtyla were all elected after rather lengthy conclaves; moreover, the conclaves of 1914 and 1922 were rife with contention, as the cardinals continued to battle over the legacy of the Leonine Revolution. Yet Benedict XV, Pius XI and John Paul II were all great popes who made significant contributions to the Church. The lesson? A long conclave can produce a considered, thoughtful result.
Myth #4: The only cardinals who count are the cardinals who actually vote. Not true.
Since Paul VI reformed conclave procedures, only cardinals who have not reached their 80th birthday when the conclave opens can vote. However, all cardinals participate in the General Congregations of cardinals between a pope’s death or abdication and the immurement of the conclave. And they can have a real effect, as Britain’s Cormac Murphy-O’Connor proved by his advocacy of the Bergoglio candidacy in 2013. With over-80 cardinals of great moral authority like Francis Arinze, Wilfred Fox Napier, George Pell, Camillo Ruini and Joseph Zen participating, the discussions in the next General Congregations can be similarly influential.
The above comes from a June 15 posting by George Weigel in Catholic World Report.
Look at all that feminine, grandmotherly lace. Pope Francis said not to wear that anymore.
Lace is used for practicality, not just beauty. In hotter areas where the priests wear heavy vestments, lace is a cooling. Remember priests do not put vestments over just their underwear but have pants and shirts or cossacks underneath. Cossacks are cooler than pants and lace helps with further cooling. I do not like the “bats wings” on the newer vestments as they make men look heavier, but I have come to realize that they are cooler when wearing shirts and pants. I really like most of the vestments worn by the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society as there is no lace nor “bats wings’ and are slimming.
A better word for the newer vestments would be chasubles, than vestments with “bat wings”. I do feel compassion for all our priests who have to wear such heavy garments in hotter climates. It gives me the incentive to dress my best for Mass.
Goodnight to all.
You want priests to wear slimming vestments. I thought you had more depth than that.
I do not know about you, but most people I know do not want to look heavier than they are and be weighed down by their apparel if avoidable, especially as one gets older and more fragile.
I admit I was being somewhat snarky in my first post because some people imply that lace on men is always effeminate. On the contrary, in general it is not the delicate lace most women wear. The lace I have seen on priests and deacons close up is of the thicker more manly looking type, not effeminate at all, nor are they.
Why any man would want to wear fabric like that is beyond me.
It depends on the times and cultures. The powdered wigs that were worn in George Washington’s times look pretty stupid to most of us, but some of the Bristish Parliament or judges still wear similar things. They all have symbolism for the people wearing them that we do not understand unless we get on websites that explain them. The red shoes popes sometimes wear symbolize the willingness to die for the faith.
To each his own.
Ironically, it’s the priests who think that priests aren’t masculine enough who wear lace. Cardinal Burke can’t stop talking about masculine priests and yet has bought out all the lace in Rome.
Only 20 cardinals. Van Looy from Belgium does not want the red hat to avoid scandal (guess about what).
Interesting headline…”…this Fall’s Conclave” Would the author care to share some revelation on the death of the Pope?