Cardinals' Choice
Monday and Tuesday bore witness to one of the most secretive events in the world – a papal conclave, which ultimately was used to select yet another conservative Pope. Rules set out by Pope John Paul II in 1996 ensured this conclave was one of the most closely-guarded ever. Even before it began, none of the 117 cardinals eligible to vote was talking to the press. Cardinals held formal daily meetings to discuss the basis on which the next pontiff would be elected.
Contentious issues, such how liberal the next Pope should be, were doubtless talked about (if not necessarily agreed upon) in advance – along with more delicate political points, such as his stance on contraception, on relations with Muslims and Jews and on recognition of controversial states such as Taiwan and Israel.
Yet the cardinals’ refusal to discuss just why they finally settled upon Joseph Ratzinger as pontiff means that the principal concerns and motives of those at the top of the Catholic Church remain masked. The cardinals sat within the walls of the Vatican, safely shielded from wider public debate on the most sensitive and relevant issues facing the Church; the rest of the world was denied an open examination of the culture and values at the top of this unimaginably powerful organisation.
Consequently, the Pope that emerged shares moral values only with the most traditional elements within his Church. The extent to which the selection process is politicised is a sensitive issue. Cardinals are barred from openly lobbying or canvassing, but alliances were certainly formed over the last few weeks that proved key to Ratzinger’s election.
The fact that the process is dressed up in high Latin, beautiful costumes and ancient traditions cannot detract from the fact that those 117 men remain mere mortals, inevitably prone to political calculation. Yet Father Jeremy Fairhead, Catholic Chaplain of Oxford University, maintains the Catholic claim that the cardinals were working under divine guidance.
“We see in Isaiah the outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and we should see it as completely and utterly active within the Church, particularly when it comes to the election of a new Pope,” he explained – prior to Ratzinger’s election. Fairhead belives the secrecy involved in the process safeguards it from external pressure that might have prevented the cardinals listening to the Holy Spirit in full. Yet even he admits that the conclave process has proved fallible in the past.
“If we look at some of the elections of Popes in previous centuries – especially during medieval times – we can see that the Holy Spirit wasn’t properly listened to. However, over the last two centuries, perhaps – and definitely in the last century – we can see the direct work of the Spirit through the election of some remarkable Popes.” Yet surely there is no way to guarantee the audibility of ‘the Spirit’, even if one were to share Fairhead’s faith.
Without proper checks and balances in place, any dissenter to the results of the conclave is left simply with the weak claim: ‘The Spirit has not been listened to’. Pope John Paul II cannot be said to have led an apolitical papacy, either in terms of international diplomacy or domestic affairs.
He gave Israel official diplomatic recognition in 1993, took an ostensibly hard line on Communism and spoke out strongly against priests advocating Liberation Theology – described as a fusion between Marxism and Christianity – in South America in the 1980s. The former Pope has even been credited by some with ending the Cold War.
Even as he reached old age he remained an important diplomatic figure: his warnings about the immorality of the Iraq war forced defiant rebuttals from both Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Meanwhile, his ultra-conservative lines on abortion, euthanasia, contraception and suicide resulted in a meeting to discuss such emotive issues with Bush in 2001.
Fairhead, echoing the sentiments of millions of Catholics across the world over the last few weeks, argues the papacy is necessarily political: “To preach the Gospel cannot be separated from the way we live. In fact, Pope John Paul II’s diplomatic efforts gave the papacy a greater ecumenical, inter-faith and international role, and strengthened its position.”
The global outpouring of grief after John Paul II’s death was astonishing – particularly as the papacy seemed to be losing relevance prior to his tenure. Governments from across the world were represented at his funeral, and even the Reverend Ian Paisley had a semi-nice word to say: “I can understand how Catholics feel,” claimed the extremist Free Presbyterian, who infamously shouted “Antichrist” at John Paul II at an EU meeting in 1988.
Any man able to elicit such a U-turn from the stubborn Ulsterman must surely be a shrewd political operator. Catholicism must, then, accept that politicisation of the papacy has in fact proved to its advantage. Yet this advantage cannot fully be exploited unless the Church accepts the same level of scrutiny faced by other political appointmnents processes.
Shrouding the conclave in secrecy and claiming the pontiff is purely a religious appointment, free from the base politicking surrounding more earthly positions, is disingenuous. Ratzinger’s appointment was made in full knowledge that the decision would widely be considered a conservative one. To more devout Catholics, it will be understood as divine endorsement of the new Pope’s traditional views.
Until this politicised position is acknowledged as such by the Catholic hierarchy, the uneasy perception that a select clique of reactionaries are plotting the Church’s future (and thus the parameters of much moral debate worldwide) will prevail.
21st Apr 2005