Next pope a difficult choice
ROME, ITALY — In the prayerful and pomp-filled days following John Paul II’s death, the cardinals assembled in Rome take temporary control of the Vatican, sharing limited responsibility until they elect the next pope. For all but one of them, this will be the only time they hold that power, but for many, the idea of having more control over their own domains could determine their decision about their next leader.
Even though all but two of the voting cardinals were handpicked by this pope, they could choose someone with a very different approach to how the Church should operate. “The bishops feel a little far from what is happening in Rome,” according to Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, who, at age 82, is ineligible to cast a ballot for the new pontiff. It’s a sentiment that those in the voting-age population echo privately.
As John Paul logged thousands of miles personally preaching to millions of the faithful, he firmly established himself as the face of the Church. Using modern transportation and technology to reach the farthest corners of the earth, his critics claim that he was actually re-instituting an outdated vision of the papacy.
This pope, former priest James Carroll complained to ABC News, “faithfully tried to preserve this medieval, absolutist notion of pope-centered Catholicism with everything going out from the Vatican.” But now, as opposed to medieval times, the pontiff can spread the word from Rome in a matter of minutes, and his diplomats abroad can report back on what’s happening in the rest of the world just as quickly.
The eyes and the ears of Rome reached into the smallest hamlets, unlike earlier times, and edicts emerged aimed at affecting all believers regardless of country or culture. John Paul’s decision to hold hard to power flew in the face of not only the spirit of liberation he championed, and that’s taking hold around the world, it also violated both the letter and spirit of the Second Vatican Council. More important, it has had the effect of driving people away from Catholicism.
At the Council, the bishops, including a young Karol Woityla, endorsed a set of principles that valued small, local institutions over large distant ones; and that called for bishops, in union with the pontiff and the faithful — deemed the People of God, to hold ecclesiastical power. By calling for “collegiality” the Council proposed a much more bottom-up than top-down form of Church government.
The Council also urged Catholics to appreciate diverse cultures, understanding their differences. Though John Paul’s travels included church services with some native dances thrown in, the Vatican under his rule held a firm hand over the liturgy around the world.
Appropriately, much has been said over the last few days about John Paul’s legacy. That legacy can live on for years to come through the bishops he has chosen, in the same way that a U.S. president’s legacy often continues down the decades by his appointments to the Supreme Court.
But the Justices often surprise their sponsors. Think of Earl Warren, appointed by Dwight Eisenhower or, on the current court, John Paul Stevens, one of the most reliably liberal judges, still handing down decisions almost 30 years after Gerald Ford, the man who appointed him, left office.
The same might be true here in Rome in a couple of weeks when the cardinals who have come together to mourn this pope convene to select the next one. As they make their choice independence might be more important than ideology or geography.
Official politicking is forbidden in papal elections. But these men, princes of the church though they may be, are human. In their meetings as temporary custodians of the Vatican, they’re bound to be freshly sizing each other up, wondering which one will send them home as more powerful prelates than when they arrived.
Steve and Cokie Roberts can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected].