In a recent column, Andrew M. Greeley writes regarding the upcoming conclave:
What is there to hide? Should not the world know how the electors vote, just as in most other elections? Should not the cardinals be responsible for their votes? In the words of Pius XI, what does the Catholic Church have to fear from the truth? [SOURCE.]
I’m not sure whether Greeley is advocating that the final vote totals for particular individuals be announced (e.g., "Cardinal X got this many votes; Cardinal Y got that many votes") or whether the votes of individual cardinal electors be announced (e.g., "On the third ballot, Cardinal Y voted for Cardinal Z").
We will refer to the first interpretation (announcing vote totals) as "the less-stupid proposal" and the second interpretation as "the blithering idiot proposal."
That Greeley might be advocating the less-stupid proposal might be suggested by his appeal to how things are done in most other elections. In most other elections, the final vote totals do get announced.
And look at the results: The intensification of the political process and post-election grumbling and punditing over whether a particular candidate has a "mandate" or not and how that may affect his ability to govern.
Do we really want that for the papacy?
In order to win, an individual must have a two-thirds majority of the votes (rounding up in case the number of cardinals can’t be divided evenly by three). Now, that is already a supermajority that in secular politics (here in America, anyway) would be regarded as carrying a "mandate."
But imagine the case of a cardinal who gets a bare two-thirds vote after several ballots. Can you imagine what the pundits would say?
MEDIA IDIOT: Well, Cardinal X only got 78 of the 117 electors, Bob, and that was on the tenth ballot. It doesn’t sound to me like the conclave was really enthusiastic about him.
What’s more, his name didn’t even emerge until the sixth ballot. Prior to that it was a three-way competition between Cardinals Q, S, and W. Only after it became clear that none of them would be elected did the conclave turn ot Cardinal X, meaning that he’s a "compromise candidate" from the get go, and one that was only lukewarmly supported by 78 votes. I think that’s going to make it difficult for Cardinal X to take any really dramatic steps as the faithful will always look at him as a man who was only tepidly supported and who only got into office by the skin of his teeth.
Furthermore, the popular Cardinal Q got 76 votes on the very first ballot. He only missed the papacy by two votes! I’m sure his supporters among the faithful will be very disappointed and bitter by that and it will affect how they regard Cardinal X, who many may regard as having "stole" the papacy from the much-beloved Cardinal Q. No matter how much Cardinal Q tries to put a positive face on his defeat, there will always be many who think he had the papacy stolen from him by recalcitrant forces on the other wing of the conclave. What bitter fruit will be born from this stinging and unpopular defeat, only time will tell.
So you see, the less-stupid proposal is still stupid.
The Church is not a political organization. However much humans may have to struggle against politicizing their relationships, the Church is not about politics and only a buffoon (or an outright malefactor) would suggest that we should further politicize matters.
A person taking a jaundiced interpretation of Greeley’s proposal might suggest that he wants the politicization of the papacy precisely because it would serve to hamstring popes and hinder them from effectively wielding their authority.
A more charitable intretation would say that he’s sufficiently woolen-headed that he doesn’t understand that politics is not the paradigm for everything and that it doesn’t and shouldn’t apply to the Church.
That’s all assuming that we’re talking about the less-stupid proposal.
But Greeley’s remark "Should not the cardinals be responsible for their votes?" suggests that we might be talking about the blithering idiot proposal.
If Greeley is suggesting that the cardinals not even have a secret ballot and thus be forced to "be responsible for their votes" by having them publicly known then he opens himself to charges of blithering idiocy.
These guys have to work toghter. Few things will serve to poison relationships faster than a sure and certain knowledge of who did and didn’t vote for you (whether you won or lost). For that reason when religious orders elect new officers the ballot is secret. Universi Dominici Gregis even directs the cardinal electors to disguise their handwriting as much as possible so that even others in the conclave (much less the public) won’t know how they voted.
In a world filled with fallen human beings, secret ballots are essential to eliciting the true views of electors, as well as preventing favoritism and retribution after the election–which is why they are using in every free society in the world.
Knowing this, one suspects Greeley was merely advocating the less-stupid proposal, despite the poor writing skills he displayed in suggesting that he might be advocating the blithering idiot proposal.
That being said, he is extremely wrapped up in trying to get politicizing democracy principles imposed on the Church–so much so that he misreports historical facts.
(Cowboy hat tip to the readers who sent the links!)
Yeah, alot of things in that document are to ensure that the Church works TOGETHER. I guess that’s why the document is so specific, so it can’t possibly be misinterpreted.
But I have one question which I e-mailed you about, you refered me to your Tuesday blog, but I couldn’t find it. (yeah…I’m not very internet-saavy)
The document states that if you commit simony during the voting process, you are instantly excommunicated. Which can only be forgiven by the pope. (and there isn’t one)
BUT! This doesn’t change the voting proccess at all. Why doesn’t it? If it didn’t, why couldn’t Cardinal X bribe Cardinal’s A-Z and get the votes needed, get into office, and then forgive them?
I guess, after thinking about it, that it would probably be to continue the unification of the church…because the unification wouldn’t be very good if 3 cardinals were excommunicated during voting and the voting had to be re-done…without them.
Besides, the H.S. (holy spirit) has a hand in it anyway. When it comes down to something this important, God PROMISED us that we would always have a good pope. (well…mabye not Leo X) So how badly can we, really, screw up?
~Kosh
Yet again, Jimmy, you show us the power of thinking through seemingly reasonable proposals. Thanks!
In order to win, an individual must have a two-thirds majority of the votes
From Universi Dominici Gregis:
“75. If the balloting does not result in an election, even after the provisions of No. 74 have been fulfilled, the Cardinal electors shall be invited by the Camerlengo to express an opinion about the manner of proceeding. The election will then proceed in accordance with what the absolute majority of the electors decides.
Nevertheless, there can be no waiving of the requirement that a valid election takes place only by an absolute majority of the votes or else by voting only on the two names which in the ballot immediately preceding have received the greatest number of votes; also in this second case only an absolute majority is required.”
Number of Cardinals reduced from 117 to 115 due to illness. Here’s article from ETWN…
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 10, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Due to illness, two cardinals will not participate in the conclave to elect a new pope, making the number of cardinal electors 115.
Cardinal Jaime Sin, the retired archbishop of Manila, Philippines, and Cardinal Adolfo Suárez Rivera, retired archbishop of Monterrey, Mexico, have informed the Vatican that they will not participate in the conclave “for reasons of health,” said Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro Valls on Saturday.
The conclave begins Monday, April 18.
If able to travel, ill cardinals may participate in the conclave. The apostolic constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis,” which establishes the rules of the conclave, states that, if necessary for reasons of health, a cardinal elector may have a nurse with him, “including during the election period.”
If one or more cardinals, residing in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, were to fall ill and be unable to go to the Sistine Chapel to vote, three “Infirmarii” — cardinals elected by drawing lots — will be in charge of collecting their votes, with the appropriate guarantees as established in the constitution.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=55537
“What is there to hide? Should not the world know how the electors vote, just as in most other elections?”
The difference is that this election is unlike ANY other elections.
It seems to me that we Americans often fall into the trap of looking at things with an American-democracy-type lens. The ‘we should know how the Cardinals vote’, ‘the Church should change to reflect the times’, attitude reigns.
The Church is NOT a democracy!!!!
Brilliant, brilliant analysis, Jimmy. Father Greeley, hang your head in shame!
The Cardinals could elect a pope. Then, vote to have the record show that the pope was elected unanimously without dissent.
I can see it now: The votes are announced. John Kerry doesn’t get any and immediately claims Cardinal intimidation.
Andrew Greely is a wolf in the hen house — he knows it — we know it — and he knows that we know it. (His pretention is part of his wicked sense of humor.)
The church is holy. (The four marks of the church being one, holy, catholic and apostolic.) In that it is holy, it is sacred, set aside for God, and gos has promised that he will guide it.
So, it follows that in a papal election there only one vote, so the winner gets the one vote of the Holy Spirit, all other Catholic males get no votes.
Rev Greely is not stupid, he is trying to “democratize” the church; his agenda is for open elections so that process of selecting all of the episcopate becomes more “open,” more “conciliar.”
In short, he is in favor of a more human and less divine process — the result is a rejection of Christ’s gift of the apostles to the Church.
Of course, this may just multiply troubles — just ask our separated brethren.
Maybe I am naive, but I truly believe in the integrity of the Cardinals and the role of the Holy Spirit and that belief is clearly missing from the proposals by Andrew Greeley and at the beginning of Kosh’s comments. As Catholics I think we ought trust in the operation of the Lord in this matter just as we place that trust in other matters. If Greeley can not have enough faith in the integrity of the Cardinals in attempting to do God’s will in this instance, then I fail to see how he ever can. In fact Carlo just said it better than I could – it is a “divine” process, not merely a human event.
Perhaps the good Father would allow the world to accompany him into the voting booth during the next Presidential election. After all, Father Greely doesn’t have anything to hide, does he?
The “Media Idiot” routine is hilarious. Pure comedy. 🙂
Fr. Andrew Greeley regularly (almost daily writes this type of polarizing editorials in the Chicago Sun-Times and it gets me so angry sometimes. Recently he has been trying to be the voice of the [dissident] lay Catholics of America stating that statistically since a majority of Catholics favor changes in sexual morality and making things much more democratic the Church should bow down and listen as it did, he would say, in the glory days of the Second Vatican Council. If this were typical of the Church it would have surrendered to the the Arian heresy back in the early Church because of their overwhelming numbers.
Even in the immediate wake of the pope’s death he was crying out for change and reporting on the “mixed legacy.” I don’t understand why he thinks the 2-Sundays a year, liberal, and increasingly unpopular “Catholic” opinion is a force to be reckoned with. Statistics show that vocations are increasing among very conservative orders and dropping or remaining low among more liberal orders (I won’t name names here). I really pray for him, because if he became a priest in those “glory days” back in the 60s with so much hope for a liberal church, and still clings to this hope, he must have lived a miserable 26 years under JP2 and, unfortunately for him, will continue to be dissapointed in Peter’s next succesor. Thanks for disecting part of his writing, Jimmy. If you read him more often you will not be able to stop blogging about his ignorance, so be careful.
May our “All Just God” have mercy on Andrew Greeley’s soul.