Category: The Pope

I really hope that Benedict XVI issues a new apostolic constitution governing conclaves.

It’s not a certainty that he will. He might rely on John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis. But popes tend to revise the rules governing what happens after their deaths. Some have revised them more than once.

But there’s a specific reason I want Benedict XVI to issue such a document.

There’s something that has been missing from such documents heretofore: an "act of the devil" clause.

Now, you may be asking: "What’s that?"

Well, you know how some contracts have "acts of God" clauses to cover unforeseen circumstances like floods, fires, and other unlikely but possible events not caused by human agency?

Suppose that al-Qa’eda detonated a suitcase nuke near the Sistine Chapel and killed every single one of the cardinal electors during a conclave.

They’d do it! They’re fantatics! Of course they’d love to wipe out the leaders of the "crusaders" while in the process of electing a new "crusader leader"! It’d convulse a billion Catholics plus (to some extent) another billion Christians. They’d love to do that. Indeed, we already know that al-Qa’eda has wanted to kill the pope more than once. Wiping out a conclave is well within their field of consideration.

Now, this wouldn’t be an "act of God" for, although it would be permitted by God’s providence (if he permitted it to happen, that is), it wouldn’t be something produced by natural forces rather than human agency. (I.e., it was terrorists rather than a hurricane or an earthquake.)

Therefore, let’s call it an "act of the devil" since (even under the providence of God) it would likely be the devil motivating the terrorists.

What would happen with respect to the election of a new pontiff in that case?

Nobody knows.

Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) doesn’t say. Neither does any other Church document.

That we know of.

It’s always possible that John Paul II prepared a secret document that might be brought forward in such an event (assuming it and those who had knowledge of it weren’t also wiped out by the suitcase nuke), but I doubt it. UDG covers elaborate contingencies.

But not this one.

If John Paul II made specific provision for such a circumstance, it should have been in UDG (which was released in 1996–five years before World War IV even started).

UDG also has clauses in it that prohibit the cardinal electors from making new arrangements for the election of a pontiff. So what would happen if they were all wiped out? UDG doesn’t seem to leave the Church any avenues for electing a new pontiff.

Given that, what would realistically happen in this circumstance?

Assuming that there was no secret "act of the devil" document, probably the following:

1. There would be a huge convulsion of unbelievable intensity, both in the Catholic world and in the world in general.
2. The surviving cardinals, who would be those over the age of 80 or otherwise sick and not at the conclave, would issue a statement decrying the tragedy and saying that, despite its unforeseen nature, it is the will of God for the Church to go on and for the Petrine ministry not to be extinguished.
3. They would then hold a new conclave, either by gathering in one place (probably not Rome, but somewhere the terrorists wouldn’t have anticipated) or by telecommunications.
4. They would elect a new pope.
5. Most Catholics (and others) would accept the new pope (and his successors).
6. But innumerable individuals for centuries to come would be tormented by doubts about whether the election of the new pope and his successor was valid since it was done in a way completely unprovided for by Church law.

To avoid this situation (and assuring the faithful’s reception of the new papal election as valid is one of this kind of document’s chief purposes), it makes all the sense in the world for the new pontiff to include in his document a provision for the surviving cardinals to elect a new pontiff in the wake of a disaster that wipes out a conclave, whether caused by man or nature.

I therefore hope that Benedict XVI issues an apostolic constitution governing the next conclave and that includes an explicit "act of the devil" clause.

I really hope that Benedict XVI issues a new apostolic constitution governing conclaves.

It’s not a certainty that he will. He might rely on John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis. But popes tend to revise the rules governing what happens after their deaths. Some have revised them more than once.

But there’s a specific reason I want Benedict XVI to issue such a document.

There’s something that has been missing from such documents heretofore: an "act of the devil" clause.

Now, you may be asking: "What’s that?"

Well, you know how some contracts have "acts of God" clauses to cover unforeseen circumstances like floods, fires, and other unlikely but possible events not caused by human agency?

Suppose that al-Qa’eda detonated a suitcase nuke near the Sistine Chapel and killed every single one of the cardinal electors during a conclave.

They’d do it! They’re fantatics! Of course they’d love to wipe out the leaders of the "crusaders" while in the process of electing a new "crusader leader"! It’d convulse a billion Catholics plus (to some extent) another billion Christians. They’d love to do that. Indeed, we already know that al-Qa’eda has wanted to kill the pope more than once. Wiping out a conclave is well within their field of consideration.

Now, this wouldn’t be an "act of God" for, although it would be permitted by God’s providence (if he permitted it to happen, that is), it wouldn’t be something produced by natural forces rather than human agency. (I.e., it was terrorists rather than a hurricane or an earthquake.)

Therefore, let’s call it an "act of the devil" since (even under the providence of God) it would likely be the devil motivating the terrorists.

What would happen with respect to the election of a new pontiff in that case?

Nobody knows.

Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) doesn’t say. Neither does any other Church document.

That we know of.

It’s always possible that John Paul II prepared a secret document that might be brought forward in such an event (assuming it and those who had knowledge of it weren’t also wiped out by the suitcase nuke), but I doubt it. UDG covers elaborate contingencies.

But not this one.

If John Paul II made specific provision for such a circumstance, it should have been in UDG (which was released in 1996–five years before World War IV even started).

UDG also has clauses in it that prohibit the cardinal electors from making new arrangements for the election of a pontiff. So what would happen if they were all wiped out? UDG doesn’t seem to leave the Church any avenues for electing a new pontiff.

Given that, what would realistically happen in this circumstance?

Assuming that there was no secret "act of the devil" document, probably the following:

1. There would be a huge convulsion of unbelievable intensity, both in the Catholic world and in the world in general.
2. The surviving cardinals, who would be those over the age of 80 or otherwise sick and not at the conclave, would issue a statement decrying the tragedy and saying that, despite its unforeseen nature, it is the will of God for the Church to go on and for the Petrine ministry not to be extinguished.
3. They would then hold a new conclave, either by gathering in one place (probably not Rome, but somewhere the terrorists wouldn’t have anticipated) or by telecommunications.
4. They would elect a new pope.
5. Most Catholics (and others) would accept the new pope (and his successors).
6. But innumerable individuals for centuries to come would be tormented by doubts about whether the election of the new pope and his successor was valid since it was done in a way completely unprovided for by Church law.

To avoid this situation (and assuring the faithful’s reception of the new papal election as valid is one of this kind of document’s chief purposes), it makes all the sense in the world for the new pontiff to include in his document a provision for the surviving cardinals to elect a new pontiff in the wake of a disaster that wipes out a conclave, whether caused by man or nature.

I therefore hope that Benedict XVI issues an apostolic constitution governing the next conclave and that includes an explicit "act of the devil" clause.

My prediction is this: The next pope will not be named Benedict.

Why? Because the current pope is.

See: I got to thinking about the circumstances under which a pope take the prior pope’s name.

It seems to me that the default option would be to pick a different name because to pick your predecessor’s name would invite comparisons to him. If people liked him then they would always be looking at you to see if you measure up to their fond memories of him. On the other hand, if they hated his guts then they’d likely hate your guts, too, since you obviously admired him so much that you took his name. Either way, it’d be better to strike out on your own, be your own pope, and pick a name that hasn’t been used in a while.

But there are circumstances which can override this.

Obviously, John Paul II picked the name he did because of the crisis caused by the abrupt and unexpected death of John Paul I. It was a way of signalling continuity and reassurring the world that we could get past the crisis.

But when was the last time before that that a pope picked his predecessor’s name?

I thought about it and realized that it was when Eugenio Pacelli picked the name "Pius XII." Was there a crisis then? You bet! World War II was about to break out, Pius XI had really been ticking off Adolph Hitler with all his human rights and pro-peace talk and Pacelli (former nuncio to Germany and professional Hitler-despiser) was elected as an in-your-face gesture to hold a hard line against Hitler. (In other words, to put a Bronx cheer "right in der Fuehrer’s face" as Spike Jones would say). Pius XII thus picked the name of his predecessor to signal that the Church was staying the course against Nazism.

When was the last time before that when it happened?

I didn’t know.

Couldn’t remember another occurrence as far back as my memory of papal names went, so I looked up a

LIST OF POPES.

Y’know when it turns out the last time it happened was?

1800.

That’s right: Over a century beforehand (and goin’ on a century an a half).

In 1800 Pope Pius VII took the name of his predecessor, Pius VI. Was there a crisis then? Yep. Proto-Hitler Napoleon was raising a ruckus.

And the time before that?

Actually, it was right quick before that. Pius VI’s predecessor had taken the name Clement XIV after his predecessor, Clement XIII. And was it a time of crisis?

Hoo-boy! Warn’t it! Here’s part of the opening of Clement XIV’s page in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

At the death of Clement XIII the Church was in dire distress. Gallicanism and Jansenism, Febronianism and Rationalism were up in rebellion against the authority of the Roman pontiff; the rulers of France, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Parma were on the side of the sectarians who flattered their dynastic prejudices and, at least in appearance, worked for the strengthening of the temporal power against the spiritual. The new pope would have to face a coalition of moral and political forces which Clement XIII had indeed manfully resisted, but failed to put down, or even materially to check [SOURCE].

The time before that was in 1670, when Clement X succeeded Clement IX. That time I don’t know if you’d say that there was a crisis, though the conclave was really long (almost five months!) and divided and the new pope was a very elderly man who had only been named a cardinal on the eve of Clement IX’s death. It thus seems that the took the name out of gratitude, though it might also have been to reassure the Church after an abnormally long conclave. (He also may not have minded comparisons since he didn’t expect to have a long reign in which to invite them.)

However that may be, popes don’t pick their predecessors’ names that often. Only about once a century on average, as you can see above, and it tends to be under very unusual circumstances, like a crisis when it is imperative to send a strong continuity signal.

I’d hope (though one never knows) that this won’t pertain at the time of the next conclave.

Hence my prediction.

While cruising around the Catholic Answers Forums recently, I came across a thread titled "Papa Ratz & the cats" discussing an article on our new Pope that mentions his fondness for cats.  In the course of the thread, while discussing Pope Benedict’s new nickname "The German Shepherd," a participant linked to an image that I have decided is my now-favorite image of this new papacy:

The Good Shepherd (Sorry, I haven’t gotten the image display capability mastered yet.)

Cats are very independent creatures, used to having things their own way.  They may deign to show you affection occasionally … usually when they are trying to con you into tuna and cream or an ear scratch.  In other words, they’re independent until they want something out of you, which makes them a better symbol of the American (and Western) spirit than the bald eagle.

Someone I once spoke with used this simile for a difficult task: "I bet it’s as easy as herding cats."  That image stuck with me, and I’m glad it did, because that is what our new Pope is being called to do: To be a German Shepherd corralling a herd of cats.  The image linked above is a vivid image of the reality that I’m sure he’ll be up to the job.  I’ve ordered a copy of the print, though, and plan to use it as a visual reminder to pray for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and to pray for the flock of cats under his care.

Apparently the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was once presented with a Ratzinger Fan Club t-shirt, enjoyed it, but claimed he couldn’t keep it because he couldn’t be his own fan:

“He was humble, outgoing and laughed at a T-shirt that read ‘The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club.’

“That’s how Chris Haehnel, 15, of St. Charles, remembers his visit in Rome with the man who Tuesday became Pope Benedict XVI.

[…]

“Chris, then a freshman at Duchesne High School in St. Charles, already had studied Ratzinger and papal politics. He said he liked Ratzinger’s conservative stands on moral issues. He gave Ratzinger a T-shirt he bought from an online fan club.

“On the front, it read ‘The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981.’ Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and combating heresy was part of his job.

“Ratzinger laughed at the shirt, Chris said, but said he couldn’t keep it because he couldn’t be his own fan. When he flipped over the shirt to find a quote attributed to him — ‘Truth is not determined by a majority vote’ — he laughed again and said, ‘That’s true. That’s true.’ Chris still has the shirt.”

GET THE STORY.

Apparently the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was once presented with a Ratzinger Fan Club t-shirt, enjoyed it, but claimed he couldn’t keep it because he couldn’t be his own fan:

“He was humble, outgoing and laughed at a T-shirt that read ‘The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club.’

“That’s how Chris Haehnel, 15, of St. Charles, remembers his visit in Rome with the man who Tuesday became Pope Benedict XVI.

[…]

“Chris, then a freshman at Duchesne High School in St. Charles, already had studied Ratzinger and papal politics. He said he liked Ratzinger’s conservative stands on moral issues. He gave Ratzinger a T-shirt he bought from an online fan club.

“On the front, it read ‘The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981.’ Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and combating heresy was part of his job.

“Ratzinger laughed at the shirt, Chris said, but said he couldn’t keep it because he couldn’t be his own fan. When he flipped over the shirt to find a quote attributed to him — ‘Truth is not determined by a majority vote’ — he laughed again and said, ‘That’s true. That’s true.’ Chris still has the shirt.”

GET THE STORY.

Well, perhaps a cheery letter of gratitude for the gift of Pope Benedict XVI will do.

Seriously, though, in making the rounds of St. Blog’s Parish, one gets the impression that there may be the idea floating about orthodox Catholic circles that the Holy Spirit is wholly and entirely responsible for the surprise election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, perhaps anointing Cardinal Ratzinger pope ex nihilo.

It ain’t so.

The Holy Spirit surely provided the cardinals with the graces they needed to assist their prudential judgment, but he did not override any cardinal’s free will.  It was each and every cardinal who voted for Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who freely inked Ratzinger’s name onto the ballot.  According to stories of the conclave that are beginning to emerge, the number of those cardinals may have been over one hundred on the final ballot — well above the number necessary for the two-thirds super-majority:

"Italian newspapers, considered to have the best inside track on events inside the secret meeting, agreed that Ratzinger garnered well over the two thirds, or 77, votes he needed from the 115 voting cardinals.

"Some suggested he won more than 100.

"The votes reflected the desire by the princes of the Church for an uncompromising and capable leader to face the myriad challenges of the 21st century."

GET THE STORY.

I freely admit that I was apprehensive following the death of John Paul II, somewhat worried about who would emerge as our new Holy Father. Not wanting to be disappointed, I had completely eliminated Cardinal Ratzinger from the running and was rooting for Francis Cardinal Arinze, a conservative who appeared to be a "safer" choice for the cardinals. There were also a few other cardinals I had heard good things about and would have welcomed.

But the cardinals proved themselves men of courage and conviction, far exceeding my shallow expectations. For that, they deserve our gratitude and respect. It should also give us great hope for future conclaves years — prayerfully, many, many years — from now.

Great editorial by Gerard Baker of the London Times:

"What has been most enjoyable about the stunned reaction of the bulk of the media to the election of Pope Benedict XVI has been the simple incredulousness at the very idea that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger could possibly have become leader of the universal Church.

"Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: ‘Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.’"

GET THE STORY.

Great editorial by Gerard Baker of the London Times:

"What has been most enjoyable about the stunned reaction of the bulk of the media to the election of Pope Benedict XVI has been the simple incredulousness at the very idea that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger could possibly have become leader of the universal Church.

"Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: ‘Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.’"

GET THE STORY.

If you can stand any more holy coincidences from this past extraordinary month, I’ve got a few more for you:

On Tuesday as I was getting ready for work, I glanced at my calendar to see if there was any saint this week to whom I could pray for the conclave. I saw St. Anselm for April 21, sent up a quick prayer, and promptly thought no more about it. Today at Mass, Father mentioned that St. Anselm was a Benedictine. After glancing through his online biography, I note that he was also a theological writer (indeed, eventually, a Doctor of the Church) and a counselor to Popes Gregory VII and Urban II.

Hmmm.

Then it occurred to me that our new Pope will be installed this Sunday, April 24, the fifth Sunday of Easter. For the fifth Sunday of Easter, the Gospel reading will be on Christ’s declaration that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; something that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger firmly upheld in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document Dominus Iesus. But if April 24 hadn’t been an Easter Sunday, would there have been a saint’s memorial that day?

Yes. Please meet St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, born in Germany, martyred in Switzerland while preaching to the Calvinists and Zwinglians, canonized by Pope Benedict XIV. According to the Patron Saints Index linked above, among the symbols used to represent him are "a club set with spikes; … a whirlbat; heretics; … [and] Saint Joseph of Leonissa." He’s commonly pictured "trampling on ‘Heresy’; with an angel carrying a palm of martyrdom; [and] the Morning Star."

Lastly, here’s the money quote attributed to St. Fidelis:

"Woe to me if I should prove myself but a halfhearted soldier in the service of my thorn-crowned Captain."