The "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.

The “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.

GERMAN YAHOOS: No Homeschooling!

In the People’s Republic of Germany, homeschooling is illegal and parents face fines, imprisonment, lawsuits, state harrassment, and the possible loss of their children for the crime of seeking to educate their children themselves.

"A German mom has been sent to jail for six days and fined $115 US because she and her husband insist on home schooling their children, reports ASSIST News Service.

"Home schooling is illegal in Germany. Parents are obliged to send their children to state-registered schools. Parents may not educate their children at home, even for reasons of faith or conscience. Despite this, about 500 German children are home schooled.

"The jailed mom and her husband belong to a Baptist church. They regard religious instruction at school as too liberal and object to the sex-education program.

"Since October, seven other parents in Paderborn County have refused to send their children to public school for religious and ethical reasons. They have been fined $190 US each. The authorities have even threatened the parents, saying they could be taken to court or lose custody of their children if they do not comply with the law. "

GET THE STORY.

If you’re a homeschooler, you can keep an eye on the legal issues surrounding homeschooling at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). It wouldn’t surprise me if the public-school establishment in the United States were looking abroad for anti-homeschooling laws that they could import.

Diabetes, Pregnancy, Vasectomy Question

A reader writes:

I came accross your web site when I was looking to see the catholic churches stance on vasectomies. I have a question, my wife was diagnosed with diabetes and we were informed that if we concieve a child there is a large risk of still birth or deformities. We were told that it is a higher rick than an average couple.

First, I am very sorry to hear about your wife’s condition. Diabetes is a cross that many have to carry, but there is hope for a cure soon.

I am extremely suspicious, however, of the advice you have been given regarding having children. While there may be a higher risk of stillbirth or deformities, there is a significant likelihood that this risk has been exaggerated by your physician. Many doctors in America today have a hypersensitivity to risk and an anti-child mentality that leads them to tell people they should’t have children for totally inadequate reasons.

I strongly suggest that you contact a pro-life doctor and ask him to give you a realistic assessment of the impact that your wife’s diabetes may have on the situation.

For example, even the March of Dimes (a very anti-child organization that wants to end birth defects by killing the children who have them) says the following about diabetes and pregnancy:

Today, most of these women [i.e., women who have diabetes] can look forward to having a healthy baby. While diabetes poses some risks in pregnancy, advances in care have greatly improved the outlook for these pregnancies [SOURCE].

It goes on to say that:

Women with poorly controlled preexisting diabetes in the early weeks of pregnancy are three to four times more likely than nondiabetic women to have a baby with a serious birth defect

but it elsewhere notes that the chance of a birth defect is 1 in 28. That means that for a woman with poorly controlled diabetes the chance of a birth defect would be 12.5% (assuming that the "serious birth defect" mentioned in the diabetes article is the same as the "birth defect" mentioned in the second article; the risk would be less than 12.5% if "serious birth defect" meant to be is a subset of the category "birth defect," meaning that there is less than a 1 in 28 chance of a serious birth defect.)

It does not seem to me that a 12.5% risk of a birth defect creates an automatic "don’t have children" situation. There is an 87.5% chance per kid that the child will be totally fine.

And that is for women with "poorly controlled preexisting diabetes." I assume that your wife, now that she has been diagnosed, will be properly controlling her diabetes through diet, exercise, and (if needed) medication, in which case the chances of having a normal baby will be greater than 87.5%.

I therefore strongly recommend that you talk to a pro-life doctor or contact the Couple to Couple League for additional perspective on this as I think you’re being misled by a hyper-cautious doctor.

The reader continues:

We are currently thinking about my getting a vasectomy. I am almost sure I will get one, my question is will this stop my ability to get the eucarist, or recieve other graces (i.e. ability to get into heaven)?

I strongly recommend that you do not pursue this course of action. Having a vasectomy is intrinsically wrong and a grave sin. To have one knowingly and deliberately is a mortal sin. Those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Communion and those who die in mortal sin do not go to heaven because they have turned their back on God and extinguished the life of grace in their souls by rejecting his will in a fundamental matter. (Documentation on all this available on request.)

If, after seeking appropriate pro-life counsel, you conclude that you need to avoid having children then this needs to be accomplished in a morally licit way, such as Natural Family Planning. The Couple to Couple League can help you get trained on how to do that.

Finally, I’d add a caution of a prudential nature: Many men who have vasectomies later repent and conclude that they shouldn’t have had them. Some, along with their wives, conclude that they really want children after all. Consequently, they undertake corrective surgery. However, the way corrective surgery for a vasectomy works, it is not always successful (leading to further heartbreak and anguished regret for the couple) and it often causes the man ongoing physical pain.

I therefore strongly urge you not to undertake an action that could so dramatically affect you life, both spiritually and physically.

Hope this helps, and God bless!

20

Observe This!

The British "newspaper" The Observer tells us the following:

Pope ‘obstructed’ sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

Jamie ("I’m too unqualified to hold my job") Doward, religious affairs correspondent

Sunday April 24, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI faced irresponsible know-nothing claims last night he had ‘obstructed justice’ after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidentialpublicly available letter, obtained in a death-defying feat of investigative journalism by The Observer by downloading it from the Vatican’s web site where it has been available for years [HERE, YOU MORONS], which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001 before the U.S. sex scandal even broke out.

It asserted the church’s right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors (gasp! next they’ll be wanting grand juries to do that!) and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthoodwhereas what we all know they should do is put the inquiries on CourtTV and hold regular press conferences and put all the humiliating charges and counter-charges out in public so we can sell more newspapers and have a media feeding frenzy and ruin the reputations of all involved by humiliating both innocent victims and priests who have been falsely accused. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II’s successor last week. (Dum! Dum! Dum!)

Please pay no attention to the fact that the document was part of the implementation effort for a set of norms that Pope John Paul II himself had just enacted nineteen days earlier in a letter [HERE/TRANSLATION WITH NORMS APPENDED], so Ratzinger was just doing what his boss told him to do. That shouldn’t get in the way of a good smear on the new pope.

Ambulance-chasing Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim without any foundation it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a ‘clear obstruction of justice’. Yes! By saying that the Church’s own internal investigation is to be secret, that totally prevents victims from contacting the police and reporting what happened to them. It stops them from obtaining their own civil legal representation. And it stops them from holding press conferences and explaining what happened. You can’t have both a closed-door internal Church investigation and a civil investigation at the same time. Everybody knows that!

The letter, ‘concerning very grave sins’, was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office <irrelevant historical smear>that once presided over the Inquisition</irrelevant historical smear> and was overseen by Ratzinger.

It spells out to bishops the church’s position on a number of matterswhich canonical crimes fall under the CDF’s jurisdiction, ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric ‘with a minor below the age of 18 years’. Ha! Fooled you, didn’t we! You thought this document was about the sex abuse scandal (which hadn’t yet broken out in the U.S.) and how to cover it up, when really it was simply a clarification of which crimes the CDF has jurisdiction over! Ratzinger’s letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been ‘perpetrated with a minor by a cleric’ and thus prevent the state from doing diddly about them–Not! It says that the CDF has jurisdiction over these cases as far as church law is concerned, saying nothing about what civil courts may do.

The letter states that the church’s jurisdictiontime that the CDF has to hear the case before its competence expires ‘begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age’ and lasts for 10 years. Which says nothing about how long the secrecy lasts, despite what we said in the second paragraph, and which is actually an increase in the amount of time that one normally has to file a complaint, which is normally only three years [SEE CANON 1362 §1].

It orders that ‘preliminary investigations’ into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office (Yes! He really said that! "Send them to my office! Don’t send them to anybody else. Send them to me only. Only I am to see them. Me. Me. Me."), which has the option if it feels like taking the afternoon off of referring them back to private tribunals in which the ‘functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests’–it being, of course, a bad idea to let priests be judged by "a jury of their peers."

‘Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,’ Ratzinger’s letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims whose lawyers are obviously incompetent. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims frivolously claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.

Daniel ("I’m too incompetent to address this matter") Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: ‘It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It’s an obstruction of justice.’

Canon law expert John Q. Obvious pointed out that the "clock" of when the complaint can be filed does not start "ticking" when "the kid turns 18." The "kid" can bring an action against the priest even if he is under 18 years of age. What the norms do is guarantee that he has until he is 28 to bring the action so that he isn’t forced to bring the action while he is still a child in order to get it heard.

Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea who used thumbscrews to wring the tearful and much-resisted admission out of him that the letter extendedclarified the church’sCDF’s jurisdiction and "control" (Dum! Dum! Dum!) over sexual assault crimes in terms of he Church’s internal law.

<guilt by association smear>The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church’s opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

‘In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,’ Bertone said. </guilt by association smear>

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. ‘They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases in terms of their own law. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can’t investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,’ Shea added. "Because obviously if a Church investigation is under way, or if the ecclesiastical statue of limitations has expired, that totally binds the hands of civil authorities. We’re living in a theocracy, after all. There’s no point in the victim contacting the civil authorities to report the matter. They’re powerless unless the Church allows them to do something here."

An unnamed and therefore sinister spokeswoman in the Vatican press office who obviously doesn’t hang out on the Vatican web site very much declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. ‘This is not a public document since you’d have to, like, go on the Internet to find it, so we would not talk about it,’ she said.

SHEESH!!!

MORE WISDOM FROM ED PETERS.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

To Coin A Dollar

…yet again.

Say what you like about the American spirit, one adjective that must describe it is persistent. Despite two failed attempts to interest Americans in the dollar coin, Congress is prepared to give the idea another stab. But will the third time charm? Given its history, I’d only be willing to bet a dollar coin.

"The recent history of the dollar coin in the United States is not a proud one.

"In 1979, the Treasury Department introduced the Susan B. Anthony dollar, and produced nearly one billion of them between 1979 and 1981.

"The Carter administration promoted it with a vengeance, calling it ‘the dollar of the future.’

"They hyped its cost-savings — metal lasts much longer than paper, so you don’t need to mint as often as you print.

"They hyped its subject — Anthony was the first woman (if you don’t count Lady Liberty) to appear on U.S. money since the early 19th century.

"They even hyped its design — the 11-sided polygon (a hendecagon) was meant to mark a clear difference between the coin and all others.

"Despite the fanfare, the public hated it. The Anthony dollar quickly became another quaint relic of the Seventies, like the AMC Pacer.

"In 1999, Treasury made another attempt at a dollar coin. This time, it honored the Shoshone woman who helped guide Lewis and Clark across the West.

"Boosters again made arguments about cost-savings and historical import. Americans again responded with vast national indifference.

"Three years after its introduction, a General Accounting Office poll found that 97 percent of American had not used the coin within the past month, and that 74 percent could not remember ever using one."

GET THE STORY.

CANADIAN YAHOOS: No Mass For You Prisoners!

In the wilds of Soviet Canuckistan one of their "superjails" (soon to be overflowing with Christians once the polit bureau makes Christianity illegal and starts packing the gulags) has barred a Catholic priest from being able to celebrate Mass for the prisoners.

Why?

‘Cause he’s gotta bring two ounces of wine into the prison in order to say Mass.

EXCERPT:

"We’re not bringing in a jug of wine, we’re not going to serve the consecrated wine to the prisoners," he said, adding that the wine is consumed only by the priest at jail services.

"But Catholic mass requires bread and wine, there’s no way around it. It’s black-letter law."

Indeed it is! The Code of Canon Law states:

The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed [Can.  924 §1].

It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration [Can.  927].

So. . . .

So much for Canada’s religious freedom and inclusivity.

Now what was that about a dictatorship of relativism?

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

This Week's Show (April 28, 2004)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • What is meant by the tiles "carinal bishop," "cardinal priest," and "cardinal deacon" that were used in the recent conclave?
  • Does the Church oppose "somatic stem cell research"? (NOTE: This question has important echoes later in the show.)
  • How do you pronounce "Louisville"?
  • Why is Acts 8:37 missing from some Bibles and why do those who lack it still have the verse number?
  • Was the canon of Scripture determined without Church councils so that we can say "Thanks for nothing!" for determining it?
  • Is Jimmy Akin a supercomputer?
  • What does Jimmy think about the "prophecy of St. Malachy" regarding the popes?
  • More on "somatic stem cell research."
  • Is the "Lamb of God" song with alternate lyrics (e.g., "Jesus, Bread of Life, you take away the sins of the world . . . ") approved?
  • Does the Catholic faith allow for the oscillating universe theory and the parallel worlds theory? Were Adam and Eve necessarily humans?
  • What about dioceses that require approval of all speakers who address groups where the local parish has advertised the event?
  • What about Thomas Merton’s later writings?
  • Could or would it have been appropriate for Benedict XVI to choose the name "Peter II"?
  • Are saint canonizations infallible?
  • What about individuals right now claiming to receive messages from Jesus or Mary regarding the new pope and other current events?
  • Why are Eastern Orthodox not considered Protestants?

This Week’s Show (April 28, 2004)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • What is meant by the tiles "carinal bishop," "cardinal priest," and "cardinal deacon" that were used in the recent conclave?
  • Does the Church oppose "somatic stem cell research"? (NOTE: This question has important echoes later in the show.)
  • How do you pronounce "Louisville"?
  • Why is Acts 8:37 missing from some Bibles and why do those who lack it still have the verse number?
  • Was the canon of Scripture determined without Church councils so that we can say "Thanks for nothing!" for determining it?
  • Is Jimmy Akin a supercomputer?
  • What does Jimmy think about the "prophecy of St. Malachy" regarding the popes?
  • More on "somatic stem cell research."
  • Is the "Lamb of God" song with alternate lyrics (e.g., "Jesus, Bread of Life, you take away the sins of the world . . . ") approved?
  • Does the Catholic faith allow for the oscillating universe theory and the parallel worlds theory? Were Adam and Eve necessarily humans?
  • What about dioceses that require approval of all speakers who address groups where the local parish has advertised the event?
  • What about Thomas Merton’s later writings?
  • Could or would it have been appropriate for Benedict XVI to choose the name "Peter II"?
  • Are saint canonizations infallible?
  • What about individuals right now claiming to receive messages from Jesus or Mary regarding the new pope and other current events?
  • Why are Eastern Orthodox not considered Protestants?

I Have A Prediction

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.