Jimmy Akin

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."

I’m writing this note before the conclave, and it’s likely to be moot by the time it goes up on Thursday, but here goes.

A reader writes:

i am practicing catholic from india. your statement that a layman could become a pope is very confusing i am a married person with 2 children do you think that i could become a pope if 2/3rd of the cardinals vote me as the pope. more over which cannon law allows a person who has not taken celebecy to become a pope. we also request that you dont make such irresponsible statements about the catholic faith which is followed by millions of catholics in the world

I appreciate your concern for accuracy and for not misleading the faithful, but I think that there has been a bit of a miscommunication here.

Any discussion of the possibility of a layman being elected pope in this day and age is purely hypothetical. There is basically no chance whatsoever that this would happen in today’s environment. For the sake of accuracy, though, I note that it is a hypothetical possibility.

Canon law expressly provides for the situation in which a non-bishop is elected pope. It says that if a non-bishop is elected pope then he is to be consecrated as a bishop immediately. This provision of canon law does not restrict the election of a pontiff to priests. It simply refers to him not being a bishop. Therefore, he could be a priest, a deacon, or a layman.

There is also nothing in canon law or other lay preventing the cardinals from electing a man who is married or has children. They would never do so in real life at this point in Church history, but there is nothing in canon law stopping them from doing so. If they really felt that a married layman with kids was the best person to lead the Church, they are empowered to elect such a person.

Indeed, in Universi Dominici Gregis, John Paul II exhorted them, saying:

Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way [SOURCE].

There are no restrictions on that. The only restrictions that would exist would be one that of their nature prevent one from being consecrated a bishop. That means that women could not be elected (or that such an election would be invalid), but it is possible in principle–even though it is rare in the Latin church–to be married still receive holy orders.

Indeed, Scripture seems to indicate that the first pope was that way.

So if the cardinals did give you a two-thirds vote, you would be validly elected pope.

I think you have nothing to fear in regard to this possibility, though. It would be very foolish for the cardinals to elect any layman today, for it would be very, very bad for the Church. Consequently, they will not do so.

Although I’ve been a Catholic for nearly a decade now, in many ways this past month I have felt like a baby Catholic.  And, despite the sorrow for John Paul II and the joy for Benedict XVI, mostly I’ve felt like a baby greedily sucking in the drama, the pageantry, the history, and — most of all — the world reaction.

I may or may not have more to say later about certain reactions from non-Catholics, but what has impressed me the most is how important the past month has been to the world.  The world has known that something monumental has been happening in its midst and it has been watching.  While we might quibble with or heckle down some of the watchers’ commentaries, I think it says something significant about the Catholic Church that this transition has meant so much worldwide to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Can you imagine anything like this surrounding a shift in leadership in any other religion — Christian or non-Christian — anywhere else in the world?  The only possible comparable might occur when the Dalai Lama passes on, but I think much of that will be because of his personal appeal to the world; it won’t be because of the office he holds.  In other words, while many around the world will genuinely and sincerely mourn the Dalai Lama, I doubt there will be much worldwide speculation on who will succeed him.  There certainly won’t be an equivalent to this past week’s coverage of the Vatican and the election of the new Pope.  And it is astounding that the only marginal comparable of which I could fathom is a man who is not only a non-Christian but also a non-monotheist.  No other Christian or non-Christian, monotheistic or non-monotheistic, religion offers a worldwide office and leader of such importance to the secular or religious world.

It says something of the importance of the Church and the papacy to the world that the world knows that these are events of such monumental importance that they must be covered in-depth.  There may be fundamental disagreements between the world and the Church, between the world and the Pope; but the Church and the Pope will never be irrelevant to the world.  And, for me, that is confirmation that Christ is still active in the world today and that the world subconsciously recognizes him in the Catholic Church.

For a baby Catholic like me, that’s a huge comfort.