Articles
After Francis, Who?
Opinion | Articles | Chhotebhai | 23-Apr-2025
Focus now shifted to the Camerlengo (the papal custodian till the election of the new pope). It was now his duty to follow the guidelines for the election of a new pope as specified in Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 22/2/1996, with minor changes made by Pope Francis. The Camerlengo, after declaring the See vacant, had to give 15 days to a maximum 20 days notice to the cardinals to assemble in Rome for the Conclave[1].
There were several conditions pertaining to secrecy and any outside interference. Before the actual election process started there could be a fair exchange of views[2]. But the electors were forbidden to make promises in exchange of votes, even in private gatherings[3], and any kind of Simony (financial considerations) would result in latae sententiae excommunication[4].
For the Conclave all the Cardinal Electors would be housed in St Martha’s Hostel[5]. Once they entered the Sistine Chapel total secrecy would have to be maintained. The chapel would be sanitised for any audiovisual recording devices[6]. Nor would they be allowed access to any forms of communication that could influence their decisions[7]. The secrecy of the election process would have to be maintained even after the elections[8].
There was an elaborate process of checking, counting and scrutinizing the ballots. Voting would be by secret ballot. A two thirds majority was required for a person to be elected[9]. On the first day of voting there would be only one ballot, and subsequently two ballots a day[10]. All inconclusive ballots had to be burnt before the next ballot[11]. Even personal notes made by the electors during the balloting would be simultaneously burnt[12]. If after three days there was no result then there would be a one day break for prayer and discussion among the electors themselves. After 7 ballots there would a break, then again another 7 ballots[13]. If despite the process there was no two thirds majority, then only the two persons with the highest number of votes would remain in the fray, and whoever of those two got the highest votes, would be declared elected[14].
Such person would be asked to give his consent, and not refuse for fear or weight of office[15]. He would then be asked to state by which name he would like to be known[16]. Interestingly, nowhere in the electoral process is there mention of black or white smoke emanating from the chimney to indicate the outcome of the ballots. These were probably popular traditions that got added to the process.
Now that Pope Francis was no more, speculation was rife on his successor. There were comments on his papacy, but far from as critical as those for when Pope Benedict XVI had announced his resignation on 10th February 2013.
At that time the Agence France Presse (AFP) had described him as a “diehard traditionalist and a lightening rod of controversy”, one who had “rejected the ordination of women and marriage of priests”. He had “championed Christianity’s European roots” and had “fiercely opposed abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage” and had “reintroduced the long discarded Latin mass”. He had a “disastrous public relations record that got him into hot water with Muslims, Jews, gays, native Indians, Poles, AIDS activists and even scientists”. In September 2006 “he appeared to endorse the view of an obscure 14th century Byzantine emperor that Islam is inherently violent”.
The New York Times was equally scathing in its comments. It too described his papacy “as both conservative and contentious”. He had asserted that “Catholicism is true and other religions are deficient; in that the modern, secular world, especially in Europe, is spiritually weak, and that Catholicism is in competition with Islam”. CNN Rome noted that “Benedict’s time as pope has been marked with a series of scandals and controversies, including hundreds of new allegations of sexual abuse by priests”.
However, a non-Christian writer was more charitable, not so much to Benedict, but to the Catholic Church as an institution. Farrukh Dhondy described himself as a deeply sceptical cultural, non-ritualistic Zoroastrian”[17]. He opined that “Nothing becomes Benedict’s office as his leaving of it”[18]. He felt that “through his resignation he demonstrated for our sceptical times that the papacy is not a throne, but a grave responsibility”[19].
He had words of wisdom for the church. “No other religion in the world today has the means to boost such a humble and at the same time grand gesture. It is an affirmation by a man of faith of the sacrifice that faith teaches. The world knows that Roman Catholicism has been persecuted and was also a cruelly persecuting religion ... but it has settled down. It has no fundamentalists because it sees itself as fundamental. It has no jihadists, no terrorist training camps, no official crooks or conmen founding cults and making money, no badly managed rituals in which people are crushed to death”[20]. He concludes that “with enhanced respect, there is also a pontiff who resigns power through awesome humility”[21].
The Economic Times (ET) looked at the papacy or the Catholic Church from the economic point of view. Paris based business writer Bennet Voyles proffered some interesting information in the ET Magazine[22]. He says “The Church is still an enormous enterprise. Shuttered churches in Europe and the US may give the impression that the Church is fading away, but a look at its account books suggests otherwise. In the US alone, the “Economist” estimates, the church spends about 170 billion dollars on hospitals and other charities every year. More money that 495 of the Fortune 500 earn ... The church is the single largest land owner in Manhattan ... In Italy the church owned about 20% of all commercial real estate ... Worldwide estimates of church holdings were 177 million acres, which stitched together as a single parcel would amount to a country larger than France”[23]. So there was a lot more at stake than just doctrinal issues. So much for the followers of him who had said, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; the son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mat 8:20).
In contrast, criticism of Francis’ papacy was muted, probably because of his very lovable persona and life style that was indeed worthy of emulation. The questions were more along the lines of what Rev Desmond deSouza CssR had raised. “Was his papacy more a matter of style than substance? Had he walked to the edge of the river, then seeing the raging torrent, stepped back?” However, he left very little room for criticism from dispassionate observers. The fiercest criticism, as was to be expected, came from the well heeled conservative lobby.
Speculation for the next pope was rife. Even bookies got into the act; not having learnt their lessons. After Benedict’s resignation in 2013, “Paddy Power, Ireland’s largest bookmaker, is now offering 11/4 odds on Angelo Scola, Cardinal of Venice, 7/2 on Peter Turkson of Ghana, and 9/2 on Marc Ouellet of Quebec, Canada. Meanwhile, across the Irish Sea, Ladbrokes has Cardinal Turkson in the lead, followed by Marc Ouellet and Angelo Scola”[24]. They got it wrong.
A Reuters report in the Hindustan Times was titled “New Pope from Latin America, Africa?”[25] It observed that “the time may be coming for the Roman Catholic Church to elect its first non-European leader, and it could be a Latin American”[26]. Cardinal Kurt Koch of Zurich, Switzerland, had then said, “It would be good if there were candidates from Africa or South America”[27]. William Hall bookmakers had put odds of 2-1 on Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, 5-2 on Turkson, followed again by Ouellet. All wrong.
Even deSouza, who had served at the Vatican, was off the mark. Among the probables that he listed were Turkson again, followed by Monsengwo of Kinshasa, Robert Sarah from Guinea, all Africans; Luis Tagle of the Philippines, and five Latin Americans – Oscar Maradiaga of Honduras, Leonardo Sandri of Argentina, and three Brazilians – Odilo Scherer of Sao Paolo, Claudio Hummes and Joao de Aviz[28]. Nevertheless deSouza did have prophetic insight when he said “The cardinals will probably look for a pope who will retire after 10-15 years or so”[29]. This certainly proved true in the case of the one they chose – Francis.
The cardinal electors had gathered in Rome. They entered the Sistine Chapel. The seal of secrecy was imposed. The question this time was, not so much who, as from where? Again Europe and North America, the white supremacists, seemed to have been ruled out. The toss up was between another Latin American, African or Asian.
At the previous conclave the major concern was the credibility of the church, hence they chose a credible face like Bergoglio. Now the electors were looking for somebody with a background in moral theology and pastoral experience, not those sitting in curial bureaucratic offices. They were also deeply concerned about the catholicity (universality) of the church, rather than its Roman appendage.
Crowds gathered. TV Crews were looking for vantage points from where they could spot the chimney of the chapel, as also the balcony where the new pope would appear. After the 7th ballot, which was at noon on the third day, white smoke emerged from the chimney. A pope had been elected. The alacrity with which the choice was made indicated a great degree of consensus.
Before the Conclave began, the bookies were at it again. Among the hot favourites were Pietro Parolin (born 1955) the Italian, who was Secretary of State, Luis Antonio Tagle (1957) Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelisation from the Philippines, Reinhard Marx (1953) from Munich who was also the Co-ordinator for the Council of Economy, Baselios Thottunkal (1959) head of the Syro–Malankara Rite from Trivandrum, Joseph Tobin CssR (1952) from Newark USA, Angelo de Donatis (1954) the Vicar General of Rome, Miguel Guixot (1952) of Spain in charge of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, Jean-Claude Hollerich SJ (1958) from Luxemburg, Cristobal Romero Sdb (1952) from Rabat, Morroco and Diendonne Nzapalainga CSSp (1967) from the Central African Republic,. The odds on favourites were Parolin (Italy) and Tagle (Philippines).
Though the white smoke had emerged at noon, till 4 pm there was no sign of the Camerlengo emerging with his Latin announcement “Habemus Papam”. The crowd got restive to see the next man donning the white robes of the pope. Tradition had it that the Vatican tailor would always keep three sizes of papal robes ready, so that at least one would fit the new incumbent. At 5 pm the drapes parted and the Camerlengo appeared. There was a hushed silence and then joyous shouts of Viva il Papa. Instead of the traditional Latin, the Camerlengo used the local Italian to announce “Noi abbiamo un papa”. Was this in itself a portent of what was to come? Was the new pope an Italian after all? Oh the Holy Spirit and its surprises! Nothing white appeared; neither a white face, not a white garment. The face was ebony black, and the garment was a chocolate brown. The man to emerge on the balcony was Cardinal Fridolin Besungu, a Capuchin, from the archdiocese of Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, earlier known as Zaire or the Belgian Congo. It was the largest diocese in Africa.
(This is an abridged version. A few months after its publication, the relatively unknown Fridolin was made one of Pope Francis’ 9 advisors.)
______________
Reference
[1] UDG No 37
[2] Ibid No 81
[3] Ibid No 79
[4] Ibid No 78
[5] Ibid No 42
[6] Ibid No 51
[7] Ibid No 57
[8] Ibid No 60
[9] Ibid No 62
[10] Ibid No 63
[11] Ibid Nos 68/70
[12] Ibid No 71
[13] Ibid No 74
[14] Ibid No 75
[15] Ibid No 86
[16] Ibid No 87
[17] “Leaving Office Early”, Farrukh Dhondy, Hindustan Times dt 15/2/2013
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] Farrukh Dhondy
[21] Ibid
[22] “Punting on the New Pope”, Bennet Voyles, The ET Magazine dt 17-23/2/13
[23] Ibid
[24] Ibid
[25] Hindustan Times dt 12/2/13
[26] Ibid
[27] Hindustan Times dt 12/2/13
[28] “Glimpses into the Uniqueness of Recent Popes”, Desmond deSouza CssR, Pgs 41-43
[29] Ibid
Leave a comment
