Well, hello there.. It's been a while, but now that I've parted company (on good terms and as friends) with The Cork Independent, I figure it's time to get this Blog going again. I'm going to try to post every few days on stuff that takes my fancy, floats my boat, or just makes my blood boil. On radio, you don't often get the chance to expand on things. It's all about being "tight, snappy and simple". I'm good at that, but I've often got more to say, and this is my chance to do it.
I thought I'd start it up again by writing about the new Pope. I'm not religious. My parents raised me in their Catholic faith, which means a lot to them, and I'm still a "card carrying" Catholic, if that's the right term, but I'm certainly not devout in any way! I go to Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, because I love it, but I get drunk and eat chicken wings with friends at a house party on a Good Friday night, because I love that too!
However, I've been fascinated with Vatican and Papal politics for as long as I can remember. It began, I think, when as a youngster, I was captivated by the whole sequence of events surrounding the death of Pope Paul VI, the election of Cardinal Albino Luciani as John Paul I, and his sudden death a month later. I was only about 12, but I was hooked.
I may have been only 19, but when David Yallop published his fantastic book, "In Gods Name" in 1984, outlining his theory that John Paul I was murdered, I read it in a single sitting. Similarly, when John Cornwell, in around 1989, wrote his book "A Thief In The Night", as an (ineffective) effort to disprove Yallops account, I devoured it. In between, I spent my Summer holidays in Wales, leafing through "Vicars of Christ", Peter de Rosa's brilliant 900 page tome on the history of the papacy. Even as a kid, those three books sowed for me, the seeds of an interest that I still have, even though no book since, I feel, has ever matched any of them. The Papacy is the single most politically powerful, and politically driven leadership on the planet, bar none.
Last evening, when I heard of the election of Pope Francis, I was surprised, but also intrigued. I had been expecting Cardinal Angelo Scola, of Milan, to be chosen. He is a close personal friend, and more importantly close in theological and philosophical views, to Benedict XVI. There were other contenders, a Brazilian, an American and a Canadian, but looking at the 'politics' of it, Scola should have been hard to beat. Bear with me and I'll explain why I believe this.
Lets deal with this, in the kind of terms we might apply to a regular political election. The electorate was 115. The quota is two thirds plus one vote, which rounding up the figures, comes to 77. of those, 67 were "created" by Benedict, and the remaining 47 by the late John Paul II. You can be as sure as night follows day, that Benedicts cardinals would support somebody he favoured. He was, for example, the choice of John Paul, and 'walked it' in 2005. However, with a quota of 77, there had to be at least ten from John Pauls cardinals!
So lets examine how this works. Balloting continues until somebody gets to 77 votes or more, which leads me to think that it went a particular way. I think it became clear very quickly that Scola, or any of the other "favourites" would be struggling to get to 77. After 5 ballots, I suspect the numbers weren't moving a great deal.
At this point, if a political party were selecting a leader, they would turn to a "compromise" candidate. That's what Fianna Fáil did, for example, when they chose Jack Lynch. So, who do you choose?
Here's where the 'real politick' kicks in.
In 2005, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina was the runner up to Benedict XVI (Josef Ratzinger). Yes, the conclave is meant to be secret, but this stuff gets out. I knew this, for example, as a "conclave junkie". What I wasn't aware of, though, and heard it only late last night on BBC Radio, was that in order to get Ratzinger over the quota (71, at the time, if I recall), Bergoglio, who knew his race was run, spoke to come close confidantes in the Sistine Chapel, and asked them to give his rival the nod. Great favours such as this, are never forgotten. That's politics, be it in a Town Council vote on bin charges, or a final ballot for the Papacy.
Given that the need may have emerged for a compromise yesterday, that favour from 2005, may well have been called in. John Pauls appointees would have remembered his gesture to Ratzinger, while those elevated by Benedict, did in a way, owe Bergoglio the favour too, for obvious reasons. You might say I'm reducing the whole thing to 'horse trading', but hey, thats's Politics. Once Bergoglio was then willing to take the gig, it was his.
An interesting and surprise selection? Certainly. A mystery? Not really, when you look at the machinations of how an election can work behind closed doors.
Finally, a word to those who wanted a Pope that would consider Women as priests, approve the marriage of gay or lesbian Catholics to each other, tell anyone its OK to take the pill or carry a rubber Johnny. You'll be waiting.
It was never coming out of this conclave, given that John Paul and Benedict were both deeply conservative men and had obviously appointed those of similar views. To expect anything else is like expecting Enda Kenny have appointed a Sinn Fein man to Cabinet!
The new man, Francis, is also a conservative - he was appointed by John Paul, and so I wouldn't be expecting any huge change there, either.
That's Politics for ya!
No comments:
Post a Comment