Whether or not you are a Roman Catholic, the office of the Pope matters to Christians because the Pope has great influence over more than a billion of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
The first thing I read when I awoke this morning was news that hasn’t been reported since 1415: the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has resigned. The Pope has cited advanced age as the reason for his decision. Immediately, this raises a very important question: Who is going to be the next Pope?
As with a President (or King in some countries), a new Pope’s arrival is accompanied by various expectations from people who think the RCC should move this direction or that. While Benedict XVI was a very able theologian and pastoral figure, I have noticed that he wasn’t as beloved as Pope John Paul II (at least in my circles). I am not familiar enough with Roman Catholic theology to know whether this or that complaint is true, but I did hear many argue that Benedict XVI wasn’t moving forward in the spirit of Vatican II.
This raises questions for me. Roman Catholic readers, what do you want to see in the next Pope? Orthodox readers? Protestant readers? What are some hopes you hold for the Papacy that are likely or possible?
Would it change your perspective of the RCC (for outsiders) if the next Pope came from North America, Latin America, or Africa. The three names that emerged immediately are Cardinal Marc Ouellet from Canada, Cardinal Peter Turkson from Ghana, and Cardinal Leonardo Sandi from Argentina (see the full “odds” here). Would a non-European Papacy mean something different than a European Papacy?
the archives near Emmaus 
I’d love to see a non-European pope. Their family is bigger than just one continent.
I agree.
I can’t say it would “change my perspective” of the RCC to have a non-european pope. But I do think it would signal something significant which has long been developing, in Christianity as a whole as well as the RCC: the center of “gravity” (and now maybe somewhat of formal power) shifting southward. Whether or not it would mean more return toward Vatican II reforms and direction I don’t know. Especially if an African were Pope, I would doubt it, but that WOULD probably bring relations with Muslims to the fore somewhat. (This is a big area that eventually the RCC, along with Protestantism and probably Orthodoxy, will have to face… Will they/we look to the Copts or other African Christians for insights?)
That is an important observation. A Pope from Africa or Latin America may bring a very particular set of concerns with him to Rome. Islam and the Coptic Church would be concerns for an African Pope. A Latin American Pope may investigate how the RCC relates to emerging Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity.
If the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the largest growth in Christendom is happening outside the first world, European countries and also admits that the primary growth of the Church is happening among evangelical free church forms, it would behoove them to consider a non-European Pontiff.
I’m especially keen on the idea of Cardinal Turkson. He seems to have a unique opportunity and could help redirect the course of the Roman Church (which is lurching towards oblivion.)
For what it’s worth, I’ve always appreciated Pope Benedict XVI. I dealt with some of ecclesiology some years ago and found him refreshing (though we disagree on a few things.) He’s been a good Pontiff. This is a truly important moment for the Roman Church and one which will be remembered in history.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks. I think, however, the issue of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II talk is misleading. First off, B16 will be the last Pope elected who actually attended the Council. Secondly, this issue of seeing changes in the Church, ie women’s ordination, views on marriage, and contraceptives/abortion, are not going to change. I think people have this idea that a new/different pope can just change whatever he wants, but that simply is not going to happen.
So I think it is helpful over these next few weeks to not only consult secular media for information, Catholic media, which has a better pulse on these things, should be considered as well.
Garet
I’m not familiar with Turkson, other than the mention of his name. Care to expound a bit on why he may make a good Pope?
Timothy
I can see how Vatican II language can be abused. I don’t expect women’s ordination in the RCC, but maybe married priests? Wasn’t there a compromise with Anglican priests wanting to leave Canterbury for Rome?
FWIW, Catholic theologian Scott Hahn posted this on Facebook today:
Back on April 29, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI did something rather striking, but which went largely unnoticed.
He stopped off in Aquila, Italy, and visited the tomb of an obscure medieval Pope named St. Celestine V (1215-1296). After a brief prayer, he left his pallium, the symbol of his own episcopal authority as Bishop of Rome, on top of Celestine’s tomb!
Fifteen months later, on July 4, 2010, Benedict went out of his way again, this time to visit and pray in the cathedral of Sulmona, near Rome, before the relics of this same saint, Celestine V.
Few people, however, noticed at the time.
Only now, we may be gaining a better understanding of what it meant. These actions were probably more than pious acts. More likely, they were profound and symbolic gestures of a very personal nature, which conveyed a message that a Pope can hardly deliver any other way.
In the year 1294, this man (Fr. Pietro Angelerio), known by all as a devout and holy priest, was elected Pope, somewhat against his will, shortly before his 80th birthday (Ratzinger was 78 when he was elected Pope in 2005). Just five months later, after issuing a formal decree allowing popes to resign (or abdicate, like other rulers), Pope Celestine V exercised that right. And now Pope Benedict XVI has chosen to follow in the footsteps of this venerable model.
Brian,
Married priests are certainly possible, since it isn’t a dogmatic issue, but one of discipline. There are already married priests in the Catholic Church, if you consider those Anglicans and other converts who have entered full communion. Plus there are some married priests in the Eastern Rite churches.
My friend JohnDave Medina (a Roman Catholic who blogs here, sometimes) told me a bit about how the Eastern Rite Churches had married priests. I think allowing married priests could go a long ways toward repopulating the priesthood.
I’m not sure it matters much, but must admit surprised at the good judgement this pope is showing …
… And since no-one has yet joked on the matter, does that mean he will become known as ‘Ex-Benedict’?
Re JohnDave’s comments – Married Anglican priests are also allowed to convert and maintain their ‘frock’.
What do you all think about the supposed prophecies of St Malachy? http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/20116
I think it would be a good move to have an non-western pope, it would be more representative of the global church and a recognition that whirs are the only folks who can be leaders in the church.
As for the prophecy, I wouldn’t waste any money in Vegas on it.
Brian,
Truthfully I don’t know enough about Cardinal Turkson to speak on him at length. What I have encountered up until now has been positive. His elevation to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was noteworthy as it seems to indicate his close ties to Pope Benedict XVI. Though I’m sure we’ll (that is the entire media driven first world) learn far more about him soon enough, he does seem to be an energetic and reasonable voice from a part of the world where Catholicism is still relevant and (somewhat) growing. As we are seeing the Roman Church beginning to have to address their decline, Cardinal Turkson might be the right voice for helping them reframe and refocus. Outside of those random thoughts I don’t have much else to contribute about him.
There seems to some consistency in who the media at least is choosing to be possible replacements
Non Catholic opinion here. I have admired Benedict myself. Moreso than John Paul, I felt Benedict demonstrated a better grasp of the Scriptures.
Praying the Catholic cardinals do elect a non European(ethnic). Christ is growing elsewhere, it’s past time the face of the Church universal isn’t white and I’m white as snow personally.
Since I see us all as brothers in Christ, I want them to do as well as they can and this with me would mean some more internal changes for the better.
Re: choosing a European vs non-European pope – it matters not to me … I try neither to select nor exclude based upon something so superficial. That said, anyone who says they prefer a non-European is making a racist statement – just like someone who says they prefer a non-African (non-Asian). If race doesn’t qualify one to do a job, it shouldn’t disqualify them either.
Also race doesn’t effect one’s ability to be rational, competent, correct or true, so to prefer someone because of their race based upon the notion that being of a particular race lends them a certain perspective, is really nothing but an appeal to how ‘race’ limits us – since race has no effect on ‘truth’, ‘competence’, ‘correctness’, or ‘reason’. To prefer a candidate because of race is really only an expression of preference in ‘racial’ short-comings.
It is amusing that the most vocal anti-racists are often the most racist when it comes to things like this … (hypocrites).
The point about a non-European Pope is that of representation for a global communion, not race as qualifying characteristic. The RCC has chosen a European for political/doctrinal reasons over the years. Many are asking whether these political/doctrinal talking points have changed across the global communion, and if it would make more sense for someone who represents the changing face of the communion to become Bishop of Rome.
Brian, I understand the false logic. Effectively, your saying another European cannot do the job because of their ethnicity. Simply saying the next person who fills the job cannot have a certain skin colour is the worst type of bigotry.
If the next pope is European, that background represents the global communion as well or as poorly as every other .. (It’s not the next people’s fault who proceeded him or how many. Also, there are no valid reason to exclude someone on their skin colour or origin since these things have no bearing bearing on a persons ability to do the job. The only reason to select a person on criteria such as this are racial preferences.)
Or it doesn’t, in which case the next pope should not be Asian, since an Asian pope would not effectively represent a global communion, using the same logic.
The point is if race doesn’t matter it shouldn’t matter. However by disqualifying candidates simply because of their ethnic background, their color (or lack of color) in their skin, it shows race matters, in which case no one has the right to castigate others for not sharing their particular prejudices ..
Actually, I am not saying that another European cannot do the job because of ethnicity. That is something I didn’t say, at all, anywhere. Likewise, this isn’t saying that someone cannot have “the job” because of “skin color” (all Europeans have the same skin color?), so I’m not sure where you read that. It is simple: people who come from particular parts of the world appreciate being represented by someone who knows their culture, and language, and so forth when part of a group that has a global presence. There is nothing wrong with people suggesting that a Pope from Africa or Latin America may provide a helpful corrective to a Vatican that has been focused on the concerns of Europe (since it is natural for a Pope to represent the concerns of the region from which said Pope derives).
Ok. If skin-color neither makes one more or less qualified to do a job it’s not clear what benefit there is in pandering to people’s natural racial preferences. If anything pandering to racial preference is reinforcing racism because it suggests prejudicing based upon race so ‘ok’.
Who said anything about race? No one said the Pope should be from a particular race. Regional/cultural/ideological representation doesn’t equate to race.
Your point is a moving target, I’m afraid. If you’re not arguing about ‘race’, but regional/cultural/ideological attributes, is the goal to make the Universal Apostolic Church, less universal by reflecting the flavours of humanism, or to make it reflect the eternal God by acting as a universally ordained priesthood charged with global evangelism. Its not clear whether you see the priesthood as humanistic or Holy. If the Church’s goal is to reflect the social norms of Catholic nations by acting as cultural ambassadors, it isn’t represent the eternal priesthood of a God engaged in a Great Commission.
I suppose if the role of the Church is to proselytize for Humanism – it should reflect the image of man so yes – regional/cultural/ideological representation is important for making the Church reflect the object of its worship. However, if the role of the Church is to represent God in the world, and God’s truth is universal and objective – its not clear how regional/cultural/ideological norms have anything to do with it. Shouldn’t the cultural/ideological norms of such a church be biblical, rather than cultural, and universal rather than regional. On the one hand race is being disclaimed as a selection criteria, while on the other it is being said the candidate should be ‘from a particular region’ (other than Europe in an apparently racist sense). So what does it matter where these guys are from, if race doesn’t matter? Don’t these guys move around?
Even so, let’s suppose that the goal were to have the position reflection regional ‘flavours’. Who would best represent Latin America? How about the one currently charged with representing Latin America currently as president of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America (especially if he’s been doing the job for a while now). How about Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who arrived at the Vatican from Central America after spending many of his formative missionary years there as a priest there, and apparently has a huge affinity for the region?
He’d likely be a better representative for the region than any of the Latino Cardinals since he’s already been doing the job, managing the issues. If race doesn’t matter, why couldn’t a white French-Canadian represent Latin America as pope given his impeccable credentials? Voilà – regional/cultural/ideological representative in a pope, for Central America (who happens to be another white guy)?
Media usually gets it wrong but here is a really nicely written, balanced piece on the matter (British journalism most surprisingly).