Prescience or Bust. Inasmuch as in the blog entry below (posted earlier tonite) I predict that Tom DeLay will step down or be forced out as House Majority Leader sometime soon, I might as well put myself out on a limb again and predict who will be elected the next Pope, and, as a further reckless fillip, what name he will take.
+
It seems to me that the very best choice would be Argentina's Jorge Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires. His election would do a number of things of great use to the Vatican.
+
It would give the Western Hemisphere its first pope. This hemisphere comprises fully half the Catholic world (or a shade more), and 3 of the top 4 most populous Catholic countries on the planet are in the Western Hemisphere.
+
Brazil is No. 1, Mexico No. 2,and the U.S. No. 4. (No. 3 is the Philippines, in Asia, another region that has never had a pope. Perhaps the Philippines' Cardinal Sin (no joke; that's really his name: Jaime L. Sin, archbishop of Manila) would be a good choice, if the Church wants to stay within the Old Hemisphere.
+
The only European country in the top 5 is Italy, at No. 5. Tho the Catholic population in the U.S. and Italy are relatively stagnant, numbers are increasing by leaps and bounds in Latin America and Africa, but given the large numerical advantage Latin America starts with, comparable rates of growth for the two areas mean that Latin America leaves Africa in the dust.
+
Observers suggest that it is not possible that an American (U.S. citizen) could be elected pope, because the U.S. is the planet's sole superpower. Why should that rule out a man as agreeable as Washington's Cardinal McCarrick, who used to be archbishop in my own city, Newark? Who better to balance the secular power of a superpower than a spiritual leader from that very superpower?
+
OK. Let's concede that the world's cardinals are most unlikely to elect an American to be pope. What about a Canadian, a proxy-American? Dubious, and partly for the very reason that he might be seen as an American in Canadian clothing.
+
Well, what about someone from the world's biggest Catholic country, Brazil? São Paulo's archbishop, Cardinal Claudio Hummes — or Claudio Cardinal Hummes; one sees both formulations nowadays; which is preferred by the cognoscenti? — is prominently mentioned in the press, and seems a good choice. Latin America has worried the Vatican for "liberation theology", and Hummes might be very effective in fighting that Marxist-influenced movement, mainly by being the strident advocate for the poor that he has indeed been.
+
But the Italians want the papacy back! They had it for 455 years before that interloping Pole intruded into their unbroken dominance of the Church, and they want to take back what they regard as rightfully theirs.
+
So perhaps the best of all possible worlds for the cardinals would be to choose someone from the Western Hemisphere who is of Italian ancestry and old enuf that he will not be expected to last more than 12 years or so.
+
We have a winner! The archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, is Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio: a 68-year-old Latin American of Italian ancestry! He actually was born in Italy!
+
To elect Bergoglio the next pope would solve all the problems and reconcile all the major competing interests: 'north' vs. 'south', First World vs. Third World, Italians vs. Anybodyelse. Bergogliois also from a large Catholic country (34 million adherents), but only No. 10 on the list. That would avoid resentment among the smaller Catholic countries regarding special treatment for the large Catholic countries.
+
So, if one were to regard the upcoming conclave as a (white-)smoke filled room, I would put my money ($1.25) on Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio to be the next pontiff and to be a sensational success. Should I also bet on the name he'll take? One is tempted to think "Pope John Paul III", but I'll bet otherwise. That's two bets, now: (1) that the College of Cardinals will choose an Argentinian of Italian ancestry to be pope, and (2) that the new pope (even if not Bergoglio) will choose a name other than John Paul III. How much more do I feel like pushing my luck?
+
Let me guess the name the next pope will choose. There's a serious discussion of this on the Internet at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/name.asp and a hilarious discussion at http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=007523. "Peter" is apparently forbidden by tradition. Peter is the "rock" upon which Jesus established his church. There has never been a "Peter II", and any newly elected pope who offered that name would stun the Church.
+
Let me add my two cents. How about "Innocent"? Given that the Church has been branded as, essentially, evil for 'co-conspiring' in the priestly sex-abuse scandal in the U.S. and elsewhere (I won't go into my hostility to that crap, some of the "victims" having (gladly) participated in "abuse" for YEARS at a time), "Innocent" might seem a good choice — or would it be more like a plea bargain?
+
OK, then, how about "Matthew"? A British betting website offers 16/1 odds against it. How many popes Matthew have there been? None.
+
Matthew is the apostle for whom the first book of the New Testament is named. If a new pope wanted to signal a new beginning for the Church of Rome, he could not do better than "Matthew".
+
Neither Matthew nor, oddly, Mark nor Luke, has ever been used for the name of a pope. However, "John", the name of the author of the fourth gospel, has been used 23 times, alone, and twice in combination (the last Pope, John Paul II and his predecessor, John Paul I! Isn't that odd!?
+
So, I am betting on the old name "Innocent" as my first choice (the last one being Innocent XIII, who died in 1724, almost 300 years ago), and "Matthew" as my second choice (and personal favorite), even tho, or perhaps especially because, there has never been a Pope Matthew.
+
My total bet on this, then, to all challengers, is $1.25. That is not $1.25 per bettor, but $1.25 total. I don't believe in predicting the future. I want everyone to accept that the future is unknowable. Still, we always want to prove how smart we are — which, alas, also often points out how smart we aren't.
+
No one knows how 117 cardinals will vote, so being wrong won't much embarrass me. Being right, however, would be quite a coup, wouldn't it?
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 8:24 AM