Vatican City 2013 papal election

[Franknburger]

There is some speculation in the German press about Odilo Scherer (Sao Paolo, Brazil) being promoted by Benedict as his successor.

[Franknburger]

Cardinal Meissner, the head of the German congregation of Catholic Bishops, yesterday made a statement that the next Pope should preferably not be older than 70 years. From my understanding, this would exclude most of the Italian candidates.

To which extent Meissner only spoke for himself or was articulating considerations of certain other Germans within the Roman-Catholic leadership has remained unclear to me.

P.S: it is also rumoured here that it was the Italian "delegation" that provided the critical votes for Benedict's election, and they are currently reminding the German Cardinals on it.

P.P.S: Two new names in the press here: Christoph Schönborn (Vienna, a former student of Benedict), and Luis Antonio Tagle (Manila).

[Franknburger]

Out of curiosity, I checked on the 'electoral votes' by region:

Anglophone             17             (US 11, CAN 3, UK 1, IRL 1, AUS 1)
Latin America          19             (BRA 5, MEX 3, ARG 2, other South Am. 6, other Central Am. 3)
Asia & Africa           22             (IND 5,  other Asia 5, NIG 2, other sub-Sah. Africa 8, Mid-East 2)
Italy                       28
Other Europe          31             (D 6, E 5, F 4, P 2, oth. Western Eur. 4, PL 4, oth. Eastern Eur. 6)
Total                     117

Election requires 2/3rd majority (78 votes). This means that Italy, even though they are the largest voting block, cannot control the outcome. Asia, Africa & Latin America, with 41 combinded votes, on the other hand, are able to block any candidate they do not like.

If this develops into an "italian" vs. "non-European" power struggle, I would not be surprised to either see a North-American or a Spanish pope emerging as compromise candidate (note that 14 of the 22 Asian / African `delegates`are anglophone, vs. 5 frankophones).

Cardinals may, however, also base their vote on personality and positions ....

P.S: Figures corrected in line with ag's comment,

[Franknburger]

Husar is turning 80 two days too early, so "other European" adds up only to 31 (other Eastern Europe at 6) out of the total of 117. And 2/3 is 78, I think.

You are right. Thanks for the correction. My post above has been altered accordingly.

I took the list from this page (in German), without realising that they are using today, instead of the date of Benedict's retreat, to move Cardinals from "active" (voting right) to "passive". 

[Franknburger]

Still rooting for Schoenborn...

Nope. Benedict's retreat is a strong sign for juvenilisation, modernisation and change. With this sign, you don't go for somebody who is essentially Benedict 17.0. Schoenborn is being built up to scare in certain factions (though I don't have any idea who exactly is trying to scare in whom), but he will never make it.

[Franknburger]

Trying to read the tea-leaves:

Most of the traditional networks seem to be divided. The (Italian-dominated) Curia is described as being split into a "northern" (Scola) and a "southern" faction, whereby the southern faction appears to be primarily united by opposition against Scola and Bertone.
Similar splits exist among the congregations - Dominicans, as other more conservative congregations, rooting for Schoenborn, Franciscans preferring a more moderate candidate like Ravani.

When looking at the money, there is Opus Dei, who only have one Cardinal (Juan Thorne, Peru), but tons of influence in Italy, Spain and Latin America. They are still quite of a 'dark horse'. Italy's "Communione e Liberazione", howeever, seems to support Scola.
 
The Catholic Church in Germany is comparatively well-financed and, as a main financial contributor to the Vatican's activity, influencing more than just the vote of their 6 Cardinals. Cardinal Meissner, head of the German Bishops' congregation, is an outspoken enemy of Bertone. He has stated several times that the Church needs strong dual leadership (the Johannes Paul II / Ratzinger model, i.e. a 'representative' pope backed up by a theologically strong  secretary). I guess that could mean they would initially support Ravani, but altimately aim at a deal that elects a 'compromise candidate', and has Ravani replacing Bertone.

Last but not least, there is ongoing rumour of a gay network within the Church's upper levels. We will most certainly not see a gay pope anytime soon, but such a network, which should support moderate candidates, could nevertheless be influential.

Benedict's main confidants in the Conclave are Schoenborn, Scola, Erdö (Hungary) and Oullet (Canada). Oullet is probably too right-wing to become elected. However, if Paleobrazilian's  analogy to the October 1978 conclave turns to reality, which I feel is anything but unlikely, Erdö could ultimately make it. Considering that he is the Head of the European Bishop's Congregation, he has so far kept suspiciously low profile ..

[Franknburger]

That's EXACTLY what I've been thinking. Erdo has been my sleeper pick to win ever since this cycle begun.

Erdo is probably a bit more conservative than Wojtyla (he's an honorary doctor at an Opus Dei University).

Another point in his favour.

On his side, he's the President of the European Bishop's Confederation, so everyone knows him and the huge mass of European voters would probably be satisfied with him. I really wouldn't be surprised if the deal breakers come up with his name when the conclave becomes deadlocked after the 2nd day.

Corrected

Another potential compromise candidates I see are Cardinal Scherer (a residential cardinal that goes along very well with the Curia), Cardinal Bagnasco (who's flying under the Bertone-Sodano/Ravasi-Scola battle, quietly building his Third Way status), maybe Cardinal Sandri, maybe even a huge underdog like the Archbishop of Colombo, or Cardinal Pell from Sydney,

Scherer's name has been mentionned often and early, which is usually a bad sign. However, in principle it is time for a non-European pope, and Brazil has the largest non-European delegation. What are the rumours on your side of the ocean? To which extent could a Brazilian be able to mobilise support from Spanish-speaking Latin America?

[Franknburger]

So, basically,
if it's a short conclave it's either Ravasi or Scola.
But if it's a long one there's also Scherer, Bagnasco, Sandri, and Erdo, right?

I can't see it being a short conclave. The German delegation definitely wants Bertone out (they essentially blame the scandals of the last years on his 'mismanagement'), so they will do everything to make him look a weak conclave leader. Non-Europeans, if they don't get "their" pope, will try to at least get some issues settled in their favour (though I don't know what such issues could be). The Italian delegation should be split, and you have a number of 'long-shots' waiting for their chance, who should not be in favour of a quick decision.  If, in this setting, you get anybody elected by a two-thirds majority quickly, this amounts to a miracle.

[Franknburger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/conclave-22818/

So we now have to wait for the VP picks. I wonder whether there will also be a VP debate in the College of Cardinals

[Franknburger]

John L. Allen Jr. has been running a great series on the Papabili, which you can find here:

Very interesting. It seems the German delegation is not the only one to look for a strong 'package' (Pope plus Secretary), so much of the congregation discussion may be around putting together the best team in terms of mix of skills, geographical representation, and ideological balance.

[Franknburger]

The ideal would be a non-European reformist, but I'm not sure there is any one among the serious candidates.

Yes, I also have my dreams . But I think it is more realistic to either expect a non-European conservative (who does not scare off the Curia), or a European reformist (who gets support from outside Europe, but is deemed 'controllable' by the conservatives in the Curia).

There is two things I am quite sure we are not going to see: a) A European conservative à la Scola, and b) an outspoken non-European à la Oullet. If the Curia shall agree on giving up control (and that is one of the main issues within the European / non-European debate), they will need to be assured that the new Pope knows how to control his tongue. The last thing anybody in the Catholic leadership wants is more of the scandals and controversies of the recent years.

[Franknburger]

Latest rumours from here: The main reason for Benedict's retreat was a recent internal review of  the Vatican Bank's operations. The Bank has already for some time been under EU pressure to upgrade transparency to EU standards, otherwise the Bank may be banned from all financial operations on EU territory. Talk is about the bank having financed the mafia and terrorists. Insiders report that a major clean-up will be required, which Benedict felt too old to carry through. One of Benedict's last actions in office, however, has been sending Bertone's right hand, and the Bank's controller inside the Curia, as papal nuntius to Bogota. The Bank's situation was on the agenda of yesterdays pre-conclave Cardinals meeting.

If the issue is as serious as it appears, that should not bode too well for any Italian candidate. Otherwise, Oullet and O'Malley are now also getting mentioned by the German press, alongside with Scola, Scherer and Turkson.  Does any of them (or any other papable Cardinal) happen to have a banking background?

[Franknburger]

Latest rumours in the German press: There is increasing fear of the conclave splitting into several factions, each one with a strong but insufficient voting block. One new name: Francisco Robles Ortega (Mexico). If this is more than just somebody's unqualified guess, it could signify the attempt to unite the Anglo-American and Latin-American blocks behind one candidate in order to prevent Scola.

[Franknburger]

Alright, so I was wrong. What do I know, after all.

Me too. Admitting it.

So was I. Anyway, seems we still have some 20 minutes for the final bets. I take Erdö.

[Franknburger]

Hearing reports that Karl Rove is still holding out and suggesting the conclave take back their call until the provisional ballots can be counted.

Too late - the ballots have already been burnt.

[Franknburger]

I would say:

40% Ouellet
35% Scola
25% Maradiaga

You need to pick one with at least 66.7 %

[Franknburger]

No, that is the rule for electing popes

[Franknburger]

I'd like it to be Schönborn.

Schönborn is a Bohemian of old, correct?

Wikipedia sais his family is old nobility from north of Frankfurt. He was born in Bohemia.

[Franknburger]

According to German Wikipedia, in 1743 the Schönborn family held 7 bishop seats in Germany.

[Franknburger]

To me, this Papal election was about three options:

1.) Institutional reform, first of all with respect to the Vatican Bank's governance, and - in a broader sense - the Curia's general management style & system in relation to various scandals. This could have also included a review of priests' celibacy, acknowledging that forbidding marriage increases the risk of priests having non-heterosexual preferences. This option was, among others, preferred by German Cardinals, and probably also quite popular in the North American delegation. Would require a younger, energetic Pope (e.g. Schönborn) to see it through.

2.) Inclusion / outreach: A (mildly) politicised church, sensitised towards poverty, especially in the Third World, advocating peaceful conflict resolution, searching inter-confessional dialogue, etc.  For obvious reasons preferred by many non-Europeans.

3.) Status quo (when considering that Benedict has already acted to some extent in the inclusion / outreach direction, you might even label it 'reaction'): Business as usual for the Curia, under European, preferably Italian leadership. Maybe I am unjust to the man (whom I know little about), but for me Scola signified this option.

The chosen option, namely inclusion / outreach, is obvious. That is first of all positive, because it means that advocates of status quo did not have a majority.

On the other hand, looking at Franciscus,  I wonder how much of institutional reform he will be able and willing to push through. That he was elected so quickly makes me suspect that the status quo faction decided to better give in to the "non-Europeans" than to risk that a real reformer gets elected.  It also sets a nice precedent for Scola - contender gives in, a Pope in his late 70s is elected, dies (or steps down) after a few years, and then it is that contender's turn.

in any case, Franciscus deserves to be given at least the first one hundred days in office before any assessment of his policies is made. A crucial issue will be, whether he maintains Bertone as Secretary, or selects a credible "institutional reformer" cum manager for this position. Only then we will be able to see, whether his election is actually a sign for reform, or just serves as cover-up for continuing business as usual.

[Franknburger]

Unfortunately, we won't be able this time to produce a voting map

[Franknburger]

Not good;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294580/Special-report-The-damning-documents-new-Pope-DID-betray-tortured-priests-junta.html

Definitely not! Though, also not as bad as it could have been (he has remained below the radar of Amnesty International and Argentinian investigators). People can admit and learn from their mistakes  - let's see if he does ..

[Franknburger]

Apparently Franz Jalics (one of the 2 priests that Bergoglio supposedly denounced) issued a statement in the German Jesuits website where he categorically denies Bergoglio having any involvment in his kidnapping.
He says that at first the7y were inclined to think someone denounced them but later, in the 90's, he realised it wasn't the case (at least as far as Bergoglio is concerned).

Here is the statement in Germany, if someone could translate at least part of it, he'll be doing us a huge favor (don't really trust Google Translate )

http://www.jesuiten.org/aktuelles/details/article/erganzende-erklarung-von-pater-franz-jalics-sj.html

Alright, here a translation for the non- German speakers (I skip the introductory first paragraph):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While the statement is pretty clear in denying Bergoglio's direct involvement, it does not comment on his role with regards to the "rumours". One wonders why Franz Jalics in this context separately speaks of the "Jesuit community" (headed by Bergoglio) and "the church".
The statement also does not include any comments on the allegation in the Daily Mail article, Bergoglio's direct intervention had resulted in Argentine authorities denying renewal of Jalic's passport.

I furthermore read Jalic's initial statement of March 15. It gives a more detailed description of the situation before and after his arrest, without any reference to Bergoglio other than that he had agreed to Jalic taking residence in the slums. The March 15 statement closes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.jesuiten.org/aktuelles/details/article/erklarung-von-pater-franz-jalics-sj.html

In short: Jalics was not happy about Bergoglio's role in the events, but has forgiven him. Whatever Bergoglio did (or did not do), it was not so grave that Jalics considers it as a fundamental burden to papacy.