When writing on an unfolding story one runs the risk of being overtaken by developments if its publication is delayed. Despite that we journos must be like the fools that enter where angels fear to tread.
Five years ago I had made a prediction about Pope Francis’ successor in my book “The Jerusalem Code”. I was wrong. I had sent an extract titled “After Francis Who?” on 23rd April, just two days after Francis’ passing on. This was followed by “Pedestalizing Pope Francis” on 5th May, before the Conclave began, and the day after the new pope was elected I wrote “White Smoke, Dark Clouds, Silver Lining”. That covered Operation Sindoor too. In between I had sent an email appeal to the Indian cardinal electors, pleading for a more catholic (universal) church that would be best epitomized by an African pope.
I draw consolation that though my choice/ preference for the new pope was way off the mark, there were many things that I had expressed that are turning out to be true. It is inconsequential that all the big Vatican watchers were also wrong with their papal predictions.
There are two points that I reiterate from my previous articles. One, that Francis could be quietly pedestalized. Two, that Pope Leo XIV would be a highly effective “soft power”. Had the new pope chosen to be called Francis II, I would not have feared pedestalization. However, reverting to a name unused for over a century did make me feel uneasy.
Let me contrast this with earlier papal elections. After Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, their successor chose to be called John Paul I, quickly followed by John Paul II. They were signalling both respect and continuity. Hence the choice of Leo XIV still leaves me bewildered. Devout Catholics will just parrot the work of the Holy Spirit. But I am a doubting Thomas. If Leo replaces most of Francis’ appointees with his own choices (he is well within his rights to do so), then I fear that the new Pentecost of John XXIII and subsequently of Francis, could very easily be pedestalized.
As for “soft power” I shall dwell on that later. For now, as an investigative journalist, I am still asking questions about the papal elections. What factors went into the choice? Here again the “faithful” could challenge me for questioning the work of the Holy Spirit. However, some commentators on my previous articles have also dared to ask poignant questions about the human aspects of the elections.
Going by the history of papal elections (I touched briefly on it in a previous article) there is every reason to question the human and even inhuman factors that have gone into previous elections. I will not repeat that. Let it suffice to say that nature abhors a vacuum; so does the Holy Spirit. It works in existing human realities. Even Vatican II, when speaking of sacred scripture that is often referred to as the Word of God, or Gospel Truth, has this to say: “For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse” (DV 13). So it is the Voice of God in the Words of men. Even in the incarnation we see that he who was filled by the Holy Spirit (Jn 1:32-34), nevertheless experienced human frailty, doubt, fear and despair (Mat 26:39-42).
Hence the human factors cannot be negated. This doesn’t mean that I doubt the work of the Holy Spirit. I am just questioning how much the cardinal electors were open to its working. Such awkward questions need to be asked. I have read several articles/ watched videos on these developments that embolden me to dig deeper. Further down the line, the appointment of unworthy or mediocre bishops makes one wonder whose choice they were?
My choice of Capuchin Cardinal Fridolin Besungu of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the head of the African bishops, and one of Francis’ 9 advisors, was based largely on the need of recognising the most vibrant church, that of Africa. That is now history.
However, what was really surprising was the non-election of Cardinal Luis Tagle of the Philippines, considered a front runner. Various reports, in hindsight, claimed that his influence had waned. As a media darling he was too popular to get elected. He was incapable of taking tough decisions and he got caught up in the Caritas International scandal. I know of one instance of his inability to assert his authority. On 15/8/2020 he had ordered Bp K.A. William of Mysore to undergo a paternity test. Despite several reminders from the diocesan clergy, he was unable to do so.
As for media popularity, I find that argument specious. After John Paul II’s death the panzer cardinal, as he was then called, was the front runner, and he got elected choosing the name of Benedict XVI. Hence there is more than meets the eye in papal elections.
There was also near universal agreement that an American (USA) could never be elected, because one could not afford such a concentration of power. Yet an American did get elected, defying all odds. Again, in a previous article I had conjectured that after a stormy John XXIII came a sagacious Paul VI; and possibly in the same mould the electors found a safe bet in Robert Prevost of Chicago.
I believe that human elements did play a part. Leo would have been acceptable to the white faces, as also the South American ones, because of his Peruvian missions. The new cardinals from the peripheries like Mongolia and Papua New Guinea would have been overwhelmed by the white lobby and the African/ Asian numbers didn’t add up. When the famous “Habaemus Papam” announcement was made I saw our Cardinal Filipe Neri with a wide grin. But the African cardinals looked glum and the other Asian cardinals were not to be seen.
The foregoing is in no way intended to belittle the new pope. Per se, it is not about him, but about the secret process adopted. We know that Trump hallucinated about being the next pope (did he know about celibacy) while also rooting for Cardinal Dolan of New York. So let us not pretend that the American deep state was not involved. Where it backfired was in choosing the “wrong” American!
This brings me to Cardinal Prevost. Other than the Chicago and Peruvian angles, what has now emerged is his “black” lineage. In the USA this term is not derogatory. When I first saw Prevost on the balcony I noticed that he was not Tinopal white. His colour is what Indian matrimonial ads describe as a “wheatish complexion”. His maternal grandfather Joseph Martinez was born in Haiti, a Caribbean island sandwiched between Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The Caribbean was populated by African slaves and indentured Indians. The latter were known as “People of the Agreement” colloquially called Girmitiyas, while the Africans were called Creoles. In the USA their landing point was New Orleans, to where the Prevost family migrated. In the 1900 census they were enumerated as Black. Even today Prevost is a common surname in New Orleans. So even if we didn’t get an African pope we can still say that Leo XIV has African roots!
This may assuage the feelings of Captain Ibrahim Traore, the interim President of Burkina Faso (earlier known as Upper Volta) in sub-Saharan Africa. He had written a very challenging letter to Leo, questioning the exploitation of Africa by the colonialists, and by default the church. Let me here warn readers of a fake video purported to be Pope Leo’s response to Traore.
Finally, let us study some of Leo’s pronouncements. In his first address he, inter alia, spoke of synodality, collegiality and sensus fidei (sense of the faithful). He spoke for the weak and discarded (the periphery in Francis’ lingo) and called for dialogue and engagement with the contemporary world. This was music to my ears, in continuity and sync with Francis.
When he addressed 6000 journalists he said that the Vatican and journalists were not antagonists, as both were seekers after truth. He made an impassioned plea for the release of journalists arrested for speaking the truth (Modi please note). He also asked journalists to not be like the Tower of Babel, a loveless cacophony. Again will strident voices in the Godi media pay heed?
In another address he said that war is never inevitable. This a departure from his own Augustinian roots, for it was St Augustine of Hippo in northern Africa who had espoused a just war. Leo significantly referred to conflicts in the Holy Land, Ukraine, Lebanon and Syria. He did not mince words when he said that war resulted in the slaughter of innocent young people.
He added that his appeal was not of the pope but of Christ himself. Guns needed to be silenced. He volunteered his services for bringing about peace and reconciliation, saying that peace makers, not war mongers make history. This is exactly what I had said in my previous article when I described Leo as a soft power. Soft doesn’t mean weak or meek. From his statements I daresay that Leo is an iron fist in a velvet glove. God give him strength.
A parting salvo. Leo’s family church, St Mary of the Assumption, in Chicago, held its last service in 2011. In 2019 it was sold to a realtor, Joe Hall. It reminds me of Jesus’ words while sending out the twelve on their first mission: “Do not make your way to gentile territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town, go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel” (Mat 10:5).
May the new shepherd have not just the smell of the sheep (a la Francis), but prioritize reaching out to the “lost sheep”. That should be the new evangelization.
Leave a Reply