Speculation and suspense:
Italian media rife with papal predictions
By Carol Glatz
VATICAN CITY, March 13, 2013 (CNS) -- Online betting and trending sites were not the only outlets posting their papal predictions. Italian newspapers are historically the boldest and most 'confident/ in their daily speculations and conclave scenarios.
As cardinal electors disappeared from the media spotlight when the conclave started March 12, the rumors and theories mutated and multiplied.
The most frequent story line put Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan as the clear front-runner, even surmising he would have from 30 to 40 supporters in the first round of voting, on the afternoon of March 12.
The cardinal most often cited as the Italian cardinal's main competitor was Cardinal Odilo Pedro Scherer of Sao Paulo.
And many Italian papers, which like to see the world through the lens of their national obsession -- soccer, predicted it would come down to being "a match between Italy and Brazil."
Those reportedly expected to garner a significant number of votes in the first round included: Cardinals Marc Ouellet, the Canadian prefect of the Congregation for Bishops; Timothy M. Dolan of New York; and Sean P. O'Malley of Boston.
Some of the so-called "outsiders" included: Cardinals Francisco Robles Ortega of Guadalajara, Mexico; Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, Hungary; Albert Malcolm Ranjith of Colombo, Sri Lanka; Christoph Schonborn of Vienna; Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila, Philippines; and Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, Argentina, who was reportedly the strongest contender behind then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the 2005 conclave.
Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon, France, told journalists that in 2005 they saw then-Cardinal Ratzinger as a clear candidate and favorite going into the conclave.
"Last time there was a person of substance, three or four times superior to the other cardinals," he said. "It's not like that now."
He said perhaps from three to 12 other possible candidates would be needed to choose from.
"Up to this point, we don't know anything; we will have to wait at least for the results of the first ballot," he said March 10.
Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois of Paris also said he thought there were about six possible candidates going into the conclave.
Though the journalistic consensus was that Cardinal Scola had the most solid backing going in, the field was still wide open.
That's because papal pundits were unsure whether Cardinal Scola would be able to get the two-thirds majority needed to elect a pope -- 77 votes of 115 electors.
Apparently there was a large block of "undecideds" -- numbering as many as 50 electors, said Marco Politi of
Il Fatto Quotidiano newspaper.
Those undecideds were going to be the decisive factor, many said, though no one could make a guess where their vote might ultimately land.
That amount of unpredictability -- a nightmare for soothsayers -- was part of the reason Politi called the 2013 conclave "even more difficult" to pin down than those in recent years.
La Stampa's Andrea Tornielli, who has a track record of successful forecasts, said "This time the situation is much more uncertain."
Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City said he thought it was a good thing there was no one clear winner before the conclave.
As of March 11, there "has been no majority" agreeing on what the next pope should be like or who he should be, he told La Stampa, an Italian daily.
"We thank God for this diversity. That way each person will draw up his own profile" of the
perfect pontiff, the Mexican cardinal said.
[No human being can be the 'perfect Pontiff', no matter how great they turn out to be!]
However, the lack of a common candidate and the "diversity of thought" wouldn't necessarily mean a long drawn out conclave, he said. "We will come to an agreement very soon."
One common scenario was if the conclave were short, say, a successful ballot after three or four tries, the winner would be Cardinal Scola, a respected theologian who has been dedicated to inter-religious dialogue.
If the voting extended past eight or more ballots (past March 13 or 14), the story went, that would signify opposition to the Italian favorite had coalesced, making way for a contender.
Or, as if the drama and suspense weren't enough, a dark horse or "compromise candidate" would emerge over the week to break any hypothetical deadlock between two entrenched favorites.
Given the widely different prognostics, headlines were unhelpfully claiming the conclave would be either "short" or "long."
Cardinal Schonborn said March 10 he thought the conclave would be a quick matter of just a few days. He said he found the week of pre-conclave meetings to have been helpful and a "rare experience of a spirit of fraternity."
Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto joked the day before he headed into the conclave that bland food could be what pushes the cardinals to a quick consensus.
He told journalists that he was "going to have a big plate of 'carbonara' (pasta) because by the third day of the conclave, if we don't elect a pope they will start feeding us bread and water."
In 2005, the day after Benedict XVI was elected, an a local Italian newspaper had the following interesting item. The Vaticanista who gave the interview was dean of the Vatican correspondents until he died last year at age 89...
The Conclave of 2005, compared to earlier ones:
'This time, the Holy Spirit read the newspapers'
April 20, 2005
To whoever asked him in the past few days for a name, he replied invariably: “No predictions. Luckily, the Holy Spirit does not read the papers.” Clarifying immediately thereafter, however, that the line isn’t his – it was famously said four decades ago by Cardinal Agaganian, who knew about Conclaves.
Arcangelo Paglialunga, 85 years old, of the
Gazzettino di Venezia, wished to keep his personal rule during this, the fifth Conclave he has covered. Although, in his heart, he must have rooted for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whom he often met mornings on St. Peter’s Square. The dean of the College of Cardinals would be on his way to work at the Palazzo Sant’Uffizio, the dean of Vatican journalists on his way to the Vatican Press Office.
It was to Paglialunga that Ratzinger had confided, years before the text was publicly revealed: “There is nothing catastrophic about the third secret of Fatima.”
With Paglialunga, who was a friend of the composer Perosi, the cardinal, who loves Gregorian chant, often discussed church music.
It was from him the cardinal learned that Monsignor Lefebvre had died. That morning, the cardinal had not yet seen the papers.
Paglialunga says jestingly, now that “his” cardinal, one of the favored candidates before the Conclave, has become Benedict XVI, “Well, maybe the Holy Spirit does read the papers sometimes.”
And he, who had steadfastly refused to be drawn into any predictions, says simply: “ He will be a great Pope, because Joseph Ratzinger is an extraordinary man.”
IT is an opinion from someone who can be trusted. Because he has truly seen a lot in the five Conclaves of his career.
Starting with the “duel” between Cardinals Agaganian and Roncalli (who became John XXIII). “I remember that we attended a Mass said by the Armenian Cardinal,” he says. “After the Mass, probably noting our presence, he said, 'Fortunately, the Holy Spirit does not read the papers.’”
That time, however, the Cardinal was right. Entering the Conclave as Pope, he came out, as the saying went, still a cardinal. The choice fell on the less-predicted Cardinal Roncalli, Patriarch of Venice. Who, later, visiting his Armenian colleague in Rome, would describe, with his customary goodnatured irony, that extraordinary electoral battle with the Armenian.
John XXIII said, “Our names bobbed up and down (that is, they alternated in the lead) like chickpeas in boiling water.” Perhaps because of that lengthy head-to-head contest, recalls Paglialunga, even the pontifical master of ceremonies at that time, Monsignor Dante, instead of opening the box holding the large cassock (for Roncalli) opened the box with the small one (which would have fit Agaganian).
After a few months, Papa Roncalli himself, meeting with journalists, added a footnote to the Conclave: “He told us that the night after his election, not being able to sleep, he asked to see the newspapers from the day before. ‘None of you guessed the outcome,’ he said, ‘but I forgive you all anyway.'” That was Papa Roncalli.
The journalists did better five years later with Paul VI. But that time, Paglialunga jests, “I also changed my sources.” Forget about other journalists. Better go with vox populi.
“I was working for
Momento Sera then. Our editor asked us to find out what people were saying at St. Peter’s Square, and I interviewed dozens of people. 'Who do you want to be Pope?' The consensus was in favor of Montini. So I called my editor and told him. When Montini did become Pope, the editor thanked me, saying it was only after I called that they prepared something about the Archbishop of Milan (Montini), in addition to what they already prepared on Cardinal Ottaviani and other so-called conservatives.” Vox populi, vox Dei in this case.
For John Paul I 15 years later, the voice was a technician from Radio Vatican. He was assigned to prepare the microphones in the central Loggia of the Basilica. Not aware that the intercom to the Press Room was open, the technician remarked, “I have been sent to prepare the microphone lines because the new Pope is about to give his blessing.” That is how the journalists learned before the white smoke was seen that a new Pope had been chosen (Albino Luciani, the Patriarch of Venice).
Other times, other memories. Yesterday, in this age of digitals, cell phones and the Internet, none of the above happened. But it needed the bells of St. Peter’s to clear away any doubts about the color of the smoke!
Casa Santa Marta, the comfortable hotel which houses the Conclave participants, has improved Conclave conditions greatly. This avoids a situation where a cardinal who needs a special diet has to order out for his meals, as did a Chinese cardinal during the conclave that elected John XXIII. “A young priest was assigned to make sure that every day he would get a bowl of chicken soup.”
Or that someone, like Cardinal Suenens in the first Conclave of 1978, finds himself responding to another cardinal who knocks on his cell in a bathrobe and asks to take a shower in his room because there was none in his own cell.
John Paul II, who had lived through those two conclaves of 1978, had Casa San Marta built to improve those conditions.
"Even in that, he was an innovator," Paglialunga remarks.
