About The Upcoming Conclave

Not long ago on today’s post—Euro Elites In Meltdown Following German Election—commenter Tristam brought up a relevant point that I didn’t have time to address:

Pope Francis is very ill. His death may not be imminent but reasonable to think it will happen before many months.

Roman Catholicism will, itself, be in a Europe-like situation: will Catholics (cardinals) choose Francis 2.0, or a return to more traditional policies and practices?

Underlying this comment—or so it seems to me—is the insight that the crisis of the conciliar church is also a reflection of the crisis of the West more generally. Christians need to decide whether they will flush themselves down the drain of history with the decadant remains of the West or will stand for something and work for a restoration of true tradition.

I responded in a comment, but I’ll try to expand on that response. Despite Jorge Bergoglio’s worst efforts, the church of Rome retains some degree of authority in the Western world. A wise choice could still do something to restore the Western tradition; a poor choice could help remove all stops to the downward slide of what used to be known as Christendom. The problem in the conciliar church is that those electing a new bishop for Rome are largely of the same generation and mental background as the rest of the Euro elites—and still wish to be part of that club. And yet there are dynamics at play that could work against a continuation of the failed conciliar church’s agenda.

Before I proceed with my perspective—a necessarily American one—a few preliminary words may be in order. Readers may have noticed that I avoided, above, the title “Pope”. As most people will know, that’s not a real job title—it’s simply the English version of the colloquial Italian for “papa.” The guy who wears white and resides in the Vatican is the bishop of Rome, the leader of the Roman church. The special authority that has been traditionally accorded to the Roman church derives from the idea that the Roman church has been the special guardian of the tradition handed down from the two most prominent followers of Jesus: “the holy apostles Peter and Paul.” The close association of these two apostles with the church of Rome is the basis for the idea that the Roman tradition is especially authoritative—you can find that in the Roman liturgy and in the early church fathers.

Be all that as it may be, I responded to Tristam (in somewhat expanded form):

I've been thinking about the coming conclave all weekend and trying to formulate some ideas on what could be expected. Naturally, it’s all speculation. There are at least two related factors militating against a Bergoglio Redux.

1. Much--most?--of the clerical caste is fed up with a church run by a dictator or capo. They have seen the summary dismissal of conscientious bishops, and aren’t interested in a regime that would continue that practice—if only out of a sense of self preservation. After all, they have to know that every bishop is as much a successor of the apostles as the guy in Rome is. Despite Bergoglio’s claim that he somehow channels the Holy Spirit—a sort of oracle—they know better. They know that the authority of the Roman church rests on the Apostolic Tradition—not on a continuing revelation, surfing the wave of the Heideggerian Dasein. They know that the bishop of Rome is not a Vaticinian Unitary Executive—the only true bishop—and all other bishops mere employees to be dismissed at will. Even the most heterodox of the conciliar cardinals may well hesitate at the prospect of a new “Dictator Pope.”

2. Conciliar church finances are drastically down—there are reports that the Vatican is virtually bankrupt. The cardinals have to be aware that the money that funds what remains of their shrinking organization is disproportionately derived from people who retain some sort of connection to Catholic tradition. For that reason, the clerical caste may feel constrained to come to some sort of accommodation with Catholic tradition—however much they may detest it—simply in order to stabilize the finances.

Working against that, of course, are the nihilistic instincts of the conciliar generation—and especially the Euro clerics. The idea of accountability to the faithful comes with great difficulty to these “princes”. Still, at least in the US, some bishops have felt compelled to inform their faithful of what the faithful already knew--that Bergoglio's letter on cross border migration has no actual connection to Catholic teaching. I take it that those bishops took that rather unprecedented step because they understood that the people financing their dioceses--actually giving money--are heavily Trump supporters. They can't afford to lose those people and so sought to placate them.

A final consideration that could give pause to further pursuing of a globalist chuch, a Bergoglian church, could be the prospect of a fracturing of the conciliar church. There is a possibility that certain national conferences or organizations could decide, in the face of a continuation of the Bergoglian debacle, that enough is enough. I don’t say “schism”. Rather, a withdrawal of support. In this time of crisis, nothing should be considered impossible.