George Weigel writes in National Review:
Cardinal Bergoglio was used in 2005; he knows precisely who used him and why; and while he is a man of the Gospel who is not looking to settle scores, he is also a man of prudence who knows who his friends, and who his enemies, are. Here’s the story:
In April 2005, the progressive party (which was a real party then) came to Rome after the death of John Paul II thinking it had the wind at its back and clear sailing ahead — only to find that the Ratzinger-for-pope party was well-organized; that Ratzinger had made a very positive impression by the way he had run the General Congregations of cardinals after John Paul II’s death; that he had deep support from throughout the Third World because of the courtesy with which he had treated visiting Third World bishops on their quinquennial visits to Rome over the past 20 years; and that, after his brilliant homily at John Paul’s funeral Mass, he was indisputably the frontrunner for the papacy.
Confronted with this reality, the progressives panicked. Their first blocking move against Ratzinger was to try and run the aged Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J., emeritus archbishop of Milan, who was already ill with Parkinson’s disease and had retired to the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem. The idea was not to elect Martini pope; it was to stop the Ratzinger surge. Then, when Ratzinger blew past Martini with almost 50 percent of the vote on what was assumed to be the “courtesy” first ballot (where some votes are cast as gestures of friendship, esteem, etc.), and subsequently went over 50 percent the following morning, the panic intensified. Martini was summarily abandoned (or may have told his supporters to forget it).
The progressives then tried to advance Cardinal Bergoglio — who was very much part of the pro-Ratzinger coalition; who embodied “dynamic orthodoxy,” just like John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger; who had been persecuted by his more theologically and politically left-leaning Jesuit brethren after his term as Jesuit provincial in Argentina (they exiled him to northern Argentina where he taught high-school chemistry until rescued by John Paul II and eventually made archbishop of Buenos Aires); and who was doubtless appalled by the whole exercise on his putative behalf.
It was a last-ditch blocking move, perhaps constructed around the idea that a Third World candidate like Bergoglio would peel off Ratzinger votes. In any event, it was a complete misreading of the 2005 conclave’s dynamics and a cynical use of Bergoglio, who would almost certainly have been abandoned had the stratagem worked — and it failed miserably.
Thus it may be safely assumed that the coalition that quickly solidified and swiftly elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope in 2013 had little or nothing to do with the eminent cabal that tried to use him in 2005. Pope Francis was elected for who he is, not for taking the silver medal eight years ago.
March 14th, 2013 | 12:12 pm
So, if I am interpreting this correctly, Bergoglio was being used to create a Ross Perot effect? Interesting. If there is someone who would be in the know, it’s Mr. Weigel.
March 14th, 2013 | 12:14 pm
What a fascinating story. I’m not a Catholic, but the more I read about Pope Francis, the more I like him.
March 14th, 2013 | 12:25 pm
I would be interested in hearing more about each of the parties in 2005. Who was in them and what were their specific goals?
March 14th, 2013 | 12:37 pm
Which cardinals make up the progressive wing of the church?
March 14th, 2013 | 1:45 pm
Why is there so much detail about what happened in the 2005 conclave, when there is a supposed oath of secrecy? I simply cannot believe or get upset about something that I shouldn’t be privy to anyway. I am grateful to have our new Pope, who seems to be a living sign from God that He desires our unity, not factions and division, which come from the father of lies. There is no Catholic “progressive” or Catholic “conservative” but only Catholic, to which our new Pontiff is a living testament. Long live Pope Francis!
March 14th, 2013 | 2:10 pm
Very interesting and consoling. Thanks for posting this. Do you think we shall find out the votes for this election yesterday at some point?
March 14th, 2013 | 2:15 pm
I hear the progressive bloc in the ’05 conclave used red pens to write down their vote on the ballots.
March 14th, 2013 | 4:27 pm
Jen
An Italian newspaper published excerpts of a diary allegedly kept by one of the cardinals present at the 2005 conclave.
March 14th, 2013 | 5:44 pm
With all respect for Mr. Weigel whose journalistic writing is eminent, I hope he means for us to read this synopsis as a token of “here’s how my hypothesis pans out .. correct me if I’m wrong on the facts”. As a novelized perspective it may be fascinating .. something like ‘the dirt’ in pseudo-novels of John Paul’s global-political machinations (eg. The Keys of this Blood, by the late Malachi Martin). But without facts to be led, it ought to be taken, like them, with a grain of salt. Because, with Jen’s point above, in no way mitigated by a hearsay news publication of a hearsay diary of an unnamed cardinal (pax Jack), I believe we can’t be daring to infer so much from so little.
I do know that father Fessio says that pope Francis is to be ‘liked’ as a Jesuit because among so many Jesuits today who are far too unorthodox for his tastes (and mine), as cardinal Jorge he seemed not to be liked by most. If true, is this because he was not ‘left’ enough for them .. i.e. a contender or dissenter against pope Benedict’s (and as cardinal, Ratzinger’s) read of liberation theology? This flavour of neo-Marxist theory dressed up as theology under the rubric of preferential option for the poor is perhaps something we will soon enough see pope Francis move to correct, as he’d need to if he wants to stem the bloodletting tide of children lost in Catholic schooling (where this Marxism is being taught, at least in North America, where it’s amazingly safe, untried and even protected).
March 14th, 2013 | 10:47 pm
I am waiting to hear whether the new Pope will keep his word about THIS.
And yes, it is vitally important.
March 15th, 2013 | 6:30 am
Lots of interpretation from a handful of facts. Not surprising. Caveat lector.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact