Ten years ago then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was interviewed by secular journalist Peter Seewald. The result was Salz der Erde (Salt of the Earth). Toward the end of that book Ratzinger was asked about whether the next pope might be from Africa or Latin America. He responded:
Everyone, at least in the college of cardinals, could imagine us electing an African or someone from a non-European country. To what extent European Christians would swallow that is another question. . . . But the cardinals, I think, will simply ask who is the most suited, and the question of his skin color and his origin will not play any role.
He seems to have been right. The cardinal-electors chose the man they thought to be “the most suited,” a pale-skinned fellow from Germany, of all places. We know they did so under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, but what do we mean when we say that? To what extent does God control the result of a conclave?
Some say he so arranges things that the very best man will be selected. Often enough that appears to have been the result: Benedict XVI in 2005, say, or Pius XII in 1939. But sometimes history throws that notion for a loop, as can be shown if we work backward in the list of canonized popes. We come first to Pius X (d. 1914), then Pius V (d. 1572), and then Celestine V (d. 1296).
Pietro del Morrone lived as a hermit in the Abruzzi. The previous Pope had died in 1292, and the cardinals had been unable to agree on a successor for two years. It is said that in 1294 Pietro wrote them a nagging letter: “The Church needs a visible head, so do your duty and give us a pope!” He got a reply by return mail: “Okay. We elect you.” Whether or not that account is quite accurate, Pietro did end up as pope and took the name Celestine.
He was a holy man but a poor administrator. It was said he was unable to say no to any entreaty and so ended up giving the go-ahead to opposing factions. Under him the Church in Rome fell into operational confusion. As the New Catholic Encyclopedia put it, “Realizing his incompetence, Celestine issued a constitution (December 10) declaring a pope’s right to resign and on December 13 freely resigned.” He had been pope only five months.
Celestine V was a success in spiritual terms—he is a saint, after all—but otherwise he has been considered a holy failure. Is it credible to say that he was the best man available in 1294? Was there no cardinal or other prelate or even some other hermit who could have done better?
When the matter is put that way, we begin to see that the Holy Spirit, while influencing a conclave, does not reduce the cardinals’ deliberations to the rubber-stamping of an already-made divine appointment. While the cardinals operate under special graces, they decide freely. Their wills are not compelled to make the best possible choice. They are God’s instruments but not his puppets.
That said, we can be grateful that over the centuries they have decided so well so often—even in our own time.