After Francis, who?

After Francis, what, or rather, who? The coverage so far, rightly admiring of the Pope’s unvarnished, rather un-papal Christianity, has played down how much turmoil he leaves. His openness to all human beings – the poorer, the better – clashed with his old-fashioned, authoritarian, even angry will. Benedict XVI was more traditionalist but much more pacific. There is therefore a case for a conciliatory, transitional candidate. The Church, however, like so many secular institutions nowadays, may be too polarised for that. The liberals, mostly appointed by Francis, dominate the voting cardinals, but lack wide appeal. Liberalism in religion tends towards its own dissolution. The young Catholics starting to swell church numbers once again tend to be conservative.

Thanks to the recent film Conclave, the British have grown used to the idea that an Englishman (preferably Ralph Fiennes) must manage papal elections. Such a person does exist in the not very Fiennes-ish form of Cardinal Arthur Roche, prefect for the Dicastery for Divine Worship and formerly secretary to the congregation. But critics consider him ‘more subtle than any beast of the field’ in suppressing the Tridentine Rite. Besides, he may be a candidate himself. Now that the conclave’s common language is no longer Latin but English, will Roche be the key fixer? Will the Italians, who have not held the job for nearly 50 years, finally concert their power before the number of Europeans (already only 40 per cent) falls even lower? Their most exotic member, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, a Franciscan and the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, offered himself to Hamas in exchange for all the child hostages. Could he be in with a chance? My favourite (as opposed to the favourite) would be Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe, one of the three voting English cardinals, who is holy and therefore eccentric. The former head of the Dominicans, he has the unusual distinction of having refused a bishopric even though he is a cardinal.