Almost my first act as I stood on the verge of being received into the Catholic Church, was to buy a book on the worst popes throughout history; followed by a book which covered the whole range – on all the popes.

Armed with that, there could be no disillusions; no blame, no buyers’ regret. I came into the Catholic church  with my eyes wide open.

Power and supernatural inspiration provoke a lot of opposition, and the papacy claims both in spades. It may be that the dogma of papal infallibility carries the implication that everything to do with the papacy has a guaranteed supernatural outcome. But this would be too much like magic to constitute good Christian theology. The trouble is that the secular world cannot easily tell the difference.

Perhaps a materialist culture encountered the dogma of papal infallibility as a challenge that it experienced as a kind of  provocation? It really is one of the elements of Catholicism that the world is most bothered by.

The secular world, so utterly at odds with faith in its devotion to empiricism, is very ready to be outraged by any claim to the miraculous. And in its addiction to this reflex scepticism, perhaps nothing would be more likely to act as a catalyst for outrage than the claim to infallibility.

And the enormous influence of the papal office was always a provocation to those who aspired to political power. Whether apocryphal or not, the suggestion that Stalin asked the Pope: “how many regiments does he have;” the power of the pope has always stimulated jealousy amongst the would-be power brokers,  so the claim to infallibility added more insult to the already perceived injury.

Catholics don’t need to be told what careful provisos hedge both the theory and the practice of the dogma.  Nor do we need to be told that it has only ever been exercised once in over two thousand years. But it creates a lustre to the papal office that draws the eye interest and the barb of outrage.

And that all adds a great deal  to the interest in the way in which the popes are elected. 

Commentators increasingly believe that we in the end-times of this current papacy. This may or may not be justified, but it is the perception. And, correspondingly, the excitement that the prospect of an imminent conclave always produces is intensifying.

Perhaps every papacy ends in a crisis for the Church. 

Death and rebirth are the leitmotifs of the faith, and the microcosm of papal reigns encapsulates the dynamic in a dramatic way that catches the interest of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, to say nothing of the interested and often critical observers.

So as the prospect of another conclave draws over the horizon, distant or near, we face the question:

 ‘does the Holy Spirit underwrite the process of choosing a pope and match the miraculous attributes of the office speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith with a miraculous process of election’?

One of the most frequently quoted opinions on this is that of Benedict XVI. 

In 1997, when asked on Bavarian television whether or not the Spirit chooses the pope, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger answered:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

Then the German theologian got to the heart of the matter: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

We all have our favourite lists of the most disastrous popes. But the whole matter of disastrous popes introduces the distinction between God’s permissive and prescriptive will. There are certain things that God commands – the Ten Commandments would be the most obvious example. But since Love, requires a response freely given, in order to be true to Himself, God has to allow us freedom to act and freedom to choose. The mysterious alchemy that underlies the Kingdom of Heaven is the promise that God will bring good out of evil.

One of the most poetic affirmations of this universal metaphysical truth was Julian of Norwich’s (1343-1416) conversation with the risen Jesus when she asked him why sin was not prevented to avoid suffering and our capacity for rebellion and disaster.

“And thus, in my folly, afore this time often I wondered why by the great foreseeing wisdom of God the beginning of sin was not letted: for then, methought, all should have been well. This stirring [of mind] was much to be forsaken, but nevertheless mourning and sorrow I made therefor, without reason and discretion.

But Jesus, who in this Vision informed me of all that is needful to me, answered by this word and said: “It behoved that there should be sin;[1] but all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”( Shewings Ch 27.)

“Sin is behovely’ is a piece of archaic English that carries a number of different elements amongst which are –‘necessary, required, useful’,

St Paul says something very similar in his letter to the Romans when he wrote: “And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.” (Romans 8.28)

The cardinals when they come to choose a new pope do so both as men who have learnt to pray and discern during their lifetime, but also as political activists within the Church. The tension between these two modes of being is neither easy to live with or reconcile, and is not guaranteed to have the best outcome.

So although there is no guarantee that the voting Cardinals will be as attuned to the prompting of the Holy Spirit as they and we would like, we know that with them as with us, God will use their mistakes, as well as their obedience. To require him to use our mistakes and our sometime obstinate wilfulness, is to take the longer and bloodier route to the goal God sets before us. 

The Scriptures do not allow us to forget that the refusal of the Israelites to cooperate with God led to them losing a whole generation in the wilderness, until their will was purified and they were ready to say yes, rather than no or maybe.

Happily, at the same time, the Catholic Church enjoys some divine guarantees. They may be few, but they are essential. And it is a comfort to remind ourselves of the privilege of being Catholic at a time of turbulence.

Christ promised to be with the Church to the end of time. He promised that in its perpetual struggle with temptation and evil,  the gates of hell would not prevail against her. This means that the Holy Spirit will not permit the Church’s Divine constitution to be lost (such as the disappearance of the Catholic hierarchy), and that the fullness of all the means of salvation will always be available in the Church. 

It means that the Church’s sacraments will always remain a powerful source of grace, and that the Church’s Magisterial teachings will be wholly free from error,. It means that the Church will remain the mystical body of Christ under the headship of Our Lord Himself, as represented here on earth by His Vicar, the successor of Peter.

Does it mean that we can know the cardinals have chosen the Holy Spirit’s man for the post? 

Sadly not. 

Does it mean that the Holy Spirit will use whatever outcome the cardinals produce to progress the Church ever nearer to the Kingdom of heaven? Yes. As with our lives, so with the Church. Sometimes our failures produce the deepest and best dug ground for the roots of God’s grace to operate. 

One might paraphrase Julian as the next conclave slowly approaches in the hands of the Holy Spirit, and the merciful arms of Christ, not only sin, but also voting for a new pope  is behovely.” 

The post Of the Holy Spirit and conclave appeared first on Catholic Herald.