More red hats in the ring

As the conclave of cardinals approaches this Monday, April 18th, the speculation as to who will succeed Pope John Paul II is at fever pitch. It’s getting a little wild, as hitherto unfamiliar names are now being touted as having a "good chance."

It looks like a lot more red hats are being thrown into the ring. Not, I must add, by the owners of the aforesaid hats – that’s an absolute no-no – but by some unseen supporters and noisy media who think that every election for an important head of state, which the pope is, is a golden opportunity for Irish and Las Vegas bookies to make hay.

As it happens, it is true that every cardinal, theoretically, has a chance. But in fact, there is already quite a bit of discussion – dare we say horse-trading?– going on among the voting and non-voting cardinals about who the new pope ought to be.

These discussions, which are allowed until the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel, are not, let’s face it, limited to doctrinal matters. Among myriad issues, you might see blatant nationalism creeping in, that contentious divide between the West and the Third World rearing its ugly head and, would you believe it, even questions of personality and popularity. I told you, this is an election.

Anyway, since everyone and his uncle are engaging in speculation, I think I’ll do some of my own. To start with, I think we can forget about a Cuban, Indian and Indonesian pope. They’re not only long shots, they’ve got no shots at all. For that matter, banish the thought, if ever you had it, of a Filipino pope. Jaime Cardinal Sin, 76, and Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, 74, are both at the right age but are, unfortunately, too sickly for the rigors of the job. Cardinal Sin has just confirmed he can’t make the trip to Rome. Cardinal Vidal took himself out of the running, pleading ill health. Jose Cardinal Sanchez is 85 and can’t even vote at the conclave.

The Yanks can forget it too. Not only have there been rumblings about handing over to the only remaining super-power in the world the over one billion-member Catholic Church, the predominant, albeit largely undeserved, image of the American Church is the disgraced Bernard Francis Cardinal Law.

The resigned Archbishop of Boston, who was hounded out of office on allegations that he mishandled the clerical sex abuse scandal in his diocese, was the object of small but noisy demonstrations in Rome. The Vatican, arguably unwisely, had given him the honor of saying one of the Masses held during the Novemdiales, the nine-day mourning period for the late Pope. On the other hand, the Vatican reasoned out that as head of one of Rome’s great basilicas, St. Mary Major, where the Mass was held, he was entitled to the honor.

As explained in previous columns, I still maintain that the Italians and the Latin Americans have the best chances. The Italians want the papacy back. In Milan archbishop Diogini Cardinal Tettamanzi, 71, they have an attractive candidate whose moderate views may unite progressives and conservatives of all nationalities behind his candidacy.

The Latin Americans seem to be the sentimental favorites simply because they are seen to be viable representatives of the Third World and the poverty-stricken sectors which now constitute the majority of all Catholics. At the same time, it appears that with the support of Asian and African allies, and perhaps even some sympathetic cardinals from the United States and Canada, the Latin Americans may have the numbers to overcome the European bloc which is expected to support the Italian bid. Claudio Cardinal Hummes of Brazil seems to be their best bet.

Anyway, let me repeat that all this is speculation on my part, although we have exercised due diligence in trying to absorb the tons of material now on the web and in print and broadcast media. My faith is still in the Holy Spirit who will I’m sure guide us unworthy humans and, if necessary, make known to us, in His own way, God’s will.

* * *

John Bolton, the nominee of President George W. Bush, is facing tough questions by a Senate committee in his confirmation hearings. With his walrus moustache, thick glasses, a killer glare which he fixes on his interrogators, and his penchant for ignoring questions while he continues talking on other points, I can see why he has a reputation for obnoxiousness. A natural diplomat, this guy clearly is not.

At the Senate, attitudes toward Bolton are clearly split along party lines. The Democrats are ganging up on him; the Republicans are circling the wagons around him, with chief cowboy George W. manning the White House ramparts. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is also "backing" Bolton. But of course! It’s widely known she wants the feisty Bolton out of State. Rice vetoed the idea of him as National Security Adviser.

The beef against Bolton still is, as one skeptical Democratic senator put it, that giving him the UN post is much like putting a bull in a china shop. He has been so critical of the world body that his belief in multilateralism is open to serious question. This is one guy who may not want to just reform the UN, which is clearly called for, but may want to abolish it entirely.

It appears that a group of former American United Nations diplomats has formally opposed Bolton’s nomination. European countries have also expressed their concerns about him. I am not aware of any official position taken by our Department of Foreign Affairs. I’m not sure the DFA even cares about the concern this appointment is causing the international community.

The DFA is likely to take another of its predictably benign, pro-US, hands-off stances on this one. No way it will cross George W. Bush now, not even if Carlos P. Romulo, the first president of the UN General Assembly, is turning in his grave reading Bolton’s resume.

The reality, however, is that if the Republican majority in the US Senate and House lines up behind Bolton, which is expected, he will win confirmation. Another victory for George W. Bush, turbulent times ahead for the United Nations.