For a nation distressed by the gridlock we call government and the petty politicking we call Congress, the efficiency and the great sense of purpose of the conclave is indeed startling.
In a day, the conclave elected a leader for an organization of 1.1 billion people. It set the direction for the world’s largest multinational institution as we confront the realities of a new century.
The process was steeped in ceremony, laden with doctrine and driven by an abiding faith. The outcome of that process was greeted with a remarkable degree of consensus. The transfer of leadership was accompanied by a great sense of continuity and, in the same instance, a brimming expectation of change.
Joseph Ratzinger emerged as the new Pope, the oldest to be elevated to that extremely demanding post in quite a while.
It is widely held that the cardinal-electors decided on a transitional Pope, one who would hold on to the legacy – and the glow – of John Paul II’s incredible tenure at the papacy while this burgeoning institution sorted out its issues.
The new Pope has been described as a strict guardian of orthodoxy. More than his predecessor, he is considered a doctrinal conservative. Like his predecessor, he combines that doctrinal conservatism with a willingness to reach out to the changed demographics of both the Roman Catholic flock and the wide diversity of the world’s faiths.
Some might prefer to describe the newly-elected Pope Benedict XVI as "dogmatic." Others might prefer to describe that characteristic as the gift of clarity.
Communists, feminists and homosexuals might not be completely happy with the outcome of the last conclave. As guardian of the Church’s doctrine, Ratzinger drew a clear line against what he considers deviation from the institution’s teachings.
As a senior aide and adviser to JPII, Cardinal Ratzinger took positions that seemed well beyond what the late great pontiff was prepared to take.
He railed against what he called "moral relativism" and waged a theological war against the various shades of "liberation theology." He unabashedly silenced maverick theologians within the Church’s fold. He called homosexuality a sin – a matter that should be disconcerting especially among the US clergy where, according to one survey, over half of priests are homosexuals.
The Pope in Roman Catholicism presides over an absolute monarchy. We can reasonably expect that while Pope Benedict XVI rules, there will be no ordination of women into the priesthood and no gay marriages sanctioned.
You might either call Pope Benedict XVI a blunt instrument or a sharp knife. Either way, Ratzinger makes doctrine unmistakable.
No one can accuse this man of being fluffy or compromising. On matters of doctrine, he is no back-slapping politician prepared to accommodate divergence in exchange for peace within the institution.
Ratzinger never feared clarity, never shirked from the possible consequences of insistent clarity. He has a well-formed idea of what his institution stands for, what its mission is in this morally confused world and what the leader of this institution ought to do.
For this reason, he is a comforting personality to the faithful as much as he is a disconcerting presence for those who want to remold doctrine according to what is fashionable.
The new Pope does not think the Church is a malleable thing to be shaped by the intellectual fashions of the day. The entire basis of the faith is that the Church must stand the bedrock of eternal values. That basis is non-negotiable and those who cannot abide by it are free to leave.
The Pope is not going to bend to the rabble.
There was some speculation before the conclave that the Church might make a gesture to the new demographics of Catholicism. It was possible, said some pundits, that the Pope might be chosen from the Third World, where the bulk of the faithful are and where the Church was enjoying growth in adherents.
The cardinals at the conclave, by their best lights, did not think so. This election was not about demographics, it was about doctrinal leadership. The elevation of Ratzinger was therefore inevitable.
The choice of Ratzinger is probably more about strong leadership than it is about doctrinal steadfastness. A weaker personality might cause the institution to be engulfed in endless debates between orthodoxy and fashion. That will likely lead to institutional paralysis and a Church that is incapable of asserting itself in a complex world challenged by the clash of civilizations.
If there is anything to be learned from the remarkable efficiency of the last conclave, it should be about the recognition of leadership and the availability of that rare virtue.
The cardinals, in their wisdom, chose to subordinate their minor concerns and elect a peer who personified the leadership qualities the institution required. The Church is fortunate to have someone to supply it those leadership qualities.
Spokesmen of what is intellectually fashionable might try to depict the outcome of the last conclave as some sort of drift into conservatism. On the other hand, those who celebrate the section of Ratzinger are happy to look forward to an institution that is benefited by strong leadership.
For in the end, that is what matters. An institution as large and diverse as the Roman Church is, will not thrive if it is weakly led.