On April 18, the College of Cardinals meets to elect a new pope. They've been voting on the Church's leader since 1059. Like other institutions that have come to employ the vote in the intervening years, they didn't always make the wisest of choices. In fact, they didn't always select an ordained priest as pope. On March 11, 1513, the College of Cardinals selected Giovanni de' Medici. "He was not yet a priest," historian Will Durant informs, "but this defect was remedied on March 15." Known as Martin Luther's excommunicator, Henry VIII's bestower of the title Defender of the Faith, and Raphael's patron, Leo X presided over a turbulent and eventful time in Church history. Upon his death, a popular verdict held: "Leo has eaten up three pontificates: the treasury of Julius II, the revenues of Leo, and those of his successor."

While Catholics view the faith of the Church as infallible, the same judgment can't be extended to the democratic decisions of the College of Cardinals, which has selected as pope a Borgia with numerous illegitimate children, among others unworthy of the responsibility as Christ's vicar on Earth. With all this in mind, especially the historical precedent of selecting a non-priest as pope, what living person would be the absolute worst person the College of Cardinals could select as the next pope when they convene on April 18?

Here is a list of people,I feel, will not be chosen as Pope. This is only my opinion and I may be going out on a limb: Echo 5 Mike, Paul Wolfowitcz,Michael Schiavo,Robert Blake,Michael Vick or his girlfriend, Barry Bonds,Andrew Sullivan,Cippi,Morris,Todd from Beavis and Butthead (or any person named Todd for that matter),Ted Kennedy (or any person named Ted or Kennedy for that matter)Bernard Law or Ty Law,Jeffery Doyle Robertson and Barry Lynn.This is only my opinion.

Here is my list: Sinead O'Conner, Madonna, Spongebob Squarepants, Truth, me, Pauly Shore, David Duke, Dirk Diggler, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton and Ward Churchill

Marilyn Manson or Glenn Danzig. Ozzie would probably be recieved with some amount of trepidation. Kerry King from Slayer, King Diamond probably aren't great choices. Ronnie James Dio, Tony Iommi, Jimmi Page...

But I think bin Laden would probably about the worst choice: "He's not quite Catholic...yet."

Worse than Spongebob, I think Batmite is probably a bad choice for a cartoon pope. Or maybe that faceless wizardlet from He-Man--then again Pope Scrappy Doo would about throw everyone into spasms....

Good link on the Medici. It gave me an Idea, a equaly powerful Italian family exist today. The Baranelli's! Why not pope Dave, Joe, Mike, Mr. or Jimmy! Kidding aside one of the Guidice twins is a shoe in!

I'm no cannon lawyer, but I'm thinking "...they didn't always make the wisest of choices" must be heretical. I'll let the more knowledgeable members of FlynnFiles expound or correct my thought.

For the next Pope, I think Cardinal Arinze would be a good choice.

its been a while since i got a good belly laugh on this site!! Sarge I have to say I'm a little disappointed that I'm on your list!lol and who is Optimusprime that was some comedy! How u even remember the Guido's is beyond me!

Optimus Prime is already ineligible, having died of prostate cancer a few weeks ago.

This does raise the question of undead or non-human candidates such as Angel, Lt. Cmdr. Worf, or Larry King.

The infamous ex-Cardinal of Boston Bernie Law.

I am the undead! I thought of another canidate Bjork's uncle!

These guys already picked a Pope: http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/

Pope Yoda I is my choice for non-human..He brings a new meaning to "Holy Ghost".

No votes for Lil' Jon? The man does travel with a chalice by his side.

this guy?

http://gaffa.dk/nyheder/view.php/news_id=2072

I also think suge knight is a long shot for the next Vicar of Rome. The same could be said of Ron Jeremy; although he is a bit of a paradox. He does love his nieghbor, but he has also been known to covet his nieghbors wife. Tough choices.

Sean Hannity is one Catholic who will not be annointed Pope. John Kerry would also not be the best of choices.

Great find Obi Juan, very interesting site.

On the theology of Dan's post I agree Brad that the tone would *seem* to suggest presumption of the workings of the Holy Spirit as regards the choosing of popes. Certainly the Church in its human elements, including popes, is capable of corruption. No pope is therefore above criticism (on matters not pertaining to faith and non-prudential moral principles) and so Catholics are asked to pray for them constantly b/c of their very humanness. But the Providential care of the Church in itself as the Bridegroom of Christ indicates that even bad popes are allowed by the Spirit, for some reason known but to God.

Dan seems to be indicating this distinction of the Church itself as an eternal institution and the particular historical elements/persons that make it up when he says "Catholics view the faith of the Church as infallible." But the point isn't made all that clearly.

Hey Brad,

Apparently George Cardinal Pell of Sydney has made the same awkwardly-(un)orthodox comment that sometimes the Holy Spirit "gets it wrong" b/c there have been bad popes:

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=transcript&dte=2005-04-06&headlineid=948

Brian,

The same fallacious reasoning leads from the presence of evil to the non-existence of God.

More interesting to me than "bad Popes" is John Paul I who died 33 days after his election. What do you make of that?

What do I make of that? Didnt you ever see
Godfather III?

Ah, yes, the Sedevacantists. Interesting link, obi.

Brad and Brian: Why should stating the fallibility of these elections be deemed a rejection of the Holy Spirit? All secular and religious authorities are "allowed" by the HS -- right? So is it unseemly for me to question the choice of Clinton in 92?

It is the permanent, traditional faith of the Church regarding truths of faith and morals that is infallible -- not the prudential decisions of the College of Cardinals. I don't see a problem here. We need to have faith in the Holy Spirit's protection of the faith of the Church. We don't need to believe in the optimaliness of every prudential decision by a prelate.

I hear they are looking for an elderly male Catholic. Just what I have heard though.

I think you might be on to something Ben T.

Short:

It seems to me (though I'll defer to someone who knows better) that the apostolic succession, especially in the case of the successors of Peter (Vicar of Christ), must be infallible. That is not to say that the chosen apostle will be righteous (cf. Judas). Nevertheless, the choice must represent the will of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, in what sense would the bishop be an apostle? And if not an apostle, then what of the sacraments performed, etc., etc.?

Short,

I don't think Dan has actually said anything unorthodox, if anything the quote by Cardinal Pell seems more problematic. But (and this is very rare for you!) your ana!ogy between the election of a pope and the election of a secular political authority is a weak one. You are ignoring critical differences between the two processes and institutions.

The election of a pope by the entire body of cardinals seems to me to rise above a mere prudential decision (although the vote of each one individually is certainly just that). It is obviously not at the level of a council but still not simply akin to the electoral college.

The main reason why this is the case is that Christ guaranteed that the HS would protect His Church and that it would be "the light of the world" and the "gates of Hell would not prevail against it." So the issue is not whether the HS guarantees every prudential decision of a prelate but that He guarantees the protection of the Church. Providence does guarantee secular events in a way but only in the ultimate resolution of history in the triumph of the Good/Cross. But it makes less sense to say the HS "allowed" Clinton's election than it does to say he "allowed" Pius X's. Christ made no guarantees for the American presidency.

So a critic of cardinals for their choice of pope, or of some particular pope, needs to avoid moving into criticizing Providence. But, of course, Dan's comments are limited and don't make such an error.

Good point Brad on apostolic succession.

I am not sure what you mean to ask about JPI? There have always been rumors that he was murdered but I have seen nothing that rises above conspiracy. Or are you just wondering about what the length indicates?

JPI's pontificate apparently ranks as the 11th shortest in history according to this list: http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/shortest.htm

So there have been a full 10 shorter pontificates, which seems amazing to me except that in 2000 years some odd things will happen.

I dunno what to make of it if you mean to try and figure out why the HS allowed JPI to die so quickly, God works in mysterious ways I suppose, at least given our limited, discursive reason.

I think that the HS's guarantee is to the faith of the Church, to protect it -- even from bad popes! Can't the church still be the light of the world, even though not every bishop/pope will be great? I think Brad's concern about apostolic succession is unfounded. If an occasion bad pope were a problem for AS, then all bishops would be too. And, as they say, the road to hell is paved with the sculls of bishops. No: Succession continues regardless -- just as sacraments performed by a very sinful priest are still valid.

As far as denying Providence: I want to say that Providence guarantees that good will come from everything in the long run... That is the mystery of the crucifixion, I think.

Short: "If an occasional bad pope were a problem for AS, then all bishops would be too. And, as they say, the road to hell is paved with the sculls of bishops."

Doesn't this conflate two separate issues: (1) whether the *selection* of apostles is infallible, and (2) whether an apostle is righteous. Can't the Holy Spirit, for reasons that pass human understanding, select an unrighteous man?

"No: Succession continues regardless - just as sacraments performed by a very sinful priest are still valid."

While the sacraments performed by an unrighteous but rightly chosen (i.e., chosen in accordance with divine will) priest are untainted by his unrighteousness, if it were possible for a priest to be chosen against the will of the Holy Spirit (and I am wondering whether that is a real possibility), he would not be a true bishop, i.e., apostle. To be an apostle is to be chosen by God.

...It seems to me.

Brad: Is anything possible that is "against the will of the Holy Spirit"? I would say no. Nothing could prevail against that will. This is just the same old free-will problem: somethings are done directly by the God, while other things may be merely allowed by Him.

Was the selection of the Borgia as pope agains the will of the Holy Spirit? Well it was allowed to happen. Was it directly caused, i.e., miraculously? I doubt it.

"Was the selection of the Borgia as Pope against the will of the Holy Spirit? ... Was it directly caused, i.e., miraculously? I doubt it."

Why? Because he was unrighteous? That's an insufficient cause for doubt. Judas and David committed exceedingly unrighteous acts, and each were explicitly chosen by God.

If an papal election were contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit, the Pope would not be chosen by God, i.e., he would be illegitimate. An illegitimate Pope would not be a true successor of Peter, he would not be an apostle.

Suppose such a Pope were to make decrees ex cathedra? Would the decrees be doctrinal? On what authority? It seems to me that a host of related concerns follow.

Brad: You are begging the question. You assume that being directly chosen by God is required for legitimacy of the pope (or a bishop, or priest...) I'm denying that. God delegates that authority. I think a pope can be legitimate as well as not directly chosen (let's skirt the question of universal predestination for this discussion).

You assume that the Holy Spirit's intervention comes at picking a pope; I'm saying, rather, that we *as a matter of faith* believe that the Holy Spirit protects the permanent traditional faith of the Church, whether or not they elect someone wise.

My vote is for Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher... [shudder]

Oh no, Bill Maher I hadn't thought of him, yuck! You can add Bill O'Reilly to the list as well as another "Catholic" who would make a really bad pope.

Short:

I am not begging the question. I am making two points. The first is that the unrighteousness of an apostle is insufficient reason to deny that he was chosen by God. The second is a legitimate apostle must be chosen by God. Consider the only example of apostolic succession contained in scripture.

"So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, 'Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.' Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles." (Acts 1:23-26)

The Apostles (i.e., the eleven) believed that the result of the election process revealed the "choice" of God. Is your position that it could have been otherwise?

Brad: There is an ambiguity in what it means to be chosen by God. You are QB-ing because you still have not offered any reasons for the claim that a legitimate bishop must be *directly* chosen by God, rather than chosen by people to whom God has delegated the authority. And if it's the latter, then we don't have to think that the choice of bishop of Rome is always optimal.

My point is that we don't seem required (either by the belief in Apostolic succession or the belief in the infallible faith of the Church) to believe your, stronger thesis in *direct* divine intervention in the choice of pope or bishops generally. Even if the stronger thesis is true, what is required, as a minmum, is the weaker thesis I am defending.

I agree that God could allow mere men to select the Pope, and intervene to protect Church doctrine accordingly. Only recognize that such protection involves divine intervention.

Nonetheless, according to the revealed text quoted above (i.e., according to the simplest interpretation of it), divine intervention is involved in the selection of Apostles. Were it not, Judas' replacement would have been a matter of chance.

Brad: I don't think that the selection of Matthias is necessarily an exact model of the selection of all bishops/apostles. After all, we don't usually do it by lot, and neither did the early Church. Really, I think the question boils down to: can someone who doesn't have a vocation to the preisthood (=chosen by God) become a preist? I say yes; your position seems to demand a no. (LW's beetle problem arises, no?)

And you tell me, using the imperitive, "only recognize" that divine intervention is needed for infallibility! ...I said this in my inital post: "We need to have faith in the Holy Spirit's protection of the faith of the Church."

JohnPaul got their chance, I say we consider a Pope GeorgeRingo.

Funny one Finbar!

That reminded me though that it will be very interesting to see what name the next pope takes. The choice could be very revealing of what we might expect from his pontificate.

I personally am hoping for a Pope Pius XIII, I think the Church could use one. Particularly one following the example of Pius X.

Nightfly, I don't think they can be called Sede Vacantists anymore since (these guys at least) have filled the vacant seat.

How about Pope PeteBest VI?

Wouldn't it be a real indication of how low the church has fallen and how much the rest of the world hates us if they put that scumbag Cardinal Law on the throne? To put a man who escaped US indictment thru Papal diplomatic immunity (for his continual continence of pedophile priests and his obstruction of justice in protecting them) would be the ultimate slap in the face to the US and would open the flood gates of certain sins being normalized within the church. Talk about chaos!!

Mike Tyson.

Wayne - I can only picture Cardinal Law's elevation in conjunction with alien landings, flying pigs, and Godzilla stomping through Tokyo.

Obi - fair point about the Sedes. They don't like the term themselves, IIRC. But not all of them are Society of St Pius X. It's still a useful catchall phrase for reactionary schismatic Catholics (a term I think they'd like even less).

Sinbad. Man does he suck.

Oliver Stone, Stone Phillips and Roger Stone; as well as Jan Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone.