Choosing a Pope in the Internet Age

A reader of this site recently sent me an email bringing up a couple of interesting points about the process by which a new pope will soon be chosen after John Paul II, arguably the most "mediatized" pope ever (see a related post by Joi Ito on his blog here). This is the first time that a new pope is being chosen in the age of the Internet. What might this mean for the process, if anything? She writes:

• The choice of the next pope--one of the most influential leaders in the world (spiritual leadership and influence over about 1 billion people)--is one of the least transparent processes around.
• 117 people get together in the Sistine chapel to decide on the new pope.
• 114 of the 117 were chosen by the just-deceased pope (indicating a lot of value convergence--and also a tendency towards conservatism). [You can read more about the process here at the BBC.]
• Little is known about the candidates (most of this information is available in scattered local media). No single (as far as is obvious) source exists to share this information with the broader public.
• The voting mechanism: 2/3 majority required, but under rules brought in by the previous pope, a simple majority can waive this rule and thereby a simple majority can vote in the next pope.
• Now suppose someone built (a) a wiki to pool information about the candidates and (b) an online and SMS feedback system to register the global point of view.
• If such a thing were to happen would this be a good thing for (a) the Roman Catholic church, (b) for the Christian community, (c) for the world?

I know very little about Roman Catholicism, but these seem like interesting things. I add some corollary questions below:

• Even if there is no room for anyone's opinion but the presumably-divinely-chosen 117 in the actual election of a new pope, would it be possible to influence their opinions with a massive show of popular preference for one of the "papabili" (main candidates)?
• How can the internet be used (by the 117 themselves) to make the process of pope-selection more transparent to the public? Would they want it to be?
• Could the 117 make use of the internet to help them make their decision? By taking stock of public opinion, for example, or by inviting objections to a particular candidate's election?
• Would more public involvement in the election of a new pope, even if just as spectator to the heretofore secretive processes of selection, contribute to greater commitment to the new pope, or might it have the opposite effect by demystifying the divine in some way?
• What are the theological details of catholicism which speak to these issues?

Comments

[Michael]

Theologically speaking, the election of the pope is NOT a popularity contest. In fact, ideally, it's not even a human process. The cardinals are supposed to be considering what the divine judgment is on the matter. That's the joke about John Paul I, who lasted in office about as long as William Henry Harrison - when he died a voice came down from heaven and said "Wrong answer. Try again."

Also, the problem with a show of public support is that the papabili are from such diverse countries (and, although conservative, which isn't exactly the right description, are vastly different) that their supporters would mostly be their own flock localized geographically.

Christopher Buckley's story "We Have A Pope!" has a secret chatroom for the Cardinals within the Conclave, but I don't know if that has any basis in fact. Funny story regardless, and has a lot to say about this issue, since it's about a PR man hired to spin the Papal election who hits the wall of non-transparency.

At any rate, tradition is king (or pope) in Catholicism, so I doubt this'll change.

[flynn]

Most catholics have neither SMS nor Internet…

[Gabriel]

I am afraid that the election of the next Pope is already done. The Holy Spirit uses the cardinals as its way of expression. The catholics don't choose a Pope, the Holy Spirit does.
It is said that the Holy Spirit only missed once, and solved in 33 days.

[hamster]

with regards to the "how could they make it more transparent to the public" question, the process is pretty much designed to be as opaque as possible. none of the cardinals are supposed to know who anyone else voted for, and the results of each vote are burned immediately afterwards. furthermore, any cardinal who discusses what went on in conclave can be excommunicated from the church.

supposedly, they used to have a rule that cardinals could not vote for themselves and some sort of elaborate process to ensure that no cardinal voted for himself while also keeping the vote private. i'm kind of curious how they managed that.

about all we can do is cross our fingers and hope the new guy isn't much more conservative than the old guy. :)

[Daniel]

http://img46.exs.cx/img46/4927/popestars9zl.jpg

[jebro]

hamster:

Having a secret ballot in which no one is allowed to vote for themselves is not that difficult.

Imagine that there are 14 candidates. Each regular voter is given 14 slips of paper. One is marked and the other 13 are blank. There are also 14 containers, one for each candidate.

When it's time to vote, all the voters put a slip of paper into each of the containers with their marked slip going into the container of the person they actually want to cast their vote for. Any voter who is also a candidate, is given one less blank slip of paper and they are not allowed to drop anything into their own container.

The containers are opened and the non-blank slips of paper within each are counted to determine the winner.

[Nicholas Eymerich]

flynn: è già tanto se abbiamo l'acqua calda,vero? pirla!

[Phil Hood]

Worst idea I've ever heard, outside of giving loaded guns to monkeys. Ideally, popes are trying for divine inspiration--just about the opposite of being popular with millions of internet voters. If you want to elect your Pope you'll end up with watered down democratic religion. It is the mystery of the rituals, the dress, the history, the celibacy, that makes Popes more interesting than Jimmy Swaggart or Billy Graham. Voting would make them boring.

[Carol Purwin]

This is a very bad idea. Where would the secrecy be? Would you want everyone to know who you voted for in an election? Sometimes we tell people one thing, but vote another way depending on our feelings and how much dissension you would hear. The tradition and prayfulness must be present for a true Shepherd of the Church to be elected.

[flynn]

Nicholas: I'm from Europe too, no prejudices about not having warm water here. I was refering all catolics in developing countries, which afaik are in the majority, and afaik mostly don't have access to SMS or Internet, let alone clean water and food...

[Jay Knight]

Phil Hood: Excellent response! +1

[Cian]

General democratic elections for the Papacy are unlikely to ever happen, or even be feasible. The Church's answer to questions like these are 'Why should it change?'. By letting the cardinals select the Pope they can be assured that the person most fit to do the job will be selected. The position is for life, or as long as the selected Pope is able to carry on his duties. The Cardinals know each other better than any one else. The Church believes that the Pope is selected by the Cardinals with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is why there is a long tradition of fasting and prayer during the Conclave. Your average catholic probably does not feel too moved by the holy spirit while hitting the submit button on a html form. Also, in a general election, the public would have to be made aware of the candidates. That would mean campaigning and having cardinals openly declaring the desire to be the next Pope. This goes against the basic philosophies of the Church. The cardinals believe that the most worthy of them will be chosen by their fellow clergy with divine guidance.

Last of all, who says general elections are a good thing in the first place? Democracy is a greate system in theory, but in practice, ah, not so great. 'WE THE PEOPLE' elected George W. Bush. Lucky for us and the rest of the world, he will be retired from office for good in less than 4 years.

[Yo]

haha, if the next Pope can reduce my property taxes, give me free health care for me and my family, dish out some money for education, keep gas under 2$ gallon and finally give me a Barbra Walters interview with his boss GOD.... then he will have my vote.

[Nicholas Eymerich]

flynn: you're going down fast to the lowest hypocrite racial-like prejudice when you affirm that a 2 millennia roman institution has an air-tight decision making commitee partly\because there are also catholic populations living in the third world. Would you ever judge the public relations' policy of an european cultural muslim association on the basis of the Internet/SMS media penetration trough underdeveloped arab countries in the world?

[tweedledopey]

Gonna have to say this is not a good idea. I've got a pretty simple reason why, too. As flynn said, most Catholics don't have internet or SMS. You exclude most of Africa and remote regions where missionaries have been recently. Then, you allow non-Catholics to put in their feelings. And that says nothing to do with divine divination.

[flynn]

Nicholas, I don't get a iota of what you are saying. You seem to have serious issues, let's end this discussion here. I'm quite tired of getting insulted for proposing that a democratic vote, that was the premise of the article above, should be open to all catholics, not only those in developed countries. I'm not in favor of the traditional process, if that is what you are so upset about, in fact I couldn't care less about the pope and his (s)election.

Just a remark considering your style: Inserting Italian into a English discussion is something I'd consider either impolite or dastard. Especially when it contains insults.

[John]

Further to what has been discussed above, I would like to know why, if it is indeed the Holy Spirit Who choses popes, He has chosen several evil and wicked men in the past. I refer specifically to the Borgia popes (in the fourteenth century, I believe). Bearing this in mind, would there be any danger of such an occurence happening again? Please advise.

God bless you -
JOHN MUIR