Now that the formalities of saying goodbye to Pope Francis are over, the process of selecting his successor can begin in earnest. Framing the choice in terms of “liberal v conservative” is somewhat misleading, given that all members of the College of Cardinals uphold the core Catholic doctrines – which besides the theological orthodoxy, include the perpetuation of a celibate male priesthood, and the preaching of a sexual morality based on the family as a unit of procreation and conditioning.

By focussing on the liberal vs progressive spectrum, the succession speculation minimises the impact that Francis’ massive administrative reform of the Church administrative arm – the Curia – will have on the mood of the conclave. As they say, Francis had the heart of a Franciscan but the mind of a Jesuit, and the Curia reforms he led were enacted with ruthless efficiency.

So what did he do? For starters, he scrapped the so-called Vatican “Congregations” that had become mini-fiedoms, re-shaped them, and re-named them as “dicasteries.” For example: the “Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith” had become so powerful during the hey-day of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) that it was informally known as “La Suprema.” Francis not only split its doctrinal and disciplinary functions, and provided each with their own heads, but he ranked them beneath the body tasked with promoting evangelisation. To Francis, outreach trumped orthodoxy as a papal priority.

Besides the existing rule that made retirement mandatory at 75, Francis also put term limits of two five year terms on the dicastery heads. Was this a de-centralisation of power among the Vatican barons, or a re-consolidation of power in the papacy itself? Or both ? Further down the chain, Francis connected these reforms to a greater degree of transparency via the enhanced powers granted to bishops’ conferences and local initiatives.

Much of the reform process was in line with Vatican II recommendations, but which had not been carried out by subsequent Popes as thoroughly as Francis has done. Often Francis announced these reforms by decree (in motu proprio is the term ) and without much, or any, consultation beyond his key advisers.

So... when there is talk of staying true to the legacy of Francis in choosing his successor, this could mean something else to the cardinals in the conclave beyond simply being nice and inclusive on the hot-button social issues of the day. Many of the voting cardinals will be looking back on the Francis era as a time of rapid and extensive change that had major implications – positive for some, negative for others – for their place in the Vatican hierarchy. Inevitably along this path of Curia reform, Francis made friends and created enemies.

It would seem likely therefore that the conclave will want a sound managerial hand to slow the pace of administrative reform that Francis had set in motion and had lived long enough to carry past the point of no return. Chances are, the conclave won’t be looking for another round of reform, as dictated by another papal visionary.

Choosing in the dark

So far much of the succession talk around the liberal v progressive option has had to do (a) with the new Pope’s stance on certain social issues mainly to do with gender identity and sexuality that have become central to the West’s “culture wars” and (b) with how the new Pope will perform his unique role as a moral conscience on the world stage.

Again, Francis adopted a more inclusive stance toward the LGBTQI community and repeatedly put those ideals into practice. However, its worth remembering that this stance always co-existed uneasily with the Catholic Catechism item # 2357 that condemns homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered... contrary to natural law... [and that] close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

So...basically, Francis was condemning the “sin” while going out of his way to embrace the “sinners” and protect them as best he could from social marginalisation. His friendship with a gay couple (the only personal audience he granted on his 2016 US visit) and his moral and financial support for this group of trans women is a matter of record. Yet as mentioned, this sat alongside his condemnation of “gender ideology” as a recruiting tool for a lifestyle that he regarded, and the Church continues to treat, as sinful.

Previous conservative Popes had sternly condemned the sin, but Francis tended to treat the offering of compassionate charity to the sinner as being a more compelling moral duty, and (probably) as a more likely path to redemption.

Onwards and upwards

At this point, no one – including most of the voting Cardinals – have a clear idea of what the conclave will be looking for in their next leader, let alone who might best embody those preferences. Hungary’s Peter Erdo, 72, seems to be the traditionalist camp’s favoured candidate. A sharp legal mind well acquainted with Curial complexity, Erdo has tried of late to position himself as a compromise candidate. Yet his harsh positions in the past on LGBTQI issues and on refugees, not to mention his close ties to Hungary’s authoritarian ruler Victor Orban would make Erdo the antithesis of the Francis legacy.

If the conclave progresses beyond the early rounds, the conservative and traditionalist camps will most likely need to cut their losses, and unite behind the likes of the Congolese cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, a reliably conservative voice on social/gender issues. (Malta’s Mario Grech is another possible compromise option for a dead-locked conclave.)

Oddly, there is no liberal candidate of the right age – circa 70 years of age is the ideal - with the combination of personal and administrative skills that mark them out as an obvious heir to Pope Francis. The Vatican diplomat Pietro Parolin, 70, of Italy seems to be regarded as the current liberal front-runner. Reportedly though, Parolin carefully distanced himself from the “culture war” issues during the Francis papacy.

In sum...no one knows the size of the competing blocs in the conclave, or even their top-most priorities. At this point, few of the obvious leading or compromise candidates seem able, let alone inclined to embody either Francis’ personal charm, or his gospel of inclusiveness. As a result, the role of the papacy on the world stage appears likely to diminish. The papal gaze will probably turn further inwards, to preach a more orthodox version of the pastoral care of the faithful.

Footnote One: The observation above that Francis condemned the sin but embraced the sinner is not a criticism. Francis provided a stark, welcome contrast to so many US evangelicals, who are staunchly pro-life from the point of conception until the moment of birth – after which time, they are so dis-engaged from the sanctity of life that they can actively support the death penalty. (Francis BTW, opposed the death penalty in every circumstance.)

Footnote Two: In a recent column, an alert reader has pointed out that I mistakenly said that Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected only twice to the US presidency. In fact, FDR was elected four times, with the beaten candidate in 1944 being the hapless Thomas Dewey, who went on in 1948 to be (surprisingly) beaten by Harry Truman.

© Scoop Media