The one and only English pope was Nicholas Breakspear. A failed vocation from St Albans, he later made a name for himself as the hard-boiled Abbot of St Rufus in Avignon, France, and then as the Bishop of Albano, a diocese near Rome, before he embarked on an extremely successful diplomatic career as a papal legate in Scandinavia, establishing separate hierarchies for Norway and Sweden which until his arrival were governed by the Danish Church.
Bishop Breakspear was crowned Pope Hadrian IV “on a wave of triumph” in 1154, according to historian Professor Eamon Duffy, and in his five-year reign he destroyed his domestic enemies in Rome with the help of Frederick Barbarossa before ultimately asserting his own authority over the German king. At the same time, he cosied up to the Normans by recognising the claim of William I as the King of Sicily and by giving his blessing to the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland which would be led at the end of the 12th century by Raymond FitzGerald and Richard de Clare (aka Strongbow).
For the first time in more than 850 years, there is now a real prospect of a second English pope. This time it is Arthur Roche, the lad from Batley Carr, West Yorkshire, and a former Bishop of Leeds who last Saturday was not only created a cardinal by Pope Francis but who was also chosen to deliver a fawning speech of welcome and thanksgiving during the ceremony to replenish the College of Cardinals with 20 new faces. Was this a sign that he is highly-favoured? Pope Francis certainly looked very pleased with him.
Cardinal Roche, 72, is high-ranking because since last year he has served as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, a Vatican dicastery, or department. Yet until now he has not been considered seriously as papabile. His name, however, is increasingly being whispered in Vatican circles as a possible compromise candidate who could emerge from a conclave to choose a successor to Pope Francis.
Speculation invariably swirls when the future is difficult to predict and the results of conclaves are always tricky to anticipate. Many observers make the mistake of attempting to understand the process of choosing a pope by comparing it to that of selecting a leader of a ruling political party when really it’s more like the Grand National. It is a contest which starts with a handful of clear favourites, one of whom may occasionally win but who more often than not fall or fade during the race and allow a complete unknown to come charging up the middle to claim victory. St Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI were heavily fancied by the pundits but far fewer were able to successfully predict the elections of Pope St John XXIII or Pope St John Paul II, for instance, and it is a fact that when Jorge Bergoglio emerged on to the balcony of St Peter’s many bishops around the world did not have a clue who he was.
Such unpredictability is very often the result of the emergence of compromise candidates after it becomes clear to various competing factions that their preferred choices cannot command the required number of votes to win.
At present the three giants going into the next conclave will be Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, who is seen as a reformer and something of a Franciscan continuity candidate; Hungarian Cardinal Péter Erdő, an intellectual and the choice of many conservatives, and Italian Cardinal Matteo Zuppi of Bologna, a European-style liberal who wrote a preface to Building a Bridge, a book by Fr James Martin, the American Jesuit who has become notorious as the world’s foremost Catholic apologist of the global LGBT+ agenda.
The rejection of Cardinals Erdő and Zuppi by their rival factions would be axiomatic. Cardinal Tagle, on the other hand, could be attractive to both camps since he is a liberal but one who is untarnished by extreme positions. Yet he is inscrutable rather than “dolce”, or sweet-natured, and he is said by some observers to inspire trepidation, as well as admiration, in those who have met him. That he frightens some cardinals and bishops will not work in his favour.
So Vatican-watchers are now looking beyond the favourites and are inspecting lower ranks in the quest for the next Bergoglio. The traditionally-minded speak wishfully about the prospects of the American Cardinal Raymond Burke, German Cardinal Gerhard Müller and the Dutch former doctor Cardinal Willem Eijk as potential candidates. Others look closely at Cardinal William Goh of Singapore and the Swedish Cardinal Anders Arborelius. It is within this context of expanding speculation that Cardinal Roche has crept in as a contender.
But does he have a real chance? Indeed he does. By restricting access to the Traditional Latin Mass he has distinguished himself as a continuity candidate, a reformer fully of the mould of Francis and his particular interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. There are many, of course, who are profoundly saddened by the sudden withdrawal of the spiritual warmth accorded to them by the liberation of the Old Rite and who dislike Cardinal Roche because of his role in this. Some exist within the College of Cardinals. But there are others admire him for it, or simply accept it. Cardinal Roche has powerful allies and some of them are within the Curia. They are said to include, for instance, the Irish-American Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life who is additionally influential in his role as Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church. If a compromise candidate is sought, it is likely that there will be no shortage of cardinals like Farrell willing to use their influence to rally support behind Cardinal Roche.
They surely do not share the view, occasionally expressed by Roche’s enemies in the media, that Roche is a mediocre and severe man. They might not believe him to be brilliant, but they are unlikely to underestimate him in this way. Roche has an easy English working-class charm and affability matters in Rome. He might be seen as potentially a pope like Francis but not quite as severe because of his gentle, cool and Anglo-Saxon temperament. He would be “Francis-lite”, the continuity candidate who does not lose his rag.
It may also be a fact that such affability will have an amplified importance at the next conclave compared to intellectual gifts that previously have been so highly prized. Cardinal Roche was awarded a licence in Theology by the Gregorian but in qualities of mind he surely cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Erdő and Tagle. But luckily for him, he might not have to worry about that because this pontificate has demonstrated that such qualities are no longer a pre-requisite to highest office.
Now Francis is no dummy. But it is not disrespectful to note that he is neither a great philosopher like St John Paul nor an outstanding theologian like Benedict. His teachings are not always systematic or even consistent. The Holy Father often relies on bon mots or epithets, depending on the subject matter, to make a point and he generally shoots them from the hip or rattles them off like a scatter gun. They are seldom original. Where St John Paul II presented an encyclical of the quality of Evangelium Vitae, for example, Francis simply repeats, ad nauseam, that euthanasia is a symptom of a “throwaway culture” of the capitalist systems of the West and that abortion is the same as hiring a contract killer. In fairness to him, his repeated warnings to the people of our times that we run the risk of our own self-destruction have been consistent, prescient and accurate, a sign of the Fisherman if one would choose to look for it. But his style and the content of his teachings make it far easier for a man like Cardinal Roche to slip effortlessly into his shoes when previously such a person would have stood little chance of election.
The question the College of Cardinals must face in the not-too-distant future is whether it wants a return to the St John Paul/Benedict hermeneutic of continuity, or to elect a Pope Francis II or to choose someone rather different altogether. The various trade-offs involved in the selection of a pope makes the third option increasingly likely.
So, for what it is worth, my hot tip for pope is Cardinal José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça, a Portuguese intellectual heavyweight who is also an acclaimed and internationally-published poet (his work includes love poems) and who has shown himself capable of articulating the beauty and tenderness of God in his writings and in his sermons. He has an authentic pastoral touch and a deeply endearing manner. At present, he serves as the Vatican’s librarian and archivist and his staff love him. At just 56, he oozes potential.
Don’t be surprised if a man like Cardinal Mendonça emerges on to the balcony of St Peter’s when the time comes. He will be the sort of figure acceptable to all factions and capable of attracting broad support among them. He would be the sort of man who could beat the favourites and Cardinal Roche as well. Of course, if Mendonça is elected most of the watching world will then ask who on earth he is. So here’s an early fact: he would be only the third Portuguese pontiff after Pope Damasus I was elected in the fourth century and Pope John XXI in the 13th century. You read it here first.
(Simon Caldwell’s debut novel, The Beast of Bethulia Park, will be published in November)
(Photo © Mazur/cbcew.org.uk)
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.