One good reason to thank God the Church is not a democracy

ONE of the many interesting churches which you will find in Rome is that of Domine Quo Vadis (Latin for ‘Lord, where are you going?’).

It’s on the ancient military road, the Appian Way, near the Catacombs. Inside are two footprints where Jesus once stood, supposedly - recalling a story cherished in Church tradition but not found in the Acts of the Apostles: St Peter, now an old man, is fleeing Rome and persecution. He meets Jesus. “Where are you going, Lord?” he asks. “I’m returning to Rome to be crucified” is the response. This reminds Peter of the day he got upset when the Lord asked him three times if he loved him - three times, it seemed, to overcome his three earlier denials in the courtyard of the High Priest’s house.

Christ had made a prediction: “When you were young, you would gird your own belt and you walked where you liked. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will put a rope around you and take you where you would rather not go.”

Peter’s encounter with Christ on the Appian Way reminds him of his destiny.

He returns to Rome.

The story, even if not true, serves as a useful reminder that following Christ involves suffering and that it is the lot of the Pope, the successor of St Peter, to lead by example in facing up to it.

Given the sufferings of the last Pope, it seems obvious. Who in their right mind would seek the papacy? There is no longer the lure of papal states or worldly wealth. You can’t even decide the Church’s teaching - you have to hand on the tradition. Only those with a vision of how the Church is to lead its flock could in any sense ‘want’ the job. And to do it right, they must curb any vanity or personal ambition.

Yet the media speculation in recent days about cardinals supporting and shafting each other in the conclave, scheming ruthlessly for power, ignores all that. It’s an image of the papacy from the middle ages and Renaissance years.

“It’s the last day of campaigning,” proclaimed Sky News on Sunday. They weren’t joking. Although they had nothing but hearsay to go on - the cardinals had committed themselves not to talk to the media and none of them had published a manifesto - Sky still managed to make a ‘campaign’ out of it.

There is, of course, an element of competition in a papal election - but it exists much more on the level of ideas than on personalities. Who can best lead the Church in evangelising the western world, defend the dignity of life, and uphold the rights of the family and the role of spiritual values in a free society?

Who can make the Church’s more difficult teachings credible again in the face of opposition from media and other vested interests? Who will best promote ‘collegiality’ - a greater involvement of the world’s bishops in determining what the Church must say and do?

Who will best prod the conscience of the First World into taking decisive steps to develop the economies and societies of the South? Who will advance the cause of mutual understanding among the world’s great religions so that together they can make the world a more peaceful place?

These are the real questions which the cardinals were asking. But the media’s desire to use the language normally used for elections, its preference for conflict-based stories, and its desire to keep ratings up, got in the way. Add in a shortage of full-time religious affairs journalists and the poor quality of analysis becomes almost understandable. There isn’t necessarily any malice or agenda.

That cannot be said of the treatment meted out to Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. The story that he was once a member of the Hitler Youth has been used by his enemies for a long time now, but there was something particularly cynical about its re-emergence in recent days. Many newspapers covered it, but the Sunday Times did so in the classic style in which the media sometimes dices with untruth for the sake of ‘a good story.’

It usually starts with a misleading headline. In the Sunday Times’ case, it was a caption on the front page. “Nazi past,” it said under a photo of Ratzinger. “One of the main contenders to become the new Pope may find his past has returned to haunt him. On the eve of the conclave in Rome, it has been revealed that the German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth.”

But nothing had been ‘revealed’ on the eve of the conclave. This only became clear as you read through the story. The early paragraphs ignored any clarification or nuance. The facts were released gradually, indirectly and almost reluctantly - too late, probably, for those readers who took up the false idea and moved on to read something else. Such is the ‘terms and conditions applies’ approach to journalism. The truth is in the small print.

But only there.

Miss it and you’re misled.

It was just so with the Ratzinger story. The cardinal was indeed a member of the Hitler Youth - but then again, that was compulsory. His father, in fact, had opposed the Nazis and had to move house several times for doing so.

Young Joseph was only six years of age when Hitler came to power in 1933. He was 12 when the war broke out and 18 when it ended. Hard to blame a young man for anything he might do at that stage of his life. And Ratzinger did nothing. He was enrolled as an anti-aircraft gunner but he saw no action.

Not much of a story, is it, when you look at it properly? All it really does is give us a reason to be thankful that the Church is not a democracy. Isn’t it a good thing that the cardinals meet to vote in secret, when you have carry-on like that? Imagine what it would be like if a Pope were elected in the normal political way.

Politicians, campaigners and media bosses would try to influence the outcome by fixing on the candidates they disliked and then blackening them. Clarification might come in the end, but too late.

And, make no mistake, there was an agenda behind the Hitler Youth story.

Even if a newspaper smear could not be relied on to influence a papal election, it was worth a try. It’s all a bit ironic really. Because, in the end,even if Cardinal Ratzinger hadn’t been chosen as the next Pope, it wouldn’t have been because of any lack of esteem for him in the conclave.

Most likely, he was chosen because Pope Benedict XVI’s agenda for the Church is one which most of the cardinals already share. On the one hand it involves a courageous defence of the Church’s beliefs, and a willingness to reach out to the unconverted on the other.

In this respect, it is significant that the last Pope Benedict is reputed to have said that Christian was his name, Catholic was his family name and the important thing for people was to be good.

Given that the new Pope’s role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put him in the difficult position of defending the church’s teaching, many were left with the image of him as a hardliner. He is in an ideal position to surprise his critics.