It is difficult to predict who will succeed Benedict XVI in the Vatican, even though the media have presented a long list of potential candidates – bishops from around the globe, New York to Milan. No one, though, is a clear favourite.
“I am certain about one thing – cardinals do not make their pick based on the continent the candidate comes from. They elect a person. So no one will vote specifically for a black pope or a Latin American. The rest is but speculation. Before the last conclave, Joseph Ratzinger had great chances of being elected the pope, but now it is very tricky to tell who could be the one,” Ališauskas tells 15min.
– Before his resignation, Benedict XVI altered the rules of the conclave that will select his successor – he allowed cardinals to convene earlier. It is obvious that the Vatican is eager to have a new pope by Easter. Will they succeed?
– They will. There is plenty of time. I cannot conceive of a crisis that could prevent cardinals from electing the pope.
Sure, there have been troubles before. That's why they introduced the conclave. According to a legend, people once got infuriated that cardinals could not elect the pope, so they surrounded the palace, sealed the doors, and threatened to reduce food rations every successive day. So then the Church leaders had to pull themselves together and do something to elect the pope.
– The conclave ahead of us is exceptional – the new pope will be elected while the previous one is still with us. Besides, there is plenty of time to get ready – the pope gave a two-week notice about his impending resignation. Why there's still no favourite?
– The college of cardinals are not that well familiar with one another. Very few cardinals – including our own Audrys Juozas Bačkis – are veterans and won't be sitting their first conclave. Most cardinals eligible to vote (under 80) have been appointed by Benedict XVI, some of them very recently and still do not know each other that well.
On the other hand, I do not believe there exist strong factions trying to block one another. Not now. So the election should not be crisis-ridden. I think that most cardinals will select their candidate after they're in the conclave.
– Let's recall the 2005 conclave. Was Ratzinger, dean of the college of cardinals, considered a favourite at the time?
– There were many who felt the power of his personality. Even in Lithuania, people spoke that this man could be the next pope.
Ratzinger had always been well-known. At one point, I believe, he was the youngest bishop in Europe. His book, Introduction to Christianity, published in 1968, was a bestseller. He was also known as a pedagogue. In the end, he was one of the closest companions to Pope John Paul II. I think that had he become the pope ten years younger, he would have introduced even more changes in the Church.
– Oftentimes, when one considers the most likely candidates, the dean of the college of cardinals pops up. At the moment, that is Cardinal Angelo Sodano. What are his chances of becoming the pope?
– I do not think they are high. Highly qualified though he is, Sodano is 85. Priority will probably be given to younger candidates. Cardinals do take into account the age of the candidate when they make their pick. By the way, theoretically, the pope does not necessarily have to be selected from among cardinals – any baptised male is eligible.
– This conclave will also take place in the age of social media. It has become a norm for cardinals to have Facebook profiles, to use Twitter. What if the news about the new pope spreads even before the white smoke from the Sistine Chapel?
– It won't, since they take everything away from cardinals (laughs). And the white smoke could be seen as a precursor to social media. But as it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, it is not always immediately apparent whether the smoke is white or black. In that case, everyone holds their breath, guessing and waiting for the bells to start tolling and pronouncing that the new pope has been elected.
As a matter of fact, after the election of Joseph Ratzinger, the white smoke rose from the chimney, but the bells kept silent. Why? Because it is the dean of the college of cardinals who gives the instruction to sound the bells. What if he is elected the pope? Everyone was a little at a loss back then.
– Greg Burke, public relations assistant at the Vatican, recently stated that the media might be trying to influence the conclave. Have you noticed such attempts?
– Not just might try – they are trying, I'd say. By insisting, in various ways, on who should participate in the conclave, who should not, who is discredited. That does not mean that the media necessarily has a well-defined political agenda. But there is no doubt that the media are exceptionally active. Before, after the pope's death, there would not be much to talk about. And now there's a departure from the scheme. And the media, I'd say, is having much fun.
But it is clear that we have the first instance in the history of the Church where a pope steps down in his free will. This distinguishes Benedict XVI from the famous Pope Celestine V who abdicated in 1294. The latter was forced to resign – political tensions and intrigues prevented him from carrying out his duties. And he wasn't entirely free even after stepping down – some say he was almost thrown into prison.
These were different times, with cruel power games.
– Does the pope's resignation in good faith constitutes a sign that the Church is modernizing itself?
– There's nothing modern about that. There has always been a provision that the pope can resign. It was known a thousand years ago. The Church simply realizes different potentials it has always had.
Benedict XVI is a professional theologian, he knows the structure of the Church and all matters of faith very well, so he had a very clear vision of what the pope's resignation would look like, how it would fit into the tradition – he thought things through. He has a clear plan of what his own life will be from now on.
– How would you characterize the papacy of Benedict XVI?
– I well recall the speculations about whether or not Benedict XVI would follow the tone set by John Paul II. But it turned out differently. And not in a positive or a negative sense. Benedict XVI is an entirely different sort of person, it is even difficult to compare him to John Paul II.
Benedict XVI had a relatively short papacy, but he did leave a significant mark. His work, albeit unfinished, is very strong. Especially what he did for the sake of Christian unity. Ecumenism has been led out of a deadlock. And it had been completely stalled during the last decades of the papacy of John Paul II.
Another point to make – Benedict XVI gave momentum to the religious dialogue with Islamic leaders. Third, there was his great journey to Africa, which sparked a world-wide discussion on the problems of this continent. As I see it, it was a journey of hope, since the Pope stressed that seeing Africa as an assembly of failed states was unproductive and that we needed new ways to revive it.
I think it was a new experience for himself as well. While heading the Church, he saw that Europe was merely one part of the world. The world is much more diverse, more complex than Europe which is slightly running out of steam.
– There has been much talk about Benedict's insularity, his complete withdrawal.
– This view is inadequate. If a man does not wave hands and make noise – does that mean he is insular and withdrawn? In fact, Ratzinger was a celebrated and popular teacher.
His famous lectures on Christianity were given to students in the best universities of Germany. Not for theologians – for chemists, mathematicians, philologists.
According to witnesses, all his classes would be delivered in packed lecture theatres and to audiences silent with awe. Vatican officials sometimes joke: “Crowds would gather to look at John Paul II and to listen to Benedict XVI.” To listen to his special way of speaking – very precise, clear, rhythmical, a little cautious, but at the same time very warm and simple.
The pope was elected in his late years. However, he managed to study and learn the gestures, the intonations one needed to address the crowd, to make a contact with it.
When Benedict XVI was just elected, I had an opportunity to be a commentator for a broadcast from Youth Days in Cologne. This papal visit had been planned back under John Paul II. It was clear that Benedict XVI, slightly baffled at first, was learning as he went along, that he was finding solutions and right words, even improvising. By the end of the meeting, he had a clear sense of how to talk to young people. And young people are not someone who will take just anything. A remarkable flexibility and talent, I'd say.
In general, there were many silly prejudices about this pope that were later discarded and forgotten. Lately, these prejudices resurfaced.
For example, calling the Pope God's Rottweiler. I cannot recall a single serious theologian who was punished, suspended, or as much as reprimanded under his papacy. The freedom of theologian research was much greater than under John Paul II.
Hans Küng, a known theologian who had his licence to teach Catholic theology revoked in 1979, was among the first people to be invited for an audience with Benedict XVI. The pope did not return his licence, but they had a long talk. After the Pope announced about his resignation, Küng gave a less than friendly comment, but he nevertheless conceded that Benedict XVI was a significant figure.
Another thing – parts of the secular media and society have this notion that the pope can alter the Church doctrine at will. But it would be inconceivable for a pope to accept, for example, that same-sex marriage is equal to a union of a man and a woman. This will never happen. In this respect, there are no liberal or conservative popes – all of them adhere to traditional teachings.
– When you were appointed Lithuania's ambassador to the Holy See in 2008, you had a face-to-face audience with the Pope to present your credentials. What were your impressions?
– We talked for about 25 minutes. It was a very relaxed conversation from the first minute. No tension, no mistrust. He asked me to tell him about myself, but he warned at once he already knew some things.
He knew a great deal in fact – much more than was on my official CV. We talked about Lithuania, its problems, about the Church of Lithuania, about Lithuanian youth, the dramatic social transformation over the years since the Independence, about the meaning of the European Union.
I had another meeting with the Pope on New Year, when all ambassadors come to greet the Holy Father and pass best wishes from their nations and governments – and he gives short replies.
And there was a farewell meeting with the Pope at the end of my term. It was short but warm, friendly, with jokes.
By the way, being a practical man as he is, Benedict XVI confined his contacts with the world of politics to meetings with state leaders: monarchs, presidents, and prime ministers. Personal audiences were just that.
– Everyone recalls the Words uttered by a good friend of Benedict XVI, Max Seckler: “It is even hard to imagine the intrigues that go on in Rome.” Have you felt those intrigues while there?
– The level of intriguing is usually measured against one's own sensitivity. What some might see as appalling schemes, others consider plain politics. True, there are some intrigues. Whenever a company of more than ten people come into one place, there are inevitably some sort of divisions, confrontations, etc. In general, though, that is a romanticized vision of the “mysterious” Vatican. Truth be told, there's nothing out of the ordinary there.
