Papal contenders are hard to handicap because nobody publically pronounces a desire for the office, or “campaigns” for anybody.
The last I heard, these factors apply:
There is a conservative camp that views the “experiment” of a non-Italian pope as having been generally a bad idea, and will push to have an Italian again. Dionigi Tettamanzi seems to be the Italian frontrunner.
Conservatives may also wish to have an older man chosen. The current Pope was in his late 50’s when he became Pope. The office is for life, and they may wish to avoid another 20-30 year Pontifical reign.
Among the non-Italian, non-European possibilities the most likely candidate is a black man - Nigerian cardinal Francis Arinze.
If their are many ballots, I have heard that a certain French cardinal could emerge as a compromise choice acceptable to most factions. I think it was Lustiger they were talking about.
Highly unlikely that they would choose an American cardinal. America’s cardinals are in the doghouse right now for failing to keep the US from it’s pursuit of Mammon, and so on. I believe the same applies to Japanese cardinals. They would probably also avoid appointing a US cardinal expressly to avoid the appearance of US influence.
It turns out that there is an 80 year cutoff age for Papal eligibility. Lustiger was born in 1926, and is approaching it. Speculations I may have heard concerning him as a compromise candidate would have been a few years ago.
FWIW, here’s a handicaping from Slate dated Oct, 2003:
Yeah I know he was born in France and his parents came from Poland but with a name like Arron Lustiger…you gotta believe there’s some German there somewhere.
BTW his changed name is Jean-Marie not Pierre as I previously posted.
Cap’n it was just a comment…I wasn’t trying to be a smartass or anything.
My last name is Scots/Irish I was born in the USA…but if I introdiced myself to you. You’d think…yeah he’s of Irish or at least his ancestors were. No disrespect intended.
Actually, I think I might like the guy. He’s got a unique point of view.
The anti-christs are of all nationalities and ethnic identities–anyone who opposes the actions of the Christ are antichrists (as noted by John in his letters in the only biblical references to antichrists). There is no one “anti-christ” that is supposed to come from any particular ethnic background. This being the Straight Dope, we should probably try to post correct information, even when quoting beliefs rather than facts.
I agree with what you were saying Tom~ but it is a common belief that the “anti-christ” is one person. Whether or not it is based on scripture or conjecture or the media for that matter. There is a large number of folks whose idea of the anti-christ is one single individual. Some reincarnation of Lucifer himself complete with a 666 stamped on his forehead. You and I know that isn’t what was meant but that’s the way it’s been portrayed for a long time now.
Gregory Peck didn’t believe it at first either.
Hm, that sounds like a good idea. We should adopt that for our presidential and senate elections. It sure would save a lot of signs being stapled to fences.
If this is the case and you haven’t read it already, I can almost guarantee you will flip over a thriller entitled, Basilica by William Montalbano. And you’ll love this Pope - a Puerto Rican - if I remember correctly. Go for it, Zagadka.
Or try The Vicar of Christ, by F.X.Murphy. That pope is an American, a monk, not a cardinal, who was once Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but resigned and entered holy orders after the death of his wife. Hey, his given name is Declan, like one of the posters here! But sorry, he chooses Francis(Francesco in Italian) as the name he will reign under. A really good book actually.
