# Who will be the next pope and related questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 3, 2002, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533 "2002-04-03T02:36:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Kahuna_Burger)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/1 "2002-04-03T02:36:14Z")
I read an article a while back on this issue, and it said that they’d want someone who was not white. I was wondering if they might pick an American because Catholics here are starting to lose faith in the church with the scandal, but is there an American cardinal untainted by the scandal? Does the pope even have to be a cardinal to begin with? And do they still lock themselves in St. Peter’s and blow out smoke when they’ve come to a decision? ---
**Author:** ![Kirkland1244](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kirkland1244](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kirkland1244)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/2 "2002-04-03T02:49:29Z")
An American pope would be far too hegemonic, and there would be fears of unorthodoxy, given the sad state of most American “Catholicism.” My money is on Cardinal Arinze of Africa. Kirk ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/3 "2002-04-03T03:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BigKahunaBurger \* > **Does the pope even have to be a cardinal to begin with?** I believe that under the canons for election, the Pope doesn’t even have to be a priest - I think that any adult male Roman Catholic is eligible for election, but as a practical matter, the next Pope will be a member of the College of Cardinals. ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/4 "2002-04-03T04:08:25Z")
As JP2 has appointed 106 of the 122 electors, it is a safe bet that his ‘orthodox’ doctrine will play heavily in the next election. Given that the current administration is (pretty much overtly) hostile to the US branch (those apologies, the ruckus about raping children, the nonsense about reproductive rights, (pretty much openly) gay priests, among other things), there is no way in hell (or purgatory) that an american is going to be pope. current gossip: think italian. if ratzinger (ultra-right, from germany, no less) is elected, expect all hell to break loose. side note: there seems to be agreement in both right and left wings of the rcc that a schism would be “good”. go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/5 "2002-04-03T10:33:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Northern Piper \* > \*\*I believe that under the canons for election, the Pope doesn’t even have to be a priest - I think that any adult male Roman Catholic is eligible for election, but as a practical matter, the next Pope will be a member of the College of Cardinals. \*\* I think this has changed, that now the Pope must be an ordained priest. I am looking for a cite, but I may not have time before I have to leave for work. I’ll hunt some more this afternoon if no one has given a cite or disproved me by then. And to answer the OP, Time did an article on some of those who are thought to be frontrunners for the next papacy:[potential popes](http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/papacy/succession.html) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/6 "2002-04-03T15:22:22Z")
I have a feeling this would be better in Great Debates, but let me see if I can answer this without going into too much analysis. To me, Pio Laghi looks good, as well as Carlo Maria Martini, but they don’t seem to be the top two. Dr. Brett is still betting on a Latin American-(if only because of liberation theology-which he is huge on). Hmmm…methinks we need an IRISH Pope. Ratzinger is powerful, but then again, that may count against him, according to the article. My WAG? They’ll go with someone non-descript, older, someone who may be able to be sort of, in the background, or someone old enough that he’ll only be there for a short time. Of course, this could backfire-that’s what they thought when the elected the man who would become John XXIII (and probably one of our greatest Popes in the modern age, if I do say so myself). The thing to remember about John Paul, though-he’s actually, in some ways, mildly liberal, at least in the church. His position on girls being altar servers, evolution and world peace and diplomacy ARE pretty big deals, at least as far as the Catholic church goes. On the other hand, he’s extremely conservative in general. So, who knows? (Mods, I hope this wasn’t an inappropriate response-this is just the way I see it…I hope it isn’t too GDish!) ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/7 "2002-04-04T00:39:49Z")
Well, I haven’t been able to find anything to approve my above statement, so I’ll assume that I’m wrong and that you don’t have to be ordained to be elected Pope. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/8 "2002-04-04T03:52:32Z")
Did a bit of poking around on the issue of who can be elected Poper and found the following: > [@](#): > > [CONCLAVE](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm) > > Though since Urban VI (1378-89) none but a cardinal has been elected pope, no law reserves to the cardinals alone this right. Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen – not, however, a heretic, a schismatic, or a notorious simonist. Since 14 January, 1505 (Julius II, “Cum tam divino”) a simoniacal election is canonically invalid, as being a true and indisputable act of heresy (Wernz, “Jus Decret.”, II, 658, 662; see “Hist. Pol. Blätter”, 1898, 1900, and Sägmüller, “Lehrbuch d. Kirchenrechts”, 1900, I, 215). > > [PAPAL ELECTIONS](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm) > > The decretal of Gregory X on this subject is called “Ubi periculum majus”. For the later regulations governing papal elections see CONCLAVE. According to certain ancient canons (can. “Oportet”, 3; can. “Nullus”, 4, dist. 79), only cardinals should be chosen pope. However, Alexander III decreed (cap. “Licet”, 6, “De elect.”) that “he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the cardinals.” As late as 1378, Urban VI was chosen, though not a cardinal (consult, however, Constitut. 50 of Sixtus V “Postquam”, § 2). A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V (1294). Even the election of a married man would not be invalid (c. “Qui uxorem”, 19, caus. 33, Q. 5). Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. ---
**Author:** ![dqa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dqa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dqa)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/9 "2002-04-04T06:50:35Z")
**Northern Piper** ’s cites would seem to allow the interesting possibility of an Eastern rite Catholic becoming bishop of Rome. But can we go a step further? Under the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for [schism](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm), a “schismatic” seems to generally be one who promotes schism in one form or another. Must it also include those who are separated from the Church due to a historical schism? If not, I still can’t see Billy Graham winning the vote. But imagine the historic consequences of selecting the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople as pope. Or would he technically be barred as a schismatic? ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-be-the-next-pope-and-related-questions/101533/10 "2002-04-04T07:09:04Z")
Until Vat II (IIRC): ‘schismatic’ = Eastern Orthodox ‘heretic’ = Protestant Yes Virginia, the Pope must be Roman Catholic