So who are these papabili?

The two most important, and powerful, offices in the world must be the U.S. presidency and the papacy. I'm not sure what would come next: Surely not the U.N. secretary-generalship, but perhaps the chairmanship of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, or perhaps the chairmanship of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff or, looking to the private sector, the chairmanship of Microsoft. Or perhaps it's just something as simple as the office of being Oprah. Any other suggestions?

I ask this because I continue to be amazed at my own interest both in the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II and, increasingly, in his imminent succession -- both the process of succession, which seems almost endlessly fascinating, and the various candidates that may soon be competing, such as there is "competition" in the conclave, to occupy Peter's seat. But my interest seems to make sense. There is a presidential election every four years, and a new president at least every eight years. Since the late-'80s, when I first became interested in politics, there have been four presidents and at least three incredibly tight election campaigns ('92, '00, '04 -- and '88 was at least interesting in its own way). But I, like so many others, have known only one pope during my teen and adult years, and even if I'm not Catholic, John Paul II was one of those massive figures who could not fail to influence me and, more significantly, the world around me.

In short, the papacy affects us all, more or less, and questions abound: Will he ever emerge from J.P.II's shadow, or will he be the George H.W. Bush to J.P.II's Ronald Reagan? Will he follow, as seems likely, J.P.II's theological conservatism, dynamic evangelism, and commitment to social justice, leading the Church as an institutional bulwark against materialism, social liberalism, and modernity generally, or will he guide the Church away from J.P.II's moral absolutism (i.e., the "culture of life") and political authoritarianism (i.e., centralized power in the pope himself)? Will he adhere to J.P.II's intransigent opposition to liberalization both in terms of the Church itself (i.e., the ordination of women, relaxed celibacy restrictions on priests) and in terms of key moral issues (i.e., abortion, contraception, euthanasia, stem-cell research), or will he guide the Church towards more complex, nuanced responses to the challenges of the future (i.e., science and technology, democratization and economic development in the "South", the confrontation with Islam)? The answers matter, so we must pose the questions.

Soon enough, 117 voting cardinals -- 114 appointed by J.P.II himself -- will be charged with the task of electing the next pope. Who will it be? Right now, an Irish bookmaker has both Dionigi Tettamanzi (Italy) and Francis Arinze (Nigeria) at 11-4. They're followed by Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (Honduras) at 9-2, Joseph Ratzinger (Germany) at 7-1, and Claudio Hummes (Brazil) at 9-1. There is something to recommend each one, as there is to recommend at least nine or ten others. Now, I admit: Trying to predict the outcome of a conclave -- politics and personal relationships meshed with the holy spirit -- isn't like predicting the outcome of even, say, the Iowa caucuses (cardinals, presumably, are even tougher to figure out than Iowans). There will be correct predictions, of course, but any prediction is little more than a shot in the dark. Which makes it all the more fun.

So... what? Will the Italians seek to reclaim the papacy? Then it might be Tettamanzi, once called "that wee fat guy" by Scotland's Keith O'Brien, or perhaps one of three or four second-tier candidates. Will the cardinals seek a twin to J.P.II? Then it might be Cuba's Jaime Lucas y Alamino, another anti-Communist. Will they turn to the emerging African Church and to the front-lines of the confrontation with Islam? Then it might be Arinze. Will they turn to Latin America, now seemingly the quantitative home of Roman Catholicism? Then it might be Maradiaga, debt-relief advocate and friend of Bono. Or Hummes, an economic progressive who recently stated that "the Church must adapt to the modern world". Or Argentina's Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Will they turn to "Old Europe"? Then it might be Ratzinger, J.P.II's chief of doctrine as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (his online fan club -- believe it or not, he has one -- also refers to him as "Grand Inquisitor for Mother Rome" -- how's that for a frighteningly anachronistic title of doom and gloom?). Or Jean-Marie Lustiger, Jewish convert and Archbishop of Paris. Or Austria's Christoph von Schoenborn, a cultured theologian. Will they turn to a complete geographic outsider? Then it might be India's Ivan Dias? Will they go with age, anticipating a brief tenure for the next pope, perhaps looking for a transitional figure or someone merely to carry on J.P.II's efforts without much in the way of innovation? Then it might be Ratzinger, who will be 78 on April 16. Or Lustiger, 79. Will they go with youth? Then it might be Maradiaga, 62. Or Schoenborn, 60. Or will they go for the "right" age, say, 70-72? Then we're back to Tettamanzi, among others. Or, hey, how about a Canadian pope, like Marc Ouellet? That might not be so bad.

One thing seems clear, however. Whatever the talk of social justice, a central aspect of J.P.II's papacy, these men are all fundamentally conservative. Only two moderates -- it would be too much to call them liberals -- are even in the picture, Belgium's Godfried Danneels and Mexico's Norberto Rivera Carrera. Don't count on it. The fact that J.P.II appointed 114 of the 117 electors means that the next pope won't be much of a theological deviation from his predecessor. There's an Italian saying going around to the effect that you should always follow a fat pope with a skinny one. Yet we're looking at another fairly rigid conservative with tendencies to social justice (even Tettamanzi, so close to the ultraconservative Opus Dei, has boosted his social justice credentials in recent years). That means more of the Church as bulwark against what are seen as the excesses of modernity. So where will the oppositional difference lie? Perhaps with a decentralizer, as is widely suggested. Or perhaps the Italian cardinals, and there are many of them, will hold out for an Italian -- after all, they held the papacy for several centuries before J.P.II. Perhaps someone from the "South" will be enough of a novelty. Well, Arinze may be too much of a new thing, from too new a Church, so perhaps one of the Latin Americans.

For my part -- not that it's worth much -- I'll go with Tettamanzi, Ratzinger, or Maradiaga. Narrowing that down, I'll go with... nah, I'll hold off on a prediction after my success last night with UNC. Regardless, it's truly fascinating stuff. We haven't seen anything like this for 26 years, and it may well be over a decade, or even two, before we see it again. When we're talking about one of the two most important and powerful offices in the world... pay attention. It's not Haley's Comet, but it's close enough -- and likely more relevant to our lives.

And for those of us who try to balance social liberalism with deep concern for the direction modernity seems to be taking, ever more towards moral relativism and away even from liberalism's fundamental tenets, there is nothing but ambivalence about the direction the next pope, and the Church, will take. It is important, I think, to have such a powerful counterbalance to the forces of modernity, but at what cost?