Habemus Papam!

By EMMANUEL R. FERNANDEZ

     With only a handful of exceptions,  every “vaticanista” (the Italian term for an “expert” in Vatican affairs) was saying that the new Pope would be elected on the third day of the Conclave (20 April 2005) -- at the earliest.  The reasoning was simple and logically persuasive:   if the Cardinals elected a Pope earlier than that, it would give the world the impression that the Cardinals did not deliberate long and deep enough before making a decision on such a serious matter.  On the other hand, if they took longer than that, the watching world might think the divisions within their ranks were really quite serious.

     So, after making sure that I was at St. Peter’s Square when the first-ever “papal smoke” of the third millennium rose from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel on the first day of the Conclave (18 April 2005), I surmised that I did not have to come back the following day since, most likely, the smoke from the chimney would still be black (meaning, no Pope would have been elected yet).   I would resume my “papal watch” on the third day, the day on which the experts predicted a new Pope would finally be chosen.

     But shortly before lunch on the second day (19 April 2005, a Tuesday), the secretary of the Philippine Ambassador to the Holy See called me up and requested me to drop by their Embassy later that day to notarize some documents.  The Philippine Embassy to the Holy See is literally just a dozen steps away, or even less, from St. Peter’s Square.  So, since I had no appointment later that day anyway, I said yes to the secretary’s request, with the thought of taking the opportunity to take a leisurely walk from their Embassy to St. Peter’s Square afterwards.

     At 5:45 PM that Tuesday, I finished my paper work at “the other  Embassy” (the Philippine Embassy to the Italian Republic) and prepared to leave for my appointment.  I was in no rush whatsoever since I did not set a specific time with the Ambassador’s secretary.  Besides, when I went to St. Peter’s Square the day before, the smoke from the chimney came out way past 8:00 PM.  So I figured that if a white smoke were to come out later that day (which, I thought, was a very remote possibility), I still had more than a couple of hours to catch sight of it. 

                                                                                

     But at around 6:00 PM, my own Ambassador instructed his secretary to call me up and ask if I would like to join him in watching the TV coverage of the new Pope’s first appearance at St. Peter’s Square.   “Why?”  I asked unbelievingly.  “Has a new Pope been elected yet?”  “Yes,” came the secretary’s reply.   “White smoke came out of the chimney just a few minutes ago.  The new Pope is expected to make his first appearance a few minutes from now.   We’re watching the proceedings on TV.”   “Oh, no!” I told her.  “Tell the Ambassador, thanks, but I’m leaving for the Square right now.  I’d rather witness the event with my own eyes!”

     I am normally a “slow-moving animal” (I have always believed that life is too short to be rushed), but that Tuesday afternoon, I suddenly moved with the speed of a high-powered athlete.   Before I knew it, I was frantically stepping on the accelerator of my car along Viale delle Medaglie d’Oro, determined to make it to the Square on time for the new Pope’s first appearance.   But I had barely moved a kilometer when I suddenly got stuck in traffic.  I realized that practically everyone in Rome was on the way to the Square.  People and cars alike were moving towards it like paper clips gravitating towards a magnet.   The difference was that those who were trying to get there on foot were making more  progress than those who made the mistake of trying to get there on wheels.   So I decided to do what, in hindsight, proved to be one of the best on-the-spot decisions I have ever made in my life:   park my car on the only free space I could find along the road – which happened to be the end of a pedestrian lane! – get off the car, and join those who were literally speeding on foot towards Saint Peter’s Square.  I knew for sure that I would get a ticket when I came back, but then I thought:   “What the heck!  This is one event I wouldn’t want to miss for the world!”*

     My recklessness paid off.  Soon, after wading through what seemed like a deepening sea of people, I finally found myself standing in the right colonnade of St. Peter’s Square, where I had a distant but fairly clear view of the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica.   From where I stood, the faces of the people on the balcony were hardly recognizable.  But, thanks to modern technology, the big screens that were put up on the Square gave us their close-up shots.  

     My feet had barely warmed the ground on which they stood when the Proto-Deacon proclaimed:  “Annuntio vobis gaudium magno:  Habemus Papam!”     

     As soon as the Proto-Deacon announced the first name of the new Pope -- even before he mentioned his surname -- the crowd instantly knew that the new Pope was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the former Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the consistent “bet” of many a Conclave watcher.  Warm applause rose from the crowd as the new Pope, with a broad smile on his face and with his hands waving generously, appeared.   Then he addressed the crowd with a voice that was – to my mind – a stark contrast to the public reputation that had been built around him as the Catholic Church’s “doctrinal watchdog.”   It was a very gentle voice, a bit timid in fact.  I could hardly follow what he was saying during that first public address of his.  But the voice with which he spoke – with its gentleness, its touch of timidity and, yes, the surprising compassionateness that it revealed about its source -- somehow told me that there was something about the man which had been unfairly overlooked by those who were saying that a “Ratzinger papacy” would be an ultra-conservative and compassionless pontificate.   

     When I was still a seminarian, some of my theology professors spoke of Cardinal Ratzinger as an inflexible dogmatist who did not tolerate any form of dissent from Catholic orthodoxy, no matter how reasonable and relevant it was.  He was often pictured as theology’s version of George Orwell’s “Big Brother,” and as someone who stood in the way of the healthy growth of Catholic doctrine.  He was said to have frowned upon Liberation Theology and the other theologies that were trying to make Catholic doctrine more conversant with and more responsive to the new realities of the church and of the world in which it lived.  He was, in short, the last person a “progressive” seminarian would want to see at the helm of the Catholic Church.

     Yet, that Tuesday afternoon, in some strange way, Cardinal Ratzinger’s voice turned my prejudices on their heads.  There was something about it which assured me that the shape of the man’s heart was vastly different from the unflattering public picture that those who did not like his theological stands had painted of him.  I had the sense that he was, in fact, a warm-hearted man who was only doing his best to fulfill what he thought were his God-given tasks as the Church’s doctrinal guardian.  Now that his role and his tasks had changed, his mode of leadership was certainly going to change accordingly.

     We, Catholics, believe that, in the final analysis, it is not really the Cardinals who make the decision in a Conclave but the Holy Spirit.  The Cardinals are, after all, just the instruments by which the Holy Spirit Himself chooses the man who will be the next Shepherd of God’s Sheep.

      I, therefore, went home from St. Peter’s Square that unforgettable day,  confident that -- thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit   -- the College of Cardinals had elected just the kind of Pope that the Catholic Church needed at this time.

NOTE

     *I must add, of course, that one other thing enhanced my boldness that Tuesday afternoon.  Part of the privileges accorded to the members of Italy’s diplomatic corps is the waiver of penalties for traffic violations.  It is a great privilege, considering the enormity of the amount of such penalties (which can run up to four-digit figures when converted to Philippine currency).   In the end, the only “penalty” that a diplomat in Italy (as in most parts of the world) receives for his traffic violations is a reminder from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be more cognizant of the country’s traffic rules and regulations – a reminder which is given only when the Ministry notices that one has committed too many traffic violations in a given year.