An American Pope?
- Thread starter Vidal
- Start date
While there is nothing against an American Pope, and I am by no means an expert on the subject of the Papacy, I find an American Pope unlikely. To my knowledge, a lot of the more recent Papal Conclaves have resulted in more moderate positions for new Popes to occupy. Without wishing to sound offensive, even a moderate US Pope might struggle to be seen as a moderate, simply due to the belief of many outside the US, pertaining to groups such as Evangelical Christians and more radical Christian elements within the US.
I think that post 1970, it might be borderline impossible, as at this point Tele-Evangelists become more common, and the more conservative elements of the Catholic church might view their showmanship in a negative light, which may well far many American Bishops and Cardinals with a bad brush, especially as they grow at the expense of the Catholic church.
As I say, I am no expert, but this is my best guess as to why we might not have seen an American Pope so far. I hope you get more well-informed answers.
I think that post 1970, it might be borderline impossible, as at this point Tele-Evangelists become more common, and the more conservative elements of the Catholic church might view their showmanship in a negative light, which may well far many American Bishops and Cardinals with a bad brush, especially as they grow at the expense of the Catholic church.
As I say, I am no expert, but this is my best guess as to why we might not have seen an American Pope so far. I hope you get more well-informed answers.
Just a thought shared with me years ago by someone who is far more interested in Vatican politics than I am; simple anti-American bias. The U.S. is already a dominant world power-- militarily, politically, diplomatically, culturally and economically. The mostly non-American Cardinals don't want religious dominance added to that list.
Ramontxo
Donor
We do have an American Pope at the moment. Last time I looked at it Argentina was still in (South) America.
If you mean one born in the USA that would probably depend more on what the Conclave is looking for in the next Pope and the nationality of a particular Cardinal may, or may not, be important.
If you mean one born in the USA that would probably depend more on what the Conclave is looking for in the next Pope and the nationality of a particular Cardinal may, or may not, be important.
Last edited:
If the Cardinals were afraid of an American Pope because of conservatism, then John Paul II was an odd choice in 1978, since on on issues like abortion and sexual morality, he was as conservative as Jerry Falwell. And pretty much the same with Benedict. (I'll stop there to avoid current politics.)
Moderate in two senses. One American Catholics are perceived as more Protestant friendly and two if anything the concern would be that the American candidate is far too liberal compared to historical Catholic positions.
Up until recently the Cardinals were hostile to a non-Italian pope as evident by their being a 400+ year gap between the last non-Italian Pope (Adrian VI) and Pope John Paul II. In 1958 and 1963 it’s not impossible but very unlikely due to there not being a well known American candidate. In 1978 is your best chance as the conclave was eager for a compromise in both conclaves. John Krol is the best bet due to him being the most visible and respected cardinal from the US. He was similar to John Paul II and it’s plausible he could be suggested as a compromise and then get elected as coming from Italy was significantly less important than a century ago.
There are several different factors going in such as the lack of Americans in the Roman Curia which is the bureaucracy for the Church, until 1917 the Church in the United States was a missionary Church and under direct control of the Vatican, and quite frankly the Church as a whole thinks of American Catholics is that their main function is to provide money for the Church and that means that Cardinals are selected for more of their fundraising abilities instead of their Pastoral or Theological abilities.
This cannot be overstated. US Catholics are viewed as a source of "dumb money" (in both senses of the word dumb). "Shut up and pay your tithe, stupido Americani. And that's 10% of gross, not net idiota."
I believe (but can't find the numbers) that Americans are underrepresented in the priesthood (I base this on the fact that the US is a net importer of priests). It's hard to reach the top ranks if the base is thin.
Well, if you want to get really silly...
Jefferson Davis, of CSA infamy, came close to converting to Catholicism as a child. So, Pope Jefferson Davis during the US Civil War.
But, more seriously, it's also hard to come up with an American prelate in the twentieth century who has the Vatican political or diplomatic credibility, or theological credentials, to be a serious candidate. Benedict was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. John Paul II was an important contributor to Vatican II documents and Humanae Vitae. Paul VI was an organizer, John XXIII was a diplomat. So, either you need to get an American into an important bureaucratic post at the Vatican (maybe a priest who goes to study in Rome and stays there, rather than an American bishop), or get the Vatican so deadlocked that an American cardinal becomes an acceptable compromise candidate.
I can't say much about an American Pope, but the last three seem to have a relationship to world issues. John Paul II was chosen when the Vatican bank had discrepancies, and that Pope had less concern over first world banking. Benedict came in 2005 as the last world leader with adolescent knowledge of the Third Reich, and the sentiment might help stand against emerging anti-Islamic sentiment. Finally, not until 2013 did the world see a Latin-American Pope, despite the large Catholic presence in South America. Some said, and I am not so sure how accurate it is, that Latin American bishops might be soft on socialism, given the presence of right wing dictators in the region.
Another option is Raymond Leo Burke who after the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI is the de facto leader of the traditionalist faction of the cardinals. Say Pope Benedict XVI doesn't retire in 2013 but waits until around 2015 or 2017, allowing him to appoint more conservative cardinals. Come the conclave Burke managed to convince the cardinals he would be the best man to succeed Benedict XVI and continue his legacy. Burke is elected in 2017 and takes the name Pius XIII for simplicity's sake. He would alienate progressive Catholics due to his staunchly anti-Muslim and anti-LGBTQ+ positions. He's the most plausible option for an American Pope in the modern era.
@Vidal if your post is to be extended towards all of America, not just the US (correct me if I'm wrong) then there's a lot more options besides John Krol and Raymond Leo Burke.
Marc Oulette: He's a conservative cardinal from Quebec and was a candidate at the 2013 conclave. If OTL's Pope Francis refuses to be pope then Oulette could get himself to become pope if he played his cards right. He would be much like a continuation of Benedict XVI and wouldn't be a reformer like Francis. He'd probably take the name Celestine VI due to his French heritage.
Aloisio Lorscheider: A favorite of mine as I've made him pope in both my timelines. If you want a radical Catholic Church this is the man to give you one. He was a supporter of socialism and liberation theology. If he became pope, he would've focused on opposing right wing dictatorships and economic exploitation. He was a serious candidate in 1978 so my guess is you need to screw over Latin America and have more far-right death squads running around to get more cardinals to support him as he would be the biggest advocate for the victims of violence in Latin America. It would also convince them that action would be needed on far-right terror if more priests are being killed like Oscar Romero.
Odilo Scherer: He's another option if the conclave is deadlocked between the reformists and the conservatives. He strikes me as a quieter pope than Francis who wouldn't up end the status quo of the Catholic Church. IMO he would be uncontroversial and respected but not adored or hated.
Fulton J. Sheen: The man that actor Martin Sheen named himself after. I didn't include him in my first post due to me believing there was no plausible route to him becoming a cardinal. But let's say his media savvy style convinces a cardinal to appoint him as bishop and he rises to the ranks from there. In 1963 he's elected as a moderate but one who still implements reforms much to the dislike of Siri and Lefebvre. He would be a mix of Paul VI and John Paul II. One who was a hero to progressives and reformists for his support for reforms at Vatican II (which would probably be less ITTL) and opposed the Vietnam War. Undoubtedly, in former communist nations he'd be an undisputed hero for his opposition to Soviet tyranny. His media savviness would be instrumental in getting people to join the Catholic faith and he would be a beloved pope ITTL amongst Catholics IMO.
@Vidal if your post is to be extended towards all of America, not just the US (correct me if I'm wrong) then there's a lot more options besides John Krol and Raymond Leo Burke.
Marc Oulette: He's a conservative cardinal from Quebec and was a candidate at the 2013 conclave. If OTL's Pope Francis refuses to be pope then Oulette could get himself to become pope if he played his cards right. He would be much like a continuation of Benedict XVI and wouldn't be a reformer like Francis. He'd probably take the name Celestine VI due to his French heritage.
Aloisio Lorscheider: A favorite of mine as I've made him pope in both my timelines. If you want a radical Catholic Church this is the man to give you one. He was a supporter of socialism and liberation theology. If he became pope, he would've focused on opposing right wing dictatorships and economic exploitation. He was a serious candidate in 1978 so my guess is you need to screw over Latin America and have more far-right death squads running around to get more cardinals to support him as he would be the biggest advocate for the victims of violence in Latin America. It would also convince them that action would be needed on far-right terror if more priests are being killed like Oscar Romero.
Odilo Scherer: He's another option if the conclave is deadlocked between the reformists and the conservatives. He strikes me as a quieter pope than Francis who wouldn't up end the status quo of the Catholic Church. IMO he would be uncontroversial and respected but not adored or hated.
Fulton J. Sheen: The man that actor Martin Sheen named himself after. I didn't include him in my first post due to me believing there was no plausible route to him becoming a cardinal. But let's say his media savvy style convinces a cardinal to appoint him as bishop and he rises to the ranks from there. In 1963 he's elected as a moderate but one who still implements reforms much to the dislike of Siri and Lefebvre. He would be a mix of Paul VI and John Paul II. One who was a hero to progressives and reformists for his support for reforms at Vatican II (which would probably be less ITTL) and opposed the Vietnam War. Undoubtedly, in former communist nations he'd be an undisputed hero for his opposition to Soviet tyranny. His media savviness would be instrumental in getting people to join the Catholic faith and he would be a beloved pope ITTL amongst Catholics IMO.
IMHO, American Catholicism is a bit too influenced by American Protestantism and the American general style of religion. I was visiting a friend's church once and the Priest actually talked about The Rapture if you can believe it (and not in a dismissing way either). So finding someone high profile from America who can satisfy both American ideals and trad Catholic ones is going to be a big ask.
And it gets even crazier in Catholic schools. In Canada, I had numerous religion teachers give us informal lectures on the prophecies of Revelation, clearly influenced by Hal Lindsey.
And I had a number of teachers who were REALLY pro-Israel, at a time before the Vatican itself had even recognized Israel. I think they were just picking this up from the general religious atmosphere of North America, where it's kind of assumed that Christians will support Israel.
(I'm sure European parochial schools aren't delivering militantly anti-zionist speeches to their students on a regular basis, but I also would doubt that they would go on about the dire threats to Israel's existence, at a time when that view was not shared by Rome.)
Even the movie Doubt, which did a fairly credible job of portraying the last days of the pre-V2 mentality, features a near-elderly Irish-American nun complaining that the song Frosty The Snowman represents a pagan worldview and should be banned from the radio. That struck me as something you might hear from a protestantized Catholic in the 1980s, not from an Irishwoman raised in the early 20th Century.
(For context, Catholic schools in my province were basically just public schools with a religion class, taught by instructors who MIGHT have taken a theology course in university, but were mostly just winging it.)
This has mostly been a problem since after Vatican II, as a result of the deal-with-the-devil to fight Roe v. Wade (that is, the political alliance of Catholics with Evangelicals), and certain very obnoxious converts from Protestantism, and the "Charismatic Catholic" movement, which is heavily influenced by Pentecostalism (and which has allowed certain heterodox or outright heretical ideas, like "generational spirits", to infiltrate Catholic discourse).
Before about 1970, I don't think that would be a serious concern.