WI: No Austrian Veto in 1903 Papal Conclave

Leo XIII [Gioacchino, Pecci] acted as pope from 1878 to 1903. He is best known for his social encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), which is generally regarded as the first major document in modern Catholic social teachings. Pius XI's Syllabus of Errors had declared war on the contemporary world and democracy, but Leo sought pragmatic reconciliation with his time.

While his pontificate showed that the papacy could be effective without temporal power, his liberal impulses were not deeply rooted in the Church and were easily reversed by his very conservative successor, Pius X. However, Pius' election was most likely only made possible due to a veto from the Austrian emperor, Francis Joseph.

When the cardinals gathered in the Vatican, most of the world's attention was focused on Mariano Rampolla, Leo's Cardinal Secretary of State. Leo was seen as the leading palpable cardinal and was close to being elected when the Austrian Emperor vetoed him as a candidate. He raised his objection through the Prince-Bishop of Krakow, after the Austrian Bishop rejected. The blocking of Mariano Rampolla threw the conclave into the open. Nearly every cardinal in attendance became a possible choice for Pope.


Instead of the liberal theologian Mariano Rampollo, the working-class populist conservative Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto became the victor.


So what if the veto is not issued and Mariano, a liberal like his predecessor, becomes Pontiff? Perhaps the Prince-Bishop of Krakow refuses or the Emperor is distracted by other matters.
 
Firstly, just to nitpick, Pio Nono didn't actually condemn democracy and modernization per se, just the parts that tended toward secularism. Though given that a lot of those who were pushing for modern development didn't exactly have a high opinion of the Church in the first place, I guess it amounts to the same thing in its time.

I don't think, however, you're going to get too much change either way. I'd see him as a early Paul VI - useful for getting much-needed reforms across like forums for episcopal cooperation at the national level - but don't expect him to just let the Jules Ferry laws pass unnoticed either.
 
Been there done that

Leo XIII [Gioacchino, Pecci] acted as pope from 1878 to 1903. He is best known for his social encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), which is generally regarded as the first major document in modern Catholic social teachings. Pius XI's Syllabus of Errors had declared war on the contemporary world and democracy, but Leo sought pragmatic reconciliation with his time.

While his pontificate showed that the papacy could be effective without temporal power, his liberal impulses were not deeply rooted in the Church and were easily reversed by his very conservative successor, Pius X. However, Pius' election was most likely only made possible due to a veto from the Austrian emperor, Francis Joseph.

When the cardinals gathered in the Vatican, most of the world's attention was focused on Mariano Rampolla, Leo's Cardinal Secretary of State. Leo was seen as the leading palpable cardinal and was close to being elected when the Austrian Emperor vetoed him as a candidate. He raised his objection through the Prince-Bishop of Krakow, after the Austrian Bishop rejected. The blocking of Mariano Rampolla threw the conclave into the open. Nearly every cardinal in attendance became a possible choice for Pope.


Instead of the liberal theologian Mariano Rampollo, the working-class populist conservative Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto became the victor.


So what if the veto is not issued and Mariano, a liberal like his predecessor, becomes Pontiff? Perhaps the Prince-Bishop of Krakow refuses or the Emperor is distracted by other matters.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=37080
 
Ah blast. I do apologize. I had searched the Post-1900 forum using the words "Pope Leo", "1903", "Mariano" and "Papal Conclave" but only saw one thread. I should have searched under Rampolla. It did not occur to me at the time, I am afraid.

The thread is old however, so perhaps a new thread is better than reviving an old one?

OK, the twist where Gibbons becomes the next Pope is actually a low probability (though a much more likely event than the ludicrous conclave in Walter Murphy's
Vicar of Christ) I still believe that Gibbons would become part of Rampolla's inner circle and move to the Vatican.
 

A four year old thread is dead :p Bumping it from the grave would be much worse than stating a new one. Besides, opening a new thread such as this one over previously hashed topics allows newer members (such as myself) to join in.

Now saying that, I'm not exactly an expert on the papacy, but I agree with Francisco Cojuanco; regardless of how liberal Rampolla is, we're not going to see a sudden and dramatic shift in the church structure or theology at this time, however it will lay the ground-work for such a shift down the line, possibly by the mid-20th century or so... right as decolonization starts to occur ;) A Catholic Church that explicitly supports liberation theology and quais-leftist thouht could have interesting affects on world history.
 
Here is how I started the old TL

"in 1903 Pope Leo XIII dies. In the ensuing conclave the leading candidate is the secretary of state Mariano Cardinal Rampolla. Then out of the blue Kaiser Franz Josef exercised his power of exclusion. In OTL another candidate was selected. WI the Cardinals decided it was time to end the exclusion and picked Rampolla anyway--though a minority of Cardinals think this is a mistake.

Rampolla takes the name of Pope Clement XV. His papacy is another sociopolitical papacy like Leo's, not a theological one like Pius X of OTL The decision to oppose Austria has caused a lasting rift. Clement tries to reconcile but it is a tough sell, esp. as he is friendly with the French which bothers the Austrians (and Germans).

There is no crusade against Modernism which was the cornerstone of Pius X's papacy though a few Modernists are criticized and maybe one or two excommunicated. There are some prelates who increasingly accuse Clement of being soft on heresy. Leo XIII had shown some limited tolerance to a more modern Biblical theology which Pius X reversed. Clement continues the tolerance of Leo maybe extending it slightly.

Likwise the AntiMasonic rant is toned down (no Leo Taxil reprise thank God) though not to zero. There is also a softer more realistic tone about the loss of the Papal States.

Archbishop (later Cardinal) della Chiesa becomes secretary of state. Pope Clement also becomes very fond of Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore and makes him an assistant to the secretariat. This annoys the French prelates who were very critical of Americans under Pope Leo accusing them of the Americanism heresy. Pope Clement becomes proUnion though he opposes Marxism.

In the latter part of his Papacy, Clement dips his toe in some more dangerous waters. He expands the College of Cardinals to 84 and stacks it with nonItalians favorable to his policies. He issues an encyclical where he backs away from the 'Error has No RIghts' opposition to religious liberty and instead argues 'But people in Error do' (again contrary to Pius X of OTL). Lastly he makes some small changes in the Mass in the Missal of 1912. The Gospel is read in the vernacular, St. Joseph is added to the list of Saints in the Canon and the Holy Week rites are simplified in moderation.

One final peculiarity of Pope Clement is he had studied Oriental languages and expressed a particular interest in the Far East and tried to reinvigorate the missions there allowing some degree of appreciation for indigenous culture.

In 1913 Pope Clement dies.
"
 
A four year old thread is dead :p Bumping it from the grave would be much worse than stating a new one. Besides, opening a new thread such as this one over previously hashed topics allows newer members (such as myself) to join in.

Now saying that, I'm not exactly an expert on the papacy, but I agree with Francisco Cojuanco; regardless of how liberal Rampolla is, we're not going to see a sudden and dramatic shift in the church structure or theology at this time, however it will lay the ground-work for such a shift down the line, possibly by the mid-20th century or so... right as decolonization starts to occur ;) A Catholic Church that explicitly supports liberation theology and quais-leftist thouht could have interesting affects on world history.

The Liberation theology bit I'm not so sure - it would depend on whether a) it shed its links to Marxism, and b) how strong Communism was. Those were the main reasons why OTL it was marginalized (I'd argue that John Paul II had the right tack, but then went overboard, but he was a creature of his time)
 
Pope's Inner Circle

My thoughts were that Rampolla's inner circle would include these players

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Désiré-Joseph_Mercier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gibbons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Maffi

and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV

Of these della Chiesa as the secretary of state is the most likely successor but taking that path gives the least divergence

The second most likely is Maffi who was papabile twice OTL

If Gibbons is moved to the Vatican then I submit he is a possible compromise candidate expected to be short lived if there is a sharply divided conclave in 1913

Mercier is about as possible as Gibbons His papacy would create some big deltas during WWI
 
As it happens, I have plans on making Rampolla Leo's successor in my ongoing TL, so this is of some interest to me as well...

My previous TL was one this could go. The branching point is who follows and I've given 4 options There is a 5th which is that the reactionaries prevail at the conclave. I reduced the chances of that by having Rampolla expand and pack the college of cardinals which is what Roncalli did.

I liked the Gibbons option because it yielded the biggest divergence and actually gives Al Smith a decent chance to become president.
 
The Liberation theology bit I'm not so sure - it would depend on whether a) it shed its links to Marxism, and b) how strong Communism was. Those were the main reasons why OTL it was marginalized (I'd argue that John Paul II had the right tack, but then went overboard, but he was a creature of his time)

I will agree that a Church openly supporting Liberation theology might be a bit much, however I do think that the interaction between a more liberal Church and possible Communist states would be interesting.


The biggest theological loss in this POD might be the Code of Canon Law. Rampolla (what would his Papal name be?) might do something similar, but I am really not sure. Ad Diem Illum will also likely not be written, unfortunately.
 
I seriously doubt a more liberal Catholic Church would be possible without causing a major schism. John XXIII was supposed to be a stop-gap Pope who was not going to rock the boat. Instead he called a Vatican Council and then invited a bunch of non-Catholics to attend (this was a big deal at the time). Vatican II was very much a product of the Cultural changes in the West during the 60s, so a council held earlier would of produced vastly different and more conservative results. In fact Pope Paul VI had to spend a considerable amount of time balancing between the liberal and conservative factions of the Church. If he had favored a more liberal line he would of completely lost the conservative faction. The last part is the key considering since Vatican II the conservative faction has rose in power even though the West as a whole is a lot more liberal than they were in the 60s.

Outside of South America did Liberation theology actual have a real following among the Catholic hierarchy? Anywhere there were a decent number or rich Catholic laymen and/or priests it would not be well received. Spreading the wealth around sounds great to the very poor, but the historical results of wealth re-distribution is to create a situation where everyone is poor.
 
Last edited:
Top