Papal Bull

Well papal matters might have seemed a whole lot more exciting in during the Cold War, but James assures me the election of the new pope is a matter of global signifiance (see news sites passim).
So who is it going to be? Paddy Power have Dionigi Tettamanzi (Italian) and Francis Arinze (Nigerian) joint favourites at 11-4. Good value for those looking to gamble, in my view, it Joseph Ratzinger (Germany) at 7-1; I reckon Ratzinger stands a far better chance than those odds suggest. An intriguing piece in Monday's FT proposed that "Older cardinals may not want the next Pope to dominate the Church for as long as John Paul did, and for this reason the 77-year-old Cardinal Ratzinger crops up as a possibility." Other factors don't stand in Ratzinger's favour though. Firstly, many Italians in the Vatican would like the mantle to be passed back to Italy, in line with 500 years of tradition. But there is also (as widely reported) a degree of pressure from various circles for a Latin American or African pope.
Now here, the gap between the Vatican and the rest of the world exposes itself - and here is the reason why there is so much room for speculation about the candidates. Today's FT reports: "the election of a non-European pope would be a popular choice with clergy and laity who want to affirm the Church's mission to stand up for social justice, tackle poverty and consolidate its expansion outside its historical European heartland." Quite, but the conservatives in the Vatican aren't keen on most of the Latin American candidates - many of whom were associated with "radical" movements in the 1980s. Further, many of the top Latin American candidates are too young. If a Latin American candidate emerged, I would guess it would be Dario Castrillion Hoyos, "75 year old Mr Castrillion is a conservative who works inside the Vatican machine." (FT again). The chances of the Vatican appointing someone like Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a 68-year old Jesuit who travels around Buenos Aires by bus, are extremely slim. Paddy Power have Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga at 9-2, but for my money, his age (62) and his politics (left-leaning) put him out of the running.
So by my reckoning, if the next pontiff is indeed non-European, it's going to be Francis Arinze or Dario Castrillon Hoyos. If European, it's probably between Dionigi Tettamanzi and Joseph Ratzinger. Of course, a surprise is certainly possible, but these looks like the most likely candidates to me; I would certainly be surprised if the appointee is a non-European aside from the two I've identified.
So let's take a look at these four chaps, with a particular focus on their views on sexual morality. I've no idea why there is such widespread focus on the "confrontation with Islam" in the newspaper discussions - it is certainly not analagous to JPII's "confrontation" with Communism, which was very definitely to be eradicated - few seriously believe Islam can be eradicated, even if a fanatical few might think it should be. So the most interesting element of the coming papacy, as James correctly pointed out, is development issues. The line in the Vatican on global trade and debt is always, as far as I can see, almost identical to Blair's - lots of chatter about global justice, and very little more. So the really significant development issue is that of HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa, where cultural and religious beliefs and practices are preventing education about and use of condoms from spreading as fast as the virus. Global trade arrangements, debt, poverty and intellectual property are all also crucial matters in the struggle to bring HIV/AIDS under control, but the Church does not really have a view, or much influence over these. Its teaching on contraception does have influence, however, and particularly in Africa.
Therefore, I'll be analysing the four candidates on what I can find out about their views on sexual morality and contraception.
According to CNN, Francis Arinze has said: "In many parts of the world, the family is under siege. It is opposed by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce." That pretty much speaks for itself.
Dario Castrillon Hoyos [cannot produce appropriate accents, so apologies to Spanish speakers; rest assured, Serbo-Croat names get far worse treatment] has complained that "traditionalists often do not recieve enough respect from Church leaders." but I can find out little more about him, aside from an unsubstantiated claim from a dubious source of connections with right-wing Colombian governments. FT and Reuters both stress his opposition to liberation theology during the 80s.
Tettamanzi: a couple of sites suggest he might have been one of the authors of Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document which strongly condemned the use of contraception. Reuters reports that "he firmly backed" it. Whichever is the case, his views should be clear enough.
Ratzinger's "blunt judgments delight conservatives and outrage liberal Catholics." A close adviser to John Paul, he has "denounced sexual liberalism in the West." (Reuters yet again).

So barring any major surprises, we largely know what we're going to get. Someone reasonably conservative, who is unlikely to shake things up too much, and certainly not with regard to contraception. What will all of this mean? Probably business as usual, including for the 3000 people who die every day from AIDS, a number that will surely continue to rise in the absence of radical action. But if the Vatican pulls a real conservative out of the bag, could the whole thing collapse in on itself? With a real reactionary at the helm, how will the clergy and the laity - who, remember, "want to affirm the Church's mission to stand up for social justice, tackle poverty and consolidate its expansion outside its historical European heartland" respong?
George Monbiot, in his Guardian column today, suggested that the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank chief could be a good thing. The bank will continue to operate as it has since its inception, Monbiot argues, but such a controversial figure will undermine the credibility of this "illegitimate institution."
One might see a parallel between these two appointments then - in both cases, perhaps it takes a real reactionary to expose the worst aspects of an institution.
Now, am I suggesting the Vatican is as destructive for most of the globe as Monbiot's description of the World Bank? Well, not quite, but its teaching on contraception certainly has similar effects - more death and disease. Sacrilege? Well, no worse in my view than Ratzinger's observation that "history is full of examples of Popes whom the Holy Spirit surely would not have selected." Why should anyone believe the situation has magically changed? It's up to Catholics to wake up to this fact, just as its up to all of us to wake up to how the World Bank operates and what drives it to do so.
Reactionary leaders of the World Bank and the Catholic Church could aid this process. Or does Monbiot have too much faith in ordinary peoples' responses to oppression? As usual, it's up to all of us to decide.