c. 1996 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and sociologist at the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. His home page on the World Wide Web is at http://www.greeley.com. Or contact him at his e-mail address: agreel(at sign)aol.com. Check RNS Online for a photo of Andrew Greeley.)

(RNS)-Pope John Paul II has recently modified the rules for papal elections. The only radical change is that when cardinals assemble to elect the next pope, they will no longer reside in the Sistine Palace itself, but in St. Martha’s house, a motel-like structure several hundred yards from the Sistine Chapel.

The comfort of the electors was only one reason for this change. At the root of it is John Paul’s continuing concern to guard the secrecy of the proceedings that will take place when his successor is chosen after his death.

Indeed, when the new rules were announced, the pope reaffirmed the threat of excommunication for those who violate the secrecy of the conclave. He also has ordered security sweeps to clear the conclave area for listening devices to”bug”the election process.

Why the obsession with secrecy? In the last century, the conclave process was much more open. Cardinal electors would walk down a public street on the way to the day’s work and chat with bystanders. And even in 20th-century papal elections, voting patterns always have been well known within a few days or weeks.

Nothing can be kept secret any more. Attempts to maintain secrets don’t work and, in fact, are counterproductive. Those who want to exercise influence on the cardinal electors will continue to do so.

The answer is not more secrecy and more threats of excommunication, but rather to make the papal election a public event. Let the people know how their leaders are voting and let the leaders know the people are watching.

The primary argument against such a change is that the church is an institution of divine origin and is not held to the rules that might apply to other human institutions. This is as reasonable as the argument that contends because Jesus had a special link with God, he didn’t have to sleep at night.

Secrecy in all institutions means irresponsibility, even in the church. The Holy Spirit is at work in papal elections, Catholic conservatives will say, and that is the reason for secrecy. Yet the spirit, according to the Scriptures, blows whither it will, in public forums as in private ones.

Moreover, the spirit works in the world through human events and human agents. In the case of elections, the Holy Spirit works through ordinary political processes. I know of no reason to think that the Holy Spirit whispers directly into electors’ ears during a papal election. If so, the spirit has been responsible for some real messes.

Thus in the early Middle Ages there were nine popes in one year, most of whom did not die of natural causes. One of them had the body of his predecessor exhumed, tried and put to death again in a mock execution.

The electorate at a papal conclave should be expanded to include members of the laity. Right now, the election of a pope-a matter of immense importance to Catholics-is the responsibility of a narrow, aging and self-perpetuating oligarchy. It was not always so. For the first 1,000 years of the church’s history, bishops were elected by the priests and people of their city, even when the city was Rome. The church would be much better off today if it returned to the democratic procedures of the past.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy, it will be said. It may not be now, but it once was and it can and should be again.

The next papal election will continue to be great theater, but a poor method for selecting the religious leader of 800 million people. Once again, the head of the Catholic Church will be chosen in direct defiance of the words of Jesus:”What is whispered in the closets will be proclaimed from the housetops.”JC END GREELEY