John Paul II was acclaimed as the first pope of the media age, and his death, visitation and funeral were among the most widely reported events of the era.
But while there are more than 6,000 accredited journalists in and around the Vatican, the days leading up to the election of a new pope have been notably quiet.
Veterans of previous conclaves say that from the cardinals down to the lay Catholics with a cause, there are fewer people in Rome to talk about the kind of pope they want to see, and those who are around aren’t talking.
Desmond O’Grady, an Australian journalist and author who has spent his career covering the Vatican, said that in the weeks leading up to the two conclaves of 1978, Rome was filled with interested bystanders trying to make their voices heard.
“There were people over here from America campaigning for the kind of pope they wanted and even the kinds of candidates they wanted. There were just meetings and press conferences . . . everywhere,” he recalled. “I’m surprised that there’s no evidence of that this time.”
O’Grady also covered the Second Vatican Council, 1962-65, and recalled a little wistfully that in those days the cardinals and bishops themselves were the ones talking and lobbying publicly, night after night, giving the views of the church a full airing.
Cardinals silent
For this conclave the cardinals have agreed among themselves to stop speaking to the media a week before the voting begins.
For the most part that informal agreement has held up, though on Wednesday two Italian newspapers claimed a surge of support for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the dean of the cardinals, using unnamed sources to report that he had 40 or more out of the necessary 77 votes behind him.
But the cardinals have remained publicly silent, on candidates and issues.
Nor have other church notables rushed to fill the void, as some bishops, a group of French theologians and outspoken American priests did in 1978.
Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Catholic magazine America and author of “Inside the Vatican,” is one of the few American clerics with a high profile in Rome this week, and he is doing more explaining than lobbying.
“I have opinions, but I doubt if they have any effect on the cardinals,” Reese said. “I’m here because this is the event of a lifetime for me.”
William Donohoe, president of the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, had warned last week in a news release that Catholic “dissidents” were “ready to explode.”
On Wednesday, he said that so far, the public debate before the conclave has not been quite what he expected.
“Everybody’s in kind of a wait-and-see mode,” he said.
As for why he stayed in New York instead of coming to Rome, he said, “Trying to affect the thinking of the cardinals, whether you are liberal or conservative — that’s pretty presumptuous.”
There was a more practical reason, as well.
“It’s almost easier for the TV media to find me here in New York,” he said.
From a different part of the ideological spectrum, the Chicago-based organization Call to Action USA issued a news release saying, “The new pope must recognize that there is wisdom to be shared by the laity . . . especially on issues of human sexuality.”
But Linda Pieczynski, the group’s spokeswoman, said that getting to Rome and finding a hotel room would have been difficult for a grass-roots group that could not spend the kind of money media outlets have.
Moreover, she said, her group’s most important work has been in calling attention to issues over the years, publicly and in private meetings with church leaders.
“We talked about going to Rome,” she said, “but we decided we would be more effective here.”
Like Donohoe, she has been a frequent broadcast guest.
In addition to the scope and focus of media coverage, the technological revolution has changed the scenery of preconclave Rome as well.
Phones, Italian-style
In 1978, when overseas communications depended heavily on Telexes and a rickety and expensive Italian phone system, the best way for Catholics with an agenda to spread the word was to be here, where reporters were ready to take down every word.
Now the Internet, backed up with e-mail, has become a primary venue for discussions with and by activists.
One of the more peculiar exchanges is taking place on beliefnet.com, where visitors to the site can act as “virtual cardinals” and post their comments about what the church needs.
Many of them are the kinds of statements that were made to microphones in hotel lobbies in 1978. But others reflect a postmodern ambivalence to that sort of public debate; some even applaud the cardinals’ decision to shun the media.
Noting the crush of media coverage this time around, one writer said of the cardinals, “I can’t begrudge those who would want the process to be shielded from that hurricane.”
———-
skloehn@tribune.com
