(RNS) — Every time Pope Francis catches a cold, I get anxious. When he goes to the hospital, I panic.
I love Francis and hope he can continue as pope forever, but I know I’m not being realistic. We are all mortal, as those of us in our 80s need no reminding.
Unlike former President Joe Biden, who gave the impression of a man mentally unfit for his job in his last appearances, Francis appears to be mentally up to the job, but failing physically. Anyone in his condition, especially a pope, needs to prepare for the inevitable.
Here are three things the pope needs to do to prepare for his inevitable decline and death. Frankly, I wish he had done them already.
First, the pope needs public documents describing what should be done if he becomes incapacitated.
Like everyone else, he should sign a power of attorney for health care in case he becomes incapacitated and unable to make medical decisions for himself. Everyone should do this, not just the pope.
Nothing tears a family apart more than squabbling over how to take care of a dying parent. We do not want the church fighting over how a failing pope should be cared for. He needs to appoint someone he trusts and give them clear guidance in a living will on what care he would want while he is dying.
And in the worst-case scenario, we need to know who has the authority to unplug the pope from medical technology if it is no longer of any benefit.
The church also needs procedures to deal with a pope with dementia or in a coma. The United States has the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deal with a president who is unable to discharge his duties. The Catholic Church needs similar procedures.
There are rumors that the pope has a secret document to deal with such contingencies, but secrecy fuels speculation and rumors. Any document produced by a cardinal at the Vatican after the pope is sick or impaired will give conspiracy theorists a field day. Laws devised by just a few people that have never been officially promulgated as required by canon law will be challenged.
In addition, such important documents need to be reviewed by multiple theologians and canon lawyers so they can suggest improvements. The church also needs time to study and understand the documents. We do not want people debating the meaning of the texts in a crisis. The church needs public documents laying down laws and procedures for dealing with these situations.
Second, the pope needs to reform the meetings of cardinals that take place before the conclave in which they elect a pope.
These meetings, called “general congregations,” are an opportunity for the cardinals to discuss the issues facing the church. While only cardinals under 80 years of age may attend a conclave, all cardinals can participate in these general congregations.
Most of the time in these meetings has been taken up by every cardinal giving a speech. At the general congregation before the last conclave, speeches were limited to seven minutes, but most cardinals went over the time limit. Today, with some 250 cardinals, including those over 80, that’s far too much time spent on speeches.
The recent Synod on Synodality showed a better way of conducting these meetings. At the synod, “conversations in the Spirit” were conducted at round tables of 10 participants. These conversations, which encouraged prayer, listening and discernment, were highly praised by the participants. A similar process would better prepare the cardinals for the conclave than a series of boring speeches. It would also give time for the cardinals, especially the newer ones, to get to know each other.
The General Secretariat of the Synod should be empowered to facilitate such discussions. The discussions might last a week and focus on three topics: the state of the world, the state of the church and the qualities needed in the next pope.
Third, the pope needs to reinstate the traditional voting procedures at a conclave.
For centuries, prior to John Paul II, to elect a pope required a two-thirds vote of the cardinals in a conclave. The idea was to encourage consensus rather than majority rule, even if this meant that a compromise candidate had to be found.
Without explanation, John Paul decreed that after about 30 votes, the cardinals could elect a pope with only a majority vote. Some said he did this to avoid a long conclave, though we have not had a conclave lasting more than four days since 1831.
In reality, it set the stage for the election of Joseph Ratzinger. Once he received a majority vote, the cardinals knew he could be elected under the new procedures if they voted enough times. Under the old procedures, one-third plus one of the cardinals could have stopped his election and forced a compromise. Under the new procedures, he did not need a two-thirds vote, only 30 rounds of voting. As a result, the minority who opposed him gave up and voted for him rather than prolong the inevitable.
Benedict changed the procedures again, so that instead of election by a majority vote, there would be a runoff between the top two candidates. He also required that the winning candidate receive a two-thirds vote, which sets the stage for a deadlocked conclave if neither candidate received the required two-thirds vote. This would be a disaster for the church.
The traditional way of electing a pope by a two-thirds vote is better than these novelties. It encourages the election of a consensus candidate rather than one only representing a majority faction. It allows the conclave to vote for different candidates until one gets a two-thirds vote.
I love Francis because he is a pastoral pope concerned about refugees, migrants, the poor and the environment. But he is not a canon lawyer, so the changes I urge are not his priorities. Perhaps his best course would be to assign these topics to a canonical expert, such as Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, who could draft proposals for public discussions in the church.
With luck we may not have to face these problems in the immediate future, but institutions should not depend on luck.
