Rooting for the election of a conservative pope at the coming conclave, as opposed to a potential liberal contender, betrays a mistaken view of the Catholic religion. To illustrate, Pope Benedict XV taught in his encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved’ (Athanas. Creed)”. Put another way, the Catholic religion does not admit of degrees. There can be no conservative brand or school of Catholicism, only Orthodoxy. Similarly, there is no liberal or progressive school of Catholicism, again, only Orthodoxy. The existence of various and competing strains of Catholicism, that are legitimate to a greater or lesser extent, would imply a denial of the unity of the Church of Christ, in which all men must profess the same Faith. Without this mark of unity, the religion in question is, necessarily, false. A popular expression which captures this line of thinking is “the fullness of the faith”. Though often used innocently enough, it is just as alien to the Catholic religion as it is deadly.
Continuing, the reality of a dialectic between conservative [liberal] prelates and progressive [liberal] prelates in the Church is merely the effect of a much deeper problem—the crisis in the Church since Vatican II. This problem must be studied by those who are exercising their Faith. Then, once diagnosed, the true cause identified.
Before ending, it is necessary to make a distinction. What is not ruled out in a papal conclave is a diversity of views, attitudes and approaches among prelates in the practical order or, perhaps, differing views on unsettled theological questions, both distinct—strictly speaking—from the doctrinal order. These differences, so long as they are circumscribed by the Faith, are, indeed, legitimate. Doctrinal diversity, on the other hand, would be nothing but a euphemism for heterodoxy.
