The Name of the Pope

While there is now much speculation as to the identity of the next pope (some interesting analysis can be found here and here), I have a more abstract curiosity regarding the name by which he will choose to be called. I have an incorrigible interest in the pageantry and historical continuity of monarchical systems of government, and often find myself reading about European history. As the world's longest unbroken series of rulers (by quite a long shot), the Papacy has some high numbers attached to many regnal names, which for some reason I find interesting. There is also a long-standing tradition of the Pope choosing to reign under a "regnal name" that is unrelated to his personal name (for example, JPII's name before 1978 was Karol Wojtyla). Thus the name chosen by an incoming pope inescapably makes a statement regarding the facets of church history with which he desires to identify himself -- that is, it reaches back into the past and grabs something to carry into the future.

Here are some names that the incoming pope might choose from. Note that, for all speculative names of future rulers, I will put the Roman numeral in parenthesis. Also, for those who don't know me, please note that I am not Catholic, and that I am far from a knowledgeable observer of the papacy, apart from having read a bit on the subject.

• John Paul (III) -- This seems highly unlikely to me. The late pope was such a monumental figure in modern history that his immediate successor will probably want neither to be in his shadow nor to presumptuously claim his mantle. But of course I could be wrong.
  
• John (XXIV) or Paul (VII) -- These names belonged to the other two (besides JPII) significant popes of the Vatican II era, which basically constitutes modern Catholicism. John XXIII was the great liberal, either bringing the Church into the modern era or betraying its very foundations (depending on your opinion). Paul VI was charged with implementing Vatican II's decisions, and was generally seen as moderating some of its more liberal impulses (both, in my opinion, were admirable men). John Paul I (who survived only 33 days in office) intended to signify unity between liberals and conservatives by taking the first compound name in the papacy's history, and his successor JPII perpetuated the idea. Separating the names again, with a John or a Paul, might be seen as favoring liberals or conservatives, but these names are definite possibilities.
  
• Pius (XIII) -- This is absolutely the name of the Old Guard. Four of the 6 pre-Vatican-II popes bore this name. Pius IX is known for his implacable opposition to 19th-century European democracy. St. Pius X is an icon for ultra-conservatives. Pius XII has been faulted for his allegedly lukewarm response to the Holocaust. And why not throw in the unlucky number to boot? I don't think history will ever see a Pius (XIII).
  
• Benedict (XVI) -- A solid choice, if perhaps John and Paul and combinations thereof have too much political baggage. It's traditional, with an uplifting meaning, and no recent Pope Benedicts have been particularly controversial.
  
• Leo (XIV) -- Also a solid choice, with the main difference being that (unlike Benedict) some quite notable figures have borne the name. Leo XIII ended the 19th century with significant early steps towards modernism. Leo I, in the 5th century, memorably stood up to the barbarian invaders of Rome, but (of particular interest to Protestants) was the first to assert the Bishop of Rome's authority over all other church authorities. Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther in the 1500's (and was a Medici from Florence). The association with figures who have inspired some and offended others could be seen as either a strength or a weakness.
  
• Gregory (XVII) -- I'd say that this was another solid traditional name, like Benedict or Leo, except that it has been appropriated by some modern breakaway groups. There is currently an ultra-conservative antipope who calls himself by this name. Perhaps more significant is a conspiracy theory holding that a conservative cardinal was actually elected pope in 1958, and had already chosen the name Gregory, only to be replaced by John XXIII for fear of angering Communists. I don't know how concerned the Church is over such "traditionalist" groups (whose members include Mel Gibson's father), but this name might be seen as tainted.
  

Every pope in the last 230 years has borne one of the above names. But there are many other names with papal history to choose from. These include Clement (XV), Innocent (XIV), Stephen (XI), Boniface (X), Alexander (IX), Urban (IX), Adrian (VII), Martin (VI), Nicholas (VI), and dozens of others. Indeed, both John XXIII and Paul VI chose names that had previously been unused for many centuries, perhaps to distance themselves from the controversial period between the Enlightenment and Vatican II. Of course, a forward-looking new pope may even desire to take a name that has never been used by a pope before, like Michael or Matthew or Andrew. How about Tyler or Dylan? Before John Paul I, the last pope to take a previously unused name was Pascal I in 817 (yes, I typed that correctly).

Bonus: Imagining the future heads of European royal houses holds a similar interest for me. For example, if the current Prince of Wales survives his mother, he will reign as King Charles (III) of England; if not, his son would become King William (V). Others currently in line for European thrones include Philip (VI) of Spain, William (IV) of the Netherlands, Philippe (I) of Belgium, Frederick (X) of Denmark, Haakon (VIII) of Norway, and Victoria (I) of Sweden -- history's first heiress-apparent. 

Posted by Matt on 4/08/2005 10:43:00 AM