I have had the privilege of submitting suggestions of names to the bishop for the two parishes I founded. (Incarnation of the Lord and Saint Juan Diego parishes) When I solicited the parishioners in both cases for suggestions, I got almost no response. Nobody thought the name of the new entity was important, or at least as important as I thought it was. I said, we're making history. We're saying a lot about ourselves. The people shrugged. Maybe they had too much experience naming their own children, and the children rejecting their names in adulthood.
When Nativity grade school was going to transition to becoming Incarnation school, a parent approached me. She said, Catholic schools are special. We invest a lot into them. And they offer an excellent education. Instead of just calling the school "school," can't we call it "academy"? (She was probably influenced by the Perry Traditional Academy, a magnet high school in the City of Pittsburgh school district, which was just down the street.) I thought it was a splendid idea. I ran it past the principal and the PTG leadership. They thought it was good, too. So it became "Incarnation Academy." Pride in the school (er, academy) went up among the parents because of the name.
One parent said, aren't you going to ask the permission of the diocese. I said, why? They'll learn about it soon enough. (As my classmate taught me so well, it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.) We started to use it, the name was well received and caught on, and within six months all the diocesan mail was addressed to "Incarnation Academy." A few other schools in the diocese also started calling themselves academies, too.
All this is to say that the name the new pope picks says a lot. About him, his ancestry, his vision for the church, his hopes and dreams. In 1958 Angelo Roncalli, the unexpected seat-warmer of the papacy (and student of history), reached back to the 14th century to call himself "John." (John XXII was Bishop of Rome from 1316-34.) He wanted to express a biblical name, and identify with the one who was the beloved disciple of Jesus. (I think he also wanted to remember his father, Giovanni.) His successor, Giovanni Battista Montini, also reached back in the history of the papacy, to the 17th century, to call himself "Paul." He wanted to express the missionary spirit of the extraordinary apostle, and did, becoming the first pope to travel to all six continents of the world during his papacy.
Albino Luciani, elected in 1978, created a new, two-sainted name for himself, John Paul I. He wanted to recognize the popes who called, and concluded, the Second Vatican Council. His successor, Karol Wojtyla, the first non-Italian in 455 years, probably would have preferred to take the name of his martyred predecessor as bishop of Kracow, Stanislaus. But give the circumstances of his election, after the all-too-brief 34 day reign of John Paul I, he took John Paul II. I don't think we'll have a "John Paul III" for a long, long time, if ever.
So, what name will the new pope take? Let's start with what names he should not take. Here's a list of some non-starters, and the date of the last pope with that name:
- Pius XII (1939-58)
- Innocent XIII (1721-24)
- Sixtus V (1585-90)
- Marcellus II (1555)
- Celestine V (1294; another pope who resigned)
- Agaptus II (946-55)
- Lando (913-14; from Star Wars?)
- Formosus (891-96)
- Valentine (827)
- Donus (676-78)
- Pelagius II (579; who wants to be named after a heresy?)
- Hilarius (461-68; we want a laughing pope, but nobody would take this name seriously)
- Fabian (236-50; after the 1950s TV hunk?)
Here are some better names from the history of the Bishops of Rome, worthy of a pope for the 21st century. Each of them offers insights into various visions for the future of the church and the new papacy.
- Paul VI (1963-78; brought Vatican II to a successful conclusion)
- Leo XIII (1878-1903; the pope whose encyclical Rerum Novarum began the modern Catholic social teaching)
- Gregory XVI (1831-46; an abbot who was not a bishop at the time of his election)
- Nicholas V (1447-55; a good name, but he wrote to support the institution of slavery)
- Martin V (1417-31)
- Paschal II (1099-1118)
- Stephen IX (1057-58)
- Adeodatus (672-76; in Latin, "gift of God")
- Eusebius (309)
- Linus (67-76; the successor to St. Peter the Apostle)
The newly elected pope doesn't have to look to papal history for a name. It's not as if there are not a lot of names of saints to choose from. Just off the top of my head, here are the names of prominent male saints whose names have not been taken by a pope.
- Spouse of Mary: Joseph
- Apostles: Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Barnabas
- Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke
- Early bishops: Timothy, Titus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian (for an African), Cosmas & Damian, Basil, Athanasius, Augustine
- Missionaries: Francis Xavier, Cyril & Methodius (for an Eastern Catholic), Patrick (for an Irishman)
- Theologians: Jerome, Bonaventure, Albert, Thomas Aquinas, Dominic
- Later bishops: Francis de Sales, Charles Borromeo
- Priests: Ignatius of Loyola, Vincent de Paul, John Bosco, John Vianney
- And my #1 pick for the new pope--Francis. He is the humble one, patron of ecology, lover of the poor, mendicant, preacher extraordinaire, mystic, artist of the creche, bearer of the stigmata, founder of a spirituality of peace which endures to today, most Christ-like saint.
You can bet that more than a few Cardinals right now all over the world are reviewing the list of popes, their names, their histories, and reflecting: If the impossible happens, and I am elected, when the Cardinal Dean asks, "Quo nomine vis vocam?" ("By what name do you wish to be called?"), what will I answer?
If you were elected pope, what name would you take? Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment