A couple weeks ago, I saw the excellent film Conclave, based on the novel by Robert Harris. Ralph Fiennes plays Cardinal Lawrence, an anglicized version of the Italian Cardinal Lomeli in the novel. The Pope, a close friend of his, has died, and he is the Dean of the College of Cardinals, responsible for overseeing the Conclave, the process in which all current Cardinals meet at the Vatican and are sequestered while they vote for the new Pope from among their ranks. Lawrence has recently tried to offer his resignation due to his doubts in the Catholic Church (but not doubt in God), but his resignation was declined.
Lawrence is highly skilled at managing the political maneuvering among the Cardinals. There’s talk that his understated performance will result in an Oscar. Here are the other major characters:
- Cardinal Tremblay: A charismatic and reformist Canadian Cardinal played by John Lithgow. He expects to win the papacy, and to move forward with his modern views for the Church, but there is a whiff of buried scandal, and some unsatisfactory answers to questions about a last minute meeting he had with the Pope.
- Cardinal Bellini: In the book, he’s a traditionally conservative Italian Cardinal, but in the movie, he’s a progressive American Cardinal who doubts Tremblay is the right man for the job (also aware of some scandal), and has the ambition to replace him as the progressive alternative. He is played by Stanley Tucci. As you can imagine, both Lithgow and Tucci are barely held back by the director from chewing every scene. It kind of works.
- Cardinal Adeyemi: A Nigerian Cardinal with a lot of popularity and ambition. The progressives are worried about his anti-LGBTQ stances, including supporting capital punishment for homosexuality in African countries.
- Cardinal Tedesco: An Italian Cardinal who is gregarious, bombastic and somewhat racist, using warmongering rhetoric against the “enemies” of Christianity.
- Cardinal Benitez: A Mexican Cardinal nobody has ever met before who was secretly made Cardinal in Afghanistan by the now dead Pope. His unique perspective challenges the norms of the College of Cardinals.
The film has a Twelve Angry Men feel to it, as the men have private sidebar discussions, eat meals in cliques, and argue about politics and religion, then vote, again and again, until a successor is chosen. Some of the themes that emerge include:
- Power and Ambition. Even those who say they don’t want to be Pope are tempted when the votes start going their way.
- Faith and Doubt. We mainly see the proceedings through Lawrence’s eyes, and he is very capable of seeing through his fellow Cardinals and uncovering the skeletons in their closets, although he is unwilling to embarrass anyone publicly or put his own thumb on the scale in the voting process. He doubts because he sees more than others do, but he is passive. He is personally progressive to a degree, but he is also unwilling to oppose the traditionalists.
- Tradition vs. Modernity. While all the Cardinals are somewhere on the traditional vs. modern scale, they all have a point that feels like a bridge too far in terms of progress and modernity. The default is still tradition. The institution has to have roots to live on.
- Secrecy and Transparency. Although they are sequestered for the voting process, the Cardinals’ secrets eventually come to the surface, although not always in a timely manner or in ways that are expected. Lawrence doesn’t believe in revealing others’ secrets, instead persuading them from behind the scenes to quietly step down.
- Morality and Hypocrisy. Is it OK to elect an immoral Pope? Is any human moral enough to be Pope or do they all have too many flaws? The main thing Jesus preached against was the hypocrisy of church leaders, failing to live up to the standards they required of others. The Conclave reveals that this is still a huge risk.
- Globalization of the Church. While the Italians represent the tradition and foundation of the Church, the Cardinals from other areas of the world bring new values and perspectives to the discussion and represent future growth. There is also some implied question about whether a Cardinal from a “newer” area will have the gravitas to lead the entire Church.
- Leadership and Responsibility. The selection of the new Pope will guide the near future of the entire Catholic Church, and the responsibility weighs heavily on Lawrence, even more than on the other Cardinals as they jockey for position. Who’s vision for the future in a changing world will prevail? Who has the best style and temperament and character to lead so many? Who will inspire devotion and spiritual growth in others?
- Gender Roles. This is downplayed significantly as there are not many women, and certainly no Cardinals played by women. Isabella Rossellini (Sister Agnes) does play one of the head nuns running things behind the scenes who is aware of many of the secrets and hypocrisies of various Cardinals. She doesn’t have a vote, of course, or a direct way to tell others what she sees, suspects and knows. The perspective of women, even those closely associated in serving the Cardinals, is not really considered by most of the men. I mean, she’s Isabella Rossellini, for crying out loud, and she’s got like one speaking scene. If that isn’t a metaphor for conservative Christianity, I don’t know what is.
I won’t reveal all the twists and turns, and there are quite a few, but these characters and themes seemed pretty familiar, even though I’ve never been Catholic. Our own Q15 functions in a similar way to the College of Cardinals (although that is much larger and more global, as is the Catholic Church). Both systems give full authority to name Cardinals to the sitting President or Pope. The difference for us is that succession to the presidency is based strictly on not dying, which is an easier approach, but it doubtless yields different results than would occur if either the Q15 or the membership voted on the successor. For one thing, while both groups favor those with enough seniority to garner support from peers, within Catholicism, it’s not so tied to seniority that you always have one of the oldest people or longest-serving Cardinals as top authority. In the LDS system, it’s often the oldest, and always the one with the longest “insider” status on the Q15, a company many through and through. Disruption to the system is nearly impossible.
The biggest difference between the two succession systems is that the Catholic system is more active and thoughtful. The LDS system is entirely passive, no thinking allowed or required. All you have to do is not die and you might get the top chair, regardless of your personal qualities or your vision for the future. You don’t have to be an inspiring figure, you don’t have to have compelling ideas, you don’t have to even be a paragon of virtue. We’ll bring all those qualities and imbue them on you if you just have the vitality to stay alive. You will be revered just for outliving the others. That’s all you have to do. Like the monks in the movie The Last Emperor, sifting through the silver bowl containing the child emperor’s turds, reveling rhapsodically in a whiff of the divine, everything you’ve ever said before will suddenly be deemed wise, prescient, immortal.
The movie made me wonder whether the LDS system would be better if it were like the Catholic process. While I’m no fan of the seniority-based selection process which just results in older and older men leading the Church, it’s also quite possible that people would be chosen more for charisma than depth, or for strength of conviction rather than content of character. There are just as many downsides to be avoided in either system, and just as many politics in and blind spots in both. Both systems ultimately favor institutional stability and very limited progress; modernity is always viewed with a jaundiced eye, and loyalty to the institution is so prized that the best often retire rather than support hypocrisy and harm.
- Have you seen the movie? If so, what did you think?
- How would you improve the LDS succession process?
- Do you think the process of choosing Cardinals / apostles involves sufficient vetting?
- Is true progress possible in religious institutions or is it too destabilizing?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
How would you improve the LDS succession process?
Having someone in their 90s succeeding an even older person doesn’t really make sense for an organization to move forward. I agree there should be an emeritus status even for apostles. I’m not sure about the Prophet but there should be a council that can review their status with the power to act if they see a problem. I also think that succession should not be length of service but should be based on need determined by a council that includes woman and those not in the quorum of the 12.
It would be nice if you could talk about it but I doubt that will ever happen. I also think it would be nice if decisions were made by majority instead of everyone having to agree in consensus. It shouldn’t take 50 years to change something waiting for someone to die who won’t change their mind. I also think there should be open accounting and transparency with the membership and that conference should be a time to actually confer with members instead of just lecture them.
“In the LDS system, it’s often the oldest”
I know it’s not the main point of the post, but the idea that the president of the church is often the oldest is not correct. Only 4 of the 16 apostles that have become president were the oldest at the time. 5 presidents were 10 years or more younger than other apostles. Over time the age range for new apostles has steadily decreased, so going forward the senior apostle should be more likely to also be the oldest.
Brigham Young (46): not the oldest. Younger than Lyman Wight (51)
John Taylor (72): not the oldest. Younger than Wilford Woodruff (73).
Wilford Woodruff (82): oldest. 7 years older than the next oldest who was . . .
Lorenzo Snow (84): oldest. 7 years older than Franklin D Richards
Joseph F Smith (62): not the oldest. JFS was younger than John Winder (79) (who was in the first presidency, but may not have been an apostle), Brigham Young Jr (64), George Teasdale (79), and Marriner W Merrill (69).
Heber J Grant (62): not the oldest. 24 years younger than Charles W Penrose (86), as well as Anthon H Lund (74), Orson F Whitney (63) and Anthony W Ivins (66).
George Albert Smith (75): not the oldest. Younger than George F Richards (84), Joseph F Merrill (77) and Charles A Callis (80).
David O McKay (78): not the oldest. Younger than J Rueben Clark (80) and Joseph F Merrill (83)
Joseph Fielding Smith (93): oldest.
Harold B Lee (73): not the oldest. Younger than Spencer W Kimball (77), Delbert L Stapley (75), Marion G Romney (75), LeGrand Richards (86), Hugh B Brown (89) and N Eldon Tanner (74).
Spencer W Kimball (79): not the oldest. Younger than LeGrand Richards (88), Hugh B Brown (90).
Ezra Taft Benson (87): not the oldest. Younger than Marion G Romney (89).
Howard W Hunter (86): not the oldest. Younger than David B Haight (87).
Gordon B Hinckley (84): not the oldest. Younger than David B Haight (88).
Thomas S Monson (80): not the oldest. Younger than Boyd K Packer (83), L Tom Perry (85), Russell M Nelson (83), Joseph B Wirthlin (90)
Russell M Nelson (93): oldest.
A minor point: All Cardinals do not get to participate in selecting the next Pope. There is an age limit and those older have no vote.
My wife and I LOVED the movie; the moral challenges and nuances contained therein. The acting was awesome. Compared to the leadership of the LDS Church conducts themselves…..I’m almost convinced to become a Catholic.
Meant to say “Compared to how the leadership of the LDS Church conducts themselves”…..My apologies.
One of the thoughts I had from the recent election is that Church leaders might benefit from a more public vetting process. They do speak at GC, but they are solely evaluated by whoever is in charge. There is no feedback sought from members. Unlike the Catholic Church, they are not really known to the regions they are assigned (if they are regional reps) aside from those already in leadership. I have literally never known the name of the area authority or regional rep in any of the places I’ve lived, but most Catholics can name their Cardinal. These guys just don’t really have reputations to manage among the membership. The apostles are better known, and if the members voted, there is no way we would have had a Benson, for example. I didn’t know anything about him personally, but I do remember that when he ascended my parents said there were many members who were extremely upset because he was so political and so controversial (and they were very conservative). We probably also wouldn’t have had a Hunter, even though he was mostly a sweet old man with loving ideas. He just didn’t exactly set the world on fire with his personality.
And yet, based on the way the personalities were revealed in the movie Conclave, it also seemed that one well time speech or ill-timed outburst could sink or bolster your chances to a degree that just feels random and also not ideal.
DaveW: Thanks for these stats. Very interesting. Of course, it’s also interesting how the President overall just seems to get older and older. The only one who isn’t old when named is Brigham Young who was at the time older than Joseph Smith ever lived to be. While it’s not entirely true that old men are more institutionalist than progressive, it does seem to be more likely. It’s interesting, because given the fact that there is no real way to oppose their will, they don’t have to be. Although maybe that’s not really true. People vote with their feet and dollars eventually if the changes are too drastic or unpopular.
I like Old Man’s committee idea. Have a committee of non-General Authorities select the general authorities. I am going to expand on this from a female perspective.
This committee should be made up of regular members, not selected by general authorities, but maybe elected. Old Man wanted equal number of men and women and Thank You for recognizing that women need some kind of voice. So, let’s elect one male and one female per area or stake, what ever kind of division the church wants to use. And men do not get to vote for the female committee member and women don’t get to vote for the male member of this committee.
Things are SO determined by gender in this church that somehow, we have to equalize that. Back when Relief Society had their own organization that was run by women instead of men, women had a lot more say in the way they experienced church. The RS president was elected by the women members of RS. Primary had their own magazine as well as Relief Society having a magazine. These magazines gave women a voice that was church wide, even if it was not the same kind of authorities voice that priesthood leaders have. Then correlation killed any voice women used to have. They put primary and Relief Society firmly under priesthood and took away any independent voice those organizations had. With Relief Society being associated with the church but independent there was some equality in the church between men with their organization and women with their own organization. While RS was an auxiliary, it was an independent auxiliary. Now women are firmly under men just as RS is firmly under First Presidency control. Local RS presidents are firmly under their bishop and I know that my own experience as RS president was that I was not allowed any decisions, but everything including my counselors was dictated by the bishop. I could not send in a meal without running it past the bishop and the whole &$#$+ PEC. So, it took over a month from the time of an emergency need for help before help was approved and I could do anything. It was disgustingly inefficient.
(off my soap box and back to how this committee would work.)
The committee could select men or women as General authorities and the 12 would have no say in accepting them. All General authority positions would be open to men or women and just like Oaks has said, women have the priesthood to do their calling bestowed on them when they are set apart. So, a woman can be set apart as a member of the 12 or as a seventy or as bishop or as stake president. Poof, women still are not ordained to priesthood but they can fill any position because we *believe* that President Oaks meant what he said that women are given priesthood power to do their callings. So no calling has to be gender specific. Because we believe President Oaks.
Ideas for improving the LDS succession process.
Level 1 (possible): An apostle can retire. We’ve seen apostles be completely incapacitated for health reasons, but they retain their position in the Q15. If even one of them were to formally retire, it might give others the courage to follow. Apostles could decide for themselves. I’m aware that many may stick to serving until their death. This may never happen unless we have an apostle develop severe cognitive issues at a “young” age (70s) while being physically healthy. It’s relatively easy to hide a sick man who can’t get out of bed knowing that he probably won’t survive long. It’s a different thing to think about spending 10+ years dealing with an apostle that can walk around but can’t remember where he is.
Level 2 (plausible): Formal retirement age of 85 or 90, Q15 votes for new president not based on seniority. This doesn’t feel all that progressive, but the current Q15 has 6 members that are 84+, so this would start having significant effects immediately. Could be phased in if they want to limit the rapid turnover. The new process for picking the president is probably necessary, unless we want to routinely select new presidents that are just a year or two away from retirement which could create a weird situation where the president of the church is always a lame duck.
Level 3 (not going to happen): Retirement age of 80, Q15 votes for new president for 10 year max term, new apostles picked by Old Man’s committee (as opposed to a committee of Old Men, like we do it now).
Level 4 (ha!): Retirement at 75 or 20 years of service, whichever comes first. At least 5 apostles must be women, and at least 5 must be men. Because nearly every opening in the Q15 will be planned and they’ll be happening, on average, every year or two, the new apostle committee can plan ahead a bit more. Every year each stake president submits one nominee to the committee. They can keep submitting the same name each year if they want. That would be 3,500 names every year to make sure the committee has a steady supply of candidates to consider from around the world. (Still working on how the committee can “casually” conduct screening interviews. They can’t seriously consider that many people, but they also can’t consider people they’ve never heard of.) General Authorities are banned from ever becoming apostles; no more rising through the ranks, apostles are chosen from the membership, not the leadership.
Hawkgrrrl: I’ve spent a fair bit of time compiling data on the ages of the Q15 through time. I’m excited when I get to pull it out! The age of the president of the church is going up for two main reasons. First, people (particularly wealthy ones with good healthcare) don’t die young as often anymore. Maxwell is the last apostle that didn’t reach 80. McConkie is the last that didn’t reach 70. Back when apostles died young, those deaths could move other members up in seniority quickly.
The second reason is that we no longer call young apostles. In the 1800s that happened a lot, even after the move to Utah. (Sampling of guys picked under the age of 35: BY Jr (27), Abraham Woodrufff (24), John H Smith (32), John W Taylor (25), Hyrum M Smith (29), Joseph F Smith (27), GA Smith (33) … notice a trend with those last names?) Until 1970 we still had apostles called in their 40s: Lee (42), Benson (44), Cowley (48), Evans (47), Monson (36), Packer (45). Since then, Perry (51), Oaks (51) and Bednar (52) are the youngest. Since Bednar, Anderson (57) is the youngest. Between only calling apostles that are 55+, and fewer and fewer surprise deaths, the only way to get to the presidency is to be 90+ years old.
Recently Ziff and I collaborated on a project where he did some forecasts of when apostles would die based on actuarial tables and then I did some data analysis. He basically ran 10,000 simulations of how he future might play out. The results show that we have a 18% chance that someone from our current batch of apostles becomes president of the church before age 80. That is essentially entirely reliant on Bednar making it, as he is 17.1% of that, while the guys 9th through 15th in line combine to have 0.9% odds. Basically, the model shows that there is a 17% chance that Nelson, Oaks, Holland, Eyring and Uchtdorf go in the next 7 years. Other than that, there’s no real path to having a president under the age of 80 any time in the next 30 years.
Looking at all that data, the average and median age for someone to become president of the church is 89 years old. 80% of men who become president will be between the age of 84 and 95. The single most likely age for a new president is 92, mostly because the model thinks that Nelson is past due to die and very frequently has him dying very soon, and Oaks is 92.
Anyway, baring some significant changes in how the Q15 works, that’s what the future looks like. And now I promise I’ll stop commenting for a while.
DaveW: For sure Bednar is going to make it, but that’s because he’s audioanimatronic, right?
I too like Old Man’s committees, but I would put the retirement age at 72 as per third nephi. I am 76 and realise how diminished I am in how much productive work I can do. I had to check that the selection committee used revelation. Better than the present apostles who call it revelation if they agree.
Cardinals are expected to submit resignations at 75 if they are part of the Curia (various governmental departments of the Vatican). The right to participate in a Conclave ends at the age of 79. On further reading, it appears that there is no requirement that a Cardinal be selected as the next Pope: any Catholic man is eligible and he need not be a priest at the time of his selection!
grizzerbear55: Have you read the novel? I’ve got it on hold through the library, but it’s got like a 5 week wait. I think I will enjoy it. This type of film is right up my alley. Glad to see we have something in common!
Hawkgrrrl:
Not I haven’t. But, I’m so glad that you mentioned it! Thank you! (Amen! I suspect “in the non-online World” we have much more in common than we suspect….Godspeed, my Friend.)
People interested in this topic might enjoy the novel Hadrian VII, also known as Hadrian the Seventh, by Frederick Rolfe, also known as Baron Corvo, written in 1904. As vajra2 mentions, one doesn’t have to be a priest to be selected as pope, and in this story an Englishman who was a failed candidate for the priesthood maneuvers to get himself elected pope and sets about to reform the Church according to his own idiosyncratic ideas, getting revenge on his enemies along the way.
Along with having the Q15 and the Seventies (which is generally the pipeline through which members of the Q15 are chosen) I would add another requirement for choosing members of the FP and Q12 and actually anyone being considered for leadership positions. There should be a required background check and personality assessment done such as the MMPI to weed out wannabe authoritarians and people who have problematic behaviors that could negatively impact the rank and file members at the ward, stake, region, and church at large levels. Ideally, this would weed out narcissists, sociopaths and people who like power too much.
One of the church’s biggest problems is the type of people that are being called to positions of leadership and authority. When the leaders refuse to properly vet candidates for leadership positions and instead call someone because they are: 1)immediate family, relatives and friends, 2)business associates, 3)people pleasers, 4)charismatic and popular personalities, 5)already well known in another field of endeavor, 6)wealthy, 7)people who prefer the status quo and aren’t willing to change things up in order to better meet the needs of regular members they are already compounding the problems the church already faces. None of these traits translates into the necessary skills needed to lovingly and respectfully interact with others or to manage a congregation or larger group.
Until church leaders are chosen who actually care about and serve the members and ensure the effective teaching of Christ’s gospel the massive exodus from the church will continue.
Oops! My first sentence should read “Along with having candidates for the Q15 and the Seventies and plus leadership positions vetted by a committee made up equally of both men and women…”
I’ve mentioned it before, but any system that imposes an mandatory retirement age on apostles needs to do away with lock-step succession to the presidency. My reason for this is that fixing a retirement age fixes the exact dates and succession for decades ahead of time, and my sense is that the president of the church and any apostles giving input into new apostle calls would probably prefer not to have that responsibility on their shoulders. Call it an actuarial lottery or God “choosing” the future presidents, but I think they like the idea that they don’t know for sure that someone will become president of the church (unless they are picking Monson in his 30s).
I agree with DaveW that a voluntary retirement option is the most plausible first step, with a possible option of apostles voting to “retire” a colleague who they judge not to be able to do the job. That might gradually get GAs and members used to a new system and pave the way for future changes.
Personally, I’d like to see apostles retire between 75 and 80 and have the president chosen by the apostles. If retiring around this age were a norm it needn’t be a hard date, just a guideline to retire when you’re ready and before you overstay your welcome. Just like they tell the church on matters of personal revelation, I would advise them that “God won’t tell you to stay past 80!” If a relatively young president is chosen, I’d like there to be a norm that a president’s service should ideally be less than 10 years, and they have the option of retiring from the presidency and remaining an apostle for a time.
If the movie took place in Salt Lake City, it would have been 5 minutes long!
Saw Conclave today, Highly recommend. The beauty of the location, the rituals, the exceptional cast, and the cinematography make this an excellent way to spend a few hours. it gives an inking as to why the Catholic Church is the oldest organization on the planet. Yes, it is filled with human beings but there is also an ineffable spirituality that resonates. Thought I kept hearing the words, “Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief.”
I’m way late to this post, but I finally just watched Conclave. Now that I have, I doubly enjoy this writeup, Hawkgrrrl!
“Even those who say they don’t want to be Pope are tempted when the votes start going their way.”
The above observation rings true to me, and strikes me as one of the movie’s greatest strengths. After seeing the trailer, my concern was how different (hopefully) this movie would be from Angels & Demons, a wonderfully entertaining but utterly ridiculous Dan Brown conspiracy thriller. At one explosive moment it looks like Conclave is headed in that absurdist direction, but they keep staying intelligent. Amen to your 12 Angry Men comparison. Smart, slow boil, and generally real world scenarios.
Perhaps my only gripe is that the ultimate outcome of succession is settled with a single speech. Compelling rhetoric, but utterly convenient as a plot device. Similar to TV legal dramas where a paucity of evidence is overcome by a stirring closing argument. But that’s forgivable to me, given how clever and satisfying the final plot twist is. I giggled with satisfaction at the position this would put old-school cardinals in. Though, ironically, it relies on skirting a proper vetting process. Still, great flick!
The Mormon angle? I think people need to be less infatuated with the Q15, and closely watch the ebb and flow of power among the Seventy. They are the cardinals of Mormonism. How much practical day-to-day discretion do area presidencies have? In what ways is their leadership tier a proving ground for future Q15 members? Where is policy developed and driven? If another major schism ever happens, won’t this be the level where it occurs? Don’t know. Not watching closely like I used to. But that’s my hunch.