It is said, but I don't know where that came from. In two out of the last five conclaves, the front-runner was elected (Eugenio Pacelli in 1939 and Giovanni Montini in 1963).
My own thought is that the cardinals will turn to an Italian again, to get his arms around the administrative issues of the Church. The foremost is the desire of most bishops for a decentralization of authority. A moderate like Tettamanzi is more likely to be amenable to this devolution.
OTOH, if the cardinals want someone who will be able to deal head-on with the Muslim emergence, Arinze is well-equipped for that challenge.
The informal conversations among the cardinals themselves over the next two weeks will set the stage for the conclave. You can bet the media will be doggin' these guys everywhere they go!
We'll see.
1. Centralization vs. More Local Autonomy. I don't know how this will play out, because there are at least 35% of the cardinals who DO like centralization. 2. The problem of a De-Christianized Europe. The cardinals see that Europe, except in a few locales, is mission territory, and a stronger sense of Christendom will be needed to withstand the growing threat of militant Islam in Europe. And 3. The need to keep the Church growing AND FAITHFUL in the 3rd world. I think the cardinals are well aware of the power of the evangelical movement in the 3rd World, and they see the need for vigorous and correct catechesis.
So I am leaning towards a Pastorally-minded European. Right now, my $$ is on Cardinal Scola of Venice. Of course, I am almost certainly wrong in every respect!
True. And, it is worth noting that this is the first conclave that will include reporting from-and-to the www, email, blogs, other instant internet communications.
Do you think the conclave decision might be delayed, even filibustered, until such time as email and other internet communications could actually have an effect on the deliberations and ultimate decision? (after the Sistine Chapel doors are unlocked, etc.)