Vox Populi, Vox Dei, Vox Sagittae1

Forrest Maltzman, George Washington University Melissa Schwartzberg, George Washington University Lee Sigelman, George Washington University 2

n April 19, 2005, after just four Nevertheless, we can use what is known wine, and ice cream—a far cry from O rounds of voting, the College of about the cardinals and the conclave to Gregory X’s decree in 1274 that if the Cardinals announced that 78-year-old assess some plausible accounts, one of cardinals failed to select the Holy Father Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been se- which, as we shall see, stands out above within eight days, their rations would be lected as the new pope. This announce- the others. reduced to bread, water, and wine. ment startled many. To be sure, as Officially, Ratzinger’s selection was Notwithstanding the cardinals’ vow of prefect of the Congregation for the Doc- attributed to the will of God, a force not secrecy, press accounts indicated that in trine of the Faith for nearly a quarter of amenable to any empirical test that is in the first round of voting about 50 ballots a century Ratzinger had helped select the our power to conduct. The more immedi- were cast for Ratzinger ~Rotella, Bou- vast majority of the cardinals who gath- ate source of this outcome, however, was dreaux, and Baum 2005!, with several of ered to choose a successor to John Paul a factor about which political scientists the 115 participating cardinals apparently II, so his selection as pope could be seen can justifiably claim considerable exper- abstaining ~Drudge Report 2005!.Inthe as fulfillment of a simple quid pro quo. tise: the rules under which the election second round, Ratzinger eked out a thin Even so, it had been widely speculated was held. Indeed, Pope John Paul II was majority with 60 votes but fell short of that Ratzinger’s conservative beliefs certainly aware that these rules would the required supermajority. By the third would spark passionate opposition shape the outcome of the election: other- round, Ratzinger’s position had, accord- among the electors and that his age and wise there would have been no need for ing to the Vatican correspondent for La reputed poor health would also work him to modify them. Repubblica, “become so strong that it against him ~Novak 2005!. On February 22, 1996, nearly a decade was up to the other electors . . . to give We will never know what really tran- before Ratzinger’s elevation to the their votes to the most prestigious . . . spired in the Basilica Chapel. To ensure papacy, John Paul II released the Apos- candidate” ~Rotella, Boudreaux, and confidentiality, the chapel was scanned tolic Constitution,“Universi Dominici Baum 2005!. In the fourth round, many for electronic bugs, a system was acti- Gregis,” on the Vacancy of the Apostolic of the holdouts capitulated and Ratzinger vated to jam listening devices, and each See and the Election of the Roman Pon- secured 95 votes, well above the 77 that cardinal swore, on pain of excommunica- tiff. Since 1179, the rules governing papal were needed to the 30th round. In tion, to “observe absolute and perpetual succession have required a two-thirds effect, John Paul II’s rule change had secrecy . . . on all matters . . . related to majority of the cardinals, but John Paul transformed the selection process into a the election of the Supreme Pontiff” II’s new rules provided that after quest for a simple majority and had ~John Paul II 1996!. For any participant 30 rounds of voting a simple majority thereby drastically diminished the proba- to reveal what transpired during the would suffice.3 Almost a decade before bility of a deadlocked conclave. The conclave would have been a cardinal sin. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist ~R-TN! question, then, is why John Paul II attempted to employ the “nuclear option” changed the rules in a way that may to break the capacity of a determined have proven instrumental in Rat- Senate minority to filibuster ~Klotz 2004!, zinger’s selection. Forrest Maltzman is a professor of po- John Paul II went nuclear ~Hasen 2005!. litical science at George Washington Uni- The strategic implication was clear: A Strange Decision versity. He is the author of Competing once a majority of cardinals emerged in Principals: Committees, Parties and the Or- support of a candidate, opposing candida- John Paul II was by no means the first ganization of Congress (Michigan, 1997), cies would be doomed, for those in the pope to use his authority to revise the and the co-author of Crafting Law on the majority could simply continue to vote voting rules,4 but on its face his decision U.S. Supreme Court (Cambridge, 2000). for their favorite, secure in the knowledge to do so seems anomalous. If ever there that before long they would prevail were an occasion when a broad consen- Melissa Schwartzberg is an assistant professor of political science at George ~Tobin 2003!. Nor, unlike the cardinals sus would be desirable in terms of en- Washington University. She is the author of who had flocked to earlier conclaves, hancing the legitimacy of a decision, the Democracy and Legal Change (Cambridge, would they have to endure discomfort, selection of a new pope would seem to forthcoming) and of “Athenian Democracy deprivation, and indignity while they be it. Although his power is said to origi- and Legal Change” (APSR, 2004). were waiting for developments to culmi- nate in Christ, the legitimacy of the pope nate in the puff of white smoke that be- as the successor of Peter also derives Lee Sigelman is a Columbian College tokens the election of a new pontiff from the process by which he is elected; distinguished professor of political science ~Allen 2002, 104!. To ease the burden on his authority is “granted by . . . means at George Washington University and the the electors, John Paul II had a hotel-like of lawful election accepted by him.”5 editor of the American Political Science Review. He has written extensively on race, facility built on the Vatican grounds, so The history of the Church is rife with religion and politics, including Race and during the 2005 conclave the cardinals controversies over papal succession— Politics (Cambridge, 2001) and Black were comfortably, even luxuriously, ac- controversies often fueled by procedural Americans’ Views of Racial Inequality commodated. Among other comforts, issues. For example, at the 1130 (Cambridge, 1991). they feasted on chicken cordon bleu, conclave no clear rules were in effect;

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 297 the cardinals were gov- Figure 1 erned by a voting for- Proportion of Cardinals Appointed by John Paul II mula that recognized the “sanior et maior pars” i.e., “the sounder and greater part” but this proved to be incon- clusive ~Colomer and McLean 1998, 6–8!.In the ensuing confusion, that conclave produced both a pope and an anti-pope. Controversy broke out again in 1159, when a majority of the cardinals settled on Cardinal Roland as the new pope. During Roland’s investiture as Alexander III, the dis- affected Cardinal Octa- vian “snatched the mantle like a robber, tore it with his own hands from Alexander’s shoulders, and at- tempted among cries and confusion to carry it off” ~Saari 1995, 16!. Octavian served as a Protecting His Legacy? cessors—constitutes the Papal Predeces- competing pope, Victor VI. sor Gridlock Zone ~PPGZ!. Alternatively, To be sure, modern times have not One such idea, which is the core of it is possible that the pope might have witnessed a recurrence of those 12th- the initial explanation, is that of self- been able to anticipate the gridlock and century schisms. Even so, it is well interest. Applying a self-interest criterion, thus enact his procedural reforms a few understood that dissensus among the John Paul II would have promulgated years ahead of time. electors could jeopardize the claim of the majority rule out of a desire to protect Figure 1 plots the yearly proportion of new pontiff to be the visible representa- his own legacy, i.e., to preserve his influ- voting cardinals appointed by John Paul 6 tion of the “unseen Pastor” —“the man ence over the Church after his death. II.8 The PPGZ began in 1986, when John God had indicated to us,” as Cardinal Although he had been naming new cardi- Paul II’s appointees first formed a major- Christoph Schönborn characterized the nals since 1979, many cardinals ap- ity, and ended in 1991, by which time he choice of Ratzinger ~Fisher 2005!. The pointed by John XXIII or Paul VI were had appointed two-thirds of the cardinals. worst-case scenario would be for a still active and would retain their voting Thus, 1986–1991 was the interval during conclave to produce a disputed outcome rights until they turned 80. which, if John Paul II had been moti- or, short of that, an outcome greeted by Under the rules that were in force vated by a desire to preserve his legacy, widespread grumbling. Because the pope when he assumed the papacy, John Paul he should have promulgated majority is a “perpetual and visible principle and II would have had to appoint two-thirds rule. However, Figure 1 provides no em- foundation of both the and of the of the voting cardinals to guarantee that pirical support for either the pure PPGZ faithful” ~Vatican 2005a!, the semblance, “his” cardinals could prevail if it came to hypothesis or its weaker version. John if not always the reality, of unity must be a showdown over his successor. Given Paul II did not alter the rules during the maintained, and the supermajority re- that there was a 120-cardinal cap on PPGZ, nor did he do so in the years quirement was obviously more in keep- electors and that cardinals retained their immediately preceding it. It was not until ing with that desideratum than John Paul voting rights until they either turned 80 five years after the PPGZ had expired II’s relaxation of that provision. or passed away, John Paul II must have that he changed the rules, and that timing Why, then, did John Paul II alter the recognized that it would take time until makes no sense from the perspective of a supermajority requirement? To answer his appointees could control the outcome. self-interest-based explanation. John Paul this question, we assume that the pope If he were motivated by anxiety over II’s rule change cannot, then, be attrib- was perfectly rational in his decision to whether his tenure would last that long uted to a desire on his part to ensure that change the rule and we reconstruct ex- ~as well he might have been, having sur- his successor would be selected by cardi- planations for his selection accordingly. vived an assassination attempt in 1981!, nals he had appointed. Of course, our methodological approach he should have changed the rule during requires us to accept something that even the period after he had appointed a bare the Vatican would be unlikely to grant on majority, but before he had appointed Protecting the Curia? this matter: .7 We exam- two-thirds, of cardinals. That period—the ine three plausible reasons for his deci- interval during which a candidate cham- An alternative idea, which is the core sion to change a rule that had guided the pioned by John Paul II’s appointees of the second explanation, is that of papal selection process for over eight could have been blocked by a coalition group interest. Applying this criterion, centuries. of cardinals appointed by his prede- John Paul II would have been motivated

298 PS April 2006 to change the supermajority rule in Figure 2 order to protect the existing Vatican Capacity to Filibuster Ratzinger (proportion of cardinals by power elite from the tumult that year) would likely ensue if the papal scepter were to pass into the hands of an out-group member. If John Paul II were trying to maintain control of the Vatican in the hands of those with whom he had been most closely allied in the often fissiparous politics of the Church, the surest way to do so would have been to stack the deck so that his successor would be his close advisor and long-time mem- ber of the Vatican curia, Cardinal Ratzinger. Ratzinger himself seemed to bear out this interpreta- tion when, two days after being named Supreme Pontiff, he re- appointed the previous heads of the various Vatican departments ~Wil- liams 2005!. It could not have es- caped John Paul II’s notice that Ratzinger would have to overcome considerable opposition to win the cardinals’ blessing. Was it John Paul’s apprehension that Ratzinger’s opponents would muster the sup- port of a third of the cardinals, thus blocking a Ratzinger papacy, that provoked the rule change? Western liberals to cross back over the change the rules did not stem from a Opposition to Ratzinger seemed likely 50% threshold in 2003? Even with the desire on his part simultaneously to en- to come from Western liberals, repulsed 1996 rule change in place, Western liber- sure a Ratzinger papacy and protect the by Ratzinger’s role as an enforcer of als could have blocked Ratzinger after Vatican from the incursion of outsiders. orthodoxy. To gauge whether 2003. John Paul’s rule change could plausibly Western liberals were not the only Fear of Majorities be seen as an attempt to outflank these potential source of opposition to Rat- cardinals, we calculated the annual pro- zinger. For four and a half centuries prior The third explanation, like the first portion of electors from Western Europe, to John Paul II, Italians had monopolized two, treats the rule change as the appli- the United States, Canada, Australia, and the papacy. Still smarting from the cation of a sound political science princi- New Zealand.9 Figure 2 draws a line of papacy of a Pole and anxious to regain ple, but offers a different account of how demarcation around the period during the fisherman’s ring when John Paul II’s John Paul II came to apply this princi- which cardinals from those countries successor was named,10 Italian cardinals ple, given his lack of training in our could have joined forces to filibuster were obviously not going to take the discipline. Ratzinger’s selection by capitalizing on prospect of a German successor lightly. In introductory political science the requirement for an extraordinary ma- Even so, any notion that the desire to courses, students learn that aggregating jority. The Western Liberal Gridlock block an Italian filibuster was what moti- voters’ preference orderings across sev- Zone ~WLGZ! establishes the period vated John Paul II’s rule change is easily eral alternatives can produce surprising during which Western liberals constituted debunked. The Italians never enrolled results. A classic case in point is “Con- less than a majority but more than one- even a third of the members of the elec- dorcet’s paradox,” in which the aggrega- third of the cardinals. As the figure indi- toral college,11 and even if they had, tion of preference orderings that are cates, these cardinals could have relied their probability of coalescing on a sin- individually transitive produces an in- upon the supermajority threshold that gle candidate was extremely remote.12 transitive result, which is commonly re- John Paul II eliminated to block Rat- Finally, there was also considerable ferred to as a “cyclical majority.” To zinger’s selection at any point from 1985 speculation that in light of the hegemony illustrate, consider the three main coali- to 2003. Obviously, then, the 1996 rule of the Church in America, a strong tions that seem to have existed at the change did occur within the WLGZ, con- push would come from south of the start of the 2005 ~Elie sistent with a group interest-based expla- U.S.-Mexican border. Thus, we singled 2006!, which formed around the candida- nation. Even so, we consider this out those cardinals who were from the cies of Cardinals Ratzinger, Carlo Maria explanation far-fetched at best. If John Americas and resided south of the U.S.- Martini of , and Jorge Mario Ber- Paul II were really concerned about the Mexican border or in Puerto Rico. As goglio of Argentina, respectively. We possibility that Western liberals would can be seen in Figure 2, Latin American have no way of discerning cardinal pref- block Ratzinger, why did he wait nearly cardinals were never numerous enough erences across the members of the three a dozen years after they had crossed into to derail a Ratzinger candidacy. blocs, but in Table 1 we simulate the the WLGZ to enact his change? Even All the evidence, then, points to the likely underlying preference orderings more problematically, why did he permit conclusion that John Paul II’s decision to based upon the country of origin. This

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 299 tellingly, is precisely what John Paul II Table 1 did when he paired his relaxation of the Encyclical Majorities supermajority requirement with a provi- 2005 Voting Demonstration sion allowing the choice to be confined to the top two candidates from the previ- Ratzinger Bloc: ous round; the latter provision violated Martini Bloc: Conservative Italians, the prior requirement of unrestricted do- Liberal Italians and Germans, and Bergoglio Bloc: main ~a.k.a. “citizens’ sovereignty”!. Just a b c Western Whites Eastern Europeans Third World two years later—just two years, that is, % of College 47.0% 23.1% 29.9% after naming to the Pontifical Academy First Choice Martini Ratzinger Bergoglio the very social scientist who has thought Second Choice Bergoglio Martini Ratzinger most seriously about how to overcome Third Choice Ratzinger Bergoglio Martini cyclical majorities, and in the same year as the Academy held its first workshop a Includes cardinals from Western Europe, the United States, and half of the Italian on “democracy”—John Paul II changed cardinals. the voting rules.14 bIncludes cardinals from , , and half of the Italian cardinals. Conclusion cIncludes cardinals from Latin America, Africa, , Indonesia, Syria, Thailand, and . The importance of institutions in structuring human life and decision- making cannot be overstated. Few insti- tutions are more important than the analysis indicates that if the cardinals, part depend on the belief that his selec- guidelines employed in selecting the spir- thus aligned, were rational and voted tion was relatively uncontested, or at itual leader for over a billion people. according to their true preferences, no least that the outcome did not result from Although the importance of such institu- candidate could have secured a majority a struggle for power.13 tions is widely acknowledged, there is no of the votes, let alone a two-thirds ma- The pope was by all accounts highly consensus on their source. Usually, insti- jority. The result would have been a cy- intelligent and well-educated—he had a tutions associated with one’s spiritual life clical majority, which, given the context, doctorate in theology—but it is unlikely are attributed to a supernatural force. It we rechristen an encyclical majority. that he investigated Condorcet’s paradox was revelations to Moses, Muhammad, Under the old rules, the conclave would in any depth. Even so, we think there is and Joseph Smith that are the basis for have deadlocked. strong reason to embrace the encyclical three of the world’s most important insti- Could John Paul II’s rules change majorities explanation—reason embodied tutions ~the Ten Commandments; the have stemmed from his understanding in the adage that “It’s not what you Koran; and the Book of Mormon!. of encyclical majorities? The pope had know, but who you know.” John Paul II While many attribute institutions to good reason to fear the effects of cycles: may not have studied political science divinity, political scientists frequently following the death of Clement IV in seriously, but he did know someone who attribute institutions to the rational calcu- 1268, neither the Italian nor the French knew quite a lot of it, and he may have lations of pivotal figures. It is in this faction of cardinals could attain the been able to draw on this person’s guid- spirit that we have explored the elimina- two-thirds majority necessary to elect ance in applying the concept of encycli- tion of the supermajority requirement for a candidate, and deadlock persisted for cal majorities. selecting the pope. Although we have no nearly three years. Finally, the residents On January 1, 1994, two years before doubt that John Paul II had a preferred of the town of Viterbo removed the roof revising the voting rules, John Paul II successor and we suspect that this suc- from the structure housing the cardinals established the Pontifical Academy of cessor is the current holder of the papal and cut their provisions to bread and Social Sciences with the “aim of promot- ring, we also do not doubt that John Paul water. We can safely assume that this ing the study and progress of the social, II recognized that the legitimacy of the experience led Gregory X, who was economic, political and juridical sci- papacy depends in part on a relatively elected three days later, to issue the ences, and of thus offering the Church swift and harmonious selection process: aforementioned decree cutting rations those elements which she can use” ~Vati- that is, it is important that the cardinals after eight days. We might also expect can 2005b!. According to John Paul II’s appear to have easily identified the cor- that such a prolonged conclave would decree, the Academy was to be com- rect man, and not to have elected a com- have cost the papacy dearly, both in posed of 20–40 members nominated by promise candidate after prolonged material terms ~including replacing the the Supreme Pontiff. One of the original bargaining. roof!, and with respect to the legitimacy pontifical academicians was the Nobel The timing of the pope’s decision of the outcome, given the divisive na- Prize-winning economist Kenneth J. to empower a simple majority of the ture of the deliberations and the absence Arrow. Arrow is best known for having conclave suggests that his primary mo- of consensus about the rightful proved the impossibility, given certain tive was neither to ensure a Ratzinger successor. assumptions, of establishing a voting rule papacy nor to empower the cardinals John Paul II, who was widely re- under which one alternative emerges as he had selected. Instead, his decision garded as media-savvy, surely would the most preferred—the so-called Arrow stemmed from his discovery that social have wished to avoid the spectacle of a paradox, which amounts to a generaliza- choice processes are frequently incon- prolonged conclave, which inevitably tion of Condorcet’s paradox ~Arrow clusive. Is the appointment of the would have been accompanied by press 1963!. In order to ensure an outcome Pontifical Academy, and of one of its speculation about division among the ~i.e., to avoid ~en!cyclical majorities!, members in particular, a smoking gun? cardinals. As we have suggested, the le- Arrow showed one must relax a basic Perhaps not—but it is surely a flaming gitimacy of the chosen successor may in condition on which voting is based. That, arrow.

300 PS April 2006 Notes 1. The voice of the people is the voice of cardinals were eligible to vote. We deemed car- cardinals did elect an Italian, albeit not a cardi- God is the voice of Arrow. dinals ineligible during the year in which they nal, as Pope Urban VI. This pacified the crowd, 2. The authors gratefully acknowledge the either died or turned 80. John Paul II announced but some cardinals argued that because they had advice, encouragement and0or discouragement of his first consistory on June 30, 1979, when he acted under duress the election was illegitimate. Michael Bailey, Steve Balla, Sarah Binder, Chris named 15 cardinals. He elevated one other prel- They settled on another individual as the anti- Deering, Ingrid Creppell, Henry Farrell, Elizabeth ate to cardinal status at that time, but reserved pope. Although Urban VI was the last non- Fisher, Jennifer Gandhi, Alan Gerber, Eric Law- his name ~“in the heart”!. This status cardinal to be elected to the papacy, that rence, Eric Patashnik, Chad Rector, Doug Reed, is employed if the pope believes that the act of possibility remains to this day. Ryan Schoen, Charles Shipan, John Sides, Greg naming jeopardizes the prelate’s ability to serve 11. When John Paul II was elected pope, Snyder, Mark Spindel, and Paul Wahlbeck. his mission. In 1991, the pope announced that Italian cardinals made up 24% of the college. At 3. John Paul II also expressly reaffirmed Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei of was this the time of his death, only 17% were Italians. previous papal edicts “that the maximum number cardinal. For present purposes, we treat this per- 12. For accounts of Italians’ difficulty in of cardinal electors must not exceed 120” and that son as a cardinal from the year of his selection, forming coalitions, see Sartori 1976; Mershon cardinals who had celebrated their 80th birthday not of his naming. Another cardinal was chosen 2002. before the day when the Apostolic See became in pectore on October 21, 2003, but his name 13. We suspect that the pope was probably vacant would not be eligible to participate. was never published. more concerned with the fact that cycling would 4. In recent times, Pius, Pius XI, Pius 9. Of course, some Church conservatives prolong the process than preclude the selection XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI all issued revised ~including both John Paul II and Ratzinger! of a successor. Because many of the cardinals voting regulations. hailed from this region. Thus, our operationaliza- would not be viable candidates to be pope, the 5.Canon332§1C.I.C.; Canon 44 § 1 tion overstates the voting power of the Western set of alternatives would be limited. Further- C.C.E.O. @footnote 9 of the preamble to the Uni- liberal bloc. We treated Cardinal more, the cardinal electors would inevitably real- versi Domini Gregis#; note that election is sup- as Ukrainian rather than American because he ize that if the process broke down, the Church’s plemented by “episcopal consecration.” renounced his U.S. citizenship after returning to hierarchy ~and thus the value of their positions! 6. Universi Domini Gregis, preamble. . would be de-legitimized. Even without the rule 7. We also assume that we have correctly 10. During the conclave of 1377–1378, the change, preferences may induce a determinative identified the only conceivable motives that the crowd outside the conclave, exercised by fear outcome. Cycles may be as rare in the Basilica pope could have had for changing the voting that a non-Italian would be selected as the Chapel as they are in the U.S. House. rules. Thus, like many contemporary political Bishop of , “entered the Vatican itself, 14. Even if John Paul II had studied cycling scientists, we also assert authorial infallibility. raiding pantries and threatening the cardinals that at some point, the timing of the rule change nev- 8. The figure draws upon data obtained if they did not deliver a Roman they would be ertheless suggests that something had occurred from www.fiu.edu0;mirandas0consistories- killed” ~Catholic Online 2005!. Eventually, the to remind him of its potential risks. xx.htm. On a yearly basis, we determined which

References Allen, John L. 2002. Conclave: The Politics, Fisher, Ian. 2005. “Pope Benedict XVI: The De- Groundswell Swept Ratzinger into Office.” Personalities, and Process of the Next cision; German Cardinal is Chosen as Pope.” Los Angeles Times, April 21. Papal Election. New York: Random House. New York Times, April 20. Saari, Donald G. 1995. Basic Geometry of Vot- Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. Social Choice and In- Hasen, Richard L. 2005. “Majority Rule.” New ing. New York: Springer. dividual Values,2nd edition. New Haven, CT: Republic, April 3. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Sys- Yale University Press. John Paul II. 1996. ,“Uni- tems. New York: Cambridge University Catholic OnLine. 2005. “Unusual Conclaves.” versi Dominici Gregis,” on the Vacancy Press. www.catholic.org.nz0pope0conclaves.htm, of the Apostolic See and the Election of Tobin, Greg. 2003. Selecting the Pope: Uncov- accessed 501202005. the Roman Pontiff. www.vatican.va0holy_ ering the Mysteries of Papal Elections.New Colomer, Josep M., and Iain McLean. 1998. father0john_paul_ii0apost_constitutions0 York: Sterling Publishing Company. “Electing : Approval Balloting and documents0hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_ Vatican. 2005a. www.vatican.va0holy_father0 Qualified-Majority Rule.” Journal of Inter- universi-dominici-gregis_en.html, accessed index.htm, accessed 501002005. disciplinary History 29: 1–22. 20102006. _. 2005b. “Motu Proprio, History and Aim Dionne, E. J. 2005. “Cardinal Ratzinger’s Chal- Klotz, Robert. 2004. “The Nuclear Option for of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sci- lenge.” Washington Post, April 19. Stopping Filibusters.” PS: Political Science ences.” www.vatican.va0roman_curia0 Drudge Report. 2005. “Ratzinger Won Final and Politics 37: 843–846. pontifical_academies0acdscien0own0 Balloting with 95 of 115 Votes.” www. Mershon, Carol. 2002. The Costs of Coalitions. documents0rc_pa_acdscien_doc_09111999_ drudgereportarchives.com0data020050040240 Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. history_social_en.html, accessed 50602005. 20050424_132800_flash1.htm, accessed Novak, Michael. 2005. “Rome’s Radical Conser- Williams, Daniel. 2005. “Benedict Reappoints 402402005. vative.” New York Times, April 20. Top Vatican Officials.” Washington Post, Elie, Paul. 2006. “The Year of Two Popes.” The Rotella, Sebastian, Richard Boudreaux, and Ger- April 22. Atlantic Monthly, January0February. aldine Baum. 2005. “Pope Benedict XVI:

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 301