Ethnicities of the Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimothyIgnatius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TimothyIgnatius

Guest
Just a little curious on this topic. It seems that the vast majority of popes have been caucasian, or of European descent. Obviously Peter the first pope was a Middle-eastern Jew, and as much probably resembled a contemporary equivalent. The same goes for Jesus Christ.

I’ve heard the reasonable explanation about depicting God in one’s image, and hence why we have Black Jesus, Asian Jesus, Hispanic Jesus, etc. But from experience in Latin American countries where Catholicism is the dominant religion, I’ve consistently seen Jesus depicted as a white man. Part of my question is why the Church hasn’t made any efforts to accurately depict what Jesus might have looked like for the sake of ecumenicity. The same goes for electing a non-white Pope.

The heart of my question really is why there hasn’t been more diversity in the election of Popes, especially in a contemporary setting. Can someone with knowledge of this subject tell me if there have ever been any non-caucasian/european Popes, excluding the early ones who were Middle-eastern Jew?

The reason this has been on my mind is because I had a discussion with my african-american friend who told me that Catholicism is largely unappealing to the black community because of its adherence to Euro-centrism and its role in Western civilization. I looked up the demographics data and learned that only 5% of african-americans are catholic, whilst the vast majority are “historically black” protestant churches, meaning historically the majority of participants have been african-american.

I guess I’m wondering why there hasn’t been much pressure to put a non-white man in the Papacy? One can argue that it doesn’t matter, and truly it doesn’t, but with that being so why have the Popes consistently been white men? Has there been a non-white Pope in the last 500 years? Please someone clear this up for me.

Many thanks and God bless.

EDIT: I’m not sure if this was the appropriate forum to post this; if it isn’t please relocate! Thanks
 
TimothyIgnatius said:
I guess I’m wondering why there hasn’t been much pressure to put a non-white man in the Papacy? One can argue that it doesn’t matter, and truly it doesn’t, but with that being so why have the Popes consistently been white men? Has there been a non-white Pope in the last 500 years? Please someone clear this up for me.

Many thanks and God bless.

EDIT: I’m not sure if this was the appropriate forum to post this; if it isn’t please relocate! Thanks
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Really the whole color scheme for the human race isn’t even scientifically valid.

Some of the first propents of dividing humans into color catagories were really pseudoscientific way of placing one race above another. It wasn’t too long ago Italians, Poles, and Bavarians were not considered “white” - probably because the majority of them were Catholic. In the original sense “whites” were nothern non-Catholic Europeans. So really there has not been a “white” pope.

Hopefully the conclave of cardinals will not pick a pope on the color of his skin or ethnic origin. But be guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
John_Paul_Jones said:
What are you talking about? Really the whole color scheme for the human race isn’t even scientifically valid.

Some of the first propents of dividing humans into color catagories were really pseudoscientific way of placing one race above another. It wasn’t too long ago Italians, Poles, and Bavarians were not considered “white” - probably because the majority of them were Catholic. In the original sense “whites” were nothern non-Catholic Europeans. So really there has not been a “white” pope.

Hopefully the conclave of cardinals will not pick a pope on the color of his skin or ethnic origin. But be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I figured this would come up. On all counts, I agree with you. But that brings to question as to why so many contemporary popes are of European descent.

In 2002, Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, spoke of the merits of electing an African pope. “For all its condemnation of racism, the Western world still has reservations about the third world,” he said then. “Yet, in Africa for example, we have truly great figures whom we can only admire. They are fully up to the job.”
 
John_Paul_Jones said:
What are you talking about? Really the whole color scheme for the human race isn’t even scientifically valid.

Some of the first propents of dividing humans into color catagories were really pseudoscientific way of placing one race above another. It wasn’t too long ago Italians, Poles, and Bavarians were not considered “white” - probably because the majority of them were Catholic. In the original sense “whites” were nothern non-Catholic Europeans. So really there has not been a “white” pope.

Hopefully the conclave of cardinals will not pick a pope on the color of his skin or ethnic origin. But be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Color (as a matter of phenotype and cultural origins) can have a symbolic effect in social diplomacy. It also can have a role in shaping those of the associated culture to take notice of what might be similar to them.

I’m sure that those who at watching the choice of pope are praying that he be guided by the Holy Spirit above all else.
 
TimothyIgnatius said:
I figured this would come up. On all counts, I agree with you. But that brings to question as to why so many contemporary popes are of European descent.

In 2002, Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, spoke of the merits of electing an African pope. “For all its condemnation of racism, the Western world still has reservations about the third world,” he said then. “Yet, in Africa for example, we have truly great figures whom we can only admire. They are fully up to the job.”
Click to expand...
Speaking as a white American male, I’d love to see the Holy Spirit guide the Conclave to elect Cardinal Turkson from Ghana, I’ve looked at his “resume” and am thoroughly impressed.
 
TimothyIgnatius said:
I figured this would come up. On all counts, I agree with you.** But that brings to question as to why so many contemporary popes are of European descent.**
Click to expand...
By saying “contemparary” I guess you mean popes in our life-time? In that case I don’t question why John Paul II and Pope Benedict were elected instead of non European person. So far in there were only two non-Italian popes. Not every country of Europe is represented and there is not a pan-European identity. I don’t see that as a grand monopoly of Europeans.
 
Technically people from the middle-east, parts of north Africa and the Indian subcontinent have all been considered Caucasian despite the difference in coloring. Having pale skin was not the primary classification for being of the Caucasian “race”.

Having one ethnic group or another jump on board solely based on the pigmentation of the leadership is not the role of the papacy. The Vicar of Christ is not a recruiting poster boy. Should we ask why we haven’t had a female pope since it might mean more women would become Catholic since the leadership looked like them?

The principle reason that most popes have been European is pretty straight forward; Catholicism took the greatest hold in Europe until recent times. Because of this the vast majority of Cardinals (where most popes are drawn from) are European. Of the 113 Cardinals eligible for the Conclave here is a break down of the continents of birth as best I can work out:

Africa|11
Asia|11
Australia|1
Europe|58
North & Central America|20
South America|12

Italy itself has 27 Cardinals of age to vote in the conclave (just shy of 25%). When more than half the Cardinals are from Europe it is not surprising most are from there. Most popes in the past couple hundred years have been Italian because those Cardinals are most likely to be known to the majority of electors. They have likely worked side by side either in the dioceses, universities or curia positions. Cardinals from other continents are more unknown for lack of a better term.

The best bet for an African pope would have been Cardinal Arinze. Having been the head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Devin Worship he was likely the best known African Cardinal in Rome. Since he just turned 80 I do not know if the conclave would look to elevate him or look to a younger man. Cardinal Turkson might be another possibility, but since he has only been in Rome for 3 or 4 years I don’t know his track record and how the College of Cardinals view him.

In reality all I pray is that the Holy Spirit leads us to a Pope that will defend the faith in this time when Christianity is more and more persecuted. While I personally would like to see another Pope in the vein of Benedict XIV, the Holy Spirit hasn’t stopped by and asked my opinion on the matter. In the end I am less concerned about the pigment of their skin as I am the depth of the orthodoxy. A radical departure from the traditional teachings of the Church could be way too damaging at this point.
 
John_Paul_Jones said:
Really the whole color scheme for the human race isn’t even scientifically valid.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that sentence is hogwash. Race is absolutely a scientifically valid categorization. And it’s a good thing, too. It could help pharmaceutical manufacturers tailor medicines to people’s specific racial and ethnic backgrounds. It could also help researchers develop drugs to combat diseases based on known genetic defenses that certain races have. For example, research shows that sub-Saharan Africans have very high natural defenses to malaria. Gene research could help scientists to identify why this is and use the information to develop anti-malarial drugs. Unfortunately, it seems their high malaria defense is accompanied by (and possibly related to) an exceptionally low defense to HIV. But even this, while depressing, is still good information to have. But if we all believed in the fairy tale that there is really no such thing as race, we’d never know any of this.

As for ethnicity of the various popes, without doing any research, I’m pretty sure we’ve at least had a few from north Africa during the time of the Roman Empire. People from this region today are mostly Caucasoid (i.e. white), though being close to the Sahara (the traditional boundary between Caucasoid and Negroid) and considering the existence of trade routes, there may have been a certain amount of admixture. Until 500 years ago, Christianity was pretty much entirely a European, north African, and west Asian phenomenon; places that at those times were probably 99.9% white. That explains the lack of non-white popes for that period. And even since then, it hasn’t been until the last 50-100 years that non-white areas have been a significant percentage of the faithful. Even in Latin America, the non-white area that has been Catholic the longest, while much of the population is indigenous or mestizo, the elites of most countries are pure Spanish, i.e. white.

I don’t care what color the next pope is though, as long as he’s orthodox and good leader and communicator.
 
paulrus said:
Sorry, but that sentence is hogwash. Race is absolutely a scientifically valid categorization.
Click to expand...
When I said the “whole color scheme” I’m talking about breaking down the human race into colors. The fact that humans can be broken into groups that are more genetically related to each other than others isn’t the same as seperating the human race into colors.
 
There were three African Popes who came from the region of North Africa. Although there are no authentic portraits of these popes, there are drawings and references in the Catholic Encyclopedia as to their being of African background. The names of the Three African Popes are: Victor (183-203 A.D.), Gelasius (492-496 A.D.), and Mechiades or Militiades (311-314 A.D.). All are saints.
 
A few observations, here:
  1. there have been lots of non-European popes in history (esp. in the Church’s early history), including several Africans, as another poster already noted.
  2. Race does not resonate within the Church as it does in American politics. The Church has never endorsed racisim in any of its teachings or doctrines, so it’s not really an issue to begin with, nor has it been. If a non-European is elected, it doesn’t really mean anything. The media likes to create hoopla over nothing, so they can make a big circus about how “historic” and “groundbreaking” every darn little thing is that ever happens.
  3. The main reason most popes have been European (and for that matter, Italian!) can be explained by the fact that cardinals living outside the Rome area did not usually make it in time for the conclave due to how long travel from their home city took. They couldn’t usually sit around and wait for months for all the cardinals to get to town for the papal election, so they got left out. Is it any wonder that the first two non-Italian popes (JP II and Benedict XVI) were elected since the time that air travel became common?
 
TimothyIgnatius said:
.

I guess I’m wondering why there hasn’t been much pressure to put a non-white man in the Papacy? One can argue that it doesn’t matter, and truly it doesn’t, but with that being so why have the Popes consistently been white men? Has there been a non-white Pope in the last 500 years? Please someone clear this up for me.

Many thanks and God bless.

EDIT: I’m not sure if this was the appropriate forum to post this; if it isn’t please relocate! Thanks
Click to expand...
The pope today is autocrat of the State of Vatican City, a remnant of the States of the Church that existed before the political unification of Italy in the 19th Century. Of course, the pope is still head of state, but before 1870, he had millions of subjects that he was responsible for ruling over. The vast majority of those folks were “white” Italians, at least until 1870, it made perfect sense that their ruler should be one of them. Even since then, the pope is still the Bishop of Rome and Primate of Italy, and has a lot of duties (which he can delegate of course) among the people of his own diocese.

The idea of a globe trotting pope is relatively new, without that new paradigm, we’d probably still be on a streak of Italian popes.
 
I have used Wikipedia and New Advent for this list of the first 45 popes. Where a country or city is listed instead of an ethnicity, it is because it only stated where he was born. Forgive me if I made any errors. 🙂
Code: 
1.	St. Peter (32-67) Jewish
2.	St. Linus (67-76) Italian
3.	St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) Roman
4.	St. Clement I (88-97) Rome
5.	St. Evaristus (97-105) Hellenic Jewish
6.	St. Alexander I (105-115) Roman
7.	St. Sixtus I (115-125) Roman
8.	St. Telesphorus (125-136) Greek
9.	St. Hyginus (136-140) Greek
10.	St. Pius I (140-155) Italy
11.	St. Anicetus (155-166) Syrian
12.	St. Soter (166-175) Italy
13.	St. Eleutherius (175-189) Greek
14.	St. Victor I (189-199) Africa
15.	St. Zephyrinus (199-217) Rome
16.	St. Callistus I (217-22) ???
17.	St. Urban I (222-30) Rome
18.	St. Pontain (230-35) Rome
19.	St. Anterus (235-36) Greek
20.	St. Fabian (236-50) ???
21.	St. Cornelius (251-53) ???
22.	St. Lucius I (253-54) Roman
23.	St. Stephen I (254-257) Roman
24.	St. Sixtus II (257-258) Greek
25.	St. Dionysius (260-268) Greece?
26.	St. Felix I (269-274) Roman
27.	St. Eutychian (275-283) ???
28.	St. Caius (283-296) Dalmatia
29.	St. Marcellinus (296-304) Roman
30.	St. Marcellus I (308-309) ???
31.	St. Eusebius (309 or 310) Italy
32.	St. Miltiades (311-14) Berber North African
33.	St. Sylvester I (314-35) Roman
34.	St. Marcus (336) Roman
35.	St. Julius I (337-52) Rome
36.	Liberius (352-66) ???
37.	St. Damasus I (366-83) Spaniard (Portugal)
38.	St. Siricius (384-99) Rome
39.	St. Anastasius I (399-401) Rome
40.	St. Innocent I (401-17) Italy
41.	St. Zosimus (417-18) Greek
42.	St. Boniface I (418-22) Roman
43.	St. Celestine I (422-32) Roman
44.	St. Sixtus III (432-40) ???
45.	St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) Italian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top