Will cardinals reject a call for Church unity?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | May 06, 2025

Among the thousands of articles that have been written in the past few weeks, analyzing whom the College of Cardinals will consider in the papal conclave, perhaps the most enlightening is this New York Times report by Jason Horowitz, who discovers that the call for Church unity has become controversial.

”It is hard to imagine a less offensive rallying cry” than the call for unity, Horowitz remarks at the start of his report; “but in the ears of Francis’ most committed supporters, it rings as a code word for rolling back Francis’ more inclusive vision of the Roman Catholic Church.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the role of the Roman Pontiff is to unite the faithful. The Pope, the Catechism says—quoting Lumen Gentium, a foundational document of Vatican II—is the “visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”

But as he prepared for the conclave, Cardinal Michael Czerny told the Times: “Unity cannot be a priority issue.” The Canadian Jesuit, who served under Pope Francis as prefect of the Dicastery for Integral Human Development, repeated that thought in an interview with The Pillar, saying: “I don’t know what unity means because I don’t believe it’s the right issue” for the cardinals entering the conclave.

But wait; Cardinal Czerny does think that unity can be important in some contexts. He tells The Pillar that “as we learned in the synod and I think this is so important—we should be united in our listening.” What does it mean, though, to say that the cardinals should unite in listening, but avoid calls of unity? The New York Times reporter understands: a call to mend divisions among the faithful can suggest that Pope Francis exacerbated those divisions. So Horowitz reports:

The discussions leading up to the election are likely to touch on whether a successor to Francis should push forward, or roll back, his openness to potentially ordaining women as deacons or making some married men clergy or offering communion to divorced and remarried Catholics, among other deeply contested issues.

For Cardinal Czerny and other leaders of the Church’s “progressive” wing, who saw the past pontificate as an opportunity for “irreversible” change in the Church, such second thoughts are anathema. Cardinal Baldassare Reina, who was appointed by Pope Francis as vicar general for the Rome diocese, sounded a similar theme as he preached at a memorial Mass for the late Pontiff on April 28, saying that “this cannot be the time for maneuvers, tactics, caution—not a time to follow the instinct to turn back, or worse, to retaliate or seek alliances of power.” In other words this is not the time to stop and assess the damage, but a time to consolidate the gains. Of course that attitude takes it for granted that all the changes wrought by the recent papacy are gains; questions about that assumption are unwelcome.

And yet, if we were to alter the statements by Cardinals Czerny and Reina just a bit, they would be wise counsel for the conclave. All Catholics should seek unity in the Church, and hope that the papacy can once again serve that cause. But we should not fear change, and if “unity” becomes a code for complacency, for business-as-usual—the conclave should reject it. If any one of the cardinal-electors finds himself saying, “I could be comfortable with N as the Pope,” I hope he will see that as a reason not to vote for N.

The Church should strive for unity, but never for comfort. The message of Christ is a constant challenge, and a great Church leader should always convey that challenge—both to the faithful and to the world at large. Yes, the challenge will make some people uncomfortable, even hostile. But didn’t Jesus warn (actually, promise) that the world would despise his followers? So it is not a bad sign if a Roman Pontiff earns the hostility of an unbelieving world. On the contrary, it may be a bad sign if the Pope meets with universal applause.

As investment advisers caution, past results do not guarantee future performance. But what else does? So as the conclave opens tomorrow, cardinal-electors might well ask three questions about the papabile:

1. If the time came when the Pope was required to take a stand that would outrage the secular world, would this man be ready to do so—knowing that he would become the target of the world’s wrath?
2. What are the odds that in the near future, the Pope will need to take an unpopular stand—on issues of war and peace, or artificial intelligence, or sexual perversion, or the exploitation of human life?
3. If you feel confident that a certain cardinal would take a strong stand, what is the basis for your confidence? Has he taken unpopular stands in the past? Has he missed opportunities to do so?