The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Pope John Paul

ROBERT MacNEIL: Once again, bewilderingly soon, a pope lies in state in the Vatican. The world was stunned this morning at news of the sudden death of Pope John Paul, the leader of 700 million Catholics for just thirty-four days. Can the Church find as popular and as healing a pastor a second time?

Good evening. They found him this morning at 5:30 Rome time in his bed, his reading light still on, the religious classic the Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis open beside him. The sixty-five-year-old pontiff had apparently died of a heart attack hours before. In just over a month in office John Paul had endeared himself to the Church for his simplicity, his sense of humor and his moderation in matters ideological. Now the cardinals so recently returned from Rome will go back for another conclave to choose his successor. In a moment we examine the road ahead.

Also tonight, the drama in the United Nations over Namibia. The Security Council this afternoon voted a resolution critical of South Africa for defying the U.N. over the former protectorate of South West Africa. There are demands that South Africa be punished with not just words but economic sanctions. But first, the stunned Catholic world grieves for its pope. Here`s a report on the mood in Rome from Gavin Hewitt of the BBC.

GAVIN HEWITT, BBC, Reporting: The mood in Rome today has been one of disbelief and shock as Italians and visiting Roman Catholics alike come to terms with the totally unexpected death of their new pope so soon after the loss of his predecessor.

CHURCH SPOKESMAN: He was a tremendous pope, and ... it is a pity that God took him after a month, and God had his reasons for doing that; we don`t know why.

HEWITT: The pope`s body is now lying in state in Clementine`s Hall in the Vatican, at the start of nine days of formal mourning. This afternoon the hall was opened for the pub lic to join representatives of Church and state who are paying their last respects. The election thirty-three days ago of Cardinal Albino Luciani, patriarch of Venice, to succeed Pope Paul VI was a surprise choice on only the second day of the Cardinals` Conclave.

But the new pope, who took the names of his two predecessors, won the hearts of Christians in Rome among the crowds and watching throughout the world on television from his first appearance on the balcony. All who saw him were captivated by his friendly, informal way and the ready smile which broke through the solemnity of his appearances.

From the start he was an innovator. He dispensed with the traditional pomp of a papal coronation and chose instead to have a simple outdoor mass in front of St. Peter`s. Pope John Paul promised there would be more changes, but his reign, the shortest of modern times, ended before he could tackle any of the big issues which face the Church.

MacNEIL: Will the new conclave to elect John Paul`s successor be a replay of the last? Will the cardinals be trying to find the same combination of qualities? Jim Lehrer is off tonight. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in Washington. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: First to a man who keeps a close watch on Church affairs and one who understands the importance of the pope as a religious and spiritual leader. He is Father Frederick McManus, professor of canon law at Catholic University. Father McManus attended the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965, and was largely responsible for implementing the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms in this country. Father McManus, it was, as we all know, the briefest of terms, the shortest in modern times. Was there enough time for John Paul to have left his imprint on the Church?

Fr. FREDERICK McMANUS: I think in different ways it was possible. Personally, I think his infectious manner and his informality and his warmth -- I think this has had a real impact already. But I think also it`s a demonstration that the Church is not necessarily monolithic, it is not necessarily so rigid or solemn at times, and I think that we`ve moved a step further, with the very short period of time Pope John Paul was the Bishop of Rome, to a greater warmth in the papal office.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you think that transfers into the image of the Church.

McMANUS: I think it affects the Church as well as the person of the pope, and I think it will continue.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why did the conclave choose such a man?

McMANUS: Well, I suppose each one of the cardinals had a combination, perhaps a highly complex motivation, combination of reasons. Quite obviously there was a desire to have a pope whose experience as a priest and bishop was that of a pastor, and that, certainly, of a person who was highly cultivated, highly understanding of human needs and who had fine personal rapport with people. I`m sure that it was a combination of many of these things, in addition to the kind of practical experience and understanding of Church affairs.

HUNTER-GAULT: This pastoral experience, is that -- along with the other things you mentioned -- likely to be the kind of things that they will be looking for this time, or do you think that the time that has elapsed in the interim may have brought new factors into the equation?

McMANUS: I should imagine that the only new factors that are brought in are just the impact of Pope John Paul, and I think that that would, if anything, move the cardinals to find, if possible, not the same temperament or the same style exactly but certainly something in the same direction. I don`t think the other factors are different, just about the same, that the cardinals would be seeking a pastoral person, I should certainly imagine. And then in addition, as I say, the cardinals would necessarily be moved by the impact that in just a month the warmth and the face and the spirit that man has had, and he`s been so quickly accepted by the Church.

HUNTER-GAULT: If they move in that direction of looking for another pastoral pope, does that rule out, in your view, the more bureaucratic approach of members of the Curia?

McMANUS: Well possibly, although certainly there are some members of the Curia, including Cardinal Villot, the secretary of state, who have had a pastoral background, so it isn`t a question of absolutely ruling them out. I think there is very often that feeling, with reason, that those who have been almost exclusively involved in administration and diplomacy would not have the pastoral touch or sense, but there are many exceptions to it.

HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Let`s turn to a journalist who was in Rome in August to cover the funeral of Pope Paul and the selection of John Paul. George Vecsey covers religion for the New York Times. Mr. Vecsey, did the new pope make a strong enough impact on Church thinking, and particularly, say, on people as elevated as cardinals, that they will be trying desperately to find another one just like him, to sort of stamp him again, do you think?

GEORGE VECSEY: I don`t think they`ll necessarily try and find another John Paul. I think that they`ll have to find someone who can deal with the same issues or not deal with them for the reasons they chose him in the first place. I don`t know that they were consciously looking for a man who would be so informal, so nice, who read books and who could captivate the non- Italian and non-Catholic part of the world.

MacNEIL: We`re read a lot of accounts of what purportedly went on in the conclave. Do you have access to such information, and do you trust those accounts?

VECSEY: I wish I did; and no. I`ve read several different accounts of the conclave, and I was there and covering it, and the accounts differ. I never got to write mine because there was no newspaper, but one account says there were three votes, one account says there were four. One says that one cardinal was the alternate, another says another cardinal was. So I don`t trust those reports, and I confess I don`t know what happened at the conclave.

MacNEIL: Well let me ask you this, from what you do know of the Church and the condition it`s in at the moment -- its mood, if that`s not too simple a word-- his choice was in a sense a compromise that papered over some of the more obviously ideological splits in the Church: third world versus developed world, matters of things like abortion, social policy and so on. Will those splits erupt again, or is the current mood such as to keep them papered over?

VECSEY: I think they`d like to paper them over; certainly nothing has happened in thirty-four days that would change the way the leaders of the Church, the Curia, the leading cardinals, feel about these issues -- sexuality and the poor and socialism and so on -- but this time around only thirty-four days later, for different reasons they may feel, Let`s deal with this, let`s get a more progressive pope this time, let`s get a more conservative pope. The dynamics of these cardinals as they come together is not to be underestimated. They can indeed do some heavy thinking and -- I hate to use the word "politicking" -- but they certainly can talk over the issues and make decisions before they go into the conclave.

MacNEIL: Will the pressure for a non-Italian pope re-emerge, or has that been dealt with by selecting John Paul, an Italian?

VECSEY: I think the reason that they chose John Paul, one of the things, was that he was Italian. And I think not enough time has passed; they all might have left and said, Well, next time we`re going to have to deal with the idea of a non-Italian pope, but not enough time has passed...

MacNEIL: Thinking next time would be many years down the line.

VECSEY: Yeah. They like to think in terms of five-year papacies. That`s why they don`t want to elect fifty-seven-year-old cardinals to be pope, they don`t want to see somebody being pope for eighteen years. They like a nice five-year term and then on to somebody else.

MacNEIL: A lot of people made a living a couple of months ago, or part of a living, in predicting which of the various often-named front runners would be elected, and yet a complete dark horse emerged very quickly. Is there any reason to believe that any of those still-named front runners would have any better chance this time, or would your betting be on another dark horse?

VECSEY: I wouldn`t bet. I could bet both ways. The fact is the Catholics like to talk of the Holy Spirit coming into a meeting, and the look on the face of Cardinal Cooke and the other Americans after the conclave led people who were not Catholic, or not even Christian, to believe that there was a Holy Spirit. So maybe the Holy Spirit would give someone like John Paul again. On the other hand, even thirty-four days later it might be time for a Baggio, a Benelli, a Bertoli, someone like that to cash his chips, to say, All right, we didn`t do it last time, we didn`t elect an insider, we didn`t elect someone who really can put the screws on this issue or handle that issue; this time we`d better do it.

MacNEIL: I see; thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Father McManus, how do you feel about the notion that that splits might erupt again, that time has elapsed and there may be an effort to get a more definitive ideological type?

McMANUS: I wouldn`t think it would mean that there will be a choice of an extremely conservative or retrogressive pope, and probably, although we wouldn`t say any particular cardinal was extremely (unintelligible) or far advanced, I think there will still be a switch for someone who is, in the phrase or expression, moderate. I think that the issues that might erupt are there, but I think sometimes the intensity of them is exaggerated.

HUNTER-GAULT: George Vecsey, let me just ask you; we talked about the ideological issues before. Did the other issues which didn`t quite surface this time, like the health and age of the pope -- how much of a consideration do you think that`s going to be in light of this unfortunate and untimely experience today?

VECSEY: Let me make sure I understand. You want to know the other issues, the broader issues that journalists talk about: the distribution of wealth...

HUNTER-GAULT: Well no, not necessarily. The issues that were brought up as possibly of concern last time, like the age and health of the pope, which didn`t emerge full-blown. But with the pope`s untimely death at this point, do you think that that is going to be more of a factor when they consider the next candidate?

VECSEY: Would they look for a younger pope? Possibly. On the other hand, sixty-five is, despite the very sad death of this nice man today, sixty- five is not very old these days. Charlayne, you being a tennis player, I played a sixty-five-year-old man in tennis today and he beat me. So it`s tragic that this John Paul is dead, but that`s not old for a pope.

HUNTER-GAULT: Father McManus, do you think that this pope, who enjoyed such a great deal of warmth and feeling, do you think that both inside and outside of the Catholic Church the cardinals are going to be affected by the public opinion, this warmth toward him in their selection this time of the next person?

McMANUS: I think they`re bound to be affected in the sense that this will be in their minds; and the point is that the cardinals I`m sure will, out of very sincere and genuine conviction, but there are all kinds of motives and thoughts and dimensions to it, and certainly the very effect of the personality of this pope and his religious feeling, in a sense -this will all be in their minds. And I would think they`re going to find precisely -- or look for -- precisely this same type of person.

HUNTER-GAULT: Right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes; let`s turn now to today`s debate at the United Nations on Namibia, a question that came to a crunch today in the Security Council with an unusually high-powered attendance of people at the foreign ministers` level. In a moment, we shall hear the highlights of that debate from the council chamber, but first a little background. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, there are many agendas at work in this feverish debate over Namibia, a vast, mineral-rich territory also known as South West Africa. The Western power plan for a negotiated settlement is regarded as the litmus test of whether a peaceful method can be found to allow for majority rule in black Africa. Namibia has been of special concern to the West because of its proximity to Angola, a stronghold of Cuban military forces in Africa. The plan the Security Council approved today calls for a U.N. transition force of 7,500 troops and 1,200 civilians that would monitor a cease-fire and remain until a constitution is drawn up and elections held next April. But a stalemate was developed because South Africa wants fewer troops, and elections as early as November. Critics argue that South Africa is pushing for early elections to prevent the nationalist guerrilla movement, known as SWAPO, from organizing. The new South African prime minister, Pieter Botha, who reportedly played a key role in his country`s decision to reject the Western plan, has said that they are not prepared to hand Namibia over to "Marxism and the forces of darkness." Robin?

MacNEIL: The majority of Security Council members clearly were not in sympathy with South Africa`s position today. They symbolized that by inviting the representative of the forces which have been fighting South African troops in Namibia, the South West Africa People`s Organization, or SWAPO, to take a seat at the council table. U.N. Secretary-General Waldheim reported on the plan to put in a U.N. force to supervise free elections, and the council voted overwhelmingly in favor.

PRESIDENT OF SECURITY COUNCIL: I wish to thank the Secretary-General for his statement. It is my understanding that members of the council are ready to proceed to the vote. I shall therefore put the draft resolution contained in document S/12865 to the vote. Will those in favor please raise their hand....Those opposed? ...Abstentions? ...

The result of the voting is as follows: the draft resolution received thirteen votes in favor, no votes against, and two abstentions. One member did not participate in the voting. The draft resolution has been adopted as Resolution 435, 1978.

MacNEIL: In the debate the five Western powers who created the plan for Namibia -- France, West Germany, the United States, Britain and Canada -- were the first speakers. All strongly urged South Africa to change its mind, or it faced, they said, a future of violence or further isolation from the world community. Here are excerpts from the speeches by the United States and Britain.

CYRUS VANCE, U.S. Secretary of State: It would be tragic indeed if South Africa were to deprive the people of Namibia of this unique opportunity for a peaceful transition to independence. Surely the Government of South Africa and of all the Namibian political parties must realize the troubles which such a course of action would cause with the people of Namibia, of South Africa and of the whole region. We intend to continue our efforts to persuade South Africa to cooperate with the United Nations. It is therefore time for persistence and vigorous effort in persuading South Africa that its best interests and the best interests of the Namibian people lie in cooperating with the United Nations in the implementation of the resolution we have adopted, and not in permitting a return to the past spiral of violence and isolation. From SWAPO and from the other Namibian political parties we look for continued cooperation and fidelity to the proposal which the Secretary-General`s report implements. We call on South Africa to rethink its position. Thank you, Mr. President.

DAVID OWEN, British Foreign Secretary: As in Rhodesia, we are seeing some who have resisted majority rule for years, eventually forced to recognize its inevitability, but even then trying to manipulate the result. They are trying, some of them, under the guise of elections to so arrange the timing, the supervision and the form of the elections that the party most sympathetic to their cause wins. This is not democracy. For the international community to collude in such an arrangement would be to destroy people`s faith in democratic processes. No one in South Africa should mistake the determination that underlies the reasonable and constructive attitude that we have shown for the last eighteen months and we will show over the next few weeks. The choice is now for South Africa; the rest of Africa and the world, in passing this resolution, have shown which way they wish to go. Thank you, Mr. President.

MacNEIL: South Africa did not request permission to speak today, as some other African countries did, but we can hear her views now, from the acting permanent representative at the United Nations, Adriaan Eksteen, who was active in negotiating with the Western powers on the agreement for Namibia. Mr. Eksteen, why did South Africa not ask to speak today?

ADRIAAN EKSTEEN: We have made our position clear in the course of the past three or four weeks in communications with the Secretary-General and also in discussions with the five governments, so our position is absolutely clear. Our prime minister -- or our previous prime minister -- made it clear on the 20 of September what our position is.

MacNEIL: And is the new prime minister, Mr. Pieter Botha, who was installed today, who took office today, in fact, going to continue the policy exactly as it was?

EKSTEEN: He indicated yesterday that he would continue the policy.

MacNEIL: The five Western powers -- we just saw excerpts from two of them - - presented a very determined front today, and they say they`re going to persist with the plan and try and persuade your government. Will your government continue to talk to them?

EKSTEEN : We have talked to them in the past eighteen months. We have indicated to the Secretary-General as recently as two days ago that we have not closed any door; we do not intend to close any doors. We will continue to listen to their arguments, as they are then also prepared to listen to our arguments, because after all we also have a side and we also have arguments to which they should listen if they are truly and genuinely interested in solving the problem, as we are.

MacNEIL: Now, you yourself have been the gentleman who`s been involved in the negotiations, at least here in New York. Have you got more talks scheduled with them, are there more talks scheduled so that you can keep the dialogue going?

EKSTEEN: At the present time we do not have any talks scheduled now. We`ve only received this afternoon the Secretary-General`s explanatory statement. We have to study that, we have to study five statements by five foreign ministers, see what they think, see how they perceive the situation, and from there on I have to advise the government also what the atmosphere is in New York, and then it is for the government, in the light of those three factors, to decide what to do.

MacNEIL: How would you describe to your government the atmosphere in New York at the moment?

EKSTEEN: At the moment, after listening to the five foreign ministers, they have made strong statements; after all, they have an initiative that they would like to keep alive. They also would like to look after their interests. They have a stake in this whole settlement. It is, not only for the United States but also for the other four, vitally important to have foreign policy successes, and Namibia is one of those successes that they would very much like to achieve. The United States achieved a Camp David success, and I think that the other four are very eager to achieve a foreign policy achievement.

MacNEIL: Is your government determined at the moment to go ahead with making voting in South West Africa, Namibia, and to proceed with elections in the near future on those lists?

EKSTEEN: The administrative general, who is in charge, so to say, of the interim government or the administration of the territory at the time, has indicated that there will be an election starting on December 4, lasting for five days. At the present time there is an active voter registration going on in the territory. People are eager to register, they are eager to vote. And it all depends on the people of the territory, because after all it is our policy that we will be guided by the wishes of the people of the territory. And if they want to go ahead then we have to take their wishes and considerations into account.

MacNEIL: What do you say to the argument presented again today by the representative of the South West Africa People`s Organization that in moving to early elections and not waiting for the U.N. plan your government`s real motive is to prevent SWAPO, which claims to be the majority party in Namibia, from organizing in elections -- keeping it out of power, in other words?

EKSTEEN: Well first of all, SWAPO is not the majority party in the territory. There are other parties in the territory. But Mr. Nujoma should realize that he has an internal wing inside the territory that is not banned; they have been organizing for a long time, they have rallies, they have meetings, they have freedom of speech, they can do what other parties also do, so that there is no question that they also have an opportunity to bring their views to the population.

MacNEIL: What does your government feel about the warnings, repeated by almost all the speakers today, that if you do not go along with the U.N. plan and the five-power plan the future carries with it more violence, more fighting on the Namibian borders involving South Africa`s forces?

EKSTEEN: Well, as far as bloodshed is concerned, I think that it is also imperative that the five Western countries stress to SWAPO to stop bloodshed and to stop their acts of killing people, innocent people, by the day. We`ve had over 123 incidents in the past three months of land mine explosions, terrible accidents being caused by SWAPO terrorists in the territory. So that it is also for them to ask SWAPO to stop their activities.

MacNEIL: We have to end it there, Mr. Eksteen. Thank you very much for joining us. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Thank you; that`s all for tonight. We`ll be back on Monday night. I`m Robert MacNEIL. Good night.