In order to ensure a short pontificate, the Catholic Church has found it necessary to elect an old man rather than risk choosing someone young. The previous pope, John Paul II, was only 58 when he succeeded to the highest office in the church; by contrast, Cardinal Ratzinger – –  now Pope Benedict XVI – –  has just celebrated his 78th birthday.

Clearly, the cardinals who assembled in the Sistine Chapel last week wanted someone whose tenure in office would not come close to the 27 years that John Paul served. Most of the electors would probably judge the Polish pope’s reign highly successful, but hardly anyone would wish to follow it with another long pontificate.

In any event the electors opted for an old pope and a relatively short reign. Given average life expectancy, one can anticipate that Benedict will not stay in office for a great many years.

This outcome strikes me as unfortunate because it effectively deprives the church of new and vigorous leadership. You cannot have it both ways: if you choose a relatively young man, you run the risk of having him reign for a long time; but if you select an old man, then your church will be deprived of a youthful leader.

The newly elected pope was born in 1927, one year before my appearance on the scene. So it may seem strange to hear me, his age peer, regretting his election. Add to that my signature appreciation of fully matured talent as evidenced in so many people older than the new bishop of Rome.

However, I think that, in general, institutions need to bring younger people into leadership positions. It is not beneficial to maintain gerontocracies that keep control of things in the hands of old people. Again, I say this, not because of age prejudice on my part, but because I believe in the desirability for the church of allowing younger candidates to rise to the top.

A relatively easy solution lies at hand. The way to facilitate the election of younger candidates without fear of overly long pontificates could be handled if the institution were to establish terms of office for its popes.

One approach to doing so is already at work, namely the requirement that Catholic bishops around the world hand in their resignation at age 75. That applies to all bishops except one, the bishop of Rome. To change the rule would not be easy: to require the bishop of Rome to retire would probably require direct action on the part of the pope himself or, perhaps, the initiative of a general council like Vatican II.

Such a change would also help deal with another problem that confronts the church in modern times. Currently the church has no way to handle a situation in which the pope might fall victim to dementia. Were he to get Alzheimer’s disease, for example, the church does not have at hand a mechanism for dealing with such a disability.

Some observers suspect that John Paul II was basically incapable of managing the business of the Vatican in the last few months of his papacy. Parkinson’s disease had so enfeebled him physically that he must have neglected some matters of importance. The church was fortunate that the deterioration of his health did not cause a more obvious crisis.

However, even a church law that required all popes to resign at age 75 would not solve the problem of electing younger popes without risking long reigns. If someone were elected at age 50 (an age many other institutions do not consider young), he could still hold the office for 25 years before retiring.

That is why I favor a term of office for anyone who is elected pope. Church law currently does not allow this constraint on papal service, but I believe it should. It would allow the electors to choose the relatively young without risking too many years of any one papacy.

Yes, there can be some disadvantages to my scheme. Giuseppe Roncalli, who became Pope John XXIII at age 77 and stood the church on its head in the first half of the  1960s, could not have been elected under this plan. And we would have missed out on a epoch-making five-year papacy.

It remains possible that the former Cardinal Ratzinger will prove to be a dynamic leader for the early 21st century. If so, he will have to become more flexible about certain moral and theological positions he has held in the past. I hope he turns out to be like John XXIII, capable of change and responsive to the needs of an incredibly diverse church and world.

But, looking toward the future, I believe the church, if it is to exert the influence it should, needs to open a path for younger leaders to succeed to the papacy.

Richard Griffin