Robert Prevost and his election as the new pontiff: a lesson in tactics from the so-called “kingmakers”?

Finally, there was “white smoke” on the second day of the conclave, and the result was a truly surprising election: Robert Prevost, Cardinal of the Curia and Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, will be the new pontiff under the name “Leo XIV.” With that, we can say that the vast majority of those of us who have written about Pope Francis' successor were wrong from start to finish about who would be chosen. The author of these lines was correct in saying that it would be a man in the mold of Francis (on the other hand, it was easy to guess when 107 of the 133 cardinals had received the cardinal's purple from Pope Bergoglio); that he would be from outside Europe (I pointed to Latin America or Asia, and the reality is that Prevost, although born in the United States, is and feels Peruvian); and that he would have a strong social component; but I must admit that I would never have thought of the name of a cardinal belonging to the United States of America, a country where in the last century there have only been two Catholic presidents (John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Joe Biden) and where Catholics are a minority compared to Calvinist Puritans, grouped mainly around the Presbyterian Church.

But, as we say, not only did the author of this article get it wrong, but so did the Spanish embassy to the Holy See, which shortly before the start of the conclave sent a report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs naming Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, and Luis Tagle, former cardinal-archbishop of Manila (Philippines) and now second member of the Sacred Congregation for Evangelization.

This report from the Spanish embassy should not be underestimated, as it was most likely written by Antonio Pelayo, Cultural Attaché at the embassy (I would like to make it clear that this is my personal opinion and not verified information). Pelayo, whom I met personally in November 2013 and saw for the last time in May 2022, is a well-known face to Spaniards, as he reports on events in Rome for one of the two main private television channels in our country. Because Pelayo, an 81-year-old from Valladolid, is not only a priest, but in the 1970s he was one of the closest collaborators of the then most important priest-journalist in our country (José Luis Martín Descalzo). In addition, Pelayo, who had already covered the two conclaves of 1978 (from which John Paul I and John Paul II emerged consecutively), has been in Rome since the mid-1980s, giving him unique knowledge of the Roman Curia. And Pelayo, as we said, did not even mention Prevost's name, although he surely knew that he could be an alternative candidate in the event of a deadlock among the main favorites.

In fact, the same names were constantly appearing in the various media outlets: if it were to be a member of the Curia, Parolin would be the chosen one; if someone with a strong social profile were sought, then Tagle or Matteo Maria Zuppi, Cardinal-Archbishop of Bologna, would be the chosen one; if a pontiff with international prominence were to be sought, then the most suitable candidate would be the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Pizzaballa), who has been mediating between Arabs and Israelis for years; and if the cardinals finally leaned toward an African, then the name would be that of Cardinal Ambongo, from the Democratic Republic of Congo. And, meanwhile, Cardinal Prevost was the perfect dark horse.

In this regard, I agree with José Francisco Serrano Oceja, Professor of Communication at the San Pablo-CEU University, in two statements he made in a Catholic media outlet: it was not to be expected that a “third contender” or “plan B” would emerge in the fourth ballot (too early), and likewise that the so-called “cardinal congregations” have become an unofficial conclave prior to the official conclave. Because it must have been there that the cardinals behind the papal election were able to discern who the supporters of a cardinal opposed to the line set by Francis were leaning towards, and also the name they would have to “pull out of their sleeves” if Tagle did not have enough votes.

We already warned in a previous article that one of the important new features of this conclave is that it was reached not only with a deceased pope and a secretary of state among the “papabili,” but also with a Council of Cardinals in which there would be a few “kingmakers” who could mobilize a good number of votes. This “Council of Cardinals” had been created by Francis in April 2013, but its current composition dates back mainly to March 7, 2023 (although some who were already there before remained, such as Cardinal Ambongo and Cardinal Mellino), and includes, incidentally, a Spaniard, Omella, currently cardinal-archbishop of Barcelona.

I am unfamiliar with the profiles and backgrounds of most of the cardinals who are members of this peculiar council, but I am well acquainted with Omella. How many people know that in the most pro-independence part of Catalonia, the archbishop of Barcelona has been, since December 2015, an Aragonese who has not been able to maneuver with great skill among the parties seeking to “break away” from Spain? And that he would even be the first cardinal-archbishop of Barcelona to become president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, the body he headed between 2020 and 2024? With such discreetly skilled men, forging a “plan B” as tactically perfect as moving Prevost's name seems less difficult than it might appear, and it shows that Francis knew how to choose his closest collaborators very well. Because surely this conclave was not won by Prevost, but by Francis through the intermediary of the “kingmakers,” who, for those of us who are Catholics, have allowed themselves to be guided by Divine Providence.

Now it is easy to say that Cardinal Prevost was a clear candidate to be elected pontiff, based on two reasons: first, he was a cardinal appointed by Pope Francis; and second, he was head of what is surely the most important Sacred Congregation (that of Bishops).

But the reality is, first, that traditionally a member of the diocesan clergy has been elected pontiff, not a member of a religious order: Francis was a Jesuit, but Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII, Pius XII, and Pius XI (to name the seven previous pontiffs corresponding to the last century of Church history) all belonged, without exception, to the diocesan clergy.

Secondly, Prevost had to wait no less than nine of the ten consistories held by Francis to be elevated to the cardinalate: although Francis already appointed his first cardinals on February 22, 2014, Prevost had to wait almost a decade to become a “prince of the Church.”

And thirdly, it is true that he was at the head of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation of Bishops, which made him a close and trusted collaborator of Pope Bergoglio, but this did not happen until April 2023, that is, only two years before Francis' death and when Pope Bergoglio had been “Vicar of Christ” for a decade.

Time will tell, but surely what happened is that the “kingmakers” waited for the first vote (which takes place on the first day of the conclave), which is a kind of “straw poll,” to see how much support Pietro Parolin had among traditionalists and opponents of Francis, and how much support his rival, the “Franciscan” Luis Tagle, had. As Parolin was surely the most voted (although he must not have exceeded fifty votes, when he needed almost ninety), they then activated “plan B”: in the second ballot, Prevost must have been among the most voted; in the third, he must have become the most voted; and finally, in the fourth and last, he exceeded the two-thirds majority to become the third pontiff elected in the 21st century.

Let us now turn to the figure of the new pontiff, who has decided to go down in history as Leo XIV: in my opinion, his name could not be more apt, since Leo XIII (1878-1903) was the author of the famous encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” surely the most socio-economic document in the entire history of the contemporary Church. Leo XIII was a pontiff who was very concerned about the inequalities that capitalism was creating at a time when socialist parties were beginning to emerge throughout Europe: in the case of Spain, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) was founded in 1879, and its “sister” union, the General Union of Workers (UGT), in 1888. Robert Prevost knows that capitalism has proven to be the least bad of all systems (compared to the fiasco that communism turned out to be), but also that it can create a very unequal distribution of wealth. So we will surely see him demand a “capitalism with a human face” during his pontificate in a world where, as we say, the distribution of wealth must improve greatly.

On the other hand, as much as some would like to see Leo XIV as a continuation of Francis, there are significant differences between them. The most important is Robert Prevost's marked intellectual profile, as he holds a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (in addition to a degree in mathematical sciences): doesn't it strike you that he appeared wearing the same vestments as Benedict XVI? It certainly does to me, and I don't see it as a coincidence.

Furthermore, while Francis was at the helm of his country's main diocese (Buenos Aires, Argentina), Prevost preferred to be a missionary priest, devoting most of his life to his native Peru. He is also much more international than Bergoglio: his father is of Italian-French origin and his mother is Spanish, while Bergoglio was of purely Italian origin.

However, he does share with Bergoglio the fact that he is a man of authority: while Francis was Provincial of the Argentine Jesuits before becoming Pope, Prevost has been superior of his order (the Augustinians, an order founded in 1244 and belonging to the group of “mendicant” orders) for more than a decade. And the most important element that links him to the recently deceased pontiff is that he is the son of immigrants, in this case from Europe to the United States. This is a resounding slap in the face for two political leaders: Donald Trump, the president of the United States who wants to expel masses of immigrants from his country (with the consent of the president of El Salvador, Bukele), on the one hand, and Italian Prime Minister Meloni, on the other. Indeed, while the first female prime minister in the history of the Italian Republic is busy deporting migrants to a detention center in Albania, in his very own hometown, 133 cardinals responded by electing a son of immigration as Supreme Pontiff. We can therefore expect Leo XIV, while denouncing the inequalities generated by modern capitalism, to also devote much time to denouncing policies that are radically opposed to immigration.

Today, they are particularly happy in a second-tier city in Peru: Chiclayo, where the then Augustinian priest Prevost was bishop between September 2015 and April 2023. It should not be forgotten that, although Prevost was born in Chicago (Illinois, United States), in his first speech as Pope he used Italian and Spanish, but not English. Because, deep down, he does not feel American, but Latin American. A world that remains very Catholic but which considers, in part, that the Catholic Church has failed to respond to the problem of poverty, with a significant number of the faithful leaving Catholicism for evangelical Christian churches: Now, their request for more attention from the Catholic hierarchy has been heard by the cardinals, and for the second time in a row we have a Latin American pontiff after Francis. We will see what this election brings, but the fact that Leo XIV is a figure of the highest caliber for these tremendously difficult times is very good news for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is certainly a very surprising appointment, but also a very wise one, which truly responds to the “signs” of the times we live in.

Pablo Martín de Santa Olalla Saludes is Professor of Ecclesiastical Law at Camilo José Cela University (UCJC).