A conclave, really such an open process?

From the moment he passed away (21 April) until almost the start of what will be the third conclave of the 21st century (after those of April 2005, when Benedict XVI was elected, and March 2013, when the pontificate fell, for the first time, to a Latin American named Bergoglio who wanted to be known as 'Francis') have taken place. These are congregations attended by both cardinals with voting rights (all those under the age of 80) and those who are no longer eligible to vote because they have exceeded that age: 135 of the former (although, in practice, there will be 134, as the Spanish Cardinal Cañizares, Archbishop of Valencia, will be unable to attend for health reasons), while the latter number 117. 

As expected, the event is not only generating the tremendous excitement inherent in any conclave, but, as is usually the case, there has been no end of speculation about the possible favourites to take the ‘chair’ of St. Peter. Among the Italians, three names have been mentioned most often: Pietro Parolin, as the current Secretary of State and therefore the ‘number two’ in the Holy See; Matteo Maria Zuppi, Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna and a man with a strong social profile (which is precisely what stood out during Francis' pontificate); and the Franciscan Pierbattista Pizzaballa, currently Patriarch of Jerusalem. Outside Italy, but still within Europe, the names of Péter Erdö, cardinal-archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest (Hungary), and the Salesian Cristóbal López Romero, cardinal-archbishop of Rabat and apostolic administrator of Tangier (Morocco), have also been mentioned. 

Meanwhile, among non-Europeans, the name that is being mentioned most often is that of the Filipino Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle, former cardinal-archbishop of Manila and now head of the Sacred Congregation for Evangelisation (the prefect was the late Pope Francis, since June 2022), who can be considered the strongest candidate for the Asian continent. In Africa, the favourite to emerge is the Franciscan Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, cardinal-archbishop of Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo). 

Finally, among the Latin Americans, no candidate has really emerged as a strong contender, but Odilo Pedro Scherer, cardinal-archbishop of Sao Paulo (Brazil), who was already among the favourites in the 2013 conclave, cannot be ruled out: the fact that the same situation as with Benedict XVI and Francis would arise, i.e., the election of an elderly cardinal (he would turn 76 in September this year), works against him. Let us recall that, in the case of Benedict XVI, he had just turned 78 at the time of his elevation to the papacy, while Francis was approaching 77 when it was announced in March 2013 that he was the successor to the already emeritus Pope Ratzinger. 

This conclave has several peculiarities that should not be overlooked. The first is that there is not only a Secretary of State, but also a group of cardinals who form part of a body created by Francis, the ‘Council of Cardinals’. This council includes a Spaniard, Omella, from Aragon, currently Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona and who was president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference between 2020 and 2024. This means that we have a good number of what are known as ‘kingmakers’, i.e. cardinals who, in most cases, do not expect to be elected but who may be able to mobilise a good number of votes. 

The second peculiarity is that there is really no clear favourite, so it is not possible to say that ‘whoever enters the conclave as pope ends up becoming cardinal’. Tagle seems to be the most likely candidate: he does not belong to the Council of Cardinals, but he was elevated to cardinal during the papacy of Benedict XVI, he has a very high social profile and he belongs to one of the most Catholic countries in the world. In addition, he has skilfully kept a low profile: very few statements, very little desire for the limelight and surely many hours spent talking to the cardinals (who are very numerous, by the way) who arrive in Rome with very little knowledge of the College of Cardinals and who are not influenced by any external factors when it comes to voting. 

The third peculiarity (and surely the most notable) is that in this conclave, the vast majority of the cardinals were appointed by the recently deceased pontiff, who held consistories every year of his pontificate except for 2021. These consistories saw the appointment of numerous cardinals from Africa, Asia and even Oceania, making the Church more universal than ever (remember that ‘Catholic’ means ‘universal’ in classical Greek). 

Conclaves hold all kinds of surprises. There have been clear favourites who have emerged as expected: the most obvious cases being Pius XII in 1939, Paul VI in 1963 and Benedict XVI in 2005. But there have also been monumental surprises: Bergoglio in 2013 was one, but Karol Wojtyla, elected on 16 October 1978 and known as ‘John Paul II’, broke all records, above all because of his youth (he was not even 60 years old, which explains why his pontificate was the third longest in the history of the Church, lasting no less than 26 and a half years) and because he was not only Italian, but came from a country under communist dictatorship in the midst of the Cold War. 

The truth is that, just as secrecy is absolute during the conclave, afterwards we learn what happened in the Sistine Chapel during the days of deliberation and voting by the ‘princes of the Church’ with the right to vote. And the information that comes out makes it clear that normally everything is reduced to two, maximum three, candidates. In the case of Benedict XVI, he was in the lead from the outset, and the alternative (precisely the man who would succeed him, Jorge Mario Bergoglio) was always far behind. The reality is that, although at least four or five votes are usually required, from the first vote it is already clear who the real ‘papabili’ are. 

Who will ultimately be chosen? For those of us who are Catholics, only Divine Providence knows. But it seems that on this occasion the geographical component is more important than the ideological one: it will not be a vote between conservatives and liberals, but between Europeans or supporters of the papacy returning to the Old Continent or, on the contrary, remaining definitively outside it. Of course, it seems that if Francis could choose his successor, he would want a non-European. In this regard, if Latin Americans, Africans and Asians organise themselves around a candidate, we may be facing a short conclave, with an Asian or a Latin American as the new ‘Vicar of Christ’. And, if he could choose, it would be best if he were over 60 and under 70: a longer pontificate than the previous two but not reaching the more than two and a half decades of John Paul II. 

We will see what happens in a conclave, the first of this decade, which is surely much less open than is believed. We will find out in time. May the cardinals make the right choice and, above all, may there be unity: there is already enough division and polarisation in the world without it also taking place in the Catholic Church. We already know the start date: 7 May. The end? Only God knows. 

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