Over the last week and a half since the death of Pope Francis, lists of his possible successors have proliferated on social media and in newspapers. Some names—like Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle or Cardinal Pietro Parolin—show up on nearly every list. Others can vary widely.
So, what should readers make of all these different lists?
The key to reading any compilation of “papabile” (or “popable” candidates, a word so silly that most people just stick with the Italian) is to understand that they are, essentially, made up by journalists based on our best guesses of what the cardinals in the conclave will be looking for in a candidate, based on our conversations with cardinal-electors and those close to them.
Creating such a list is risky business: As longtime Vaticanista John L. Allen once memorably wrote in National Catholic Reporter, “The trash heaps of church history are littered with the carcasses of journalists who have tried to predict the next pope.” In addition to the embarrassment of having been wrong, leaving a possible pope off one’s list could mean being caught unprepared on live television or radio when asked to speak about the newly elected pontiff.
The creation of a list of papabile first requires understanding the many different angles from which the cardinals will be considering candidates. While many of the future pope’s desired characteristics are worked out over the course of the cardinals’ general congregations, or daily meetings leading up to the conclave, some of the main considerations include age, geography, ideology, administrative and curial experience, and which languages a candidate speaks.
Few cardinals want a long papacy, with the 26-year reign of St. John Paul II still present in many memories. Although there is some strength in consistency, a long reign also means dealing with one person’s specific weaknesses or tendencies, possibly for decades. As a result, papabile lists often exclude cardinals over 80—who cannot vote in the conclave and are seen as too old to be pope—and under 70. (A commonly repeated strike against the Filipino Cardinal Tagle is that, at age 67, he is too young.)
Geography has long played a deciding role in the conclave. One need look no further than the 455-year streak of Italian popes that stretched from Adrian VI, the Dutch pope who died in 1623, to the Polish-born John Paul II, elected in 1978. The 2013 conclave brought much debate over whether the cardinals would be willing to cross the Atlantic for a pope (America’s Vatican correspondent Gerard O’Connell, though not working for America at the time, predicted correctly that they would), along with the question of whether the world is “ready” for an African pope. Many papabile lists include a single African, usually Cardinal Peter Turkson, Cardinal Robert Sarah or Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu. Meanwhile, the Italian cardinals, although not united, usually favor one of their own—in this conclave, Cardinal Parolin or Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, the lanky Sant’Egidio cardinal who was Pope Francis’ peace envoy to Russia and Ukraine.
Just as the cardinals from certain geographic areas or nations, like France or Italy, tend to vote as blocs, another bloc seems consistent from conclave to conclave: the Curia cardinals. These 30 or so cardinals, resident in Rome full-time, know each other well, know what they want in a pope and ordinarily advocate for one of their own. Because many cardinals come from far away to the conclave, they look to the Roman insiders for guidance on how to vote. This year, it seems the Curia cardinals are falling in behind Cardinal Parolin.
This year, however, there is also the question of a possible “synod bloc”: the 61 cardinal-electors who worked closely together for two months in the Rome sessions of the Synod on Synodality and who generally support that reform process. They have an intense experience of the leadership of Maltese cardinal Mario Grech, the secretary general of the synod, and Luxembourgian cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J., the synod’s relator general. It seems unlikely that the synod cardinals will all vote together, as they have a wide variety of opinions on various church issues, but some of them may consider Cardinal Grech “papabile.” Cardinal Hollerich is generally considered unlikely to be elected pope because he is a Jesuit, as Francis was. Italian newspaper La Stampa also reports that Cardinal Hollerich is directing any support that comes his way toward Grech.
Every conclave is inevitably a referendum on the papacy that came before it, so one key question is whether a cardinal is seen as being in continuity with the previous pope, opposed to him or (more frequently) some mix of the two, depending on the issue. Despite the impression the media often gives, strict “conservative” and “progressive” labels do not accurately describe most cardinals, and because of this, most papabile lists will include a mix of cardinals with different views. It is difficult to predict at this point whether the cardinals will choose someone more in continuity with Francis’ vision or less so. A more nuanced question would be to ask what aspects of Francis’ vision a candidate is or is not in continuity with: his emphasis on mercy, his focus on the margins and the poor, his inclusiveness, his commitment to synodality or his program for curial reform.
The final common “papabile” indicator is language: A cardinal needs to be able to speak Italian well to navigate an institution staffed mostly by Italians. English is helpful for the media, and French, Spanish and German round out the five most commonly used languages in the Vatican. While the synod’s general congregations provide translations, there will not be translators in the conclave hall itself. A mastery of several languages enables a cardinal to speak more freely with—and thus be known better by—others. It can also shift the perception of a cardinal’s geography: For example, French newspaper La Croix called American cardinal Robert Prevost “the most Latino” of the American cardinal-electors because of his time (around 20 years) in Peru, and that time has helped him land on papabile lists even though many cardinals do not want an American pope.
A reader encountering this may say that they have seen plenty of Americans on “papabile” lists. However, it is often only the American media that lists Americans, just as nearly every French list includes Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline of Marseille. There is a sort of symbiotic relationship between the cardinals and the media in each country—readers, viewers and listeners are eager to click on stories about a possible future pope from their country, which can then make their candidacy seem stronger from the outside.
The media also affects what happens inside the conclave: Although cardinals are sworn to secrecy regarding the conversations in their general congregations and the votes inside the Sistine Chapel, many will offer interviews in order to get a certain message out. The Vatican has taken great pains to prevent cardinals from communicating with the outside world during the conclave—even blacking out windows and installing signal jammers in the Sistine Chapel—but in the days before the conclave, cardinals are monitoring the media daily. An interview that is seen as campaigning for oneself can torpedo one’s candidacy (as happened with Cardinal Marc Ouellet in 2013), as can a negative media story about a candidate. On the other hand, cardinals, especially those over 80, often turn to the media to advocate for what type of pope they would like to see next. (Cardinal Charles Maung Bo of Myanmar recently advocated for a pope focused on denuclearization in the pages of America.)
All of this goes to say that, when reviewing a list of papabile, it is helpful to think through which categories the journalist might be using to make their predictions. And it is perhaps even more helpful to remember that no one knows what will happen in the Sistine Chapel. After all, on the three rows of tables where the cardinals will sit to vote, there are no names listed on the ballot. There is only the Latin phrase “Eligo in summumpontificem” (“I elect as Supreme Pontiff”) followed by a blank line.
