Almost 300 years ago, a minor French playwright by the cumbersome name of Léonor-Jean-Christine Soulas d’Allainval – he mockingly referred to himself as the “Abbé d’Allainval”, which one historian described as a “proto-punk poke in the eye of the Catholic Church” – debuted a work titled L’Embarras des richesses, which, fairly obviously, translates into English as “embarrassment of riches”.
While the comedy itself has been largely forgotten, the phrase has become immortal as a metaphor for too much of a good thing. That bit of history is relevant for Catholicism today, because on 30 September, Pope Francis will stage a consistory – the event in which a pontiff creates new cardinals – the net effect of which may be to create an embarras de richesses for all those hoping that the next papal election will produce a new pope much like the present one.
The Holy Father is set to induct 21 new members into the Church’s most influential body, including 18 under the age of 80 and thus eligible to vote for his successor. Surveying what will be the full roster of 136 electors as of 1 October, when Cardinal Patrick D’Rozario of Bangladesh turns 80, conventional wisdom posits there are now at least ten figures with the requisite gravitas and profile as potential successors to carry on the Franciscan legacy.
Those papabili, meaning candidates to be pope, are:
Collectively, these ten men arguably represent Pope Francis’s best hope of seeing his legacy extended into the next papacy. Note that three of the ten are new appointees, suggesting that the Pope is using this consistory, at least in part, to ensure that the College of Cardinals has plenty of options to ratify his vision when the time comes.
Political scientists, however, will tell you that such an embarrassment of riches, under the law of unintended consequences, sometimes creates the possibility of what’s known as “vote splitting”.
After this consistory, Pope Francis will have named more than two-thirds of the cardinals who will elect his successor, which theoretically should increase the odds that the next pope will be like him. With so many potential candidates, however, it’s also possible that a theoretical majority will end up fractured. It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario, for example, in which the pro-Francis vote ends up hopelessly divided between Zuppi, Fernández and Parolin, or some other constellation.
The unpredictability is compounded by the fact that Pope Francis has named so many cardinals from the Church’s peripheries who don’t have a clear profile, making it difficult to know what they might do. There’s also the basic historical wisdom that cardinals appointed by one pope don’t necessarily choose a successor in the same mould. As the old Italian bit of doggerel goes, “a fat pope is followed by a thin one”.
Finally, there’s the reality that while all ten of the prelates listed have much to recommend them, there are also liabilities in each case that might induce a degree of caution.
Mendonça, for instance, is just 57, which might create fears of an excessively long pontificate; Zuppi is a product of the Community of Sant’Egidio, which has been disparagingly described as the “Wagner group” of Vatican diplomacy for its traditional rivalry with the Secretariat of State; and Fernández, the Pope’s favourite theologian, is controversial for some of his stances on doctrinal issues.
For those seeking a more conservative alternative to Francis, who might the “discontinuity” candidates be? The list isn’t nearly as long, but there are at least four figures who get prominent mentions:
In each case, these are prelates taken seriously as important points of reference in Catholic affairs. Ranjith, for instance, served as the number two official in the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 2005 to 2009, where he was known as il piccolo Ratzinger, in part for his short stature and in part for his affinity with Pope Benedict XVI. Erdő is regarded as one of the premier canonists among the current crop of cardinals, and someone who attempted to inject balance into the discussions at the 2014 and 2015 Synods of Bishops on the family. Bo is admired for the steady, careful fashion in which he’s handled the Myanmar coup.
Also in each case, however, these four prelates might be seen as a bridge too far, meaning too much of a repudiation of the legacy of the present incumbent. For instance, Eijk publicly asserted in 2018 that Pope Francis’s failure to act decisively when the German bishops floated a plan to allow Protestants to receive the Eucharist departed from “the clear doctrine and practice of the Church” and represented “a drift towards apostasy from the Truth”.
For what it’s worth, were Pope Francis a more conventional pope, then the list of plausible alternatives would be much longer. It would include, for instance, Archbishops Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, Anthony Fisher of Sydney, Ignatius Kaigama of Abuja and Marek Jędraszewski of Krakow, each of whom preside over what has traditionally seen considered a “red-hat see”, and each of whom is considered at least somewhat conservative, yet none of whom have been named cardinals.
So, suppose that neither the backers of the Francis agenda nor those hoping for a clear break can galvanise the necessary two-thirds majority in the next conclave. Who might the potential compromise candidates be?
While there isn’t exactly a long list, at least three figures suggest themselves.
All three can credibly be seen as distinct from Pope Francis in certain important respects, yet none would be interpreted as a rejection of the current papacy.
Pizzaballa, for instance, is a Pope Francis appointee, yet he has virtually no track record on controversial issues, such as the suggestion of women deacons or the blessing of same-sex unions. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, those are not the sort of issues he’s been called upon to adjudicate.
Krajewski, meanwhile, is intimately associated with the social-justice dimension of the present papacy, but as a Pole he might be seen as less doctrinally adventurous. Ayuso is considered among the most effective and technically competent of the current crop of Vatican prefects, but hasn’t really ventured into the contested zones of Catholic debate, meaning he comes largely without baggage.
So, all in, that’s a grand total of 17 figures whom many Vatican watchers right now consider candidates to become the next pope. Will one of them actually emerge wearing white?
One clue is this: over the last ten conclaves, whoever was considered the front-runner won four times: Leo XIII in 1903, Pius XII in 1939, Paul VI in 1963 and Benedict XVI in 2005.
On four other occasions, what might be termed a “B list” candidate, meaning someone in the mix but not considered the favourite, carried the day: Benedict XV in 1914, Pius XI in 1922, John Paul I in 1978 and Francis in 2013. Only twice did a genuine surprise emerge: John XXIII in 1958, and John Paul II in 1978.
If you’re setting betting lines, therefore, the odds may seem reasonably good that someone among the consensus papabili listed above will be elected. If your life depends on it, however, then you might do well to keep your options open.
John L Allen is a Catholic Herald Special Vatican Correspondent in Rome, and Editor of Crux.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.