Pope Francis may try to influence the electorate in the conclave, but no one can predict who will succeed him
It is a paradox of papal history that each pope can create as many cardinals as he likes, and yet no pope has ever been able to use that power to choose his own successor. As Pope Francis enters the autumn of his pontificate – and as he prepares to create 21 new cardinals in August – it may be worth reflecting on the reasons for this historical quirk and on whether or not it still applies.
The English historian Owen Chadwick, who first observed it, argued that it arose because the cardinal electors – like Tory MPs or the fellows of Oxbridge colleges – always “look to compensate for what has been missing in the predecessor”. Thus, even in modern times, the genial, big-hearted John XXIII replaced the stiff, diffident Pius XII. John Paul II’s charisma gave way to the gentle austerity of Benedict XVI; he then in turn yielded to “man of the people” Francis.
Popes, like politicians, just cannot seem to influence an electorate whose members are all too aware of their particular failings and do not wish to replace them with someone with the same ones. Whatever Francis may look for in a successor, there is no guarantee that he will get it. Earlier popes tried various ways to get around this, though to little avail.
Alexander VI famously and shamelessly gave red hats to as many as seven Borgia relatives and to his son Cesare’s brother-in-law. And yet when he expired in 1503, the cardinals still elected first the austere Pius III, who died almost instantly, and then Alexander’s mortal enemy, the rambunctious Julius II – who immediately set about besmirching Alexander’s name.
Paul IV and Pius IV, two Counter-Reformation popes, tried a different stratagem. Paul gave himself an effective veto by forbidding the cardinals from considering anyone whom he had investigated for heresy. Pius was more blatant still: he sought simply to nominate a man to succeed.
Yet both popes failed, for it was easy for the cardinals to demur while waiting until their powers had waned. No pope cracked the problem that many cardinals were simply unbiddable in future conclaves. Some were creations of previous popes from different curial factions, with divergent priorities and interests. Others were their own creatures who were disinclined to show sufficient gratitude.
Many cardinals just felt a need to advertise their independence from the man who had created them, for they needed to be able to project free choice in how they would cast their vote in the next conclave. It was the only reason more important people paid t hem any attention.
Why should things be any different with Francis? The smart bets may well be on a future pope with a quieter personality but a stronger grasp on policy and administration. Yet what matters is whether Francis can buck the trend, and there is some evidence that he may be able to.
Old age has “frozen” many pre-2013 cardinals out of the next conclave, for a cardinal must now be under 80 to participate. The electorate for Francis’ successor will therefore be composed overwhelmingly of his own picks, far more so than in most previous conclaves.
Moreover, Francis has also enjoyed greater discretion over his promotions to the College than usual. Historically, popes could pack the College with supporters, but they also had to consider the interests of a wider range of stakeholders – not necessarily their friends or allies – who needed to feel represented. That always limited freedom of manoeuvre.
Francis, on the other hand, has skilfully exploited the growing consensus that the College must be representative of the laity’s geographical distribution, using it to promote like-minded fellow travellers where he has found them, especially from the Global South. The electorate in the next conclave will look radically different from that in many previous ones; it will be the first, for instance, in which Europeans are no longer in the majority. Even if this does not produce the result that Francis would wish for, it will likely lead to a radical, and perhaps unexpected, outcome.
The Italian bishop Giovanfrancesco Lottini had this to say about conclaves in the mid-16th century:
“I can testify to having seen with my own eyes that the papal election arises exclusively from God’s will, for I have been involved in several conclaves… and have had the chance to learn the minds of nearly all the cardinals. I can say clearly that most of them eventually elect a pope contrary to their own will. This is neither through force, nor because they are guided by any reason, but because in that moment they seem to go out of their minds, one driven by fear of the other until they go together where each individually would not want to go alone.”
Who would really want to predict what might come next?
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.