Why the election of a liberal pope is not certain

The death of Pope Francis has brought to light the deep internal struggles that have marked his pontificate. In the days ahead, a battle will be waged in the Sistine Chapel over the future of the Roman Catholic Church, with stakes that transcend religious boundaries and encompass global political developments. Cardinals from around the world are gathering to elect the 267th pope, and the decision they make could determine the direction of the Church for decades to come.

There are more than 250 cardinals in total, but those over 80 are not eligible to participate in the conclave. This means that 135 cardinals with voting rights remain in play, and they will begin arriving in Rome in the coming days.

In the 12 years since he was elected pope, Francis has appointed 108 of these cardinals with the right to vote, choosing them from all over the world. Some Vatican observers have suggested that he was trying to shape the conclave in favor of a successor who would embrace his vision and continue his path, the Guardian reports.

These appointments make it difficult for "a pope to emerge who would be the opposite of Francis," said Jacopo Scaramuci, a journalist for the newspaper "Republika" and author of the book "Tango Vatican. The Church in the Time of Francis."

"But that does not mean that this group is unanimous and cohesive, nor that everyone shares the same ideas. Almost all the cardinals he has chosen are pastors of major dioceses around the world," Scaramuzzi added.

Among them are both conservatives and progressives. For example, German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, appointed by Francis, clashed with the pope on a number of issues, including condemning a decree allowing the blessing of same-sex couples as a "heresy."

From the moment he was elected, Francis has angered conservatives and traditionalists with a new style of papacy, a message of compassion and tolerance, and a challenge to centuries-old privileges at the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

The weekly "The Economist" writes that the death of Pope Francis occurred in the midst of a turbulent period in international relations in which he was expected to play a significant role.

He points out that the world has been left without a leader with enormous soft power influence and an extremely ambivalent attitude towards the new administration of President Donald Trump.

"Although the 1,4 billion baptized Roman Catholics around the world do not necessarily follow their spiritual leader's instructions when it comes to secular matters, even those who strongly oppose the pope's views cannot simply ignore them," writes The Economist.

Francis has made it very clear that he disapproves of Trump's plans to massively deport illegal immigrants from America. He called them a "catastrophe" on January 19. The British newspaper states that the late pope was in any case not in favor of the United States or unbridled capitalism. As a Latin American, Argentine, he experienced some of the less honorable aspects of American foreign policy up close, the newspaper points out.

His views became apparent a year after his election, when he published the book "Evangelii Gaudium" ("The Joy of the Gospel"), in which he attacked "the economy of exclusion and inequality" and added: "Such an economy kills." His ideas on climate change were in sharp contrast to the views of Donald Trump and his movement.

"We must commit to protecting nature, changing our personal and collective habits," he said last year. Reactions from conservative Americans to his warnings and exhortations ranged from disappointment to outrage.

Where Pope Francis and Trump agreed was on the issue of abortion and, more nuancedly, the need to end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. But, as The Economist points out, these points of agreement could not prevent a clash of values ​​and wills.

On December 20, Trump appointed Brian Burch, a vocal critic of Pope Francis, as his envoy to the Holy See. The pope appeared to respond by appointing Cardinal Robert McElroy, an outspoken advocate for immigrant rights, as archbishop of Washington, setting the stage for a confrontation.

That conflict will not occur now, unless, of course, the cardinals tasked with choosing Francis' successor choose someone similar to him, which, on the surface, might seem inevitable, given that the late pope appointed the majority of cardinals with voting rights in the conclave.

But the election of a pope often brings surprises. Francis was elected in 2013 by cardinals who were largely appointed by his two conservative predecessors - Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Economist writes that there are several reasons why the election of a liberal pope is not certain. The first is the circumstances of the election itself. Francis was, as he himself said, elected from "the ends of the world", and has had a tendency to appoint as cardinals church dignitaries from even more isolated parts of the world than his native Argentina. Among those who will choose his successor is the apostolic prefect of Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia. For this reason, many of the cardinals who vote do not know each other. Therefore, the Economist states, they may be more susceptible to the influence of a well-organized lobby, "and there is no more organized lobby at the top of the Catholic Church than the conservative American cardinals".

Another reason is that not all of Francis’s choices for the college of cardinals are necessarily progressive. Liberal bishops and archbishops are particularly rare in Africa. In many cases, the pope had no choice but to appoint the most competent traditionalist. This may also explain why Africa is underrepresented in the upcoming conclave. Although Catholics from Africa make up about a fifth of the global population, they will be entitled to cast only an eighth of the votes, explains The Economist.

The way the pope is chosen is another decisive factor. Before the conclave itself, the cardinals hold informal talks for several days. The aim is to get to know each other better and to assess how many of them are papabilis - as the Vatican calls the most likely candidates for the papacy. In addition, they try to reach agreement on the main challenge facing the Church, because this challenge often becomes the criterion for choosing a new pope.

It is often said in the Vatican that in 2005 the cardinals would probably have elected the Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze if they had decided then that the main challenge for the Catholic Church was the spread of Islam. Instead, they judged it to be the secularization of Europe and therefore elected the German theologian Joseph Ratzinger, who became Benedict XVI.

Francis was elected to reform the Vatican administration, in particular to make it more responsive to the needs of the wider Church. The aim was to strengthen the authority and influence of the assembly of bishops who meet in the Vatican to consider specific issues. The pope fulfilled the first of these missions in 2022 with the promulgation of a new Vatican constitution, the fruit of nine years of work by a commission of cardinals.

However, as the Economist writes, the second mission remains more of an ideal than an actual change, mainly because Francis was not prepared to give in when assemblies, or synods, reached conclusions with which he did not agree.

Strengthening the powers of synods could be considered an issue that needs to be addressed first.

However, there are many other challenges. One of them is concern about the increasing secularization, not only in Western Europe and North America, but also in Catholic Eastern Europe and Latin America, writes the British newspaper.

He points out that this trend is, at least in part, a consequence of another persistent problem: the long-lasting and devastating consequences of repeated scandals of sexual abuse of minors by clergy.

Another issue is the rise of China, despite its current economic difficulties, which could work in favor of choosing an Asian prelate.

Whatever issue is put at the center, it is not ruled out that a certain conservative could face it better than any of the progressives, no matter how "papa-able" he may be, the Economist estimates.

Swedish Cardinal Anders Arborelius has suggested that his fellow cardinals reconsider the possibility of electing a pope outside Europe, where Catholic communities have been in decline for years, Reuters reported.

"I think it would be quite natural to choose someone from Africa, Asia, or from those parts of the world where the Church is, in some way, more alive, more dynamic and with greater prospects for the future," he was quoted as saying by the Corriere della Sera newspaper.

A conclave

The conclave is one of the oldest and most mysterious electoral processes in the world.

According to the rules, 135 cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to participate in the election of the pope, but it is not known whether all of them will attend.

Cardinals over the age of 80 cannot participate in the election, but they can attend closed daily sessions organized before the election, the so-called general congregations, where senior church dignitaries discuss issues facing the Church.

The person elected pope does not have to be one of the cardinals with voting rights, but in modern practice this is always the case.

The cardinals who have the right to vote come from 71 countries, compared to just 48 countries they came from in 2013, when Pope Francis was elected, Reuters reports.

Italians make up the largest national bloc, with 17 cardinals, while the United States has 10 and Brazil seven.

In total, of the 135 cardinals with voting rights: 53 are from Europe, 23 from Asia, 18 from Africa, 17 from South America, 16 from North America, four from Central America and four from Oceania.