What we expect from the forthcoming papal conclave is coloured, for many of us, by the recent film Conclave, with its focus on personalities, intrigue, and contested issues. But it has also meant that the general outlines of this ancient process have become reasonably well known.
We now know that 135 cardinals will enter the conclave on May 7 to choose the successor to Pope Francis. They are all clerical men under 80. The process will conclude, after as many voting rounds as necessary, when two-thirds of those present support a particular person. The participants are pledged to secrecy and asked to avoid speaking to the media. A much larger group of about 250 cardinals, including those in their eighties and nineties, has been engaged in the pre-conclave congregations organised to discuss the future of the church and to get to know one another. It is such a diverse and international group, given the welcome variety in the 80 per cent appointed by Francis, that the cardinals have even requested name tags with their country of origin to more easily identify one another.
The official church view of what the process entails has been promulgated and widely circulated. It is that this process is all about discerning the will of the Holy Spirit in a prayerful environment strictly closed off to the world. Although there is voting, it is not portrayed as a competition in which there are declared candidates. Therefore it is an election in name only. The ‘candidates’ are modest, even unwilling, an attitude somewhat like that displayed following the election of the Speaker in the House of Representatives, after which the successful person is symbolically dragged to the podium.
The cardinals themselves enthusiastically endorse these views. After all, they all know not to get ahead of themselves, no matter what the drums are beating. They may be tempted to do so, because they are surrounded by blanket media coverage listing supposedly leading candidates or papabile. But they generally resist the temptation.
They also enthusiastically reject the idea that the selection of a pope is a political exercise. By taking this stance, they are largely rejecting the fragmentation of the church into reformist and conservative wings. Not only do they reject such a label for themselves, but they even dispute any characterisation of Pope Francis as a ‘progressive reformer’ within the church.
Yet to dispute that there are deep divisions within the church is clearly untenable. Such divisions will influence the choice of each cardinal as they vote for a successor to Francis. Many candidates can be characterised as either reformist or conservative or somewhere in between. ‘First choice’ candidates may, of course, give way to compromise candidates who can bridge the divides. There will also be other reasons for voter choice, including friendship, personality, capacity, age, nationality, language, or just knowing someone better. But progressive/conservative positioning is clearly one important factor.
'The conclave process is straightforward; but is it fit for purpose in the modern church?'
There is politics both outside and inside the conclave. External campaigns are already being run by lobby groups, including some aged Italian cardinals and the powerful, cashed-up American right wing. They are campaigning, in person and online, against any continuation of the direction charted by Francis, and by implication anyone associated with that vision.
Inside the College of Cardinals, both the under and over-80s, it would also be foolish to deny that there is lots of political manoeuvring. That sort of politics almost certainly sometimes takes an organised form in terms of factions and movements which regularly communicate between themselves by phone apps, texts and email. We know that because it is standard practice in the operation of other church events like synods and councils.
The conclave process is straightforward; but is it fit for purpose in the modern church? In considering this question, it should first be emphasised that in a conclave the church is electing a monarch for life (despite Benedict’s resignation), not a fixed term. Pope Francis reigned for more than twelve years; John Paul II for more than twenty-five years. There is every reason to get the process right because the consequences are enormous.
Small steps have been suggested by recent synods to make the process for the selection of bishops more inclusive of a wider range of lay and clerical church opinion but, despite Francis’ broadening of the College of Cardinals, the actual process of the election of the pope is untouched. It involves no women and no lay Catholics. Changing that is a big task for the future.
One aspect of the process which should be addressed immediately is the undue haste with which the process of the conclave proceeds. That speed prevents enough wider consultation by voting cardinals. It also limits the cardinals properly getting to know each other.
Most cardinals headed to Rome soon after the death of Pope Francis was announced on April 21 and have stayed there ever since. Why not take more time? It makes sense for the pre-conclave discussions to begin as they did, with everyone gathered. But there is much to be said for the cardinals then returning to their home countries for a month or so for additional discernment and deeper consultation with the wider Catholic community before returning to Rome for the conclave itself.
While this would generate additional media coverage and speculation, and may put greater pressure on the voting cardinals, it would also be a responsible step because it would involve a wider church membership. It would make the process more transparent and be a truly synodal step in line with the direction of the modern church.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University.