Who is likely to be the next Pope?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question is almost always being asked within the Church, even though it's seen as kind of a tacky one, and the plausible answers are always in some amount of flux, but names that have been in the mix in the past few years include Luis Antonio Tagle (Filipino, similar to Francis but "nicer"/not as much of a grumpy old man, former Archbishop of Manila now heading one of the two sections of the Dicastery for Evangelization in Rome; hasn't had as high a profile in that role as many had expected, though), Matteo Zuppi (Italian, Archbishop of Bologna, head of the Italian episcopal conference, occasionally sent on papal diplomatic missions), Peter Turkson (Ghanaian, Archbishop of Cape Coast and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries and think tanks in Rome, widely respected on a few different levels but apparently a pretty toxic boss/administrator), Malcolm Ranjith (Sri Lankan, Archbishop of Colombo, has "peripheries" cred but conservative enough not to spook the people who already hate Francis), Robert Sarah (Guinean, Archbishop of Conakry and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries, then, finally, head of the former Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; his credibility at this point is basically trad wishcasting but up until the past couple of years he was a genuine strong possibility), and Victor Manuel Fernandez (Argentinian, Archbishop of La Plata, not yet a cardinal but will almost certainly become one imminently because he's just been appointed DDF Prefect, very close to Francis and has in fact ghostwritten some of his major teaching documents). Fernandez is the youngest of these people at sixty, Sarah the oldest at seventy-eight.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question is almost always being asked within the Church, even though it's seen as kind of a tacky one, and the plausible answers are always in some amount of flux, but names that have been in the mix in the past few years include Luis Antonio Tagle (Filipino, similar to Francis but "nicer"/not as much of a grumpy old man, former Archbishop of Manila now heading one of the two sections of the Dicastery for Evangelization in Rome; hasn't had as high a profile in that role as many had expected, though), Matteo Zuppi (Italian, Archbishop of Bologna, head of the Italian episcopal conference, occasionally sent on papal diplomatic missions), Peter Turkson (Ghanaian, Archbishop of Cape Coast and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries and think tanks in Rome, widely respected on a few different levels but apparently a pretty toxic boss/administrator), Malcolm Ranjith (Sri Lankan, Archbishop of Colombo, has "peripheries" cred but conservative enough not to spook the people who already hate Francis), Robert Sarah (Guinean, Archbishop of Conakry and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries, then, finally, head of the former Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; his credibility at this point is basically trad wishcasting but up until the past couple of years he was a genuine strong possibility), and Victor Manuel Fernandez (Argentinian, Archbishop of La Plata, not yet a cardinal but will almost certainly become one imminently because he's just been appointed DDF Prefect, very close to Francis and has in fact ghostwritten some of his major teaching documents). Fernandez is the youngest of these people at sixty, Sarah the oldest at seventy-eight.

The one name I think is really missing from this post (to not swell the list with people like Ouellet, Parolin, O’Malley, etc) is Peter Erdo of Hungary, another conservative favorite and probably the conservative frontrunner at this point.

My father also talks a lot about Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, and he'd certainly be quite an interesting pick (young by these standards, from sub-Saharan Africa, seems decently politically involved in one of the most unstable and suffering countries in the world) but I can't tell if he is an actual papable or just a quirk my dad has.

I've definitely heard others mention both Erdo and Ambongo. I think Erdo is probably going to be less appealing in a conclave than someone like Ranjith because his, well, Hungarianness (in multiple senses) might make him radioactive within Europe these days (but then, most cardinals are not Europeans anymore). Ambongo is someone of whom Francis seems to think very highly but who isn't "a progressive," in addition to being from one of Catholicism's few current growth areas and showing a nonzero amount of genuine physical courage as an outspoken public figure in (as you point out) his extremely unstable country, so I tend to agree he's a strong possibility.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question is almost always being asked within the Church, even though it's seen as kind of a tacky one, and the plausible answers are always in some amount of flux, but names that have been in the mix in the past few years include Luis Antonio Tagle (Filipino, similar to Francis but "nicer"/not as much of a grumpy old man, former Archbishop of Manila now heading one of the two sections of the Dicastery for Evangelization in Rome; hasn't had as high a profile in that role as many had expected, though), Matteo Zuppi (Italian, Archbishop of Bologna, head of the Italian episcopal conference, occasionally sent on papal diplomatic missions), Peter Turkson (Ghanaian, Archbishop of Cape Coast and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries and think tanks in Rome, widely respected on a few different levels but apparently a pretty toxic boss/administrator), Malcolm Ranjith (Sri Lankan, Archbishop of Colombo, has "peripheries" cred but conservative enough not to spook the people who already hate Francis), Robert Sarah (Guinean, Archbishop of Conakry and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries, then, finally, head of the former Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; his credibility at this point is basically trad wishcasting but up until the past couple of years he was a genuine strong possibility), and Victor Manuel Fernandez (Argentinian, Archbishop of La Plata, not yet a cardinal but will almost certainly become one imminently because he's just been appointed DDF Prefect, very close to Francis and has in fact ghostwritten some of his major teaching documents). Fernandez is the youngest of these people at sixty, Sarah the oldest at seventy-eight.

The one name I think is really missing from this post (to not swell the list with people like Ouellet, Parolin, O’Malley, etc) is Peter Erdo of Hungary, another conservative favorite and probably the conservative frontrunner at this point.

Your mention of O'Malley is interesting, mainly because I genuinely find it hard to believe that the cardinals would ever elect an American pope.

I agree, which is why I don’t think he’s going to ever be pope (Parolin and Ouellet are too associated with financial and sexual scandal, respectively). But if he weren’t American I think he’d be a frontrunner.

O'Malley's relatively high degree of credibility on safeguarding (although saying this about a Catholic prelate these days is a bit like saying about a hyena that it has a relatively high degree of credibility on food safety) is huge and would easily put him in the "open secret that he's being strongly considered by his peers" weight class with Tagle and Zuppi if he were from any other country.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question is almost always being asked within the Church, even though it's seen as kind of a tacky one, and the plausible answers are always in some amount of flux, but names that have been in the mix in the past few years include Luis Antonio Tagle (Filipino, similar to Francis but "nicer"/not as much of a grumpy old man, former Archbishop of Manila now heading one of the two sections of the Dicastery for Evangelization in Rome; hasn't had as high a profile in that role as many had expected, though), Matteo Zuppi (Italian, Archbishop of Bologna, head of the Italian episcopal conference, occasionally sent on papal diplomatic missions), Peter Turkson (Ghanaian, Archbishop of Cape Coast and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries and think tanks in Rome, widely respected on a few different levels but apparently a pretty toxic boss/administrator), Malcolm Ranjith (Sri Lankan, Archbishop of Colombo, has "peripheries" cred but conservative enough not to spook the people who already hate Francis), Robert Sarah (Guinean, Archbishop of Conakry and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries, then, finally, head of the former Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; his credibility at this point is basically trad wishcasting but up until the past couple of years he was a genuine strong possibility), and Victor Manuel Fernandez (Argentinian, Archbishop of La Plata, not yet a cardinal but will almost certainly become one imminently because he's just been appointed DDF Prefect, very close to Francis and has in fact ghostwritten some of his major teaching documents). Fernandez is the youngest of these people at sixty, Sarah the oldest at seventy-eight.

The one name I think is really missing from this post (to not swell the list with people like Ouellet, Parolin, O’Malley, etc) is Peter Erdo of Hungary, another conservative favorite and probably the conservative frontrunner at this point.

Your mention of O'Malley is interesting, mainly because I genuinely find it hard to believe that the cardinals would ever elect an American pope.

I agree, which is why I don’t think he’s going to ever be pope (Parolin and Ouellet are too associated with financial and sexual scandal, respectively). But if he weren’t American I think he’d be a frontrunner.

O'Malley's relatively high degree of credibility on safeguarding (although saying this about a Catholic prelate these days is a bit like saying about a hyena that it has a relatively high degree of credibility on food safety) is huge and would easily put him in the "open secret that he's being strongly considered by his peers" weight class with Tagle and Zuppi if he were from any other country.

I hadn't known until now about the opposition to an American pope. Is it simply due to the legacy of the church's dislike for the "heresy of Americanism" 120 years ago or is it something else?

More so I’d say a (not unjustified) reticence to give the chair of St Peter to someone from the most powerful country in the world. A bit ironic given the origin of the Pope’s being Bishop of Rome, but there you go.

Yeah, it's a reluctance to give Americans and American ideas yet another power center in world affairs, especially given that the American Church is increasingly out of step with the world mainstream.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question is almost always being asked within the Church, even though it's seen as kind of a tacky one, and the plausible answers are always in some amount of flux, but names that have been in the mix in the past few years include Luis Antonio Tagle (Filipino, similar to Francis but "nicer"/not as much of a grumpy old man, former Archbishop of Manila now heading one of the two sections of the Dicastery for Evangelization in Rome; hasn't had as high a profile in that role as many had expected, though), Matteo Zuppi (Italian, Archbishop of Bologna, head of the Italian episcopal conference, occasionally sent on papal diplomatic missions), Peter Turkson (Ghanaian, Archbishop of Cape Coast and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries and think tanks in Rome, widely respected on a few different levels but apparently a pretty toxic boss/administrator), Malcolm Ranjith (Sri Lankan, Archbishop of Colombo, has "peripheries" cred but conservative enough not to spook the people who already hate Francis), Robert Sarah (Guinean, Archbishop of Conakry and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries, then, finally, head of the former Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; his credibility at this point is basically trad wishcasting but up until the past couple of years he was a genuine strong possibility), and Victor Manuel Fernandez (Argentinian, Archbishop of La Plata, not yet a cardinal but will almost certainly become one imminently because he's just been appointed DDF Prefect, very close to Francis and has in fact ghostwritten some of his major teaching documents). Fernandez is the youngest of these people at sixty, Sarah the oldest at seventy-eight.

The one name I think is really missing from this post (to not swell the list with people like Ouellet, Parolin, O’Malley, etc) is Peter Erdo of Hungary, another conservative favorite and probably the conservative frontrunner at this point.

Your mention of O'Malley is interesting, mainly because I genuinely find it hard to believe that the cardinals would ever elect an American pope.

I agree, which is why I don’t think he’s going to ever be pope (Parolin and Ouellet are too associated with financial and sexual scandal, respectively). But if he weren’t American I think he’d be a frontrunner.

O'Malley's relatively high degree of credibility on safeguarding (although saying this about a Catholic prelate these days is a bit like saying about a hyena that it has a relatively high degree of credibility on food safety) is huge and would easily put him in the "open secret that he's being strongly considered by his peers" weight class with Tagle and Zuppi if he were from any other country.

I hadn't known until now about the opposition to an American pope. Is it simply due to the legacy of the church's dislike for the "heresy of Americanism" 120 years ago or is it something else?

More so I’d say a (not unjustified) reticence to give the chair of St Peter to someone from the most powerful country in the world. A bit ironic given the origin of the Pope’s being Bishop of Rome, but there you go.

Yeah, it's a reluctance to give Americans and American ideas yet another power center in world affairs, especially given that the American Church is increasingly out of step with the world mainstream.

Yeah, that’s also true. O’Malley is one of the least…American of the American bishops/cardinals, which is why he has any chance, but still.

It’s also very fun in a future-schadenfreude sense to see tradcaths who think Raymond Burke could be pope, though - what would be the “progressive” equivalent, Robert McElroy? Certainly that would be one of the funniest outcomes IMO.

In terms of being very outspoken, very American, and a bit too given to "owning" the other side? Yeah, McElroy is about as close as it gets at the cardinalatial level, and neither is happening in a trillion years.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question is almost always being asked within the Church, even though it's seen as kind of a tacky one, and the plausible answers are always in some amount of flux, but names that have been in the mix in the past few years include Luis Antonio Tagle (Filipino, similar to Francis but "nicer"/not as much of a grumpy old man, former Archbishop of Manila now heading one of the two sections of the Dicastery for Evangelization in Rome; hasn't had as high a profile in that role as many had expected, though), Matteo Zuppi (Italian, Archbishop of Bologna, head of the Italian episcopal conference, occasionally sent on papal diplomatic missions), Peter Turkson (Ghanaian, Archbishop of Cape Coast and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries and think tanks in Rome, widely respected on a few different levels but apparently a pretty toxic boss/administrator), Malcolm Ranjith (Sri Lankan, Archbishop of Colombo, has "peripheries" cred but conservative enough not to spook the people who already hate Francis), Robert Sarah (Guinean, Archbishop of Conakry and then head of a succession of sociopolitical dicasteries, then, finally, head of the former Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; his credibility at this point is basically trad wishcasting but up until the past couple of years he was a genuine strong possibility), and Victor Manuel Fernandez (Argentinian, Archbishop of La Plata, not yet a cardinal but will almost certainly become one imminently because he's just been appointed DDF Prefect, very close to Francis and has in fact ghostwritten some of his major teaching documents). Fernandez is the youngest of these people at sixty, Sarah the oldest at seventy-eight.

The one name I think is really missing from this post (to not swell the list with people like Ouellet, Parolin, O’Malley, etc) is Peter Erdo of Hungary, another conservative favorite and probably the conservative frontrunner at this point.

Your mention of O'Malley is interesting, mainly because I genuinely find it hard to believe that the cardinals would ever elect an American pope.

I agree, which is why I don’t think he’s going to ever be pope (Parolin and Ouellet are too associated with financial and sexual scandal, respectively). But if he weren’t American I think he’d be a frontrunner.

O'Malley's relatively high degree of credibility on safeguarding (although saying this about a Catholic prelate these days is a bit like saying about a hyena that it has a relatively high degree of credibility on food safety) is huge and would easily put him in the "open secret that he's being strongly considered by his peers" weight class with Tagle and Zuppi if he were from any other country.

I hadn't known until now about the opposition to an American pope. Is it simply due to the legacy of the church's dislike for the "heresy of Americanism" 120 years ago or is it something else?

More so I’d say a (not unjustified) reticence to give the chair of St Peter to someone from the most powerful country in the world. A bit ironic given the origin of the Pope’s being Bishop of Rome, but there you go.

Yeah, it's a reluctance to give Americans and American ideas yet another power center in world affairs, especially given that the American Church is increasingly out of step with the world mainstream.

The Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, the new Cardinal Robert Prevost, is an American, and yet he has spent most of his life outside the US, in leadership of his religious order, the Augustinians, and in Peru. If he does well in his new role, he could certainly be a contender for the Next Pope.

He has a Doctoral Degree in Canon Law. Seems to be fluent in both Spanish and Italian.

Too inexperienced – and I agree that hardly anyone wants to see an American on the Chair of Peter.

My favorites are still Parolin, Zuppi, and Tagle (+Erdö if the cardinals want to elect a conservative). Fernandez, on the other hand, is entirely Francis's creature and probably has as few chances as Canizares Llovera had in 2013.

Ambongo is interesting but too young. Perhaps some time in the 2030s.

Prevost however has spent most of his priestly life outside the US; in Peru where he served as a priest and Bishop, and in Rome as the Prior General of his Religious Order; the Augustinians. He has alot of leadership experience on the pastoral level and in Rome. And his global experience, and multilingualism, makes him the least " American " American cardinal. Even more so than O' Malley.


I think I said it up above, but it's worth repeating.

I don't know. He seems to me a centrist at best; which could be a good thing to help resolve the polarization in the Catholic Church.

Prevost actually snapped at people for daring to suggest that the synod on synodality could stand to be spending more of its time discussing abuse safeguards. I'm not a Prevost fan. I hope his colleagues are smart enough to see that kind of behavior as disqualifying.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Fiducia supplicans and its fallout have probably disqualified Fernandez and Ambongo, at least until and unless the overall atmosphere in the Church changes drastically--Fernandez because he wrote the declaration, which has provoked even more intra-Church backlash than could have been expected; Ambongo because in his capacity as the President of SECAM he ended up leading a lot of that backlash and recently articulated it in outright campist terms that people who agree with him on homosexuality will probably find disconcerting as it pertains to other subjects. It's a shame, because Ambongo seemed and still seems like a really interesting and promising figure if only some sort of geas could be cast on him to stop him saying or writing the words "homosexuality" or "Putin" ever again.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Fiducia supplicans and its fallout have probably disqualified Fernandez and Ambongo, at least until and unless the overall atmosphere in the Church changes drastically--Fernandez because he wrote the declaration, which has provoked even more intra-Church backlash than could have been expected; Ambongo because in his capacity as the President of SECAM he ended up leading a lot of that backlash and recently articulated it in outright campist terms that people who agree with him on homosexuality will probably find disconcerting as it pertains to other subjects. It's a shame, because Ambongo seemed and still seems like a really interesting and promising figure if only some sort of geas could be cast on him to stop him saying or writing the words "homosexuality" or "Putin" ever again.

Ambongo's standing within the global Church looks weaker and weaker as it turns out that not all of the African bishops' conferences feel that he adequately represents or speaks for their stances on them there homosexuals. Conversely, the stock of African cardinals who share Ambongo's position on this but haven't been as outspoken about it might rise among those who want a departure from Francis on moral and pastoral matters.