The Conclave (Jorge's Version)
What the Conclave of 2005 says about a potential conclave in 2024
I think we are at the “Let Francis be Francis” stage of this pontificate, at least in regards to communications. While the Pope has always been eager to sit down with reporters and told his story, he was normally reluctant to directly challenge critics or name names, or discuss the inner workings of Vatican politics. If the news reports are to be believed, this is clearly no longer the case.
In an interview book The Successor: My Memories of Benedict XVI (as of now only slated for a Spanish release though I’m sure that will change), Francis talks at length about individuals (the “bitter” Cardinal Sarah, Archbishop Ganswein lacking in human dignity), and addresses things which have clearly always ate at him, such as the 2005 conclave. In it, he covers familiar ground, but with a twist.
In The 2005 Conclave (Jorge’s Version), Joseph Ratzinger begins the conclave with a near or outright majority of votes, yet lacks the required number. He is opposed by a coalition of individuals who have coalesced around an obscure Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, all for their own reasons. (Whether ideological or ethnic.) Due to a change in Church law, this means that Ratzinger is unlikely to be elected, until someone says HIT MY MUSIC. At this point, Jorge Bergoglio enters the stage as the audience cheers, and he boldly tells everyone to listen to the Holy Spirit and stop playing factional games. At this point, everyone listened, and voted for the individual Francis believed was the right choice all along: Joseph Ratzinger. In short, if not for Jorge Bergoglio’s humble intervention, Benedict would not have been pope. It’s a thrilling story. Is it true?
The answer is: yes and no.
Contrary to what you might think or see in the press, a lot of what the Pope repeats here is familiar ground. Despite laws governing the secrecy of the conclave (more on that another time), numerous journalists and interviews have established a lot of what the Pope says here is true. Going into the conclave, Joseph Ratzinger was a formidable candidate. He was the right hand man of the previous pope for two decades. He was essentially the Church’s chief theologian, having spent the past two decades shaping the limits of acceptable discourse in the Church. Firmly committed to maintaining the status quo of Vatican II, he was palatable to both “liberals” and “conservatives.” (The idea traditionalists mattered for anything at this point was laughable.) He gave a speech to the cardinals in secret (where he condemned the “dictatorship of relativism”) and the belief at that time was this was the guy who was going to become the next pope.
We also know that while he was the clear favorite, there was not a 2/3 majority. We also know that there was a minority who favored Jorge Bergoglio, and that part of this was done for explicitly ideological grounds. (Many of these same actors returned in 2013 for the same ideological reasons and this time they succeeded if the Pope’s own biographer is to be believed.) Francis at this point says that they were joined by those who did not want “a foreigner”, and while this may sound absurd, the college in 2013 was an overwhelmingly Italian body. Popes have been overwhelmingly Italian. Previous attempts to elect a foreign pope have even been met with threats of riots, where the mob demanded “a Roman, or at least an Italian.” What the Pope is saying so far checks out.
Where it starts to break down is the idea that individuals were likely to abandon Joseph Ratzinger quickly and search for another candidate. A bit of context shows why this is likely a bit of fanciful narrative building by Francis. Ratzinger was elected in four ballots. Dating back to the election of Pius IX (the conclaves before this were highly contentious and political given the situation in Europe, in addition to voting ballots not being as easily ascertained), the average amount of votes needed for a papal election was around 7.5. Benedict’s election was quicker than is typical. He had a strong majority, and his “opposition” was a ragtag group of individuals forming a coalition that was not really united on anything. At the end of the third ballot where Jorge Bergoglio had 40, Ratzinger had 72. He needed 4 more. He was gaining electors with every subsequent vote. By the end of the second vote, the writing was on the wall.
One should take the idea that Francis’ intervention was instrumental in electing Benedict XVI with a heavy dose of salt, even if one believes (and I see no reason why you shouldn’t) that Francis did not want to be associated with such a group. Maybe it was because he genuinely wanted Ratzinger to be Pope, as almost everyone else did. Maybe he didn’t want his name associated with a clearly doomed venture. Whatever the reason, it makes sense that Francis did not want to be used as a stand in or a cypher for that coalition. The issue isn’t so much the events, its the fanciful interpretation Francis offers behind what they mean, and his significance in them.
So if we can dismiss the Pope’s recounting of history as fanciful (something which anyone involved in those proceedings after twenty years is likely to struggle with), what can we learn from Jorge’s version of the 2005 conclave? I think the answer is that Francis’ interview has little to do with the events of the 2005 conclave, and instead with a possible conclave in 2024 or 205. This might come as a shock to people, but Pope Francis is old. He’s also in poor health. Old people in poor health tend to die. Old people in poor health also tend to have their own death on their mind, and their legacy as well. That legacy is what matters.
When describing what he thinks the 2005 conclave meant, Pope Francis offers two anecdotes. As the NCR recap notes:
Pope Francis was also asked what the Holy Spirit was saying to the Church through the election of Benedict XVI.
“’I am in charge here,’” Francis said of the Spirit’s response. “’There is no room for maneuver.’”
One thing that has clearly been going on in the past two years (as the pope’s health has declined) has precisely been maneuvering. While always a reality, the conspiracies and maneuvering have been rather in the open in a way that had not happened before. (With the advent of modern communications and social media, this organizing has taken place in ways not possible before.) Francis is clearly concerned about all this maneuvering. One need not even ascribe nefarious motives to this concern. Any head of an organization doesn’t want a chaotic succession and election. Yet I think the other anecdote given sheds more light on another concern:
“If they had chosen someone like me, who makes a lot of trouble, I wouldn’t have been able to do anything,” he said. “At that time, it would not have been possible.”
In 2005, Francis believes that electing Jorge Bergoglio would have been a disaster. Yet in 2013, the Spirit guided him to be elected as Pope. And if there’s any belief he’s stated in this pontificate publicly, is that the person of Jorge Bergoglio is a turning point in Christian history, of which there can be no return to anything before 2013. To think otherwise is to be revanchist, backwards, rigid, restorationist, pick your favorite Pope Francis insult. He’s warning the electors of the next conclave not to resist the will of God and elect someone who might have a different set of priorities than he does. That he is airing such concerns publicly is an indication he is not very confident which way they will go.
Does that mean someone like Cardinal Sarah, that bitter man he derides in the book, is likely to become Pope? Maybe, maybe not. Yet I think it’s a good window into what keeps Jorge Bergoglio up at night as he ponders his own mortality as an 87-year-old man in poor health. Jorge’s version tells us nothing about 2005, but a lot about April of 2024.