Our man in Rome knows the Cardinals, from the eminent to the creeps

There have been many articles about the coming Conclave, and mine has no claim to be more perspicacious than the rest; but one thing that can be safely predicted is that this Conclave is going to be the most chaotic for centuries. The reason is that Bergoglio’s motto of “make a mess” is about to prove its effectiveness at every level. On the administrative side, Pope Francis’s humility in taking over the Casa Santa Marta for himself and his leading henchmen means that that building, designed to house the Cardinals during the Conclave, now has no room for them. Francis’s wilful style of legislation also means that all sorts of juridical problems are going to arise, which will put the very validity of the Conclave into question in one detail after another.

The most fundamental factor for chaos is Francis’s policy of picking Cardinals from all sorts of out-of-the-way places and also preventing them from meeting. Under previous popes, a Consistory of Cardinals was held typically every year, giving the members of the College the opportunity to get to know each other. Francis, in contradiction to his pretence of collegiate government, stopped these assemblies, with the result that the coming election will be held by 130 men of whom only a small minority have experience of the previous Conclave, and who are for the most part strangers to each other. The conditions for an orderly and well-informed choice are greatly reduced.

What will emerge from this confusion is anybody’s guess; so I will confine myself to making some remarks, mainly on the Cardinals whom I met personally while I was living in Rome. First of these is the American Cardinal Burke, for the importance of the part that he will play, and is already playing, in the election process. As Prefect of the Signatura, Cardinal Burke was one of the most respected members of the Curia, the central government of the Church, under Benedict XVI, but Pope Francis lost little time in stripping him of his offices, and even in depriving him of the Vatican apartment and pension to which every Cardinal is entitled. This treatment has earned him the sympathy of a large number of his fellow Cardinals, who know him for what he is and not as the right-wing bogeyman depicted by the Francis-friendly media.

In particular, Cardinal Burke has been in Rome during the last few months, when many Cardinals started flocking there in view of Francis’s imminent death. That gathering has had the significant effect of upsetting Francis’s policy of keeping the Cardinals apart. They have been talking to each other, with their minds concentrated by the election that was obviously looming, and Cardinal Burke has been the central figure among them. What is called to mind is the election of 2005, after the death of John Paul II. Cardinal Ratzinger had been dismissed as a papal candidate by almost all the media (he was condemned as too authoritarian etc.); yet he impressed the assembled Cardinals as standing head and shoulders above his peers, and he was elected decisively on the fourth ballot. That is not to say that Cardinal Burke is in any danger of becoming Pope (he would probably refuse if elected), but his influence is going to be very strong. It is an illustration of the fact that the personal impressions of the Cardinals when they meet weigh more than the calculations of journalists.

Closely akin to Cardinal Burke is the German Cardinal Müller, in the sense that he was one of the leading members of Benedict XVI’s Curia who suffered rude dismissal under Francis. Since then he has distinguished himself by his courageous defence of Catholic orthodoxy against Francis’s successive attacks on it. Cardinal Müller has been able to be more outspoken, not being the object of the personal spite that Francis reserved for Cardinal Burke, who was therefore obliged to keep his head down more. During the sede vacante – the “empty seat” following the death of a pope – Cardinal Müller has been equally eloquent, barely disguising his judgment that Francis’s was a heretical pontificate, and warning against the dangers of another one to follow. It is unlikely that the Conclave will elect Cardinal Müller pope, though if it does so it will be a striking declaration of the Church’s wish to get back to orthodox teaching.

Linked with the foregoing two is Cardinal Sarah, born in Guinea when it was a French colony and missionary territory. He too was an eminent member of the previous Curia and was shamefully undermined and then removed by Pope Francis. He stands out among the Cardinals as a religious philosopher, with numerous publications such as God or Nothing and Catechism of the Spiritual Life. He is regarded as a strong contender for the papal office, and nobody would be better qualified to lead the Church in the return to spirituality that it so desperately needs.

Also regarded as papabile is the Hungarian Cardinal Erdö, a man of traditional orthodoxy who escaped Francis’s destructive hand because he was Archbishop of Budapest and not a member of the Curia. It has been said of him that he may appeal to the Conclave as a “boring” candidate who would for that very reason be a welcome relief from the agitations of Francis’s reign. One could rely on him as Pope to be a sound teacher and a healer of wounds, but it is not so certain whether he could give the necessary leadership in the battle with modern paganism that the Church faces today.

From these we can turn to candidates whose election would be seriously harmful to the Church. The first of them is the Italian Cardinal Parolin. As Secretary of State, he has been the right-hand man in Francis’s tyrannical regime, and the architect of his uniquely perverse foreign policy. Normally one would say that no Conclave in its senses would elect the man responsible for the Church’s servile policy towards China, which has sold millions of Chinese Catholics down the river. Unfortunately, Francis’s capricious appointments have produced precisely the kind of naïve and ignorant College of Cardinals who might commit such a blunder.

Another Cardinal who is reckoned papabile is the Maltese Cardinal Grech. My personal anecdote of him is that I once made a plane journey with him together with another Cardinal (not one of the current papabili) and a monsignor, and I have never encountered such a disorderly lot of fellow travellers. Cardinal Grech reassured me that a plenary indulgence attached to being trampled to death by a stampede of Cardinals disembarking from a plane. It proved not to be necessary, and if he is elected I intend to ask him to transfer the indulgence to some other exigency for me. However, he is a disciple of Francis’s betrayal of Catholic moral teaching and as such would be disastrous for the Church.

The above exhaust the papabili of whom I have personal knowledge, but I will mention a few whom I have not met. First of all, there is said to be a chance that Cardinal Ambongo of Kinshasa will be elected. He led the robust response of the African bishops to Francis’s Fiducia Supplicans, and as Pope would put a stop to the surrender to the homosexualist lobby in the Church; but whether he has the more general qualities to lead the Church is not so clear.

Another name that is widely mentioned is that of the Italian Cardinal Zuppi, a member of the influential Community of Sant’Egidio. He is as unreliable as Cardinal Grech on the subject of the Church’s moral teaching. My own fear is that, even if his government of the Church were impeccable, he is such a creep that he would bring the Church into disrepute by his mere personality. In any case insiders are saying that the Community of Sant’Egidio are not supporting his candidacy but are backing Cardinal Tolentino, who is not one of their own but is regarded as representing their programme.

Finally and importantly we need a word about the Italian Cardinal Pizzaballa, who has been leading the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem since 2016 and has stood out for his courageous leadership in the violence and danger of the last few years. It is interesting that Cardinal Pizzaballa is an actual Franciscan, in contrast to the exponent of faux Franciscanism lately reigning. Even more to the point is that he is a man of integrity and of greatness of spirit, who if elected Pope would be poles apart from the sly and petty tyranny the Church has been suffering for the past twelve years.

Henry J. A. Sire is a Spanish-born British historian, Catholic author and a former Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.