Towards the Next Pope: What To Expect from the Conclave 

On May 7th, the Conclave will officially begin, leading to the election of the new Pope. In the days leading up to the start of that process, analyses and speculations are multiplying. Who will be Francis’ successor? What will be the future direction of the Church? While this is an event of profound spiritual significance, it is undeniable that behind the closed doors of the Sistine Chapel, a delicate process will unfold—where memories, balances, and pressures will merge into a decision destined to deeply shape the path of the Church. 

To outline some possible perspectives on the path the electing cardinals will follow, it is essential to consider a few key elements. First and foremost, it is crucial to understand how the cardinals perceive the effectiveness of the outgoing pope’s style and methods of governance. In 2005, the election of Benedict XVI was almost a foregone conclusion: John Paul II’s leadership appeared solid and visionary, and he had succeeded in restoring credibility and unity to the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger, despite being viewed by some as too ‘strict,’ was the natural successor to Karol Wojtyła—so much so that even the progressive faction led by Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini had to reach a compromise with the Ratzingerian camp. 

In the 2013 Conclave, disappointment over Benedict XVI’s perceived weakness—marked by scandals such as Vatileaks, the clergy sexual abuse crisis, and widespread curial paralysis—led many cardinals to support a strong and decisive figure like the pseudo-conservative Jorge Mario Bergoglio, opposing the “pure Ratzingerian” Angelo Scola. Today, the atmosphere leading up to the next conclave is similar to that of 2013, but for opposite reasons: whereas Benedict was seen as too mild, Francis is considered by many—contrary to how the media has portrayed him in recent days—as the model of an authoritarian pope, reluctant to engage in dialogue, a centralizer who has caused fractures and disillusionment even among his own supporters. 

One aspect that both previous popes neglected—albeit in very different ways—was the role of right in the life of the Church. Benedict XVI preferred to resort to legal mechanisms as little as possible, favoring a more spiritual rather than institutional leadership. Francis, on the other hand, has often circumvented or even bent the law to his own ends, using it selectively. However, he must be credited with introducing significant reforms, particularly in the field of penal canon law. 

Yet, this very “crisis of right”—marked by ignored norms, improvised procedures, and unjustified removals—remains one of the most serious and structural legacies left behind. It is unlikely, however, that the cardinals will recognize it as such. The dynamics at play are probably unfolding on other fronts: pastoral, geopolitical, media-related, and even economic. The risk, however, is that a problem undermining the Church’s cohesion and credibility from within and in the long term will continue to be overlooked. 

The second key element to analyze in order to understand the direction of the upcoming Conclave concerns the role of the ‘grand old men,’ namely those cardinals over eighty who, despite having surpassed the voting age limit, still play a significant role as kingmakers in these weeks. Among them, the most notable figures are Giovanni Battista Re and Leonardo Sandri, whose roles as dean and subdean were strategically extended by Francis last February. Also noteworthy are Raniero Cantalamessa and the more conservative Camillo Ruini. 

It is worth noting that all of these individuals are representatives of the highly divided yet influential Italian episcopate. This pressure reflects the climate of uncertainty and urgency prevailing among those who had long prepared for Bergoglio’s “revolutionary” papacy. Now, they are eager to ensure continuity for a revolution that otherwise risks remaining unfinished. 

A third important element to consider is the role of external pressure groups. At the forefront is the Community of Sant’Egidio, an organization closely linked to the more progressive Western circles. During Francis’ pontificate, it has gained significant influence within Vatican corridors. 

The Community advocates for a “liberal” pope, someone who would follow Bergoglio’s path but be more open to compromise—capable of uniting different factions within the Church, even those with contradictory perspectives. The name most frequently mentioned is that of Matteo Maria Zuppi, a figure known for mediation and high visibility, though many consider him more of a decoy candidate than a serious contender. In the background, the more probable candidates appear to be Portuguese cardinal Tolentino de Mendonça and French cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline—the latter, however, facing a disadvantage due to his limited knowledge of the Italian language. 

Another influential group in the upcoming Conclave is the Society of Jesus, historically active in shaping the ecclesiastical elite and now more powerful than ever, thanks to Francis’ Jesuit background. The ideal candidate for the Jesuits aligns with a “synodal” profile—another revolutionary figure who accelerates reforms, much like Bergoglio himself: a reformist pope, advocating for a more participatory, horizontal, democratic Church, open to dialogue with the secular world. 

The names most closely associated with this vision are Maltese cardinal Mario Grech, who gained significant visibility as head of the Synod on Synodality—seen by some as a disguised and unsuccessful Third Vatican Council—and Luxembourgish cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich. The Sant’Egidio Community and the Jesuits have been allies at certain stages of the outgoing pontificate. They may therefore converge on a common candidate. 

After the double disappointment represented, for many cardinals, by the pontificates of Benedict XVI and Francis, it is highly likely that the next Conclave will lean—despite external pressures—toward a compromise figure: neither Francis II nor Benedict XVII. Rather, a pragmatic pope, a “deceleration revolutionary”—someone capable of gently slowing down reformist pushes without completely reversing course. One might call him John XXIV. 

The most prominent name in this perspective is currently Italian cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State under Francis, a skilled diplomat and a figure of balance among the various factions within the College of Cardinals. A strong advocate of synodality and progressive enough to support reforms such as the controversial Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, Parolin has nonetheless been prudent in maintaining good relations even with more conservative circles. 

The current geopolitical context plays in his favor: many cardinals may be looking for a pope capable of navigating international diplomatic balances with authority while also leading the Church with openness and attentiveness. In short, rather than a theologian or a political pope, what is needed seems to be a diplomatic pope. The one major vulnerability that could cost Parolin dearly in the voting process is his role in the infamous secret agreements between the Vatican and China. 

Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun, a staunch opponent of the agreements, is already working to divide those within the conservative front who seem inclined to vote for Parolin. 

A conservative or traditionalist candidate such as Robert Sarah or Péter Erdő appears much less likely to be elected. The path toward Pius XIII seems rather closed. In a Conclave expected to be uncertain and marked by underlying tensions, a surprising development could be the rise of—let’s say—John Paul III: a pope capable of embodying a new spiritual and pastoral momentum without abandoning Tradition. 

In this scenario, the most suitable name is Italian cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. He is perhaps the only one currently capable of truly challenging Pietro Parolin for the Petrine office. Pizzaballa has spent his life in the places where the Gospel was born and where the Church continues to exist amid wars, persecutions, and hopes. His direct pastoral experience in the Holy Land—a crucial point for both faith and geopolitics—has made him a respected mediator, able to bring together Israelis and Palestinians, Eastern and Western Christians, in a fragile yet persistent balance. Parolin, on the other hand, lacks significant pastoral experience, which could be a decisive factor in the upcoming Conclave. 

Certainly young by cardinal standards, yet spiritually mature, he could play the same card that brought Wojtyła to the Throne of Peter. He combines a strong capacity for dialogue with unwavering fidelity to doctrine and a Franciscan style—simple and close to the marginalized, though not ideologically driven as Bergoglio has been. Precisely for this reason, he could prove acceptable even to electors aligned with Francis, offering an effective synthesis between Apostolic Tradition and pastoral renewal.