Religious orders deliver conclave candidates

In the run-up to a conclave, there’s a tendency to categorize cardinals into groups or factions that aren’t very cohesive in real life, for example by continent, by language or by type of ministry.

The same can be said of a sub-category of cardinal electors that is, nevertheless, quite interesting: This conclave will include 33 cardinals who are members of religious orders. That’s 25 percent of the voting members.

The number is unusually high when compared to the last two conclaves, and it no doubt reflects Pope Francis’ criteria when selecting cardinals. Francis was a Jesuit, and he was the first religious order pope in more than 150 years.

Cardinals who belong to religious orders don’t necessarily bring the same mindset to a conclave, but they do bring some common traits. Like Francis, they have taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. That can translate into a simple and less privileged lifestyle when they become bishops or archbishops.

They also bring networking, in the sense that they are known figures, at least within their own religious orders. In this conclave, there are five Salesians, four Jesuits, four Franciscans and others from 15 different orders.

It’s sometimes said that such cardinals are not ideal papal candidates because their spirituality and pastoral approach are tied to the particular charism of their religious order. But that argument is not really confirmed by the church’s history. Moreover, most of the current religious order cardinals have broad governing experience in large dioceses.

A surprising number of these cardinals appear on papabili lists.

They include two Spanish Salesians: Cardinal Cristobal Lopez Romero, 72, who has years of experience in Latin America and North Africa, and as such is seen as a “three continent” candidate; and Cardinal Angel Fernandez Artime, 64, onetime head of the Salesians who now leads the Vatican department that oversees the world’s religious orders.

A third Salesian sometimes seen as an Asian papal candidate is Burmese Cardinal Charles Maung Bo, 76, the archbishop of Yangon.

The Franciscan who has drawn attention from conclave-watchers is Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, 60, the Italian-born Latin patriarch of Jerusalem.

Jesuits mentioned as papabili include Canadian Cardinal Michael Czerny, 78, a migration expert who has headed the Vatican’s department for human development; and Luxembourg Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, 66, a close advisor to Pope Francis.

There are others: African Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, 65, is a member of the Capuchin order. Swedish Cardinal Anders Arborelius, 75, is a Carmelite. Canadian Cardinal Gerald Lacroix, 67, is a member of the Pius X Secular Institute.

Two U.S. cardinals sometimes named as papal candidates are also members of religious orders: Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, 73, is a Redemptorist, and Cardinal Robert Prevost, 69, who head the Vatican department for bishops, is an Augustinian. Cardinal Prevost spent 12 years as head of the Augustinian order, and before that served for many years as a bishop in Peru.

Although too old to vote in the conclave and probably too old to be elected, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, 80, the retired archbishop of Boston and a Capuchin friar, is still on some lists of candidates. He is said to have received some votes in the last conclave.

Why age is a factor in this conclave

Media attention on potential papal candidates often seems weighted toward older cardinals, including several approaching the age of 80. There are good reasons for that, as demonstrated by recent church history.

Consider, for example, that the last two pontiffs, Francis and Benedict XVI, were 76 and 78 years old respectively when elected. Over the last 75 years, the average age of popes when elected has been close to 70, and that number has been rising.

In fact, for the past 30 years, the church has been guided by popes who were over the age of 75 – which is the normal retirement age for bishops. Catholics seem comfortable with the idea of an elderly universal pastor.

Youth may bring some obvious advantages to the office of pope, but it also brings the prospect of a very long pontificate. Saint Pope John Paul II, elected at age 58, reigned for more than 26 years. While the Polish pope was viewed by most cardinals as a great gift to the church, some believed his lengthy tenure diminished opportunities for innovation and renewal.

For whatever reasons, most popes tend to live a long time. Over the last two centuries, the average age of popes at time of death was around 80, and that average lifespan has risen to 86 for the last three popes. That, too, will be a consideration for cardinal electors in the coming conclave.

And here is where electors may be influenced by a decision by Pope Francis – the decision not to retire.

When Pope Benedict resigned in 2013 after eight years in office, many wondered whether papal retirement would become the norm. If it did, it might encourage the election of a younger pope, who could give the church his prime years and avoid a lingering pontificate.  Benedict died at the age of 95 and, had he not resigned, would have presumably lived to be the oldest pope in history.

But Francis did not retire, which had the effect of removing papal resignation as a default expectation among those who will elect his successor.

The cardinal electors themselves, it should be noted, have an average age of around 70.5 years, even with the recent addition of younger members. The non-voting cardinals – who still retain an important voice in the pre-conclave meetings – have an average age of around 85.

With all that in mind, it seems to me that the cardinals are much less likely to turn to papabili who are under the age of 65, and much more likely to look at candidates in their late 60s or, even more probable, in their 70s.

There are several who fall into that age range, of course. To name just a few:

  – Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin, 70, the Vatican secretary of state and a key aide to Pope Francis. He brings decades of Vatican and diplomatic experience.

  – Spanish Cardinal Juan José Omella, archbishop of Barcelona, who just turned 79. He has been an advisor to Francis and shares the late pope’s social justice concerns.

  – Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdo, archbishop of Budapest, who turns 73 in June. He is seen as a conservative who as pope would prioritize careful governance and doctrinal clarity.

  – French Cardinal Jean Marc Aveline, 66, archbishop of Marseilles, a respected theologian who combines an amiable pastoral approach with strong advocacy for the poor and migrants.

  – Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, who turns 80 in June. A long shot because of his criticism of Pope Francis’ policies, he retains favor among the most conservative cardinals in the conclave.

  – Swedish Cardinal Anders Arborelius, bishop of Stockholm, a 75-year-old Carmelite. Although more conservative on some church issues than Pope Francis, the late pope once called him a “model of guidance” for his ability to foster dialogue.

  – Italian Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, archbishop of Bologna, 69, whose pastoral experience aligns well with Pope Francis’ missionary vision.

Others include Maltese Cardinal Mario Grech, 68, Philippines Cardinal Luis Tagle, 67, and Sri Lankan Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, 77.

Of course, age is only one element in selecting a pope, and not the most important one. But it could be a factor that tips the scales in favor of a candidate who possesses many of the other leadership qualities.

In light of the above, it’s notable that 60-year-old Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, is considered by observers to be a serious candidate for pope. Born in Italy, he has spent most of his ecclesiastical life in the Holy Land, and over the years has become a widely respected figure to the many church leaders who have passed through Jerusalem. He has shown diplomatic and leadership skills in one of the world’s most troubled areas. Among the cardinal electors, that could outweigh the fears of an extraordinarily long pontificate.

What are the cardinals looking for?

As cardinals meet in Rome ahead of the conclave to elect Pope Francis’s successor, their discussions revolve around a key question: What qualities are they looking for in the next pope?

In their speeches and private conversations, some will place the emphasis on administrative ability and some will insist on pastoral experience. Many will point to the need for communication skills, while others will be looking for social justice advocacy. Calls for a “unifier” will be heard, although that seems to have become code for someone more moderate than the late pope.

Probably the most important element, though, is one exemplified by Pope Francis himself a few days before he was elected in 2013, when he called for the church to step out of its “self-referential” routine and evangelize the world with openness, enthusiasm and joy. Once elected, he followed through.

I think that’s what the cardinals will be looking for in 2025: A candidate who is able to articulate a vision of the church’s mission and has a strategy to implement it.

Pope Francis with prisoners in Philadelphia

The cardinals cannot avoid the fact that, for all the internal debate about some of his statements and decisions, Pope Francis energized Catholics in a way that kept the church relevant in modern society. I think they will be looking for a pope who will keep that energy alive.

That’s not going to happen if the conclave selects someone who attempts to pull back on the outreach agenda of the late pope, or who tries to make the Vatican a “safe space” again for clerical careers and doctrinal absolutism.

Some think the church needs a pope who can better “manage” overtures to disaffected Catholics or bridge-building to the wider world, or who speaks more carefully, or who gives more attention to the church’s moral teachings, or who acts more like popes have always acted. I think that’s the wrong direction, too. The church needs to continue the fresh approach of Pope Francis, not back away or “let things settle.”

The idea of taking time to consolidate the changes wrought by Francis is, in my opinion, the equivalent to standing still, and that’s not an option in today’s world.

The modern demands of the papacy are quite different from even a century ago. The 1800s and 1900s saw the selection of several popes with diplomatic experience, at times when the Vatican’s relationship with political powers was a primary concern.

Today, I think the church is more focused on renewing witness to the Gospel among its own members, as the means of evangelizing the world. That task needs a universal pastor who is able, through words and deeds, to go outside traditional church structures and reach men and women, young and old, where they live their daily lives.

This presumes a solid theological foundation and an ability to inspire people with the teachings of the Gospel. But it does not require someone with the expertise of a doctrinal official, or the training of a canon lawyer, or the managerial résumé of a CEO.

The cardinals should be looking for a candidate who thinks globally but acts locally, in the sense of translating those theological ideas and evangelization plans into the everyday experiences of the faithful. That calls for someone who is close to people – and who listens to them – not someone who has spent his career as a bureaucrat.

Francis said the church should act as a “field hospital” that first of all heals people’s wounds. The cardinals would be wise not to replace the concept of “field hospital” with “command center,” in a bid to re-establish authority on pastoral issues.

I’m not suggesting the church needs a Pope Francis clone. Every papal candidate is a mix of qualities, and it can be argued that Francis himself fell short in some areas, such as collaborative use of his own Vatican advisors and experts. But the pastoral direction – invitation over instruction, mercy over condemnation – should be maintained.

Finding candidates who embody Francis’ evangelical approach may take time, and will not be without resistance. There is a minority, I believe a small minority, that wants to roll back the clock, or at least slow it down. But to do so would frankly leave many Catholics disoriented and disappointed.

I look for the next pope to capitalize on the immense good will generated by Pope Francis, and follow the path he has outlined for the church in the 21st century. He showed the world a more welcoming face of the church and its message, and people were receptive. It would be foolish to walk away from that.