What just happened?

The unexpectedly swift election of the first American pope shocked the world, and it left many observers wondering: What just happened?

Here are a few immediate thoughts about the dynamics of this conclave.

1. In a conclave with 133 participants and fewer than two weeks to dive deeply into their leadership qualities, the process favored cardinals with wide connections and diverse experiences – in particular, pastoral ministry in more than one country or continent, administrative experience across the globe, and a career that includes work in parishes, dioceses, regional organizations and the Vatican.

Cardinal Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV, fit the bill. Born in the United States, he served as a missionary priest and then bishop in Peru (he holds both Peruvian and U.S. passports) and built good relations with the wider Latin American hierarchy. As head of the Augustinians from 2001-2013, he visited some 50 countries where the religious order works. Since 2023, as prefect of the Vatican department that helps select new bishops, he has interacted with church leaders around the globe. At the Vatican, he was also president of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, so he kept up contacts with that part of the world. He participated in sessions of the Synod of Bishops, another important meeting grounds.

Some of the many cardinals who came from the church’s “periphery” to this conclave may have made wonderful popes. But I think that without these kinds of international connections and ministerial diversity, their election prospects were close to nil.

For the same reason, I believe, a man like Cardinal Pietro Parolin was destined to exit the conclave a cardinal. He is well known and respected as a diplomat and Vatican official, but has almost no pastoral experience. In the wake of Pope Francis, who saw his job as “the world’s parish priest,” that probably disqualified Parolin in the eyes of many electors.

Only a few other cardinals had the kinds of transversal connections and experiences that make one a natural papal candidate in the modern era. Spanish Cardinal Cristobal Lopez Romero, who has worked in Latin America and North Africa, for example. Or Italian Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem.

2. Religious order candidates are attractive to the cardinal electors, who tend to trust someone who has a deep spiritual formation and has taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. This was true of Pope Francis, a Jesuit, who lived humbly and emphasized the church’s attention to the poor. It is likewise true of the new pope, whose Augustinian order has a tradition of prayer, rejection of privilege and service to others.

3. Language counts. Pope Leo is fluent in English, Spanish, Italian, French and Portuguese, and reads German and Latin. That made him an attractive choice as a global communicator and evangelizer. It also meant that over the years and in the run-up to the conclave, he could communicate with most of the other cardinals in their own language.

4. Finally, the brevity of this conclave demonstrates to me that the groundwork for Cardinal Prevost was laid in advance. Four ballots is not enough for a long shot candidate to win a two-thirds majority of the votes needed for election – which means Cardinal Prevost wasn’t really a long shot by the time the cardinals went into the Sistine Chapel. I think his candidacy was discussed even before the cardinals came to Rome, and a quiet lobbying campaign was quickly put into motion.

I don’t mean to suggest, of course, that Cardinal Prevost was campaigning for the papacy. But other cardinals have a perfect right to promote their favorites, and in a conclave with 133 participants, early organization is an important factor. In this case, that probably meant lining up votes from Latin America, the United States and the Roman Curia, and quietly convincing others that Cardinal Prevost would bring continuity with Pope Francis’ evangelizing vision, but without rocking the boat (as Francis sometimes did.)