- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 47,835
- City
- An Iarmhí
- Country
- Ireland
Cardinal Prevost was the dark horse of the 2025 Conclave ,he was virtually unknown on the global stage up until the White Smoke.
If Prevost had already secured 89 votes in round 3, there wouldn’t have been a fourth round.The Front Runners this time last week were
Cardinal Pietro Parolin
Cardinal Matteo Zuppi
Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle
Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa
Cardinal Kevin Farrell
The first ballot reportedly saw Parolin ahead
The Second ballot (May 8, Morning): Support for Parolin was the same but no increase
The Third ballot (May 8, Afternoon): Prevost secured at least 89 votes and Parolin votes had declined.
The Fourth ballot: A fourth vote was held, with Prevost receiving more than 100 votes and was elected Pope.
I saw an interview with one of the other US cardinals and he admitted that none of them knew Prevost before the conclave! However, in the days leading up to the conclave other cardinals started asking questions about Prevost, so his interest was peaked. He happened to end up next to Prevost at breakfast one day, so they were able to make their acquaintance.What I read in the NYT is that Prevost was supported by a coalition of voters from Latin America, the USA, and other English-speaking countries in the Commonwealth. That is very credible based on post-election interviews that I saw with cardinals from those regions.
Parolin apparently had a strong showing in the first ballot, but did not secure the backing of the Asian and African blocs. Apparently the Asians were divided, as were also the Europeans. The conservative vote, which included many African voters, was split between Erdo, Ranjith, and apparently Pizzaballa. The ultraliberal vote was also split among many candidates like Aveline and Grech It looks like Zuppi and Tolentino de Mendonça were never real contenders and that Tagle lost votes to another fellow Filipino cardinal (David).
On the second day, votes started to migrate to Prevost, beginning according to the Italian papers with the Tagle supporters. The Italian media are saying then, between the third and the final fourth vote, Parolin basically withdrew his candidacy and endorsed Prevost.
As always, this is just gossip that cannot be verified, but the practical fact is that Prevost checked many boxes and matched the profile that most cardinal electors wanted, so if there were a split in the first ballot, he would be likely to emerge as a consensus candidate. The bloc vote of the Latin Amercans and US cardinals was enough to put him among the frontrunners in the first ballot and draw the attention of the other cardinals.
If Prevost had already secured 89 votes in round 3, there wouldn’t have been a fourth round.
Kevin Farrell was not on any of the lists as a possible contender, except for one from his home country of Ireland (which seemed more wishful thinking than anything else), so I am surprised to see his name on this list.
Where does this information come from since the voting is supposed to be confidential
Kevin Farrell was born in Ireland but has lived most of his life in the USA and is now Irish American but he is not popular in Ireland.If Prevost had already secured 89 votes in round 3, there wouldn’t have been a fourth round.
Kevin Farrell was not on any of the lists as a possible contender, except for one from his home country of Ireland (which seemed more wishful thinking than anything else), so I am surprised to see his name on this list.
Where does this information come from since the voting is supposed to be confidential?
It was Timothy Dolan (archbishop of New York - himself with 3 mentions as a potential pontiff in the 10 lists) who said that he and the other US cardinals didn't (really) know Prevost but had heard of him - but other Cardinals expected them to know him because he was American. However, as you indicated, it were mostly the Latin-American cardinals who knew him well given his work in Peru and those related to the Augustinian order I suppose (not sure how many that would be). He also mentioned that other bishops might have been in touch with him more recently due to his latest position as head of the Dicastery for Bishops - but that he -luckily- had not needed to be in touch because often times that meant there was trouble.EDIT: On Prevost being unknown, Cardinal Blase Cupich definitely knew him before and I suppose other US cardinals did know him too. He was known also among the Spanish-speaking cardinals as many of them said that in interviews afterwards. I am not sure if the (Portuguese-speaking) Brazilian cardinals knew him personally, but a spokesperson for the Brazilian Episcopal Conference said that then Cardinal Prevost was scheduled to be the preacher in a retreat for the Brazilian bishops that would take place in Aparecida in early May, but was canceled when Pope Francis died. Overall, I find the rumor that his name was pushed by a coalition of cardinals from Latin America and the Anglosphere to be very plausible (Cardinal Nichols from England also said that Prevost was always one of the names on his list, without revealing whom he voted for of course). Prevost's voting pool likely grew from that initial base.
I see why his name ended up in one of the lists... It seems he was more of a contender last time but of course, Francis was also an important contender the previous round, so sometimes cardinals are chosen as pope on their second chance.Kevin Farrell was born in Ireland but has lived most of his life in the USA and is now Irish American but he is not popular in Ireland.
He is largely unknown here in Ireland except in Church circles.
He was the highest ranking figure in the Vatican following the death of Pope Francis and as Camerlengo was running the Vatican in the interim period and a high profile Cardinal.
In the past 2 Camerlengos have been elected Pope and his name popped up on quite a few articles I read ,whether those were Irish or American I cannot recall.
Erdo was mentioned in 8 out of 10 lists I reviewed (none of them Hungarian), so not a dark horse but a prominent contender for the conservatives, and Müller in only one rather long list - by a Catholic source (not German).There were names I've seen only mention once such as Hungary’s Péter Erdő and Germany's Gerhard Müller but I wouldn't call it wishful thinking from their home countries.
As a dark horse won for the second time they were all in with a shot.
Dolan is also considered to harbor a few sour grapes over some other American getting to be Pope and not him, depending on which way one looks.It was Timothy Dolan (archbishop of New York - himself with 3 mentions as a potential pontiff in the 10 lists) who said that he and the other US cardinals didn't (really) know Prevost but had heard of him - but other Cardinals expected them to know him because he was American.
The interview I saw with him didn’t seem sour in the slightest - he was very light-hearted - and sounded very positive sharing that this to him relative unknown guy had great qualities. These are just my impressions based on that one interview; I don’t know whether those that claim the opposite might be better informed and if he is that good in hiding his true feelings.Dolan is also considered to harbor a few sour grapes over some other American getting to be Pope and not him, depending on which way one looks.
If Prevost had already secured 89 votes in round 3, there wouldn’t have been a fourth round.
Kevin Farrell was not on any of the lists as a possible contender, except for one from his home country of Ireland (which seemed more wishful thinking than anything else), so I am surprised to see his name on this list.
Where does this information come from since the voting is supposed to be confidential?
I saw an interview with one of the other US cardinals and he admitted that none of them knew Prevost before the conclave! However, in the days leading up to the conclave other cardinals started asking questions about Prevost, so his interest was peaked. He happened to end up next to Prevost at breakfast one day, so they were able to make their acquaintance.
Prevost was praised by many for being a very thoughtful man and a good listener. As has been said before, he is also considered a good administrator.
According to his brothers he already wanted to become a priest from about age 5 (he had the family play ‘mass’), and when he was in grade 1 a neighbor said that he would be the first American pope (which nobody took seriously). After grade 8 he already left home to attend some kind of seminary.
“And I, (first name) Cardinal (last name), do promise, pledge and swear. So help me God and these Holy Gospels which I touch with my hand,” each cardinal says, in order of seniority."
Same happened after the October 1978 Conclave ,American and Eastern European Cardinals were rumoured to have rallied behind Wojtyła and the Western European Cardinals behind Benelli.While the cardinals are indeed under an oath of total secrecy, i think some of them interpretes it as ”as long as i don’t tell anyone about who voted for who’ i’m fine”…
And some information from the conclaves in 2005 and 2013 came from Pope Francis himself who (correctly) said that cardinals are bound by secrecy - not popes.
It is difficult (or rather impossible) when there is so many people involved, to maintain a totalt secrecy and control who says what…
I don't understand the distinction between popes and cardinals in this particular case. The pope was a cardinal during the conclave and made the same oath, which is not suddenly lifted because someone was elected as pope... So, it sounds like the previous pope just wanted a way out to talk about it.While the cardinals are indeed under an oath of total secrecy, i think some of them interpretes it as ”as long as i don’t tell anyone about who voted for who’ i’m fine”…
And some information from the conclaves in 2005 and 2013 came from Pope Francis himself who (correctly) said that cardinals are bound by secrecy - not popes.
It is difficult (or rather impossible) when there is so many people involved, to maintain a totalt secrecy and control who says what…
I am not an expert, but the Cardinal Dean, or the presiding Cardinal when the Dean is not an elector, according to the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis , reads the following oath:There seems to be a consensus that some things can be shared (such as what they say when casting their ballot, i.e. “Chiamo a testimone Cristo Signore, il quale mi giudicherà, che il mio voto è dato a colui che, secondo Dio, ritengo debba essere eletto” Translated: "I call as my witness Christ the Lord, who will judge me, that my vote is given to the one whom, according to God, I believe should be elected.") and probably who was seated next to whom but not others - I would venture that sharing the number of votes would definitely violate the secrecy required. It would be interesting to read the exact oath each cardinal takes before the conclave takes place.
I haven't found the exact text but this source suggests that they vote to keep secret 'the results of the vote'.
Apparently, this is what they respond; now I only have to find the question asked...
In addition, of course, there is the total radio silence during the Conclave, which seems to be taken very seriously.
I'd say that is well-deserved. Let the staff members themselves decide whether they want to donate (part of) their bonus to charity or not.Conclave bonuses for Vatican staff were reinstated by Pope Leo this week and all Vatican staff will receive €500 for work carried out during the recent Conclave.
In 2013 ,Pope Francis suspended the Conclave Staff Bonus and instead donated the funds to charity.