Conclave to Select a New Pope

[An Ard Ri]

Cardinal Prevost was the dark horse of the 2025 Conclave ,he was virtually unknown on the global stage up until the White Smoke.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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 is impossible to know where the leaks are coming from, but there are many vague reports in the press on how the voting progressed.

For example, in the Italian paper Il Messaggero. Or, as I mentioned, from the New York Times. There is also another version from La Reppublica.

The information that Prevost had more than 100 votes in the final ballot seems to have been verified since it came from an identified source. That doesn't mean much though in my humble opinion as elected popes usually get big majorities in the last ballot (normally other candidates tend to informally drop out and endorse the likely winner in a sign of unity).

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.

 

[An Ard Ri]

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.
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.

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.

Ofcourse its all speculation on the number of votes and is based on rumours/whispers.
I've been reading similar leak stories on the net.
How the conclave voted in Pope Leo XIV | The Irish Post

 

[Somebody]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[Prinsara]

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.

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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.

 

[Catman]

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.

In the 1939 conclave, it was widely reported that Cardinal Pacelli received enough votes to be elected on the second ballot. However, because he only barely got over the two-thirds threshold, he asked or a third ballot to confirm his election. So there would be a precedent for this (although that's not to say it necassrily happened on this occasion).

 

[An Ard Ri]

I was talking to a couple over the weekend who were there in St Peter's Square as the white smoke started .
They said it was a very warm afternoon in Rome and they followed the crowds earlier who were all heading over the bridge towards the Vatican.
Security was stringent and there was media from all over the world.
They had coffee at a cafe and went to the gift shops but the crowds started to get bigger and bigger so they went back to the centre of the Square.
They were there in the crowds at the Vatican and were looking up at some seagull on the roof when the white smoke started to billow from the chimney and then the crowd erupted in a frenzy.
Then the bells started and not just at the Vatican but all over Rome!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A question for the religion experts here: Aren’t sworn oaths and excommunication supposed to be serious matters in Christianity?

The cardinal-electors who elect the pope swear an oath not to violate the secrecy of the conclave, and violation of the oath is stated to be punishable by automatic excommunication. Yet it appears that after every conclave, various cardinal-electors (and in 2013 also the newly elected pope) immediately begin to disclose details about what happened in the conclave.

Are cardinals forever bound to not reveal results of conclave balloting?

The recent history of the Catholic Church shows that the secrecy eventually breaks.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

This year, some were even quoted by name discussing the closed-door events and votes during the conclave.

“We didn’t have dinner [during the first night of the conclave], and there were no breaks — toilet breaks — either,” said Cardinal David of the Philippines, but the group decided that it wanted a vote. [...]

“In the first vote, there were several candidates who won significant votes,” Cardinal Lazarus You Heung-sik of South Korea said, according to the South Korean news agency Yonhap.

“In the fourth vote, the ballots overwhelmingly shifted” to Cardinal Prevost, Cardinal You of South Korea said. [...]

“I asked him, ‘Do you want a candy?’ and he said ‘Yes,’” Cardinal Tagle said.

During one of the votes, Cardinal Tobin, as he held his ballot high and put it in the urn, turned and saw Cardinal Prevost, whom he had known for about 30 years.
“I took a look at Bob,” Cardinal Tobin of New Jersey said, “and he had his head in his hands.” [...]

Later in the afternoon, they voted again, then counted the ballots one by one. When Cardinal Prevost reached 89 votes, the two-thirds majority threshold needed to become pope, the room erupted in a standing ovation. “And he remained seated!” Cardinal David said. “Somebody had to pull him up. We were all teary-eyed.”

As the counting continued and the votes for Cardinal Prevost neared triple digits, Cardinal Parolin had to ask them to sit down so they could finish.

“He obtained a very, very large majority of votes,” Cardinal Désiré Tsarahazana of Madagascar said.​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/europe/conclave-vote-pope-leo-robert-prevost.html

How a Quiet American Cardinal Became Pope - The New York Times

archived 13 May 2025 21:30:01 UTC

archive.ph

So are all these cardinals excommunicated now? The lower-level staff assigned to serve in the conclave seem to have been capable of keeping their oaths of secrecy...

 

[Prinsara]

Perhaps the conclave is only considered secret while it is going on.

The author of the novel Conclave freely named one of his sources as the late Archbishop of Westminster and said he wouldn’t mind being named, so, no, it doesn’t appear as though it’s an excommunication-worthy offense.

 

[Somebody]

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...

“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."

In addition, of course, there is the total radio silence during the Conclave, which seems to be taken very seriously.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The Cardinals vow to observe "absolute and perpetual (everlasting) secrecy", that said there have been leaks after some Conclaves.
In 2005 some German Cardinals did talk about it afterwards on the election of Pope Benedict XVI.
For German cardinals, vow of silence falls away

 

[Hans-Rickard]

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…

 

[An Ard Ri]

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…

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.

There were notes taken at the August 1978 Conclave that were not destroyed and they belong to Cardinal Casariego of Guatemala and they ended up up in a publication.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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 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:

Nos omnes et singuli in hac electione Summi Pontificis versantes Cardinales electores promittimus, vovemus et iuramus inviolate et ad unguem Nos esse fideliter et diligenter observaturos omnia quae continentur in Constitutione Apostolica Summi Pontificis Ioannis Pauli II, quae a verbis « Universi Dominici Gregis » incipit, data die xxii mensis Februarii anno MCMXCVI. Item promittimus, vovemus et iuramus, quicumque nostrum, Deo sic disponente, Romanus Pontifex erit electus, eum munus Petrinum Pastoris Ecclesiae universae fideliter exsecuturum esse atque spiritualia et temporalia iura libertatemque Sanctae Sedis integre ac strenue asserere atque tueri numquam esse destiturum. Praecipue autem promittimus et iuramus Nos religiosissime et quoad cunctos, sive clericos sive laicos, secretum esse servaturos de iis omnibus, quae ad electionem Romani Pontificis quomodolibet pertinent, et de iis, quae in loco electionis aguntur, scrutinium directe vel indirecte respicientibus; neque idem secretum quoquo modo violaturos sive perdurante novi Pontificis electione, sive etiam post, nisi expressa facultas ab eodem Pontifice tributa sit, itemque nulli consensioni, dissensioni, aliique cuilibet intercessioni, quibus auctoritates saeculares cuiuslibet ordinis et gradus, vel quivis hominum coetus vel personae singulae voluerint sese Pontificis electioni immiscere, auxilium vel favorem praestaturos.

Each cardinal then says individually:

Et ego N. Cardinalis N. spondeo, voveo ac iuro, ( Et imponendo manum super Evangelium, adiungant: ) Sic me Deus adiuvet et haec Sancta Dei Evangelia, quae manu mea tango.

The official English translation is as follows:

We, the Cardinal electors present in this election of the Supreme Pontiff promise, pledge and swear, as individuals and as a group, to observe faithfully and scrupulously the prescriptions contained in the Apostolic Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, published on 22 February 1996. We likewise promise, pledge and swear that whichever of us by divine disposition is elected Roman Pontiff will commit himself faithfully to carrying out the munus Petrinum of Pastor of the Universal Church and will not fail to affirm and defend strenuously the spiritual and temporal rights and the liberty of the Holy See. In a particular way, we promise and swear to observe with the greatest fidelity and with all persons, clerical or lay, secrecy regarding everything that in any way relates to the election of the Roman Pontiff and regarding what occurs in the place of the election, directly or indirectly related to the results of the voting; we promise and swear not to break this secret in any way, either during or after the election of the new Pontiff, unless explicit authorization is granted by the same Pontiff; and never to lend support or favour to any interference, opposition or any other form of intervention, whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree or any group of people or individuals might wish to intervene in the election of the Roman Pontiff.

And I, N. Cardinal N., do so promise, pledge and swear. Placing his hand on the Gospels, he will add: So help me God and these Holy Gospels which I touch with my hand.


EDIT: Here is Cardinal Parolin reading the oath to the electors, with a few additional words referring to later amendments to the apostolic constitution made by Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Prevost is the 4th to swear (according to precedence) following Cardinal Parolin, Filoni, and Tagle.

 

[Somebody]

Thanks! So, the swear secrecy 'regarding everything that in any way relates to the election of the Roman Pontiff and regarding what occurs in the place of the election, directly or indirectly related to the results of the voting'. It seems 'election' and 'results of the voting' are key phrases. A very strict interpretation could be that everything that happens during the conclave is 'relates in any way' to the election; another interpretation could be that only aspects related to the voting itself (including the results) are to be held a secret.

And the part about the pope being allowed to authorize people to break secrecy is an interesting part as well as it implies that the pope can give himself and others permission to share what happened. It explains the position of pope Francis who used this to freely discuss his election.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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.

 

[An Ard Ri]

A look at the 'Room of Tears' beside the Sistine Chapel where newly elected Popes immediately after accepting the Papacy.
Why is it called the 'Room of Tears' ,reportedly in 1878 having been elected Pope Leo XIII is reported to have burst into tears and declared, “I’m too old for this. I’m going to die''