The process of choosing a pope is not divinely inspired. It is a human creation that has changed over time and can change again.

The current system, in which cardinals elect a new leader by a two-thirds vote, has been firmly in place since 1179.

Before that, popes were sometimes elected by the clergy and people of Rome.

The conclave, in which the cardinals are held behind locked doors until a pope is elected, has been in place since the 13th century.

In the 20th century, the process was dramatically changed by the internationalisation of the College of Cardinals.

Italians no longer make up most of the electors.

Pope Paul VI, who headed the church from 1963 to 1978, also increased the number of cardinals while limiting the electorate to cardinals under the age of 80.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI made further changes with unintended consequences.

Traditionally, it has required a two-thirds vote to elect a pope in order to make sure that he had wide support within the church.

If the leading contenders could not attract the required two-thirds, the electors were forced to find a compromise candidate who could.

In 1996, John Paul II revised the rules so that after 33 ballots, the two-thirds requirement could be suspended by a simple majority vote. If they could then give one candidate the same majority, they would have a new pope.

This change was made to avoid a hopelessly deadlocked conclave.

The church does not want to be embarrassed like the Republicans in the House of Representatives who have had so much difficulty electing a speaker.

However, long conclaves are in fact rare. The last conclave to go more than five days was in 1831; it lasted 54 days.

Since the 13th century, 29 conclaves have lasted a month or more, but the delays were often caused by wars or civil disturbances in Rome.

Under John Paul's system, the conclaves' dynamics changed dramatically.

Once a candidate received a majority of the votes, his backers knew that if they stuck with him, he would eventually be elected.

After waiting through 33 votes, they could vote to suspend the two-thirds requirement and elect him with their majority.

Some believe the rule was changed to make it easier to elect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the leading papal candidate in 2005.

And indeed, once Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger got a majority vote, his supporters had no need to switch to a compromise candidate. Nor did his opponents have any chance of stopping him. Better to get it over with, vote for him and go home.

In 2007, Benedict returned to the hard and fast two-thirds supermajority.

After 33 votes, however, the two top candidates would enter a runoff.

This caused a new problem.

A conclave deadlocked between a liberal and a conservative, both unacceptable to slightly more than a third of the cardinals, would have no choice but to pick one extreme or the other, with no option for a moderate compromise candidate.

Nor do the rules explain what to do if there is a tie for second place in the 33rd vote.

In the absence of specific instructions, canon law would probably give it to the cardinal with greatest seniority, but the lack of a rule could blow up the conclave.

Francis should return to the traditional system of electing a pope by a two-thirds vote with no limit on the number of ballots.

This would leave the door open for a compromise candidate in a deadlocked conclave.

Recently, a new reform proposal has been put forward by Alberto Melloni, a professor of church history at the University of Modena-Reggio Emilia.

While the current electoral process pushes the cardinals to decide quickly, Melloni wants to slow the process down.

He argues that the election of a pope is too important to do quickly.

Rather, the cardinals should take more time to pray and discuss the election. He would propose having only one vote a day, as opposed to the current practice of holding four votes a day.

While in the past, most cardinals lived in Rome and knew each other, today the cardinal electors are from all over the world and need time to get to know each other.

This is especially true under Francis, who has rarely brought the cardinals together in Rome for a consistory, as John Paul did, to discuss issues facing the church.

Many cardinals are dependent on the media and other cardinals to tell them about the candidates. It would be better to give the cardinals more time before and during the conclave to get to know each other.

Melloni's proposal received a positive reception from Pillar's Ed Condon, a canon lawyer who takes a more conservative view of church matters.

Granted the lack of long conclaves in recent history, I agree with Melloni that limiting the conclave to one vote a day would provide more time for prayer and discussion.

It would be important, however, to clearly communicate to the media and the public that taking a week or two to elect a pope is the new normal and not a sign of chaos in the church.

I would even slightly modify Melloni's proposal by adding an additional vote each week the conclave is in session — one vote a day the first week; the second week, two votes a day; the third week, three votes a day; and finally, the fourth week would return to having four votes a day.

We do not want the conclave to go on too long.

Others have suggested using procedures of the Synod on Synodality in the pre-conclave general congregations when the cardinals gather to discuss issues facing the church.

This would include "conversations in the Spirit," with its emphasis on sharing and listening in small groups, rather than speeches by each cardinal.

It might also involve non-cardinals, even laity, in discussing the issues facing the church. This would build consensus and mutual familiarity.

I am sympathetic to the new synodal procedures, but I believe it should be an option for the cardinals, rather than a mandate. The cardinal electors should be free to determine what process best meets their needs.

Providing the cardinals with more opportunities to get to know each other, both before and during the conclave, would reduce the danger that the cardinals could be swayed by fake news and videos created with artificial intelligence.

Like U.S. elections, papal elections face threats from bad actors who want to manipulate the electors.

Already some in the church are doing "opposition research" on progressive cardinals with the idea of releasing negative information right before the conclave.

Accusations of sexual activity, abuse or ignoring abuse, true or not, could kill a candidacy if amplified by social media just as the cardinals are entering the conclave and being cut off from the outside world. Even if it were found to be fake news, the cardinals in the conclave would not know. They might pass over a good candidate rather than risk that the stories are true.

The purpose of isolating the cardinals from the outside world is to keep outsiders from influencing the election.

But the same isolation could keep the cardinals from getting information they may need before deciding.

The church needs to think about the threats that new technology may pose to papal elections.

Above all, Francis should move carefully, consult with experts, consider unintended consequences and issue a draft for discussion.

John Paul and Benedict made mistakes because they did not consult widely. Francis should not make the same mistake.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

More specifically, are all the men who got the red hat from Pope Francis moving with him in the same direction?

Recent events suggest yet again that not all of Francis' cardinals are so-called "Francis bishops", prelates who are enthusiastic supporters of his vision for Church reform and renewal.

This became clear most recently by the extremely negative reaction that many of the bishops and cardinals in Africa (but not only there) expressed towards Fiducia supplicans, the "declaration on the pastoral meaning of blessings" that the Vatican doctrinal office issued last December.

It is not an exaggeration to say that many Africans were outraged that the pope had approved a document that allows priests to offer non-liturgical blessings to homosexual couples.

Francis rebuffed by one of his top advisors

Leading their rebuff of the text was Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu of Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo), someone who not only got his red hat from Francis but is also one of only nine men who are members of the pope's chief advisory, the Council of Cardinals (C9).

In fact, the ecclesiastical career of the 64-year-old Capuchin Franciscan has ski-rocketed during the current pontificate.

Ambongo was the bishop of the smallest of DR-Congo's 47 dioceses in 2013 at the time of Francis' election.

He had been appointed to the post by John Paul II in November 2004 and it seemed that's where he would stay. But Francis promoted Ambongo archbishop of Mbandaka-Mikoro in 2016.

And just fifteen months later the pope catapulted him from leading the smallest of DR-Congo's six archdioceses to being coadjutor bishop of its largest, Kinshasa.

Within another eight months (November 1, 2018) he was the archbishop ordinary.

Just less than a year later (October 2019) he was created a cardinal. And in March 2023 he was appointed to the C9.

Cardinal Ambongo is also president of SECAM (the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences in Africa and Madagascar).

And it was in this capacity that he issued the African prelates' strongly-worded statement last January, which declared that there would be no blessings for homosexuals on their continent.

Since then, Pope Francis has defended Fiducia supplicans several times in interviews and addresses, often doubling down on his efforts to make the Church more welcoming of homosexuals and other people who are "disordered" or in "irregular unions".

He's defended his vision on this particular issue in the wake of attacks made by one of his own cardinals.

It is not clear what else in the current pontificate Cardinal Ambongo does not fully agree with, but the point is that he is not 100% in agreement.

A Francis majority in the next conclave

And what of the other cardinals Francis has created?

How many of them are really Francis bishops?

Conversely, how many are in fundamental disagreement with the Argentine pope on certain issues or even on the direction in which he's leading the Church?

These are important questions given that, as the pontificate winds down, the cardinal-electors will eventually be called to choose Francis' successor.

It is usually assumed — uncritically — that, since Francis has now named the overwhelming majority of these electors, he has all but ensured that they will pick someone who will carry on his legacy.

Indeed, the numbers are impressive.

As of February 12, there will be 130 cardinals under the age of 80 who are eligible to participate in a conclave. Of these, 95 have been named by Francis, 27 by Benedict XVI, and 8 by John Paul II.

But things will become more interesting in the coming months as more of these men age out.

By October 10 when the next session of the Synod assembly on synodality is underway, nine more cardinals will lose their vote.

Then there will be 91 created by Francis, 24 by Benedict, and only 6 by John Paul.

Among those who will be eliminated from the conclave over the next eight months, are some key allies of the current pope, even some who became cardinals under his two predecessors.

They include Cardinal Sean O'Malley OFM Cap, a C9 member from the United States (turns 80 on June 29); Cardinal Luis Lacunza OAR of Panama (Feb. 24); and Cardinal Baltazar Porras of Venezuela (Oct. 10).

The number of cardinal-electors will drop back to the 120 ceiling set by Paul VI (provided Francis does not create more cardinals in the meantime) on Dec. 24 when Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias, another C9 member, turns eighty.

The specter of John Paul II still looms

The last six men among the electors who were created cardinals by John Paul II could play a decisive role in the next conclave whenever that happens.

One of them, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria, is a key ally of Pope Francis. But the current archbishop of Vienna is also the oldest in the group and will turn 80 in late January 2025.

The second oldest, at 78, is retired Bosnian Cardinal Vinko Puljic. He is not expected to be a force, either as a candidate or a kingmaker at a papal election.

The other four are all 75 years old or younger.

French Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, 73, was forced to step down as archbishop of Lyon nearly four years ago after badly managing sexual abuse cases. He is not expected to have a significant voice at a conclave.

And neither is Croatian Cardinal Josip Bozanic, who retired as archbishop of Zagreb last April at age seventy-four.

But other two men who got the red hat from Saint John Paul — both in 2003 — will likely be among those whom the electors will be taking a closer look at.

Either could emerge as a compromise candidate.

They are Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary and Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, one a traditionalist Central European and the other a moderate African.

Erdő, who is only 71, has been the archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest for more than 21 years.

He is a by-the-books canon lawyer who served ten years (2006-2016) as president of Conference of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE) and has strong connections with many moderate-to-conservative officials in the Vatican.

The Hungarian cardinal has been careful to not to publicly criticise Pope Francis, even as he steers his own ecclesial ship in a very different direction.

He wisely chose not to attend a Mass in Rome last January to mark the first anniversary of the death of Cardinal George Pell.

Erdő was actually supposed to preside at that liturgy. But it would have put him squarely in the opposition camp, given Pell's vicious attack against Francis in an article that was printed after he died.

Turkson, 75, is currently the chancellor of two high-level Vatican think-tanks — the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

A Rome-educated scripture scholar, he served as archbishop of Cape Coast from 1993 until 2009 when Benedict XVI made him president of the now-defunct Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

When that office was combined with several other departments in 2016 and is now called the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, he remained its head for a little more than five years.

He was "eased" out in January 2022 at age 73 and given his current position.

In any event, the Church's cardinals are already beginning to prepare for the post-Francis era.

With binoculars in hand, Vatican watchers will be carefully looking for signs indicating which way these birds might fly.

• Robert Mickens is La Croix International Editor.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Brandmüller said that there are too many cardinals who come from faraway places, so they lack experience with the Roman Curia and do not know one another, making them vulnerable to lobbies attempting to push a specific candidate forward.

In a speech given during this week's meeting of cardinals, Brandmüller said that in his view, a "serious reflection should be given to the idea of limiting the right to vote in conclave, for example to cardinals residing in Rome, while the others, still cardinals, could share the ‘status' of cardinals over eighty" who are ineligible to cast a vote. Continue reading

That headline appeared in the October 6, 1972 issue of the National Catholic Reporter.

"If insiders' reports are accurate, Pope Paul is faced with a threatened palace revolt over proposed changes in the procedures used to elect a pope," wrote Desmond O'Grady, the now-deceased Australian who was NCR's very first Rome correspondent.

O'Grady identified the three men who warned they would resign as Cardinal Franjo Seper, the Yugoslavian who was then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and two Italians — Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri (head of the Congregation for Bishops) and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri (archbishop of Genoa).

He said these three senior clerics feared Paul VI would cave into demands to substantially alter who could participate in the conclave that elects the Roman Pontiff.

The new plan evidently was to allow the presidents of national episcopal conferences to be part of the electoral body and to restrict the vote of the cardinals to only those who were in charge of Vatican offices or local dioceses at the time of the "sede vacante" (i.e. at the death or resignation of the pope).

Episcopal collegiality in the spirit of Vatican II

The proposal had been around for some time. One of its most vocal advocates was Cardinal Michele Pellegrino of Turin in Northern Italy.

Almost immediately after Paul VI named him bishop in September 1965, just a month before the start of the fourth and final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Pellegrino began clamouring for changes to the conclave's membership.

His views found substantial support among a good number of Council Fathers, but also stiff opposition from several heavyweights who were fixtures of the Roman Curia's old guard.

The opponents claimed any change in the papal electoral system could undermine the Bishop of Rome's standing as the Vicar of Christ and would reduce the pope to a sort of president of the combined local Churches.

But those who supported Cardinal Pellegrino's proposal — and they exist even to this day — believed that a conclave restricted to cardinals, which the Roman Pontiff chooses independently and at his own discretion, was not in line with the principle of episcopal collegiality in the spirit of Vatican II.

One of the most outspoken on this point was Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens of Malines-Brussels (Belgium).

Pope Francis converges with Cardinal Suenens

In a long and carefully worded interview published in May 1969 in the French periodical Informations Catholiques Internationales, he argued — as he did in a book written several months earlier — for practical changes that would better foster co-responsibility at all levels of the Church.

Suenens' interview, which stretched over fifteen pages, was extremely important at the time of its publication, which was just a little more than three years after the Council.

Revisiting it today, some 53 years later, it is striking to see how the main topics he dealt with in that conversation are among the issues that Francis has made priorities in his pontificate.

They include rebalancing the relationship between the centre and the peripheries, papal primacy and collegiality, the bishop and his people, life and law, and the pope and the Roman Curia. And they also entail the status and mission of papal nuncios and, of course, the role of the College of Cardinals.

The current pope has given much attention to addressing these issues, save the last one.

His practice of giving the red hat to men in countries, dioceses and offices that have never before been headed by a cardinal does not address the issues that most concerned reformers like Cardinals Pellegrino and Suenens.

Paul VI takes another look

The problem is not just geographics. As the late Primate of Belgium pointed out in his 1969 interview, the College of Cardinals does not offer a "faithful image of (the Church's) diversity".

And the way its members are selected (arbitrarily and by the pope alone) does nothing to change that substantially. In fact, Suenens argued that it smacked of absolute monarchy and risked conveying who is in favour with the pope and who is not.

He also believed that lay people had to have some sort of role in helping select those in higher office, including the Roman Pontiff.

But Pope Paul, who was a close friend of Suenens', moved carefully on the issue. During a consistory to name new cardinals in early March 1973, he announced that he was looking into a different proposal to allow Eastern Church Patriarchs and the fifteen members of the Synod of Bishops' permanent council to participate in the conclave.

A few weeks later, he repeated this to officials in the Synod's secretariat. But, in the end, he did nothing.

That did not end the debate, however.

"A special enclave within the College of Bishops"

John R. Quinn, the late archbishop of San Francisco, offered a number of "possibilities" for changing the way the Roman Pontiff is elected in his 1999 book The Reform of the Papacy: the Costly Call to Christian Unity.

He acknowledged that the College of Cardinals was a "distinguished body" and that it "has performed great service to the popes and to the whole Church" during its thousand-year history.

But he said there were "three problems" that necessitated its reform — it is "a special enclave within the College of Bishops"; it's awkward relationship to the Eastern Churches; and its exclusive role in the election of the pope.

Quinn noted that the manner in which the Bishop of Rome is elected has changed over the course of the centuries. And while history shows that some of the earlier "procedures... were open to great abuse, it has also shown that the exclusive role of the cardinals in this process has also been open to abuse".

And while "confining the election to 120 cardinals at the most creates a manageable electoral body", he argued that this college "does not relate directly or structurally to the episcopal conferences".

Quinn insisted that "at least some of the presidents of conferences" merited a vote in the conclave. He also suggested representatives from religious orders and the laity "could be invited to express their view on the more important qualities they would like to see in the next pope".

The late archbishop admitted that it would be tricky to decide exactly who might be invited to do this, but said, "Whatever the problems involved, careful consideration should be given to how lay persons could be included."

Synodality and how bishops (and popes) are selected

All this sounds very much in sync with the synodal process that Pope Francis has been trying to make a constituent part of the Roman Catholic Church's communal life and decision-making process.

He has brought synodality — which includes the participation, in various ways, of all the People of God, ordained, lay and vowed religious — to bear on almost all areas of the Church, including the Roman Curia.

But he has done little to extend this to the selection and appointment of bishops and nothing to make it part of the election of the Roman Pontiff.

Francis has made scant use of the College of Cardinals as a consultative body.

But he is summoning all its members (both cardinal-electors and the men over 80 who have lost their vote in the conclave) to two days of meetings at end of August, only the third time he's held such a red-hatted summit in over nine years.

The stated reason is to "reflect on the new apostolic constitution Praedicate evangelium", the document he published on March 19 to put in place his reform of the Curia. Three months later, and despite the fact that the constitution went into effect on June 5, the text exists only in Italian.

What will happen in August?

A large number of cardinals, maybe more than half of them, do not have sufficient facility in Italian to read — let alone reflect on — this document. In any case, what will they be reflecting on? The reform is done.

It's now up to the pope to begin replacing the numerous Curia officials who are beyond retirement age or have worked many years at the Vatican, with new people who are willing to implement the reform energetically, collaboratively and according to the spirit with which it was written.

As for the meeting of cardinals in August, it's already been suggested here that it could be "the occasion and forum for Francis to make an important announcement about the future of his pontificate and when the cardinal-electors will have to exercise the one function reserved to them alone — elect the Bishop of Rome".

Of course, that is just a conjecture, but...

If Francis is planning to announce a date for his resignation, he may want to do it before all the world's cardinals.

It is not likely that he would step down immediately and probably not even in a few weeks' time, as Benedict did. What if, instead, he were to initiate a lengthier period of discernmentlasting several months or more?

Such discernment, if it is to include the participation of all the People of God, would require some concrete changes to at least the procedures the College of Cardinals follows.

It would be quite unusual if Francis were to do nothing

The 85-year-old pope has recently been keeping his cards to his chest more than usual, so we have no indication if he is actually even considering any significant changes to the conclave.

One might think it is a far too ambitious project for an elderly man who is currently giving so much of his energy to other major initiatives, most of them still in their infant stages.

But every pope in the last hundred years or so (at least those who have lived more than 33 days) has at least tweaked the apostolic constitution regulating the sede vacante and election of the Roman Pontiff.

It would be quite unusual if Francis, who has been revising or updating almost everything in the Church, were to do absolutely nothing.

Beware the ghosts of Pellegrino, Suenens and Quinn...

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

This reflects his push to de-Europeanize the Church and the body that will eventually elect his successor.

It is a very important institutional change.

But the pope, who turns 85 in December, has still not updated the norms regulating the conclave. He needs to do so soon, or there could be serious problems.

A recent article in the Italian journal of politics Il Mulino by the noted Church historian Alberto Melloni (one of my mentors) raises pressing questions concerning the next conclave.

This is a revised and updated version of a very important book he wrote in the early 2000s on the history of papal elections.

It first provides a brief analysis of the most recent changes in the rules for the conclave, especially John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis (1996).

This text specifically designated Rome as the only place where the papal election can take place, thus abrogating the old rule according to which the conclave took place wherever the pope died.

Then Melloni mentions the slight modification Benedict XVI's made to Universi Dominici Gregison February 22, 2013, shortly after announcing his resignation from the papacy.

Benedict restored in all cases the necessity of a two-thirds majority for the election of the Roman Pontiff, undoing the possibility of election by simple majority that John Paul had introduced.

Freedom of the next conclave is in danger

Melloni makes it clear that Francis has no obligation to update the norms of the conclave, but he urges the pope to do so based on two new facts.

The first is Francis' creation of new special norms to fight sexual abuse by clergy and the failure of the bishops to act, in a system that can sometimes take the shape of summary justice to the detriment of fairness, due to the external pressure to look tough on offending clergy.

The second is Francis' restoration of the "temporal justice" system in the Vatican, which could expose cardinals to instrumental accusations, capable of excluding them from the conclave or at least the list of papabili (leading contenders).

These new developments, says Melloni, put the freedom of the next conclave in danger.

"Without some modifications in the constitution regulating the conclave, the 21stcentury could mean the return of a formidable veto power capable of altering the result of the papal election: a veto power no longer exercised by Catholic monarchs, but by the new empires of social media and those who have the technology to use them or an interest to mobilize them," he warns.
Four proposed changes

Melloni advances four proposals for updating the rules for the conclave.

His first suggestion is to intensify the clausura. He says all the cardinal electors should be required to reside at the Santa Marta Residence as soon as they arrive in Rome, rather than be allowed to wait until the conclave actually starts.

His second recommendation is that the "general congregations" — that is, the daily pre-conclave meetings of all the cardinals, including non-electors over the age of 80 — should also include sessions in clausura-type atmosphere for electors only.

Melloni's third proposal is to change the frequency of the ballots: only one ballot every day for the first three days; two ballots every day for the next three days; and four for the three days after that.

He says this would give the "different parties" in the conclave more time for discussion. It would also liberate the electors from media pressure coming to produce the new pope quickly.

The fourth and final proposal also has to do with the risks of a hasty election.

Melloni suggest new rules should give the cardinal that has received enough votes to be pope more time to pray, reflect and scrutinize his conscience. This would allow him to see if there is anything in his past (also when he had to deal with cases of abuse) that could expose the papal election to dubia (doubts).

These are all thoughtful and judicious proposals and others could also be added, especially in light of the fact that the current cardinal-electors barely know one another.

Even more serious than once believed

In his more than eight years as pope, Francis has gathered all the living cardinals together for a general meeting only once (February 20-21, 2014). But free-flowing discussion was very limited.

Such gatherings seem to be even more important now than ever before.

First of all, the current group of cardinals includes men from geographical areas that have never been represented before at a conclave.

And second, the old clerical networks that were once part and parcel of the papal election no longer have the same importance they once had. They have been replaced by other networks of influence.

It is important to note that the situation may be even more serious than Melloni acknowledges, for at least two reasons.

The first reason has to do with a particular ecclesial situation in the United States, where we have seen direct threats to the freedom of the pope and, implicitly, to the next conclave.

The sexual abuse case of Theodore McCarrick, the former cardinal, and the opportunistic attacks against Pope Francis by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former nuncio to Washington, have unleashed a wave of indignation in some Catholic groups and networks.

Anti-Francis ideologues already at work to influence the next conclave

This has revealed the anti-institutional, nihilistic turn of conservatism today - even inside the Catholic Church.

For instance, there is something called "Red Hat Report", which keeps files on all the cardinal-electors. One can only imagine how this will be used they when they again gather in Rome to elect the next pope.

This initiative must be seen in the context of the ideological fury against Pope Francis, which is apparent in certain clerical, intellectual, financial and political circles in the United States.

They are, all of them, well connected with the new media ecosystem that shapes the narratives on the state of Catholicism and Church politics.

It would be a grave mistake to underestimate what they are likely to do with all the information and influence they have amassed in order to shape the outcome of the next conclave.

Before, during and after the 2020 presidential campaign, many Catholics (including some bishops) refused to acknowledge and accept that Joe Biden had been legitimately elected.

A similar scenario could also happen with the election of the next pope. Viganò and his supporters broke the ultimate taboo in institutional Catholicism by demanding that Francis resign. If one can try to unseat a pope, anything is possible.

The Catholic Church in the United States is in a situation of soft or material schism between two different groups. They are sharply divided over Francis' pontificate.

The attempt by Viganò and others to oust the pope in August 2018 was the ecclesiastical equivalent of the January 6 assault on Capitol Hill in Washington by Donald Trump's supporters.

But at the next conclave, there will be a power vacuum in Rome that did not exist in August 2018. The situation could be more, far more dangerous than many expect.

It is naïve to assume that those who have always accused Francis of not being Catholic would refrain from doing anything and everything possible to have their way at the next conclave.

Cranking up the rumour mill

The second reason the situation may now be more perilous than that which Melloni acknowledges in his article (published in May) is what happened on July 4.

That is the evening Francis had surgery at the Gemelli hospital in Rome.

After a ten-day stay at the hospital, the pope is now back home at the Santa Marta Residence. It is not clear what recovery will look like for a man of his advanced age but some are already beginning to speculate about his ability to continue governing the Church.

Rumours about which cardinals have the best chances to succeed Francis have also started up.

The pope's decision to publish the recent "motu proprio" abrogating Summorum Pontificum is a sign of his determination. But some will read it as conveying a sense of urgency in light of the pope's declining health and the approaching end of his pontificate.

Francis can be an effective and incisive legislator, as we have seen in many other areas. But he is sometimes reluctant to change institutional mechanisms, preferring instead to initiate long-term spiritual reforms aimed at transforming the ways of the Church over time.

But he's taking a big risk by not updating the rules that govern the conclave or thinking he can wait until the very end of the pontificate to do so.

This is an urgent matter that cannot wait.

Probably the biggest change since the last two conclaves — which elected Benedict in 2005 and Francis in 2013 — is the power of Catholic influencers in mainstream media, digital media and social media.

Since 2013, small groups of people with extremely idiosyncratic agendas (including some prelates with a vast media and social media following) have been crafting an ideological narrative of the Church.

They cannot resist the temptation to create a media storm when they don't get their way.

Just look at the way some of them have reacted to Francis' "motu proprio" restricting the use of the Old Latin Mass.

Then you'll have an idea of the havoc they could cause at the next conclave.

• Massimo Faggioli is a Church historian, Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University (Philadelphia) and a much-published author and commentator. He is a visiting professor in Europe and Australia.
• First published by La Croix International. Republished with permission.

Commenting on various issues where the Pope is currently under attack from his critics, Arturo Sosa SJ says there is no doubt there's a political fight going on in the church.

This isn't just against Francis and his convictions. He won't change and his critics know it, Sosa says.

"In reality, these [attacks] are a way to influence the election of the next pope."

As Francis is 82, Sosa says his critics are aiming at the succession.

They "...know that it takes a long time, more than 50 years, to really implement the Second Vatican Council."

One of the points of friction is clericalism - that is, a way of understanding the exercise of power in the church.

"Francis is fighting against clericalism and this exercise of power". He "proposes a synodal church," which encourages greater collegiality and participation in decision making," Sosa says.

"Pope Francis is a son of the Second Vatican Council."

As he is a responsible son, Sosa says "Francis puts all his energy and capacity to incarnate it and to make a reality all that this event has dreamed for the church, and it seems to me that this is a great contribution to the church."

Francis believes the church shows "true reform" the "closer it comes to the design of the Second Vatican Council."

There have always been those who support and those who resist the Council's reforms, Sosa notes.

But the 50 years since the Council "is not so much" in terms of implementing its reforms in the church, he says.

Unlike those who criticised Francis's first two synods and the upcoming one on the Amazon, Sosa believes Francis's synodal process "creates unity."

He said he witnessed this at the synod on young people, and he is now seeing it also in the process of preparation for the synod on the Amazon region.

Source

• America Magazine
• Image: Asia News

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re first explained the voting process and then asked the cardinals if they were ready to vote.

They were! Everyone was anxious to do so, as this would reveal where the Holy Spirit was leading them.

The first phase of the process began with the distribution of ballot sheets to the electors.

Before the voting started, and in accordance with the apostolic constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis," the most junior cardinal elector then extracted at random the names of three "scrutineers," three "infirmarii" and three "revisers" to supervise the first voting session.

The second phase was the secret ballot.

Each cardinal had before him a ballot form, rectangular in shape, on which were printed in Latin the words "Eligo in Summum Pontificem" ("I elect as Supreme Pontiff"), and underneath there was a space for the name of the person to whom he wished to give his vote.

The electors were expected to write in such a way that they could not be easily recognized by their handwriting.

Once the cardinal completed his ballot form, he had to fold it lengthwise, so that the name of the person he voted for could not be seen.

Once all the electors had written the name of their chosen candidate and folded the ballot sheets, then each cardinal took his ballot sheet between the thumb and index finger and, holding the ballot aloft so that it could be seen, carried it to the altar at which the scrutineers stood and where there was an urn, made of silver and gilded bronze by the Italian sculptor Cecco Bonanotte, with an image of the Good Shepherd on it.

The urn was covered by a similarly gilded plate to receive the ballot sheets.

On arrival at the altar, the cardinal elector stood under the awesome painting of Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" and pronounced the following oath in a clear and audible voice: "I call as my witness Christ the Lord, who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who, before God, I think should be elected."

He then placed his ballot sheet on the plate and tilted the plate in such a way that the sheet fell into the urn.

Finally, he bowed in reverence to the cross and returned to his seat, and the next elector then walked to the altar.

No Smartphones

The conclave organizers took high-security measures to prevent the possibility of transmission by smartphone from inside and electronic interception by outside agencies or individuals.

After all 115 electors had cast their votes, the three scrutineers came forward to count them.

It was a moment of high tension.

Everybody watched the ritual with rapt attention.

The first scrutineer shook up the ballot sheets in the urn, which was first used at the last conclave, to mix them.

Then another scrutineer began to count them, taking each ballot form separately from the first urn and transferring it to a second urn, exactly like the first, that was empty.

The constitution decrees that if that the number of ballot sheets cast does not correspond exactly to the number of electors present then that round of balloting is declared null and void.

When the number of ballot sheets corresponds exactly to the number of electors, the process continues with the opening of the ballots.

The three scrutineers sit at the table in front of the altar.

The first opens the ballot sheet, reads the name silently, and passes it to the second scrutineer.

The second does likewise, and then passes it to the third, who reads the name written on the sheet and then, in a loud voice, announces it to the whole assembly and next records it on a paper prepared for this purpose.

The windows of the Sistine Chapel had been blacked out.

But that was considered totally inadequate given the advanced state of modern communications technology and the risk of electronic interception so, as in 2005, the conclave organizers took high-security measures to prevent the possibility of transmission by smartphone from inside and electronic interception by outside agencies or individuals.

They installed state-of-the-art jamming systems, including a Faraday cage.

The floor of the chapel had been raised about one meter and covered with wooden boards for installation of the system.

This time, however, the organizers went even further than at the last conclave to prevent the possibility of interception; they took the extraordinary decision not to use the sound-amplification system inside the Sistine Chapel.

The reason for this, it seems, goes back to the 2005 conclave, when the Swiss Guard standing on duty outside the doors of the chapel could sometimes hear what was being said inside, especially when the vote counts were announced over the P.A. system.

Consequently, before the first vote, Cardinal Re asked Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, the 79-year-old emeritus archbishop of Guadalajara, who was known to have a powerful voice, to stand in the middle of the chapel and proclaim in a loud voice the names read out by the third scrutineer.

As the third scrutineer read out a name on a ballot sheet, Cardinal Sandoval repeated it so that all could hear.

There was an air of high suspense inside the Sistine Chapel as the results were being announced.

For the first time the electors were revealing their choices; they were putting their cards on the table.

After reading out the name on each individual ballot, the third scrutineer pierced the sheet through the word "Eligo" with a needle and thread; this was done to combine and preserve the ballots. When the names on all the ballots had been read out, a knot was fastened at each end of the thread and the joined ballots were set aside.

This was followed by the third and last phase of the voting process, which began with adding up the votes each individual had received. The results held several big surprises.

Before the conclave, several cardinals had predicted that there would be a wide spread on the first ballot, but few had imagined how wide: 23 prelates received at least one vote.

Before the conclave, several cardinals had predicted that there would be a wide spread on the first ballot, but few had imagined how wide: 23 prelates received at least one vote on the first ballot; this meant that one out of every five cardinals present got at least one vote, with four cardinals getting 10 or more votes.

The top five vote-getters in the first round were as follows:

• Scola 30
• Bergoglio 26
• Ouellet 22
• O'Malley 10
• Scherer 4

Angelo Scola came first with 30 votes, but he did not receive as many votes as had been predicted by some cardinals and the Italian media.

The big surprise was Jorge Bergoglio, who came in at second place, close behind Scola, with 26 votes.

His total, in fact, would have been 27 if an elector had not misspelled his name, writing "Broglio" instead of Bergoglio on the ballot sheet. It was a most promising start for the archbishop of Buenos Aires. Continue reading

• The above are excerpts drawn from The Election of Pope Francis: An Inside Account of the Conclave That Changed History (Orbis Books, 2019), by Gerard O'Connell, America's Vatican correspondent.

As a result, one time-honored way of evaluating consistories, the events in which popes create new cardinals, is in terms of what they portend for the choice of that pope's successor.

Applying that lens to the consistory over which Pope Francis presided on Wednesday, in which he created five new cardinals, the only honest answer any respectable vaticanista can give to the question of what it means for the next pope probably is, "Who knows?"

(To be clear, there is no indication - none, zero - that a papal vacancy is imminent.

There's no health crisis around Francis, and no signal he's on the brink of resigning. That fact, however, doesn't make speculation about what might come next any less irresistible.)

Perhaps the defining hallmark of Francis's four consistories to date has been the global character of his picks.

Including yesterday, Francis has now named cardinals from thirteen nations that have never had one before, including some extremely improbable locales - such as, for instance, the island nations of Tonga and Mauritius.

As a result, a healthy share of these new "Francis cardinals" come from outside the West, and thus from outside the usual analytical framework observers apply to Church affairs.

Generally speaking, what Westerners are most interested in is whether a given pope is appointing more "liberal" or "conservative" cardinals, and thus men inclined to steer the Church, should they become pope themselves one day, in a more progressive or traditional direction.

Those categories, however, often don't apply to non-Western cultures, where the issues that matter often don't break along the fault lines of left v. right.

I learned that lesson roughly a decade ago, when I was in Uganda on a reporting trip and met with Catholic students studying political science at a university in Kampala.

They were bright, articulate, and well-informed, and at one stage I asked, "So are you guys liberals or conservatives?"

There was an awkward moment of silence, after which one of the 20-something Ugandans said, "We know what those terms mean from our classes, but can you be more specific?" Continue reading

• John L. Allen Jr. is the editor of Crux, specializing in coverage of the Vatican and the Catholic Church.

This is among the recollections of Jesuit Fr Silvio Fausti who was the late Cardinal Martini's confessor and spiritual guide.

Fr Fausti died on June 24, but his views are expressed in a video interview on the Italian news website Gli Stati Generali.

Vatican Insider reported that according to Fr Fausti's reconstruction, Cardinal Martini apparently handed his votes over to Cardinal Ratzinger in order to avoid "foul play" which attempted to eliminate both in order to elect "a thoroughly obsequious member of the curia, who didn't make it".

According to Fr Fausti, there had apparently been a scheme to elect a curial cardinal.

"Once the ploy had been unveiled, Martini went to Ratzinger in the evening and said to him: tomorrow, you agree to become Pope with my votes . . . He said to him: you accept, you have been in the curia for 30 years and you are intelligent and honest: if you manage to reform the curia great, if not, you step down."

Vatican Insider journalist Andrea Tornielli qualified Fr Fausti's account of the conclave.

Tornielli wrote that the only organised group trying to persuade other cardinals was behind Cardinal Ratzinger.

He noted that Cardinal Martini was ill with Parkinson's Disease and had agreed to be considered as a candidate, but only as a "flag-bearer", in order to allow his supporters to count how many there were.

Tornielli noted that the second "favourite" in the 2005 conclave was Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was to be elected Pope France in 2013.

The journalist wrote that the Martini camp went over to Ratzinger to prevent an impasse, which could have eliminated both Ratzinger and Bergoglio and could have led to new candidates emerging.

Sources

• Vatican Insider
• Image: The Guardian

The London-based Catholic journalist Austen Ivereigh, in his new book The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, contends that a group of cardinals on what he bills as "Team Bergoglio" worked during the last conclave to promote the election of Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires as Pope.

According to Ivereigh, Cardinals Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Walter Kasper, Gottfried Daneels and Karl Lehmann orchestrated a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign that led to the election of Pope Francis.

Ivereigh wrote that the members of "Team Bergoglio" toured private dinners and other gatherings of cardinals the day before the conclave.

According to Ivereigh, a key role was played by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, for whom Ivereigh worked as a spokesman from 2004-2006.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor had turned 80, and he could not take part in the conclave due to age limits. However, Ivereigh claims that the cardinal teamed up with other cardinals in order to promote Cardinal Bergoglio's candidacy, as he earlier had done in 2005, when the Archbishop of Buenos Aires was the main competitor of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would become Pope Benedict XVI.

"They had learned their lesson from 2005 and they first secured Bergoglio's assent," Ivereigh wrote. He added that the 76-year-old Cardinal Bergoglio's advocates "got to work, touring the cardinals dinner to promote their man, arguing that his age should no longer be considered an obstacle, given that Popes could resign."

The report of this campaigning has caused a certain media frenzy. Some have argued that if the report is true, the election of Pope Francis may be invalid. Continue reading

This conclave was notorious for having a leading candidate, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, ruled out by outside political interference.

Cardinal Rampolla, who had been Vatican secretary of state under Pope Leo XIII, was blocked by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef I using an instrument called the "Jus Exclusivae".

This could be used at the time by three Catholic heads of state - the kings of Spain and France and the Holy Roman Emperor (later the Austrian emperor).

It was used 12 times between 1644, when it was instituted, and 1903.

It is believed the Emperor considered Cardinal Rampolla too liberal a candidate to be elected pope.

Pope Pius X, on the other hand, was a traditionalist who condemned modernism.

When Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, Patriarch of Venice, was eventually elected Pope Pius X at the conclave, he abolished the use of the veto.

Pope Pius X declared that anyone attempting to interfere in the election of a new pope would be excommunicated.

He decreed that at the start of future conclaves the cardinals must take an oath that they were not aiding any civil power in an attempt to influence the election.

On the second ballot, before the veto was presented, Cardinal Rampolla had 29 out of the 61 available conclave votes.

Cardinal Sarto, who only had 10 votes at this stage, was eventually elected on the seventh ballot.

The second ballot results were the ones shown on the auctioned ballot form.

After the auction, L'Osservatore Romano published details of all stages of voting at the 1903 conclave and the various intrigues therein relating to the veto.

Traditionally ballot papers from papal conclaves are burned to produce white or black smoke.

One of the documents sold with the voting tally form was a ballot from then Archbishop of Bologna, Domenico Svampa, voting for Sarto.

On the reverse of the form, Cardinal Svampa stated he voted for Sarto in each round, possibly to indicate that he wasn't swayed by the veto.

The papers were part of a collection of an Italian journalist who has died.

Sources

• The Telegraph
• Drewatts
• Catholic Herald
• Catholic World News
• Image: Catholic Tradition

The report was denied by the National Security Agency, which said: "The National Security Agency does not target the Vatican. Assertions that NSA has targeted the Vatican, published in Italy's Panorama magazine, are not true."

The allegations by Panorama follow a report on Cryptome, a website that gathers intelligence on surveillance and national security, which claimed the US intercepted 46 million telephone calls in Italy between December 10, 2012, and January 8, 2013.

"It is feared that the great American ear tapped prelates' conversations right up to the conclave," Panorama said.

The magazine said that intercepted calls from the Vatican were classified into four categories, including "leadership intentions, threats to financial systems, foreign policy objectives, and human rights".

Panorama also claimed that incoming and outgoing calls from the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where Pope Francis lives, had been tapped.

It said that Wikileaks files revealed that Pope Francis was being watched by American spy agencies as far back as 2005 when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

The article said the National Security Agency may have monitored calls relating to the appointment of Ernst Von Freyburg as president of the Vatican Bank.

Responding to reporters' questions, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said: "My response regarding the article on Panorama on the alleged wiretapping is that we don't know anything about this matter and in any case, we have no worries about it."

Several European countries have expressed grave concerns after former NSA agent Edward Snowden revealed that US intelligence agencies had intercepted millions of phone calls, including those of several heads of state.

Sources:

Zenit

Religion News Service

The Telegraph

Image: Patheos

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, said he had personally had two "strong signs" that Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was "the chosen one" in the run-up to voting.

He said only divine intervention could explain the speed with which the Argentine cardinal — who did not feature on any of the main lists of likely candidates compiled by Vatican experts — was elected.

Speaking to an Anglican conference in London, he also said the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Justin Welby, had a "strange similarity" to the new Pope.

He said that the two elections were a "little miracle" and a "sign from the Lord" that the two churches should work towards closer unity.

Cardinal Schönborn said he was certain that on the evening of March 12, as the papal conclave began, none of the cardinals knew who would be chosen.

"It was a tremendous experience of the Holy Spirit," he said. "We were driven by the Holy Spirit to this man — he was sitting in the last corner of the Sistine Chapel: This man he is the chosen one."

He added: "I received at least two strong signs: one I can tell, the other was in the conclave I can't speak about — but real signs of the Lord giving me indication ‘he is the one'."

The cardinal said that just after a special Mass before the conclave began he came across a couple from Latin America who are friends of his.

He said: "I met them outside the basilica and I asked: ‘You have the Holy Spirit, can you give me advice for the conclave that will start in a few hours?'

"And the woman whispered in my ear ‘Bergoglio', and it hit me really: If these people say Bergoglio, that's an indication of the Holy Spirit.

"And I'm sure many of us have received similar signs during the conclave, [or] it wouldn't have been possible to have this election so soon and so rapidly."

Source:

The Telegraph

Image: Talking Points Memo

Fr Gielen captured some of the excitement of the event and spoke with the Hamilton Diocese's Kete Korero, diocesan and parish news.

How did you hear about Pope Benedict XVI's resignation?

FrM: I was in the Chapel when a friend of mine came in and said "Pope Benedict has renounced his papacy!". Because he said it in Italian (and his Italian wasn't very good- we tend to speak a bit of pidgin Italian here) I thought "he's died!": it took quite a while to understand.

In hindsight people remembered that Pope Benedict had said in an interview a couple of years earlier that if he thought he couldn't fulfil his duties he would resign and we had a couple of seminarians who were serving him at a Mass who said he was going blind in one eye and was extremely slow and laboured: they could see that he was unable to perform his office.

How did the election of the new Pope unfold?

Leading up to the conclave we had a Cardinal come here [to the student residence], Cardinal Sean Brady of Ireland. That was really impressive and really brought it home because he was quite sombre. I was praying with him in the Chapel one day and it was pretty eerie thinking; "I'm sitting with one of the Cardinals who is going to be in the conclave in a few days time, choosing the next Pope- it could be him!"

There was a very active following of the conclave to the point where one of our classes finished early and one of the guys put on a live stream of the conclave from Italian television, of the Cardinals entering the Sistine chapel and the door being closed: that was really impressive! And every time the smoke went up guys would be watching and anticipating.

When it came to the actual period of voting guys were going down every vote, but I told everybody, "Look, it's going to be a long conclave- it obviously won't be quick!" Continue reading

He has taken the name Francis.

Archbishop Bergoglio is a man who gave up his official house for a small apartment, he cooks his own meals, and travels to work by bus.

The first day after being made an archbishop, he spent helping in a soup kitchen.

Reportedly a humble man, born in Argentenia, he is the son of Italian immigrant railway worker.

He is known for his social justice outreach and his work among the poor.

As reported by CathNews, September 2012, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Bergoglio, used strong language to criticise priests who refused to baptise children born to single mothers.

Almost apologising for the actions of some priests, Bergoglio recalled the story of a young unmarried mother who had the courage to bring her child into the world and who then "found herself on a pilgrimage, going from parish to parish, trying to find someone who would baptise her child."

Appearing on the balcony at the Vatican and dressed simply in white, Pope Francis' broke with the formulaic tradition. His first words to the the 100,000 people gather in St Peter's Square were simply, "Good evening".

"You know that the duty of the conclave was to provide Rome with a bishop," he said.

"It looks as if my brothers the cardinals went to fetch him from the end of the world! I'd like to thank you for your welcome. The people of Rome: thank you!"

The first Jesuit to be elected pope, Bergoglio was novice master in San Miguel. He was Provincial of the Jesuit provincial in Argentina (1973-1979) and rector of the Philosophical and Theological Faculty of San Miguel (1980-1986).

As provincial he was very collaborative, Fr Thomas Rosica Deputy Vatican Spokesman told CNN.

"In recent times the Church has lost its way, and every now and then the Lord sends holy people along to call us back to the important things," Rosica said.

"It's about being a pastor and shepherd" he said.

Allegedly runner up to Joseph Ratzinger in 2005, Bergoglio now 76, was not commonly spoken about in 2013, many perhaps thinking he was probably outside the age window many perhaps thought as ideal.

According to John L. Allen Jr. at The National Catholic Reporter, Francis represents something of a compromise between the church's reformers and hard-liners.

Allen said "He appeals to conservatives in the College of Cardinals as a man who had held the line against liberalizing currents among the Jesuits, and to moderates as a symbol of the church's commitment to the developing world,"

Pope Francis will be inaugurated as Pope in St Peter's Basilica on March 19 9:30am.

Sources

• NCR
• CathNews
• Image: CBS

"We use smoke flares," Paolo Sagretti, who was in charge of setting up the chapel for the election conclave, told AFP.

The ancient signalling system - still the only way the public learns whether a pope has been elected - used to involve mixing wet straw with the ballots to produce white smoke, and pitch to create black smoke.

After several episodes in which greyish smoke that could be interpreted as white or black created confusion, the Vatican introduced the surer system starting with the last conclave in 2005.

The Vatican now uses a mixture of potassium perchlorate, anthracene and sulphur to produce black smoke and potassium chlorate, lactose and rosin for white, the Vatican says on its website.

Two stoves stand in a corner of the chapel, one for burning the ballots and the other for the chemicals, with the smoke from both stoves going up a common flue.

An electronic control panel allows the choice between the two, and the correct compound is burned at the same time as the used ballots.

Sources

• NDTV

The music streaming service teamed up with the University of Notre Dame's Center for Liturgy to compile a lineup in celebration of the historic event.

Tim O'Malley, the Center's director, and Carolyn Pirtle, the assistant director, curated a list of religious songs, hymns and choral music available on the site's catalog under a playlist entitled "Conclave: Institute for Church Life," according to a Spotify press release.

The compilation includes 29 tracks to help you select the perfect one to play when white smoke rises over St. Peter's Square.

Sources

• Time

It is something unique in the world - the perceived "power" or influence of the papacy, the huge crowds of people from every part of the globe gathering here, and those elsewhere praying with them for divine guidance as the cardinals begin their deliberations. Added to which is the quaint juxtaposition of state-of-the-art technology alongside traditional mediaeval communication by smoke signals. Then there is the real uncertainty of no front-runners and the possibility of a surprise, in spite of all the speculation and so-called informed commentary.

It is Wednesday midday here in Rome and we have just had more black smoke signalling the unsuccessful morning ballots. Three down and we wonder how many more to go.

At least there's no fear of it lasting for thirty three months like the one in 1268 in Viterbo, a town north of Rome.

By the time this is read we may find that against all predictions to the contrary we have a pope. So I along with many thousands of others, will have my eyes fixed on the Sistine Chapel chimney, watching and waiting in the rain and cold for the result of the next ballot in the hope of the miracle of an early result.

Most people agree that there are four main requirements for the new pontiff of the 21st century: gobal vision, missionary zeal, strong management ability and last but not least, determination to clean up the sexual abuse issue once and for all. And because we are a faith community as well as a global organisation, this cannot be addressed effectively unless the pope is a man of deep and prayerful faith with a joyful heart and a humble spirit.

The first requirement is for a man of broad global vision. Only one third of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics lives in the West and it is expected that by mid-century it will be one quarter.

The second is about evangelisation. This means renewing missionary zeal amongst Catholics and reaching out to communities beyond the Church. I believe there is a misconception outside the Catholic Church about evangelising. It is not playing the numbers game and attempting to "convert" people to Catholicism. It is rather about stripping away all the unnecessary baggage of the institution that prevents people from seeing and being attracted to the truth and beauty of the person of Jesus Christ and his gospel.

The third challenge is that in order to oil the wheels and achieve the above, strong governance right from the top is required. Some of the old ways of management need to be replaced with 21st century best business practice in the Vatican Curia to make for improved communications, efficiency, transparency and accountability. A tall order indeed, as anyone who is familiar with the practices of the Curia will tell us.

As for sexual abuse, no more pussy-footing can be tolerated at any level in the Church. Only a man of strength and determination with a clean record in his handling of this disgrace to our faith and our Church can be contemplated.

- Lyndsay Freer is the Catholic media spokesperson for the Auckland Diocese. She is writing from Rome.

People of all ages and stages and ethnicities from the very young to the very old all with eyes fixed on the chimney, as well as on the lose-up shots on the large tv screens keen to see result of the first ballot.

Who could say the Church is dead when clearly it's very much alive and in good heart?

When huge amounts of black smoke billowed from the chimney at 7.45pm there was a mighty buzz.

Shortly afterwards everyone dispersed, no doubt to return tomorrow in even greater numbers.

Cellphone and internet connectivity is somewhat intermittent at times.

Given the great numbers of people in one place, many talking on their cellphones, and the hi-tech electronic security cage over the adjacent Sistine Chapel and the Santa Marta accomodation where the cardinals are staying it's no wonder that there is occasional overload.

What an anomaly - all this technology contrasted with communication by smoke signal!

- Lyndsay Freer is Communications Spokesperson for the Diocese of Auckland.

Gregorian chant echoed through St. Peter's Basilica as the cardinals filed in wearing bright red vestments, many looking grim as if the burden of the imminent vote was weighing on them.

Members of the public waited in long lines to join the Mass, which was open to all, and several hundred even braved thunderstorms to watch the Mass on giant TV's in St Peter's Square.

Applause echoed round St. Peter's as Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, offered thanks for the "brilliant pontificate" of Benedict XVI.

Sodano's homily focused on a message of love and unity, calling on all to cooperate with the new pontiff in the service of the church.

"My brothers, let us pray that the Lord will grant us a pontiff who will embrace this noble mission with a generous heart," he concluded.

In the afternoon, the 115 cardinal-electors, those younger than 80 who are eligible to vote, processed to the Sistine Chapel, chanting prayers as they went, to begin the secret election.

Locked in Conclave, the only clue the world will have of what is happening inside will be smoke signals, one in the morning and one in the afternoon from a copper chimney installed over the weekend in the Sistine Chapel.

The first round of voting is scheduled for early Wednesday morning, NZ and Pacific time.

Lyndsay Freer, Catholic media spokesperson for the Diocese of Auckland is with a huge crowd braving the rain to see the first smoke signal.

"There are thousands upon thousands here, it's really, really huge, people from all around the world and from every imaginable ethnicity and age, from young pilgrims with backpacks to the patient elderly," she told CathNews.

Predicting black smoke Mrs Freer says she is hoping the rain doesn't dissipate the smoke.

This first ballot is expected to have votes are scattered across a wide range of candidates. Some are courtesy votes, cast to flatter a friend before serious voting starts the next day.

From then on, Cardinals will vote up to twice in the morning and twice in the evening (Rome time) until one of their number receives a two-thirds majority, 77 votes.

Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI was elected in just 24 hours, however with no apparent front-runner, people are picking the conclave to take a little longer.

In the past century, no conclave has lasted more than five days.

Sources

• Reuters
• Associated Press
• Photo for CathNews by Chris Hooton