Who is papable right now?

No, sometimes papabile do get elected. Paul VI was an example, and Benedict. The Wikipedia article I posted early on in this thread (before the cuckoo for coca/puffs hijack) gives a good breakdown of papabile who were elected over the past century, and some who weren’t.

Siri is a good example of one who wasn’t. He was a leading candidate in four conclaves, but was passed over for John in 1958, then Paul in 1963, and then twenty-five years later in 1978 by JP I and JP II.

(Which triggered this weird conspiracy theory that Siri really was elected in 1958, but they overruled his election and held him hostage until he agreed to pretend John had been elected, and therefore all of Vatican II was illegitimate and without authority.)

They. You know, the Stone Cutters. “We do, we do!”

The article also mentions that John wasn’t such a surprise to Vatican insiders as he appeared to the public on his election, that he was quite popular and respected by fellow cardinals, just not talked about much.

I’ve always understood that saying as more along the lines of “Don’t count your chickens until they’re hatched.”

It will be a get important decision. If they make the wrong choice (i.e. too much empathy for immigrants and care for the poor, tolerance of LGBTQ, etc) the American Catholics might very well split away.

This new global unification of conservative forces will want to get the Vatican under it’s thumb.

I think you have that backwards. American Catholics support those things. They even support divorce and birth control.

It’s American “Christians” that don’t, but they think Catholics aren’t even Christian, so whatever.

Anyone who is interested in papal elections should read Father Andrew Greeley’s book, The Making of the Popes 1978. He gives an in-depth account of both of the 1978 conclaves, along with a fascinating appendix on the 20th century conclaves, including vote breakdowns.

“But that’s all secret with the cardinals swearing never to reveal the voting!!” you protest. Sure it is. But of course, two old cardinal friends, getting together at a nice trattoria, will naturally chat a bit about events…. Word gets out. …

One interesting thing Greeley mentions is that as a sociologist-journalist, he had developed an early computer program that tried to factor in all the characteristics of each candidate, matching them against factors that were known to be important to the cardinal-electors, the Curia, and the church, to predict who were the front-runners.

In the first 1978 conclave, one of the front-runners identified by the computer program was the Archbishop of Venice, Cardinal Albino Luciani. Greeley and his group discounted that, because everyone knew that Luciano wasn’t in the running. He was from Venice, not a Curia insider. No way the Conclave would leave the Curia. Until John-Paul I came out on the balcony.

Then, at the second conclave in 1978, Greeley’s computer program identified some Polish cardinal as a front-runner . Greeley discounted that as well, because there hadn’t been a non-Italian pope in centuries. No way the conclave would leave Italy. Then JP II came out on the balcony…

My math is not good. 15 years later in 1978

On doing some reading on this topic, one name that keeps coming up is Cardinal Pizzaballa, the archbishop of Jerusalem.

At 59 he’s on the younger side, and seems to be more liberal compared to a lot of the older cardinals. He’s also been doing things to get his name out there, including offering himself in exchange for the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas.

I’m doubtful that they pick the second Franciscan in a row.

Pope Pizza Balls!

Seriously, though, he’d be an interesting choice

Francis is a Jesuit. Bergoglio just admired St. Francis and wanted that spirit of kindness to symbolize his reign.

And yes, “Cardinal Pizza Ball” would cause much giggling in the memesphere.

D’oh, I knew that, I had a brainfart. Confused his choice of papal name with his order.

About as much as “Papa Ratzi”*

" (+nger = Benedict)

American Catholic people support those things at about the same rate as the general American population. American Catholic religious (i.e., monks and nuns) overwhelmingly support those things. American Catholic bishops are overwhelmingly conservative, and give lip service to supporting those things, but give them lower priority than, say, getting Republicans elected.

So it’s really a question of whose influence holds the most sway. But as for “splitting from the Church”, there are already a lot of Americans who call themselves Catholic but who deny the authority of the Pope, in response to Francis’ liberalness.

There is no Cardinal Papaltine who could be made palpably papable, by Force if need be, is there?

Somehow “papabile” sounds worse. As a baptised yet non-practicing-catholic (last mass was Christmas 2023 and it was Anglican and they read the Book of Linus, I mean the Anglican Book of Luke (2:8-20 and yes, I had to look that up ) and afterwards whispered to my wife, "That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown’)

Got nothing religious to add, except the St. Louis Cardinals are a not-good-baseball-squadron!

As an update, I saw Pope Francis is in critical condition.

Yes, his poor health is being discussed in the bronchitis thread:

Could they have a Pope from Africa? A great many Catholics there.

They’ve had 3 of them: Victor I, Miltiades and Gelasius I

But those were more than 1500 years ago: time for another one?

In the grand scheme of the Universe, that’s like yesterday.

Last time, a Nigerian priest was in the running.