The conclave’s blind spot: how Pope Leo XIV was elected and the crisis the cardinals did not name
When Pope Leo XIV stepped onto the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica in May 2025, the moment carried unmistakable historical weight. For the first time in two millennia, a pope had been elected who was born in the United States. The conclave that produced him was swift. Within four ballots the College of Cardinals had reached a decisive consensus.
Recent reporting surrounding the forthcoming book The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis provides a reconstruction of how that result emerged. According to the account by Vatican journalists Gerard O’Connell and Elisabetta Piqué, the first ballot produced a highly fragmented field in which more than thirty cardinals received votes. The Hungarian canon lawyer Péter Erdő reportedly led the opening round, representing a more traditionally minded bloc within the College, yet his support did not grow beyond the initial test vote.¹
Two other figures had entered the conclave widely regarded as possible favourites: Pietro Parolin and Luis Antonio Tagle. Parolin’s long diplomatic service made him a plausible administrative candidate following the turbulent final years of the pontificate of Pope Francis. Tagle, by contrast, possessed global popularity and a reputation for pastoral warmth, particularly in the rapidly growing churches of Asia.
Yet both men faced reservations among the electors. Parolin’s career had been spent largely within the Vatican diplomatic corps, leading some cardinals to question whether he possessed sufficient pastoral experience. Tagle, though widely admired, was regarded by some as lacking the administrative firmness necessary for governing the Roman Curia.²
As frequently occurs in conclaves, the early ballots served primarily to reveal the limits of each candidacy. Once it became clear that the expected favourites could not secure decisive support, attention shifted toward a figure capable of uniting the various blocs within the College.
That figure proved to be Cardinal Prevost.
Prevost’s career contained several elements historically attractive to electors seeking a consensus candidate. He belonged to a religious order, the Augustinians, rather than the diocesan hierarchy. He had spent many years as a missionary bishop in Peru, giving him pastoral credibility among cardinals from the Global South. At the same time, his later appointment to lead the Vatican dicastery responsible for appointing bishops placed him at the centre of global ecclesiastical governance.³
In that position he worked closely with bishops and cardinals across continents. Many of the men who would later enter the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope had encountered him personally in the course of episcopal appointments. Such relationships often prove decisive in a conclave.
Observers also note the quiet but significant role played by the late Pope Francis in shaping the circumstances of Prevost’s rise. Francis appointed him bishop of Chiclayo in Peru and later brought him to Rome to lead the dicastery responsible for episcopal appointments. Through this office Prevost became one of the most influential figures in the global selection of bishops.⁴
Equally important was the fact that his long ministry in Latin America softened the traditional reluctance to elect an American pope. For decades Vatican observers assumed that the Church would avoid choosing a pontiff from the United States because of the country’s immense geopolitical influence. Prevost’s life story complicated that assumption. To many cardinals he appeared less a representative of American power than a missionary pastor shaped by Latin American realities.
If the reconstructions now circulating are broadly accurate, support for Prevost rose rapidly during the second and third ballots. By the fourth ballot he had secured the required two-thirds majority.
Yet the narrative emerging from the conclave reveals something striking. The discussion described in these accounts revolves largely around personalities, diplomatic alliances, and administrative competence. Very little attention appears to have been given to the deeper crisis confronting the Catholic Church itself.
Across much of Western Europe the collapse of religious practice is unmistakable. In historically Catholic countries such as France, Belgium, and the Netherlands weekly Mass attendance has fallen to levels that would have been unimaginable a century ago. Sociological studies indicate that in many such regions fewer than ten percent of baptized Catholics attend Mass regularly.⁵
At the same time, surveys consistently reveal widespread confusion regarding core doctrines of the faith. A major national survey conducted by Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research found that many self-identified Catholics either misunderstand or reject the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.⁶
The crisis extends beyond belief to credibility. Investigations into clerical sexual abuse in several countries have documented systemic failures of oversight and accountability within ecclesiastical structures, seriously damaging the Church’s public moral authority.⁷
Meanwhile the number of seminarians in historically Catholic regions continues to decline. According to the Holy See’s official statistical yearbook, the global number of seminarians has fallen steadily in recent years, particularly in Europe and North America.⁸
None of these developments can be reduced simply to problems of administration. They touch the very identity of the Church as the guardian and teacher of divine revelation.
Yet the accounts emerging from the 2025 conclave largely frame the election in managerial terms. The central question appears to have been which candidate could govern the Roman Curia effectively, maintain unity within the College of Cardinals, and continue the pastoral emphasis associated with the pontificate of Pope Francis.
Such considerations are not illegitimate. Conclaves must evaluate the personal qualities of the men before them. The Church requires a pope capable of governing, teaching, and shepherding the universal flock. But history suggests that moments of deep ecclesial crisis demand something more than administrative competence.
The great reforming pontificates of the past were not merely managerial responses to institutional difficulty. They were moments of doctrinal clarity. After the upheavals of the Protestant Reformation, Pope St Pius V implemented the liturgical and disciplinary reforms mandated by the Council of Trent.⁹ During the ideological storms of the nineteenth century, Pope Pius IX defended the supernatural character of the Church against the rising tide of secular liberalism.¹⁰ At the beginning of the twentieth century, Pope St Pius X confronted modernism directly, describing it as “the synthesis of all heresies.”¹¹
In each case the Church recognised that the crisis it faced was not merely structural but theological. The problem was not simply how the Church was governed but what the Church believed and proclaimed.
The election of Pope Leo XIV therefore raises a question that will ultimately define his pontificate. Is the present crisis primarily administrative, requiring improved governance and pastoral tone? Or is it fundamentally a crisis of faith, requiring renewed clarity about doctrine, worship, and the nature of the Church herself?
The conclave that elected him, bound by the strict secrecy imposed by Universi Dominici Gregis, will never reveal the full substance of its deliberations. The outside world sees only the smoke rising above the Sistine Chapel and the new pope appearing on the balcony.
But beneath that ritual lies a deeper reality. The Catholic Church in the twenty-first century stands at a moment of profound uncertainty. Secularisation has eroded the faith of nations that once formed the heart of Christendom. Internal theological disputes continue to divide bishops, clergy, and laity. The authority of the Church is challenged both from within and from without.
In such a moment the true test of a pontificate is not whether it preserves institutional equilibrium but whether it strengthens the faith of the Church and restores confidence in the truth she proclaims.
The election of Pope Leo XIV may yet prove to be such a moment. But if it is to be remembered as a turning point rather than merely another chapter in the Church’s administrative history, it will require something greater than consensus management. It will require the courage to name—and confront—the crisis that the narratives of the conclave have so far scarcely acknowledged.
- Gerard O’Connell and Elisabetta Piqué, The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2026).
- Gerard O’Connell, The Election of Pope Francis: An Inside Account of the Conclave That Changed History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2019), 89–94.
- Vatican Press Office, “Resignation and Appointment of the Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops,” 30 January 2023.
- Vatican News, “Pope appoints Cardinal Robert Prevost prefect of Dicastery for Bishops,” 30 January 2023.
- Stephen Bullivant, Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 35–52.
- Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research, The State of Theology: What Americans Believe in 2022 (Nashville: LifeWay Research, 2022).
- Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), The Roman Catholic Church Investigation Report (London: HMSO, 2020).
- Secretariat of State, Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae 2022 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2024), 12–18.
- Quo Primum.
- Syllabus of Errors.
- Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
RELATED ARTICLES
Latest ARTICLES
- Today’s homily: St Bernard of ClairvauxSt Bernard of Clairvaux, a twelfth-century abbot, wielded profound influence across Christendom without political power or wealth. Renowned for wisdom and eloquence, he emphasised the importance of humility, contemplation, and prayer. His teachings remain relevant today, urging believers to seek true holiness rather than mere intellectual understanding or societal approval.
- Today’s Mass: August 20 St Bernard of ClairvauxSt Bernard of Clairvaux, born in 1090, founded the monastery at Clairvaux and became an influential abbot known for his piety and wisdom. Initially severe with his monks, he later led them with kindness. His sanctity drew many to seek his counsel, and he played a pivotal role in promoting the Crusades. He died in 1153, leaving a legacy of writings.
- Sermon for St. Bernard of ClairvauxToday marks the feast of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, born in 1090. A leader of the Cistercian order, he founded the monastery at Clairvaux, promoting a balance of prayer and manual labour. Despite initial struggles and a failed Second Crusade, his teachings endure, showing the interplay between religious life and economic progress.
- Today’s Mass: August 19 S. John EudesSaint John Eudes (1601-1680) was a pivotal figure in promoting devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Educated by Jesuits, he founded the Eudists and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, establishing numerous seminaries and emphasising missionary work. He was canonised in 1925, leaving a lasting legacy.
- ACCIPERE, NON FINGERE ~ To Receive, Not to Invent: A Spiritual Conference for Nuntiatoria CXIXThe motto “Accipere, non fingere” emphasises the importance of receiving rather than inventing spiritual truths within Christianity. It articulates a vital distinction between accepting divine revelation and fabricating meaning. The Church’s mission is rooted in fidelity to received doctrine, urging believers to actively embrace their faith and transmit it authentically, preserving its integrity.
Leave a Reply