Empires rise and fall. The Seljuks, Ottomans, Mongols, the Golden Horde, the British, and Napoleonic empires all rose and fell while the Church continued. The American empire, too, will pass. Yet, the Church will abide.

What we saw in the Sistine Chapel today, when the cardinals gathered in prayer, offers a reason for this endurance. In a profoundly beautiful setting, the cardinals begged for help from God, the Holy Spirit, and the Church Triumphant.

God alone is eternal. If the Church was simply the result of sinners like us, and not the gracious love of God, then it would have faded like an empire, which is something flippant, passing, and irrelevant by nature. But the church is led by people who know with certainty that they are sinners and who strive, therefore, to be docile to God's will. The Church's endurance is not the result of our qualities or leadership, it is the result of God's self-giving love, which is the very basis for its being.

Perhaps this explains why, historically, the "strike rate" for Popes has been very impressive. While we can identify bad Popes, they are relatively few. Even these bad Popes compare favorably to the very best of our secular leaders. For example, the Spanish Inquisition is acknowledged as a particularly horrific chapter in the Church's past. However more deaths resulted from drone attacks ordered by Barack Obama, a good president, than occurred during the entire Spanish Inquisition. As a child, the presence of bad Popes made me wonder how God could really be involved in conclaves. As an adult I see the ridiculous rarity of such Popes as a sure sign of God's presence. 

But while its life is due to the presence of God, it is people, beautiful and flawed, that comprise the Church.

The Holy Spirit offers God's own self, God who is peace, hope, and love, but this divine self-gift is received and embodied by each cardinal to varying degrees. Their individual perspectives, their desire for self-assertion, and their own visions (often foolish and flawed) of what the Church needs, are very present. The outcome of a conclave, then, is an amalgam of these all-too-human elements alongside God's gracious love.

​

So, whom will these men, simultaneously guided by the Holy Spirit and their sinful natures, choose to lead the Church? I don’t know! However, my guess is that candidates representing a strong continuation of Pope Francis's pontificate, as well as those championing a radical departure from it, will find it tough to secure the necessary 89 votes. Figures like Cardinal Tagle will garner significant early support, but I am uncertain if they, like Popes Francis and Benedict, can build upon that initial momentum to achieve the two-thirds majority required by the fourth or fifth ballot. Are there 89 cardinals who want simple continuity with Francis? Cardinal Turkson got votes the last time and likely will on the first ballot this time too. But are there 89 cardinals who want a Pope that would be a visible rebuke of the Francis papacy?

It pains me to say, but I believe a candidate whom all factions can tolerate stands a better chance. This is likely why Cardinal Parolin is cited as a frontrunner by bookmakers. He represents a different approach from Pope Francis without constituting a direct rebuke, (unlike Sarah or Erdő.) Thus, Parolin might be elected relatively early.

He might, but I'd hate if this happened. Parolin is a man of modest abilities, a political operative who, alongside Pope Francis, oversaw a sell-out of the underground Chinese Catholic Church to the Chinese government. The martyrs who led this church are languishing in Chinese jails, the bishops who lead the new "official" Church in China are selected by the Chinese government. This deal was seen as a "win" for Parolin, but it was as if the early Church did a deal with Nero, allowing him to elect its leaders while the remnants of the underground Church rotted in his jails. It was egregious betrayal, not pragmatic success. Fear of progressives or conservatives could lead to a Parolin papacy, but this would be a decision based in fear, not the Holy Spirit.

Other potential consensus candidates who might emerge later in the process, perhaps by Friday, include the hugely gifted but too young Cardinal Pizzaballa, and the very capable (but little else) Cardinal Prevost. They both may be tolerable to both sides, despite their imperfections. 

Should the conclave extend beyond Friday afternoon, it will reveal that the “split” is very severe. At that stage, names like Cardinal Arborelius might come to the fore as a moderate, "centrist Dad" figure acceptable to various groups.

My hope is that the tensions between competing visions will melt in the fire of the Holy Spirit. If there was no liberalism or conservatism, no world's media watching and judging, no reprisals from raised eyebrows, if there was just the question - who is a man of faith, hope, and love, a man who will follow Christ whatever the cost? Then, I wonder, who they would choose? I think if the Spirit melted the camps and the fears and the politics they would choose a saint, a man of profound holiness, humility, intellect, and courage. If such a man is chosen, I think his name will be Willem Eijk.