Understanding the Next Papal Succession
The moment a pope dies or resigns, the entire Vatican machinery shifts into a very specific mode. Conclaves aren't dramatic events like the movies make them out to be. They're slow, procedural, and often frustratingly opaque from the outside. I've followed Vatican politics and canon law for years, tracking every conclave since 2005, and the process still surprises people who think it works the way fiction depicts it. First, a factual correction worth making immediately: Pope Benedict XVI resigned on February 28, 2013, and passed away on December 31, 2022. His successor is Pope Francis, elected on March 13, 2013. So the succession already happened. What people usually mean when they ask this question is about the future — who comes after Pope Francis, or speculatively, who might have been considered had Benedict not resigned. Either way, the mechanics of papal succession are what matter here. The conclave process is governed by Universi Dominici Gregis, the 1996 apostolic constitution issued by John Paul II, with modifications by Benedict XVI in 2007 and Francis in 2013. The College of Cardinals under age 80 at the time of the sede vacante — the vacancy of the Holy See — is what actually holds the voting power. As of now, there are roughly 130 cardinal electors worldwide. That number will shift as cardinals turn 80 or new ones are created.
Here's what most people miss about how conclaves actually work. The voting doesn't follow any kind of predictable factional line. You'll hear analysts talk about "conservatives," "liberals," and "the center," but inside the Sistine Chapel those labels dissolve fast. What matters is personal relationships, regional representation, and whether a candidate can reach the two-thirds majority needed for election. That threshold was lowered to an absolute majority by Francis in 2013 if no decision is reached after multiple rounds, which changes the strategic calculus entirely. In practice, the process I've observed through documentation and secondary sources follows a pattern. The first few ballots usually eliminate obvious candidates — people with too much institutional baggage or too visible a profile. Then the field contracts. By the fourth or fifth ballot, you typically see one or two names emerge as acceptable compromises. The last conclave in 2013 took four days and eight ballots. Pope Francis wasn't the favorite going in. He was considered a dark horse from the Argentine hierarchy, someone acceptable to both sides precisely because he wasn't associated with the Roman curia's internal fights. When I started tracking this properly around 2010, I ran into a practical problem: most "papabile" lists — names of potential popes — were recycled from previous conclaves without updated context. Cardinails who were considered in 2005 had aged, shifted positions, or faced health issues that made them unlikely choices by 2013. I built a simple tracking system using a spreadsheet that logged each cardinal's age, jurisdiction, theological positioning, and any public statements that might affect their electability. The workaround was cross-referencing Vatican press reports, episcopal appointment histories, and consistory records rather than relying on any single newspaper's papabile list. That approach cut my research time from hours per update to maybe twenty minutes.
One counter-intuitive thing about conclave dynamics: the most powerful cardinals in the curia are often the least likely to be elected. The system implicitly checks institutional power. A cardinal who runs the Curia has too many enemies among his peers. The successful candidate is usually someone respected but not deeply entangled in the daily power struggles of the Roman administration. This is why outsiders — archbishops from places like Brazil, Poland, or Kenya — frequently win when the cardinals are looking for a clean break from Rome's internal politics. Another detail beginners overlook: the voting takes place over potentially many days, with two ballots per day in the morning and afternoon sessions. Fatigue sets in. Hunger matters. The cardinals fast before voting. This is a real factor. A candidate who seems strong on paper may struggle to maintain momentum across ten or twelve ballots as the body and mind wear down. The psychological dimension of a conclave is far more important than the theological one in most modern elections. There are real limitations to predicting any papal succession. No model I've seen has ever accurately predicted the outcome more than two rounds before the actual election. The 2013 conclave defied every pre-conclave poll and analysis. The 2005 conclave produced Joseph Ratzinger, who was himself the heavy favorite, but only after the first ballot produced a near-split that nobody anticipated. The process is designed to resist prediction. That's somewhat intentional — the Church wants a pope chosen through prayer and deliberation, not through lobbying and speculation.
Get the Full Details
If you want to follow this topic seriously, the best sources are the daily communications from Father Federico Lombardi during conclaves, the reports from Vatican News, and the historical analysis in publications like L'Osservatore Romano. Avoid opinion pieces that present speculation as analysis. The difference matters more than you'd think. The next conclave won't happen until Pope Francis dies or resigns. Until then, all discussion remains in the realm of informed speculation. The mechanics are clear. The outcome never is.
