I had barely begun my junior year in high school when the cardinal electors met for the second time in 1978.
The narrative of some sedevacantists notwithstanding, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri had recognized and served faithfully under the “antipopes” John XXIII (1958-1963), Paul VI (1963-1978), and John Paul I (1978). In addition, he and Cardinal Giovanni Benelli were considered two of the leading papabili (pa-pa-bee-lee) to succeed Albino Luciani, “the Smiling Pope,” who had served a mere thirty-three days before suffering a fatal heart attack.
Neither Siri nor Benelli reached the two-thirds majority in the early ballots, so attention began to shift toward a consensus alternative. In retrospect, the man they choose was not really a papal long shot, particularly among the cardinals, who were much more informed about Karol Wojtyla than the media and oddsmakers—and especially if the papal electors couldn’t coalesce around a candidate in the first several ballots.
The Not-So-Surprising Election of Pope St. John Paul II
Despite his relative youth of fifty-eight years, his fellow cardinal electors knew that Karol Wojtyla possessed ecclesiastical gravitas, not only because he played a major role in the Second Vatican Council, including helping shape Gaudium et Spes (the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), but also because he had faithfully and fruitfully navigated the Church in Poland amid the oppression of Soviet-Bloc communism.
Wojtyla (voy-tee-wa) was the ideal man to stabilize the Catholic Church during the post-conciliar chaos and to partner with the West in peacefully ending the longstanding Cold War between the United States and Soviet Russia. The communists eventually concurred, seeking John Paul’s assassination on May 13, 1981, yet they providentially failed.
Had someone placed a big bet on the younger Polish cardinal in October 1978, he would’ve made a great deal of money, as the cardinal-archbishop of Krakow was not tracking with oddsmakers to become the first non-Italian pope in more than 450 years, and his selection on the conclave’s eighth ballot affirms he was not an initial favorite among the cardinal-electors.
In marked contrast, given his service as the papal nuncio to Germany from 1920 to 1929, and also as Vatican secretary of state during Adolf Hitler‘s rise to power during the 1930s, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli became an odds-on favorite to succeed Pius XI. He was selected on the third ballot in March 1939, taking the name Pius XII.
Pray and Fast Instead of Placing a Bet
Should a Catholic bet on a papal conclave? There are good reasons we should refrain.
I join my fellow Catholics in taking great interest in the conclave and speculating on who is the most suitable—and most likely—successor to Pope Francis. But I encourage everyone to refrain from making a wager, and instead pray and offer up related sacrifices that the cardinal-electors become docile to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
In his 1591 bull Cogit Nos, Pope Gregory XIV “forbade under pain of excommunication all bets concerning the election of a pope, the duration of a pontificate, or the creation of new cardinals.”
Before the last papal conclave in 2013, canonist Edward Peters noted that the papal ban had not been in effect for almost a hundred years:
Gregory’s norm was a penal provision of an older system of canon law known as the Ius Decretalium. As such, according to Canon 6, 5º of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, Cogit would have been abrogated on May 19, 1918. There is presently no canon law on conclave wagers.
Catholics should, of course, be mindful of the balanced view of gambling shown by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2413) and avoid conduct contrary to it.
Still, I think Catholics should prayerfully consider how we can best give witness during the papal interregnum and particularly regarding this 2025 conclave, including because of the solemnity of the event and the possible corruption, God forbid, that betting could introduce into the conclave.
First, we should not fret, knowing that Jesus will ensure the Church’s sustenance no matter who is elected as our next pope. As I wrote elsewhere,
Despite the absence of a pope for a period of time, the faithful take comfort in knowing that the Church continues, reminded that the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings (Rev. 17:14), never relinquishes his divine reign over his Catholic Church (emphasis original).
In addition, although I understand that betting on a conclave is a tempting prospect, we don’t want to reduce this important event to the level of a mere sports competition—even more so because many American Christians and others worldwide are increasingly more religious in their devotion to their favorite sports than to living as committed disciples of Jesus Christ.
A Catholic might respond, “My little wager can’t corrupt this conclave, and I would never dream of bribing a cardinal-elector.” That’s good, yet our actions and related chatter could contribute to an occasion of sin for others, who might have more nefarious designs on the conclave, or perhaps might bet more than they can afford.
Further, given the infrequency of conclaves, and because the average person knows much more about sports than the life of the Church, betting on a conclave is a riskier gamble. That was much more the case in 1978, when 24/7 cable news coverage had not begun, let alone our digital age, in which websites offering insights from seasoned Catholic journalists are available. Still, I submit that relying on the judgment of secular oddsmakers and even religious media pundits can be perilous for your pocketbook.
My “Bet” on the Conclave
Who do I think will be our next pontiff?
In surveying the conclaves over the last one hundred years, I anticipate that the cardinal-electors will gravitate more toward a man who can charismatically proclaim the gospel to the whole world, and who is also better equipped to address the challenges of our day, including the global spread of secularism and the increasing growth of Islam. The cardinals may come to a consensus only after several ballots—and perhaps more—and the man they ultimately select will likely generate wide appeal for varying reasons. Hopefully he will be a pope who disappoints those cardinals who prefer ambiguous words on the Church’s moral teaching.
In summary, I think our new pope will hail from the Global South, the collective region in which more than seventy percent of Catholics reside, although I don’t think he’ll be a Central American or South American cardinal.
Cardinal Robert Sarah (age 79) of Guinea certainly meets the criteria, but he may not be able to garner two-thirds support. In that light, Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, who is 76, may be the consensus choice, or perhaps Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu (65) of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the African nation with the greatest number of Catholics (almost fifty-five million). He’s the cardinal who led the African Catholic resistance to Fiducia Supplicans, which sought to advance the blessing of same-sex couples.
The modern-day traction for an African pope increased with the 1985 emergence of Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, who is now 92. Forty years later, the hope for an African pope may soon be realized.