After Pope Francis, a Church to be rebuilt?

The only certainty of the days following Pope Francis’s death, is uncertainty.

With his Church-as-a-field-hospital and his personal–personalist, in the political sense—modus gubernandi, Francis left many things unclear, confused, and subject to discussion. In a word: the “Franciscan” way of doing things created division.

This is the legacy of Pope Francis, which looms over the cardinals about to gather in conclave to elect his successor.

On a practical level—though one with illustrative power and far-reaching implications—the cardinals have already clarified a pair of significant questions regarding the conclave: whether the ceiling of 120 electors was considered repealed, given that there are 133 cardinal electors at the moment; whether the disgraced Cardinal Angelo Becciu could vote.

In the first case, a rescript had been prepared but was never published, which derogated from the rule. On the one hand, the Universi Dominici Gregis, the constitution that regulates the Conclave, establishes the ceiling of 120 electors, but on the other, explains that all cardinals formally created by the Pope have the right to vote in the Conclave. The thing that needed clarification, in other words, was that the law as written provides for as many cardinals as the pope created with the requisites for participation, to be cardinal-electors.

In the case of Cardinal Becciu, the issue is more complex.

Becciu had renounced his cardinal prerogatives and communicated his decision to Pope Francis at the end of a dramatic personal confrontation in which the Pope had told him he no longer had confidence in him. It was September 24, 2020. Becciu had never signed a letter of resignation, but the acceptance of his resignation and renunciation of the “rights and privileges” of cardinalatial rank had come by way of communiqué from the Holy See Press Office that same evening.

Starting in 2022, Becciu had nonetheless been invited by the Pope to participate in consistories and various other public events. He had always done so as a cardinal, sitting with all the insignia of his official dignity. The Pope had told him that he would then sort things out. He did so in two never-published letters, one in 2023 and one in 2025, and in both cases, they were signed with an F at the end of a hospitalization of the Pope. Becciu, however, had never been notified of those documents.

Faced with the Pope’s reassurances and the fact that there were no written provisions about him, Becciu had participated in the first general congregations. The Camerlengo, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, told Becciu the late Pope had desired that he not vote. Becciu said that nothing was written on the issue. At that point—it was the third day of the congregation—Cardinal Parolin made the the letters known.

Faced with a provision of the Pope and uncertainty of the subsequent provision, everything is left to the next pontiff to decide. No one could decide on Becciu except the Pope, and the Pope is dead, for now.

So, Becciu found himself increasingly isolated. Several cardinals wanted to quit wasting time on the Becciu question and focus on the papal election. In the end, Becciu decided—for the good of the Church—to sit the whole business out and thus to avoid exacerbating divisions.

The College of Cardinals acknowledged the choice in a communication that carefully avoided expressing an opinion of the matter but nevertheless expressed a desire that “the facts be clarified” regarding the Vatican trial for which the Cardinal was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment.

The reference to the trial is a warning. Formally, the prosecution is not the problem. Becciu could have been found guilty in the third degree, but he would not have lost his right to vote. Why mix the issues of a criminal trial with those concerning the ecclesiastical law governing the conclave?

Why mix canon law and criminal law?

Twelve years of Pope Francis have led to all this. Legal uncertainty creates division. However, the Cardinals’ statement attests how the Cardinals themselves either do not understand the nuances of the issues or are subject to such pressure that they do not pay attention to these details. Actually, these are not mutually exclusive.

Cardinal Parolin, for example, continued to comport himself as though he were still Secretary of State, even though his mandate had ceased with the death of Pope Francis.

When world leaders arrived for the funeral of Pope Francis, Parolin was there to welcome them at the Door of Prayer. Not the vice-dean of the College of Cardinals, as Cardinal Sodano was in 2005. Not even the substitute. Parolin then even had a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Concordat Hall of the Secretariat of State, which he should not use because, precisely, he has fallen from office as Secretary of State.

The situation was later resolved. When Turkish President Erdogan came to the Vatican on April 29, he did not meet Parolin – as was scheduled – but Cardinal Farrell, the Camerlengo.

The role of the Camerlengo, however, should also be redefined. Deprived of the Apostolic Camera, which provided all the office’s legal and administrative support, Farrell now finds himself with a powers that, concentrated as they are, go beyond the mere competencies regarding the temporal goods of the Church. The Camerlengo, in short, has become a sort of dominus in Pope Francis’s reform, while the collegiality that had always characterized the government of the Church in periods of vacancy has been lost.

The handling of the Becciu case is also questionable. In the end, why did Parolin not present the Pope’s letters privately to Becciu in a meeting to be held with the Camerlengo and the Dean of the College of Cardinals to decide what to do? Why was this not done before the General Congregations, thus avoiding lengthy discussions among the cardinals?

At a certain point, everything seems to have been handled rather … lightly. Even the announcement of the Pope’s death was made without the Dean of the College of Cardinals, who is responsible for making the announcement, and, among other things, without anyone wearing at least a fillet.

The maneuvers given the Conclave are also played out in other details. Those who support Parolin note that Parolin suffered the pontificate of Francis more than he desired or supported it, and that the letters on Becciu were kept confidential precisely to protect the disgraced Cardinal, leaving the door to rehabilitation by the Pope cracked open or at least unlocked.

Rehabilitation did not happen.

On the other hand, it is said that Parolin behaved in a non-transparent manner, carried out the Pope’s will in an unsustainable way even after the Pope had died, and took formal liberties that he should not have taken.

It is difficult to understand where the truth lies.

There is an ongoing campaign to undermine Parolin’s candidacy, in any case. The rumor regarding Parolin’s visit to the Gemelli hospital on 30 April over a blood pressure crisis certainly made the rounds, but it was not true.

But everything now can be part of a maneuver, and every rumor must be fully understood and weighed. Parolin enters with a substantial package of votes, but it is not a given that he will become Pope. And then, there are the usual outsiders. The cardinals, meanwhile, express critical opinions on the deceased Pope. One of them reportedly even went so far as to say that synodality is a sort of dictatorship of the people that effectively cuts the council of bishops.

Another, Cardinal Beniamino Stella, criticized Pope Francis’ decision to sever ecclesiastical governing power from sacred orders, tying it all to the person of the Pope.

Finances are also under discussion, but many cardinals are waiting to talk some real talk about faith and how to help the Catholic Church. The field, in short, is wide open. Many names are being discussed: Grech as the standard-bearer of the progressives, Erdo for the conservatives, Pizzaballa and Cristobal Lopez for the centrists, and Arborelius as the surprise second choice of the conservatives.

But who will have the strength to enter the Curia and dismantle the field hospital so something permanent can be erected in its place? Who will have the gumption to cut the dead branches of power perpetuating themselves under the pontificate?

This Conclave seems to be a conclave of mediation rather than prophecy, but it ought to be a conclave of courage.