Francis II?

If you are Catholic, or just a curious observer of the transition from the Bergolgian pontificate, here are a few random thoughts. 

Roughly four of every five Cardinal Electors (those under 80) were appointed by Francis. Almost all of them share Francis' progressive inclinations, although the degree may vary. I cannot name any pope who went to such lengths to flood the College of Cardinals with like minded ideologues. For those hoping for a return to something resembling small 'o' orthodox Catholicism, or just a degree of post Vatican II normalcy, the odds are not in your favor. 

By my estimation there are only four Cardinal Electors who can be described as staunch "conservatives." Those being Gerhard Müller (77 Germany), Péter Erdő (72 Hungary), Robert Sarah (79 Guinea), and Raymond Burke (76 USA). Of those, Erdő and Sarah have been mentioned in at least some sources as possible successors. In my opinion Erdő is a long shot. His election would would put someone in the mold of the late Benedict XVI, but at 72 much younger, on the papal throne. That would require a remarkable repudiation of the Franciscan legacy by a significant number of those he appointed. As for Sarah, I think he is on the list simply because the various media and news sources needed another conservative name to try and disguise just how stacked the deck actually is. Sarah will be 80 next month and is considered a traditionalist. So his election would not just be a repudiation of Francis but to at least some degree, of the post Vatican II liturgical reforms. If he emerges on the balcony, I would be stunned. 

Are there any moderate contenders? Depending on how you define that term, I'd say yes. The two most prominent names are Peter Turkson (78 Ghana) and Pietro Parolin (70 Italy). An outside possibility would be Wim Eijk (71 Holland). Of the two, Parolin is perhaps the most widely mentioned name in a conclave where there is little consensus on the likely successor. He is known to share Francis' progressive attitudes on the poor and immigrants, though his theological views are a bit more murky. It is generally believed that he leans left, but may not be the doctrinal wrecking ball that Francis was. Traditionalist Catholics are highly suspicious of him as it has long been rumored that he is hostile to the old rite. Parolin is a career diplomat and is believed to be a power broker in the Vatican Curia. One very strong point in his favor, is his nationality. After almost a half century of foreign popes, Italians are keen to see one of their own as Bishop of Rome and primate of the Italian Church. And there are quite a few cardinals from across the ideological spectrum who will likely want to look first and hard at the Italians to see if there is an acceptable compromise among them. 

Zuppi, and Pizzaballa are the two other Italians frequently mentioned. Zuppi is a radical progressive and rumored to have been the one Francis wanted most to succeed him. Pizzaballa is more of a mystery on doctrinal questions, though he has solid credentials as a diplomat. The fact that he has served as the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem would also make him a rather political choice given recent events in that part of the world. That said, he is only 60 which makes him something of a long shot, unless the cardinals are prepared to roll the dice on a pope likely to outlive most of those electing him. 

Back to the "moderates." Peter Turkson is from Africa and shares Francis' progressive views on the poor and immigration. However, and unlike Parolin, he is believed to be doctrinally conservative. Prior to Francis election he had spoken out rather forcefully on the subject of sexual morality, though he has toned that down over the last twelve years. The alphabet people and their lobby would almost certainly oppose his election. For that reason, I disagree with those labeling him a top tier candidate. However, if there are enough moderates to block a radical progressive from being elected, he could end up as a compromise choice. His odds would likely improve if the conclave does not settle on someone in the first two days. Eijk typically gets mentioned farther down the roster. But like Turkson, his chances might improve if the conclave is deadlocked and the progressives lack the votes to install one of their own. Of the various "moderates" named as papabile, he is likely the most conservative. Some observers have labeled him as a conservative. For that reason alone, I think there would be strong resistance to him among progressives. His age, at only 71 would likely add to those reservations with the likelihood of a long pontificate. 

This brings us to the progressives. I'm not going to go too deep here. The list is long and depressing. Rorate has it pretty well covered for those with a strong stomach. Of the progressives, I think Zuppi and Tagle are the two most mentioned. Zuppi, being Italian, has the lead among his fellow cardinals. Though I think Tagle has more name recognition and is the one that most Catholic lefties outside of Italy are hoping for. 

With all of this noted, I am not sure there has been a conclave in modern times where there was as much uncertainty about the outcome. There are so many possibilities, from so many different corners of the globe that I think anyone would be well advised to take a deep breath before making any predictions here. A lot of conservatives have been trying to calm themselves with the old Italian adage that "a fat pope is followed by a skinny one." The problem is that there are very few skinny Cardinals. The one consideration that might temper the radicals, is the fear that another doctrinal bomb thrower could provoke an outright schism. Most unusually, Cardinal Müller has dared to warn of this openly. Even spoken quietly and in private, such a threat would be shocking enough. The fact that he made it in front of the press cannot be seen as anything other than a flashing danger sign to all of the electors.