The Interregnum
05/02/2025
Francis left us in as normal and natural a way as possible. He worked until a few hours before he died, and more importantly, he was so solidly there. Many people have commented in the last week about how his absence is so hurtful, not so much because he was so evidently lovable but more because we have suddenly lost one of the great prophetic voices of our time, pressing the Gospel into service to the wider human community. Yes, he was the pope, but he was also a person, an extraordinary ordinary human being committed to the cause of human flourishing. Who will take up the task?
This time around in the interregnum, the frenzy is notably worse than the previous occasions we have been without a pope. Unprecedently, public criticisms of Francis from the ranks of the cardinals, most if not all of them over 80, which excludes them from participating in the conclave, have received a great deal of press attention. Cardinalatian sour grapes? The theme of “unity” is offered as a hidden plea for a return to the good old church of the years before Vatican II. There is, of course, not a hope in hell that the cardinals will select someone so conservative that this will happen, and anyone publicly criticizing Francis right now has definitely been erased from consideration. This does not mean that the cardinals might not choose a pope with a very different agenda from that of Pope Francis.
The issue before the cardinals in the conclave is not really one of determining what the agenda of any particular candidate might be. Instead, they need to be looking for a pope who, when he steps onto that balcony in a few days’ time, will not just be a tremendous anticlimax. Francis had enormous charisma, and perhaps the lack of that in one or another candidate might tell against him. But more than charisma, he came across as a thoroughly human being, a real mensch. The challenge that Francis has given to the cardinals who will elect his successor, is to find someone who understands that the papacy is about the people, not about palaces or ceremonies or clerics of whatever shape or size. This is the genie that cannot be put back in the bottle.
If I am reading this aright, then the choice cannot be of someone who has spent his entire career in and around the Vatican, but needs to have extensive pastoral experience, meaning significant interaction with a love of ordinary Catholics in the pew. So, Tagle over Parolin, one would think. Or Pizzaballa over Turkson? Or almost anyone over Burke. It is unlikely, of course, that the cardinals could find a clone of Francis, or that they would elect him if they could. But they need to make a choice that will not break with the human connections that have marked the papacy of Francis. This is much more important than his age or which continent he comes from. The people of God are simply not ready to reinstitute the barrier that there was between the ordinary Catholic and the pope. I have no doubt that Francis’ immediate predecessors considered themselves to be at the service of the whole community of faith. But not since John XXIII has it felt like that. Paul VI was too timid and fearful despite his many fine qualities, while John Paul II was ebullient, verging on arrogant, a true muscular Christian. Perhaps Benedict was actually a transitional pope, cooling the fierceness of the previous papacy and setting the stage for a more peaceful presence.
We have no idea who will appear on the balcony when the decision is made. The two clues to who he is and how his papacy will unfold will lie in how he is dressed to greet the people, and how he speaks to them. Francis, you remember, eschewed the finery and settled for the plain white cassock. And Francis struck a bargain with the crowd: yes, I will bless you, but first you have to bless me. You are not for me, he might have been saying. No, I am here for you. And I hope we can walk away from the events on the balcony full of joy and hope.
Paul Lakeland is emeritus professor of Catholic Studies at Fairfield University.