The American-conspiracy theory of Pope Leo’s election

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Apr 30, 2026

In Rome, a new book by Italian journalist Massimo Franco is drawing new attention to the claim that at the papal conclave of 2025, the electors saw Cardinal Prevost as a strong candidate because they were anxious to recover the confidence of American Catholic donors. Delia Buckley Gallagher, a capable reporter herself, treats that hypothesis as she introduces the book. But I’m not convinced.

Franco’s book, Papi, Dollari e Guerre (Popes, Dollars, and War), does not focus particularly on American influence at the conclave; he covers the past century of relations between the US and the Holy See. But he capitalizes on the recent speculation by recalling how a veteran Vatican diplomat, reflecting on the negative statements that Pope Francis had made about the US, predicted that at when the time came to choose Francis’ successor, American prelates would urge “an impoverished and divided Vatican to elect a Pope who is less hostile to America.” The reference to the “impoverished” Vatican—a recognition of budget deficits and fundraising slumps—allowed readers to infer that the American cardinals might flex their financial muscles to achieve that goal.

There are two major problems with this—or any other—theory about what happened at the papal conclave:

First, every cardinal who participates in a papal election takes multiple oaths that he will not reveal what happens in the conclave. The cardinals who violate those oaths (and sad to say, there are always first-hand accounts in circulation soon after the new Pontiff is introduced) have forsworn themselves; they cannot be treated as reliable witnesses. Invariably their eyewitness accounts are enriched with details provided by others who were not in attendance, but heard rumors allegedly coming from insiders.

Second, there are more than 100 cardinals at the conclave, each with his own thoughts about the issues—large and small, theological and practical—that the Church must address. Any bid to explain the results of the papal election as the result of a single factor is bound to fall short.

Were the cardinals concerned about Vatican finances as they entered the conclave? Yes; that much was evident from the discussions in the “congregations” before they entered the Sistine Chapel. Were they aware that American donations to the Holy See had declined? Undoubtedly. Were the American cardinals hoping that the new Pontiff would prove more popular in the US? No doubt. But just as certainly, all these factors mixed with other serious questions in the electors’ minds. Could the next Pope ease the divisions among the Catholic faithful? Could he reverse the decline of faith in Europe, and answer the challenge of resurgent Islam? Could he rein in the fractious German hierarchy, and encourage the booming African dioceses? If there were some cardinal-electors who had financial affairs uppermost in their minds, they were poor stewards of the Gospel mission.

Franco did find one cardinal to make the charge that the election of Pope Leo reflected a triumph of US financial clout. This Prince of the Church, who is not identified in the book, said that “the new incentive is money, used first against Francis and then in the conclave to elect Prevost.” This is, at once, a very serious charge, and a charge that is not easy to take seriously. Is cash a “new” incentive, previously undiscovered by venal Romans? And did the American contingent hand out “walking-around money” to undecided electors? That anonymous cardinal treated the papal election as a political campaign, and maybe in his eyes that’s what it was. Most electors, I trust, see their responsibilities in a more solemn light.

While the publication of Franco’s book has helped turn attention toward conservative American Catholic donors, the enormous financial resources of the German Catholic hierarchy play a more important role in today’s Vatican policy struggles. Although hundreds of thousands of German Catholics formally withdraw from the Church each year, the country’s Kirchensteuer tax system keeps the German bishops comfortable, and their financial independence (from Rome, if not from their own national government) no doubt contributes to their willingness to test the limits of Church unity.

Oddly enough it is a German prelate (although one who is at odds with the German bishops’ conference) who gave Franco the most pointed quotes—for attribution—rejecting the notion that money ruled the conclave. Cardinal Gerhard Müller rejected that hypothesis outright—“No”—and added that in the pre-conclave discussions he had lost patience with the countryman, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who talked incessantly about financial affairs. “We have to elect the successor of Peter, not of Judas!” Cardinal Müller boomed.

The English-language version of Popes, Dollars, and War is not yet available. That’s OK; I can wait.