My mistake: An apology for a misleading article

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Oct 29, 2026

Earlier this week I commented on a report that had appeared in the Italian journal Il Tiempo, in which the author, Francesco Capozza, argued that the election of Pope Leo XIV had been informally decided during dinner meetings that occurred before the conclave. I concluded that the story was “entirely plausible, an example of solid journalism, but not a complete account.”

After posting that piece, I begin have misgivings—about both the Capozza’s story and about my own analysis. Those misgivings became regrets when friends reminded me that months ago, multiple sources had reported that Cardinal Raymond Burke denied hosting the meetings that were the main subject of the Tiempo story.

In my original story I had voiced some reservations about Capozza’s account. But I’m afraid my overall presentation was far more favorable than it should have been. I am sorry if I misled readers, and anxious to correct the record.

In fact Capozza story was not “entirely plausible,” because:

• The story in Il Tiempo was based on second-hand accounts of dinner parties, which allegedly took place in Cardinal Burke’s apartment. But Cardinal Burke says that no such parties took place—at least not to his knowledge, and certainly not in his apartment. His denial has the ring of truth—not only because he is an honest man, but also because it would be completely out of character for him to take on the role of kingmaker.
• Even if these dinner meetings did take place, at some other location, the testimony of Capozza’s witnesses is tainted. If they were wrong about the site where the meetings took place, why should we trust their recollections of the conversations?
• If Cardinal Burke was not involved in such meetings, then it is also inaccurate that all of the American cardinals were present: another detail that calls into question the accuracy of the other items reported. (I have already remarked that if all the American members of the College were involved, including Cupich and McElroy and Tobin and Gregory, it would be ridiculous to portray the gatherings as representative of a “conservative” bloc.
• On the other hand if all the American cardinals were involved, then Cardinal Prevost, the future Leo XIV, should also been among them. He would not have been treated as a “guest of honor,” but a regular participant.
• In fact it takes a considerable stretch of the imagination to picture Cardinals Provost and Parolin submitting to interrogation by the other cardinals. There is no doubt that prelates meet before the conclave to exchange views, but by all accounts those meetings are friendly exchanges among peers. Of course some cardinals are acknowledged as papabile, and no doubt their colleagues listen to them more carefully. But these discussions are not—as they are portrayed in the Tiempo piece—tantamount to job interviews.

Adding together the inaccuracies, I conclude that the report I described as “not a complete account” is actually unreliable. Some meetings of prelates, roughly like those described in Il Tiempo, probably did occur before the conclave. But even so, as I already observed in my earlier piece, those meetings would not have produced any commitment or consensus, and would not by themselves have swayed enough votes to ensure the election of Pope Leo.

So how did Capozza produce such a detailed account of the pre-conclave discussions? My best theory is that his sources were cardinals—or, still more likely, people close to cardinals—who wanted to give their own dramatic accounts. As I mentioned in my earlier piece, “the people who participate in any historic act are tempted to exaggerate their own importance.”

Reporting on Vatican affairs—or commenting on the reports—is made more difficult by the powerful instinct among Church leaders to keep things confidential. The result is that journalists too often base their stories on speculation and hearsay. Ordinarily I try to distinguish between facts and theories, between what is rumored and what is established. In this case I’m afraid I relaxed my vigilance, and for that I apologize.