The simple truth of how Leo XIV was elected

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | May 13, 2025

It always happens this way: Less than a week after the election of a new Pope, Vatican journalists are confident (at least they tell us they are confident) that they know exactly what happened in the conclave.

But there’s a problem with that claim. Everyone who was present in the Sistine Chapel—every direct witness to the conclave—had sworn an oath to keep the proceedings secret.

What sort of man who takes a solemn oath would then rush out to do exactly what he had solemnly sworn he would not do?

• An incorrigible gossip, so thoroughly tied up in the clerical grapevine that he cannot stop himself; or
• A manipulative schemer, who perceives some benefit in putting out his version of events (and in advancing the career of a journalist who might someday pay back the favor); or
• A cynic, who doesn’t take solemn oaths seriously.

Which of those personalities would you trust to provide an accurate account of an event? None of them, I would say—which is why I tend to view all the post-conclave reports with extreme skepticism. For that matter, I have little confidence in the journalists who convey the reports. These are not ordinary leaks, of the sort we see in newspapers every day. These are—let’s call things by their proper names—sinful betrayals of sacred oaths. The prelates who forswear themselves are endangering their own souls; the reporters who carry their accounts are willing accomplices. And for what? For one inevitably slanted view of a complex story?

Yet sadly, if past experience is any guide, the first published accounts will prove reasonably accurate. Subsequent leaks will, to one degree or another, confirm the earliest reports. Within a month, anyone who follows Vatican news closely will have at least a rough idea of the vote totals from each ballot of the “secret” conclave.

Much the same could be said about the “general congregations” in which the cardinals meet in the days preceding the conclave. These meetings, too, are theoretically confidential, although the cloak of secrecy is not nearly so heavy. The Vatican press office publishes a (vague, very general) list of the topics that have been raised. More to the point, after those meetings, talkative cardinals meet with friends, including reporters, and fill in the blanks. But even the most industrious reporter can collect only a few eyewitness accounts, and therefore only a very partial picture of the meetings.

The scramble for information about the conclave may be understandable, especially for people accustomed to reading insiders’ accounts of presidential campaigns. But a papal election is not like a political contest. And, as I have tried to demonstrate, whatever “inside” information we receive is tainted, in several different ways. So why not look at the election of Pope Leo XIV from the perspective of an interested observer with no top-secret sources?

For most of us, the election of Cardinal Prevost was a surprise. His name was not terribly familiar; he was not prominently listed among the papabili published before the conclave by self-appointed experts. (The College of Cardinals Report, probably the most reliable reference for this papal election, did not list him among the dozen likeliest candidates.) Yet he was chosen quickly.

Most Vatican-watchers had expected a longer conclave. There was no acknowledged front-runner. Most journalists agreed that Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, was the only prelate who might have had a chance for an early victory. But Cardinal Parolin carried some baggage into the conclave. He was the principal author of an unpopular Vatican pact with Beijing; he was at least tangentially involved in the financial scandals within the Secretariat of State; he had virtually no experience as a pastor. Beyond him lay a crowded field of possible candidates. It seemed likely that several ballots would be needed before the cardinals saw a clear choice. The fact that Cardinal Prevost won (at least) a two-thirds majority on only the fourth ballot suggests that the cardinal-electors had turned their attention toward him almost immediately after the voting began. How did that happen?

One explanation—generally overlooked in media coverage—is that while Cardinal Prevost was not well known to the world at large, he was well known to the College of Cardinals. As prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops he was involved in the appointments of new bishops worldwide. Equally important, he served on several other dicasteries, alongside other members of the College. In this instructive analysis for Crisis, Giovanni Sadewo shows that after a year as prefect in the Roman Curia, Cardinal Prevost had served alongside two-thirds of all the world’s cardinals, on one Vatican panel or another. No other Vatican official matched that level of interaction with the cardinals of the Roman Curia. Even Cardinal Parolin, whose office coordinated the Curia, shared assignments with only 53% of the other cardinals.

Why was Cardinal Prevost serving on so many dicasteries? Because Pope Francis kept appointing him. That fact in itself is remarkable, because Cardinal Prevost—who had known Pope Francis since his days in Argentina—revealed: “I won’t say why, but let’s just say that in all the meetings with Cardinal Bergoglio, we didn’t always get along.” They did not see eye-to-eye, it seems, but the late Pope respected Cardinal Prevost, and saw him as a valuable voice in the Roman Curia. Evidently other cardinals had reached the same judgment.

Going into the conclave, some cardinals wanted to ensure that the policies of Pope Francis would be continued. Others wanted to see those policies promptly reversed. Within the first few ballots, both groups realized that they could not manage a two-thirds majority—either for a Francis II or for an anti-Francis. So they looked instead for a prelate who would treat them fairly, and govern the Church wisely, and perhaps restore their fractured unity. Apparently they looked in the same direction.

Journalists accustomed to political campaigns may prefer to look for more arcane explanations: for the Southern voting bloc and the powerful kingmaker and the top-secret meeting. But when they cast their ballots, the cardinal-electors take another solemn oath, testifying that they are voting for the man they consider best suited to be Peter’s Successor. That is the simple straightforward explanation of how Cardinal Prevost became Leo XIV.