The First Things Conclave

Who should be the next pope? Below are the nominations of First Things editors and contributors, some serious, some tongue-in-cheek. Enjoy.  

R. R. Reno 

Were I sitting in a cardinal’s seat in the Sistine Chapel at the upcoming conclave, I would cast my vote for Wim Cardinal Eijk. Here’s why. 

First, Cardinal Eijk is not a member of a religious order, which speaks strongly in his favor. The formation of men for religious life emphasizes the unique charism of the order, which often leads to specialized apostolic work. Secular priests serve in parishes. As a famous Jesuit recently said, pastors should “smell like [their] sheep.” He was right, and secular priests are far more likely to manifest that quality than men in religious orders.

Second, Cardinal Eijk was ordained in the 1980s in the Netherlands, a time and place of profound secularization. He has no hang-ups about the “bad, old Church” and its “rigidity” and “fortress mentality” (hang-ups that dogged Pope Francis). He has no illusions about secular society and is immune from the temptation to put a happy face on postmodern nihilism.

Finally, at the present moment, it would be a good thing for the chair of St. Peter to be occupied by a plainspoken lowlander who manifests no personal qualities lending themselves to celebrity.

Julia Yost 

Despite the strong candidacy of Venice’s Goffredo Cardinal Tedesco, my pick in the conclave is the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Pierbattista Cardinal Pizzaballa. Profiled recently in First Things by Cole S. Aronson, His Beatitude is the guy holding it together in the Holy Land. A canny diplomat, fluent in Italian, English, Arabic, and Hebrew (ancient and modern!), Pizzaballa appears to be doctrinally sound. It’s true he’s a Franciscan, and experience suggests that members of religious orders, formed in those orders’ particular charisms, are not the ideal papabili. Let us hope that this “big, quick-witted, businesslike Italian” (in Aronson’s words) would be an exception.

Dan Hitchens 

If only there was a single ideal candidate, right? If only one of the cardinals was 1) a man of prayer, happiest with the names of Jesus and Mary on his lips, but simultaneously 2) an experienced administrator, able to run a tight ship, throw the miscreants overboard, and turn a sea of red to black on the balance sheet; not to mention 3) a courageous defender of truth, veteran of many grueling battles for orthodoxy, while also being 4) a charming, self-deprecating presence—oh, and 5) a proper philosopher who knows his Aquinas and 6) a compelling preacher who can make the Word of God come alive for twenty-first-century listeners. If only. 

But wait. This person exists. And Wim Cardinal Eijk (seventy-one, the sweet spot for a new pontiff) has another advantage: He represents a national culture known for bluntly stating one’s view and not worrying too much about the reaction. Yes: It’s time, as a matter of historical justice, for the second Dutch pope. 

Veronica Clarke 

I have no nomination. Because Pope Francis was the last pope, and the apocalypse is upon us. Didn’t you know? I certainly didn’t, not until I was catching up on emails the Tuesday after Francis’s death and came across a press release declaring as much. It all has to do with a medieval prophecy, attributed (dubiously) to St. Malachy, detailing the next 112 popes before the end times. And—you guessed it—Pope Francis was the 112th. Needless to say, the news ruined my morning, but I soon took comfort in the fact that I would be spared from the arduous work of covering the conclave on the First Things website. Should we survive—the world, after all, has been ending since A.D. 33—I suppose I would be pleased to see Cardinal Sarah made pope of a Church that refuses to die. (No doubt for some, that would signal the end of the world all over again.) 

Virginia Aabram 

JD Vance, it seems, is responsible for the death of Pope Francis. In this case, I believe that to the victor should go the spoils, and Vance should be the next Roman pontiff. The circumstantial evidence is beyond doubt: Vance and Pope Francis had a public disagreement over the concept of ordo amoris, and then the pope died shortly after they met for the first time. There are no coincidences. This isn’t even without precedent: Pope Sergius III (allegedly) killed his two predecessors Pope Leo V and Antipope Christopher. Don’t we want a return to tradition? The tradcath convert Vance could take the name Sergius, and then even have one of his sons installed after him, just like his namesake. Besides, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the vice president can’t also be the pope. Maybe in a few years Pope JD can also be President JD. This would also be very traditional and return secular power to the papacy, and I look forward to a return of Renaissance-era political intrigue in the Vatican.

Mark Bauerlein 

I spent thirty years as a humanities academic at a wealthy, elite school, and if I were to voice the declaration most confounding and disappointing to my peers in higher education, this might be it: “I believe x because the Catholic Church tells me to.” This is where I am on the selection of the next pope. I don’t know, and I don’t have to know. I happily place my trust in the institution that has been around thirty times longer than I have. The words and deeds of Pope Francis proved often disagreeable, those of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI inspiring. So it goes—the Church endures, it remains a home. 

Matthew Schmitz 

David Bentley Hart’s election as pope would give the Church a leader who is sure of his own infallibility. As a dogmatic Catholic, I would welcome such a development. I would also be glad to have a pope with a first-class theological mind, a due appreciation for Robert Louis Stevenson, and a desire to heal the schism between East and West. There is of course a risk that Hart would seek to suppress people with my conservative theological views. But I believe that his doctrinal chief, Roland, would help to ensure a just and liberal policy. If Hart concludes that he must refuse the burdens of the papal office, I could reconcile myself to the election of Cardinal Sarah.

Liel Leibovitz

Here’s a modest proposal: It’s time to elect a Jewish pope.

The first Jewish pope will not, of course, have to convert to Catholicism—that would be his great advantage. He will bring to the job the outsider’s wide-eyed and untarnished admiration of the institution. Having already mastered the Testament our gentilic brethren call “Old,” he’ll use his Talmudic approach to Scripture to master the New one before too long. And speaking of the Talmud, a deep immersion in that book’s style of arguing for the sake of heaven would enable the Jewish pope to bring together opposed factions and facilitate thorny discussions before they become painful schisms. Like the CEO of a great multinational spiritual enterprise, he’ll empower the Church’s greatest minds to continue and quarrel, and by quarreling make their faith and the faith of their followers clearer, stronger, and more compelling.

It may sound far-fetched, but the last time believers took a bet on a soulful Jew with wild ideas, things worked out just fine for the Church. So let’s save those 120 cardinals about to congregate some time: Forget the conclave and text Rabbi Meir Soloveichik instead. 

Carl R. Trueman 

One of the most irritating aspects of the Francis papacy from an outsider’s perspective was his relentless cheerfulness. He always saw the proverbial glass as half full, and that of good cabernet. He didn’t realize that things are going to get worse before they get even worse than that. To redress this catastrophic imbalance, Catholics need a realist in charge of the operation, somebody who doesn’t simply see the glass as half empty but as cracked and leaking noxious chemicals all over the nice, clean tablecloth. It is surely way past time that Gaudium et Spes was countered with an encyclical such as Miseria et Desperatio, Lumen Fidei with Mors Laetitiae, Laudato Si’ with Omnes Atrociter Peribimus. And there is only one man with the realism and clarity of vision to do so: my good friend and First Things colleague, Francis X. Maier.

Jacob Akey 

Justin Welby ought to be the next pope. Since his recent resignation from the archbishopric of Canterbury, he’s had some free time. There are many benefits to a Pope Welby. 1) The Anglican ordinariate is already established to transition Anglican priests into the Catholic Church. There would be minimal friction. 2) Vatican finances (and those of the Vicariate of Rome) are in shambles. Welby, with experience in the corporate world, is just the man to repair and reform the institutions under papal purview. 3) Some of Welby’s dozens of fans, globally, might be persuaded to finally cross the Tiber.

One concern is that Welby has historically been slow to respond to allegations of sex abuse by Church of England clergy. (However, such a consideration tends not to swing the decisions of modern conclaves.)

Germán Saucedo 

I propose we elevate Jonathan Roumie to the papacy. He has had a successful trial run by playing a compelling Christ in The Chosen. It’s high time that he represents Christ on earth, not merely play him. The people of the Church would take to this transition easily. Many of them already treat him as an elevated, Christ-like figure. I would pay good money to pray with the pope or with Christ. And in case this parasocial relationship Catholicism has with Roumie wasn’t weird enough already, for the low price of $70 a year, you can pray alongside TV Jesus through the Hallow app!