Inside the Conclave That Elected the First American Pope
Gerard O’Connell on the secret dynamics of the 2025 conclave, Pope Leo XIV’s rise, and why the cardinals chose continuity over rollback
When Pope Francis died in April 2025, the cardinal electors entered one of the most unpredictable conclaves in modern Church history. Many barely knew one another. Almost nobody thought an American could become pope.
Veteran Vatican journalist Gerard O’Connell, co-author of The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis, joins Vatican Access to unpack the hidden dynamics that shaped the conclave that elected Cardinal Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV.
Drawing on deep reporting and conversations with cardinals close to the process, O’Connell explains how Prevost quietly emerged from under the radar, why Cardinal Parolin’s candidacy collapsed, the role Francis himself may have played in preparing the ground for Leo’s election, and how the new pope is already beginning to shape the future of the Catholic Church.
In this conversation, we discuss:
The secret pre-conclave tensions over Pope Francis’ legacy
Why many cardinals believed an American pope was impossible
How Cardinal Prevost rose rapidly during the voting inside the Sistine Chapel
Whether Leo represents continuity or change from Pope Francis
Why Gerard O’Connell believes Leo may become one of the world’s strongest moral voices on war, inequality, and global division
This is a conversation about power, faith, history, and the election of a pope at a moment when the Catholic Church — and the world — are searching for unity.
Transcript
CNS Note: This transcript was generated with the assistance of AI tools. For precise quotations, CNS recommends referring to the video above.
Robert Duncan: Thank you so much for sitting down with Catholic News Service.
Gerard O’Connell: My pleasure. Thank you.
Robert Duncan: So I would like for you to take me back to the early days of May 2025. Pope Francis had famously internationalized, in a particular and unique way, the College of Cardinals. And I think most journalists at the time had no idea what dynamics would unfold. So before we get into those dynamics, would you just remind people how, from the outside, mysterious and exciting those moments were?
Gerard O’Connell: Well, it was extraordinary. When Francis died, the cardinals came in from 96 countries around the world. There should have been 252. Not all could come, but most of them came. The number of electors turned out to be 133 from 70 countries. But the reality was that many of them did not know each other. About 60 of the electors knew each other very well, but a lot did not. So they had to have name badges saying who they were and where they had come from, because they would pass each other on the street without recognizing each other. Francis died on the 21st of April, and then they began the meetings. But the meetings really started after the funeral, which was on the following Saturday. He died on the Monday, and the funeral was on the Saturday. After that, they really began to focus on who would be the successor.
Robert Duncan: People listening who may not know much about the Church — there is a sense in which it’s almost absurd that all these people who don’t know each other very well are going to be asked, in a very short amount of time, to decide who the Vicar of Christ on earth is. What a task. But also, what is the expectation of how such a thing plays out?
Gerard O’Connell: Well, obviously it’s not like a political convention. It’s not like a party congress. But somehow there is politics at work. There are various religious dynamics, because you are choosing the leader of the largest religious movement in the world. And there is also the hand of God. As Maradona famously said, “the hand of God.” And that works in a strange way, because human factors are obviously decisive. People have to get to know each other. They have to work together. The media had already identified some of the frontrunners.
Robert Duncan: They tend to list like 20 people, so it’s like throwing 20 darts at the board. You’re bound to hit one.
Gerard O’Connell: Exactly. And the cardinals themselves knew that Francis was in declining health, so they were already thinking among themselves. But they hadn’t come to clear conclusions. After the funeral, on the following Monday, they really began to meet in a more serious mode, let us say. The conclave could not start before 15 days after he died. Eventually, the conclave started on the 7th of May. In the meetings before the conclave, several things came out. First of all, they watched those whom they considered potential candidates. They saw some of them being more prima donna, while others made no waves at all and stayed very much under the radar. Prevost was one of those.
Robert Duncan: But nobody took him seriously in the sense that the working assumption was that an American would never be elected.
Gerard O’Connell: The working assumption among most cardinals was that an American would not get elected. But there was a group — and my wife Elisabetta and I write about this in the book — that had heard Prevost’s name mentioned as a serious possibility to succeed Francis as early as March 2024, one year before the conclave. But it was completely under the radar. Nobody was saying it publicly. In the meetings before the conclave, when you had more than 200 cardinals gathered together, there was a series of speeches. Then they would have coffee breaks and meet informally outside as well. They began to work out an identikit: what kind of pope did they want? What qualifications should the next pope have? What were the essential elements they hoped to see in the person? About two or three days before the conclave, they came up with this identikit. That was very important because they entered the conclave with this sort of checklist in their minds. Then, during these meetings, something happened that we write about in the book. One cardinal who was supporting one of the lead candidates — Cardinal Parolin, who had been Secretary of State for 12 years under Pope Francis — had a close ally who effectively acted as his campaign manager, though they would never call it that. This cardinal made an open attack on Francis during the plenary assembly of the cardinals, and that upset many people.
Robert Duncan: What was the attack?
Gerard O’Connell: The criticism was directed at Francis opening the possibility for lay people to hold positions of high responsibility in the Roman Curia and elsewhere in the Church — not just bishops, priests, or clerics, but lay people as well. The more conservative bloc, if you want to use that language, felt this was breaking with tradition.
Robert Duncan: But Cardinal Parolin — you’re saying Cardinal Parolin was, in some sense, at the helm of that faction?
Gerard O’Connell: No, Cardinal Parolin was not at the helm of that. But when the man who was identified as his main campaign manager came out publicly attacking Francis over this and other issues, the impression given was that he was talking about a rollback of the process and progress Francis had made, including on the question of a synodal Church — a Church in which different people share responsibility for governing. The cardinals who were strongly pro-Francis reacted very strongly. But even those in the middle ground, who were not yet sure whom they would support, did not like what they heard.
Robert Duncan: Is it known who this campaign manager was?
Gerard O’Connell: Yes. It was Cardinal Beniamino Stella. He had been a trusted cardinal during the pontificate of Pope Francis. Francis knew him before he became pope, and when he became pope, he appointed him head of the Vatican office for clergy and later made him a cardinal. Francis took his advice very seriously. So for cardinals who knew this relationship, seeing him move in the opposite direction and openly criticize Francis came as a shock. I got the story that same day from a cardinal who was very angry. Then several other cardinals made it clear they were also upset and did not like what had been said. All of this, of course, was meant to remain secret.
Robert Duncan: I want to talk about the secrecy. But do you know whether what angered these cardinals was, in principle, the idea being put forward — namely that laypeople should perhaps not run some of these offices — or was it more a question of delicacy, of offending the legacy of Francis?
Gerard O’Connell: I would say there were three things. First, they knew this man had been trusted by Francis, and here he was attacking Francis. That alone was a shock. Second, this was one of the major reforms Francis introduced when he reorganized the Roman Curia — the Vatican civil service — opening the possibility for laypeople to hold top positions of responsibility. Third, it was seen as an appeal to the more conservative bloc.
Robert Duncan: Maybe they believed they needed that vote. And it was simply political.
Gerard O’Connell: Yes. So people said: he is representing Parolin, he is attacking Francis, and he is attacking one of Francis’ major reforms. There were criticisms of Francis on other issues as well. And many began to feel that this kind of platform, if you wish, would roll back the achievements made under Francis. Remember: 80 percent of the electors had been chosen by Francis. So this played very badly. It did not work. Then there was another group attacking Francis over the opening to China. Through Cardinal Parolin, Francis had brokered an agreement with China regarding the nomination of bishops. The Chinese authorities could organize the selection of candidates, but the pope retained the final word on who would become bishop. Many people attacked this accord, and in doing so they were also attacking Parolin, because he was seen as its chief architect.
Robert Duncan: But in fact, the early drafts of that agreement began under Benedict.
Gerard O’Connell: Yes, it began under Benedict. I followed it very closely. What was eventually signed under Francis was substantially what had already been developed during Benedict’s pontificate, though Benedict ultimately rejected it. Francis, with Parolin’s help, achieved the breakthrough. But the agreement faced significant opposition — especially in the United States among many cardinals, but also from the American government, from parts of Eastern Europe, and from some Asian countries. They were not happy with it.
Robert Duncan: And for people who are not insiders, what was the objection? If you were going to make the strongest possible case against the agreement, what would that look like?
Gerard O’Connell: By the time Francis died, Xi Jinping had been president of China for roughly the same period Francis had been pope. During those twelve years, Xi had cracked down heavily on religion. So critics argued that the Catholic Church had made an agreement with China at precisely the moment when religious repression was intensifying. For example, Catholic families could not bring their children to church or provide them with Catholic education without risking penalties from the authorities. Critics said the Church had forgotten, to some extent, the underground Church — the Church that had resisted being absorbed into the government system — and instead had opened relations with bishops approved by the government. So there were strong feelings about this issue. In the pre-conclave assemblies, all of these questions surfaced. The main targets were Francis and Parolin. Parolin suffered significantly in those meetings.
Robert Duncan: From different directions, it sounds like.
Gerard O’Connell: From different directions, yes. Back in 2013, Cardinal Bergoglio — the future Pope Francis — gave a three-and-a-half-minute speech during the pre-conclave meetings that electrified the assembly. The cardinals suddenly saw someone offering a vision different from the other candidates. In the pre-conclave meetings of 2025, Cardinal Prevost spoke, but he did not make that kind of dramatic impact.
Robert Duncan: He didn’t make a big splash.
Gerard O’Connell: No. Where he made an impact was during the coffee breaks. The cardinals saw him as someone who listened carefully. They saw him as humble. And they liked what they saw.
Robert Duncan: One of the criticisms of Pope Francis had been that he governed, for lack of a better term, in an autocratic way — that he made many decisions personally. The listening quality of Cardinal Prevost gave cardinals from around the world reassurance that, if he became pope, they would have a voice again?
Gerard O’Connell: Well, that was how some of them read it. Francis did listen, but Francis was also a prophetic figure. I think history will show that. He was breaking new ground. He was opening new ways of looking at the Church, new ways of being Church. Some did not like it because they had become accustomed to one particular way of being Church, and Francis was saying, “No, we are going another way. We are going to be a missionary Church. We are going to go out. We are not going to wait for people to come into the sacristy. We are going to give laypeople, ordinary people, the poor, and those without a voice a role in shaping how the Church should exist within a given geographical or cultural area.” So Francis was breaking new ground. And, of course, he was deeply committed to the poor. As a result, one of the major questions in these pre-conclave meetings was whether the legacy of Francis would continue or whether there would be a rollback. That was a central issue. There was an obvious candidate from the more conservative side: the Hungarian cardinal Péter Erdő, a canon lawyer and longtime pastor and bishop. He was seen as less enthusiastic about synodality — about broad participation and shared responsibility within the Church. It was clear that he would have taken things in a different direction. He had supporters as well. But again, he did not make a major impact in the pre-conclave meetings. The speeches that had the greatest impact were actually the attacks on Francis. So when the cardinals entered the conclave on the 7th of May — leaving behind their cell phones, iPads, computers, and all outside communication — nobody was entirely sure who would be elected. I spoke to many cardinals beforehand. Most conclaves over the past fifty years had concluded within two days. But several cardinals told me this one could last three or four days. There was real uncertainty. Many cardinals were saying, “We can never have an American.” At the same time, there was a strong push from the Italians to regain the papacy after 47 years. Since 1978, there had been John Paul II from Poland, then the German Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, and then in 2013 the first Latin American pope. More than 200 of the Church’s 267 popes had been Italian, so many Italians felt almost entitled to the papacy. But this ignored the reality that the center of gravity of the Catholic Church had shifted. Seventy percent of the Catholic population was now in the global south. That was the atmosphere as they entered the conclave: no clear frontrunner. Elisabetta and I discovered before the conclave began that Prevost already had more than 20 votes lined up. Having studied previous conclaves and written a book on the 2013 election, I understood how important the first ballot would be. When there is no obvious candidate, everyone watches where the votes go on the first ballot.
Robert Duncan: To see who could conceivably emerge.
Gerard O’Connell: Exactly. What happened on the first ballot was remarkable. More than 30 different cardinals received votes out of the 133 electors.
Robert Duncan: So it was very spread out.
Gerard O’Connell: Very spread out. But only three candidates received between 20 and 30 votes. Nobody crossed 30, but there were only a handful of votes separating the top three. The leading candidate was Cardinal Erdő of Hungary, the standard-bearer of the more conservative bloc.
Robert Duncan: He was number one outright, or simply one of the top three?
Gerard O’Connell: He came out number one. Second was Cardinal Prevost, the American — and that surprised many people. Third was Cardinal Parolin, whom the Italians had confidently predicted would receive 35 or even 40 votes going into the conclave.
Robert Duncan: I remember that.
Gerard O’Connell: That prediction did not hold up. The fourth candidate was the French cardinal, though he was under 20 votes.
Robert Duncan: Aveline?
Gerard O’Connell: Aveline — Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline, the Archbishop of Marseille — a figure who, in some ways, resembled John XXIII. He had a jovial personality and was very good with people and with the public. After the first ballot, the cardinals talked extensively among themselves. They returned to Santa Marta, the Vatican guesthouse that had been restructured under John Paul II to house the cardinals during a conclave. They went to dinner rather late that evening, but many stayed up until midnight discussing and reflecting. Some of them went back and reviewed the biographies they had been given for each cardinal. And many looked more closely at Prevost. They saw that he possessed a remarkable combination of qualities. He was born in Chicago and had spent a little over twenty years of his life in the United States, but another twenty as a missionary priest and later bishop in Peru, and almost twenty years in Rome. In Rome, he first studied canon law and later became Prior General — the worldwide head — of the Augustinian order. So here was a man who had lived on three continents. He spoke many languages: fluent English, Spanish, and Italian, as well as French and Portuguese. Moreover, he held Peruvian citizenship, since bishops in Peru are required to become citizens. The cardinals began to see that he had an unusually broad and international profile. Then there was another factor we describe in the book. Before the first ballot, the cardinals select three scrutineers who oversee and read the votes aloud. On the first ballot, the cardinal chosen to read the names was Cardinal Erdő. One cardinal later remarked, “God has a sense of humor.” Because as Erdő read the votes aloud — including his own name — his voice began to fade. He appeared physically weak. Some cardinals later described him as looking old. At one point they had to move the microphone closer so his voice could be heard.
Robert Duncan: There had already been reports about that. And he had been the relator during the famous synod under Francis.
Gerard O’Connell: Exactly. And he had also hosted the International Eucharistic Congress in Budapest, which gave him significant visibility. But then came the second ballot. And again, as one cardinal put it, God has a sense of humor. Who was chosen to read the votes aloud? Prevost. And he read them calmly, with a clear voice, composed, confident, and very much in control. The impression among many cardinals was: this man can govern.
Robert Duncan: It’s still quite striking that cardinals who did not know whom they were going to vote for could be persuaded in such a short amount of time, on the basis of such evidence.
Gerard O’Connell: Well, after that first ballot, people began paying much more attention to him. Before then, cardinals were asking, “Who is this Prevost?” But now his name was circulating everywhere. Many cardinals from Africa and Latin America had originally arrived expecting to vote for Parolin. They believed he was Pope Francis’ preferred candidate. But Elisabetta, my wife, wrote an article making clear — because we were very close to Pope Francis — that this was not the case.
Robert Duncan: Did Francis himself have a candidate?
Gerard O’Connell: We say in the book that Prevost was “the last surprise of Pope Francis.” That is the subtitle of the book. No pope can dictate his successor. But Francis certainly positioned Prevost in important ways and gave many signals in his favor. Francis had known Prevost long before becoming pope. Back when Bergoglio was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Prevost was Prior General of the Augustinians. They met around 2005 or 2006 in Buenos Aires, and in fact they initially clashed. Prevost wanted to transfer an Augustinian friar to another assignment, while Bergoglio wanted him elsewhere. So there was tension between them. After Bergoglio was elected pope, Prevost was heard joking that he could now relax because he would never become a bishop — recalling that earlier disagreement. But there was another episode, less well known. While Bergoglio was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he was being criticized by someone in the Roman Curia, and Prevost defended him.
Robert Duncan: Defended Francis?
Gerard O’Connell: He defended Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Then, in August 2013, just months after Francis became pope, the Augustinians had to elect a new leader because Prevost had completed his second term and could not continue. Prevost invited Francis either to send a message or perhaps attend the gathering. Nobody expected the pope to come personally. But Francis said, “No, I will come and celebrate Mass for you.” So he came to the Church of Saint Augustine here in Rome. The Augustinian electors were gathered there to choose a new Prior General. Francis preached at the Mass, and afterward he told Prevost: “I never forget what you did for me.” In other words, Francis was publicly acknowledging that Prevost had stood by him. Then he essentially told him: “Now go and rest,” because Prevost was finishing twelve years as head of the Augustinians.
Robert Duncan: But they also had their differences, didn’t they? Because of that earlier incident you mentioned…
Gerard O’Connell: Yes, they had their differences. But Francis did not like yes-men. He appreciated people who would tell him directly what they thought.
Robert Duncan: That’s often what people said about the relationship between Cardinal Pell and Francis.
Gerard O’Connell: Yes, it’s true. Francis respected people who would stand up and say, “Sorry, I don’t agree with you.” He did not like yes-men, and Prevost was not a yes-man.
Robert Duncan: Is it known what they disagreed about in that early period?
Gerard O’Connell: We believe it was connected to the transfer of an Augustinian friar. As I mentioned earlier, Bergoglio wanted the friar in one role within the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, while Prevost, as head of the Augustinian order, had different plans for him.
Robert Duncan: So people online might imagine this was some kind of ideological split — one conservative, one liberal — when really it was more a matter of personnel and governance.
Gerard O’Connell: I don’t think it was ideological at all.
Robert Duncan: I’m just saying what people might assume out of context.
Gerard O’Connell: Yes. We even have photographs of them celebrating Mass together. And when Francis agreed to come personally to the Church of Saint Augustine in Rome to celebrate Mass before the election of the new head of the Augustinian order, nobody expected that. It was clearly a sign of friendship and respect toward Prevost. But these things were not widely noticed at the time. It is only in hindsight that people now recognize their significance. Then, a year later, in 2014, Francis appointed Prevost bishop of a diocese in Peru. Francis knew he had already spent more than ten years there as a missionary. The diocese had previously been governed for thirty-four years by Opus Dei. Opus Dei had considerable influence in Peru and many bishops there — perhaps seven or eight. So Francis appointed an American missionary to lead this diocese. It was not an easy assignment. The Shining Path guerrillas were still active, as was the MRTA, another armed insurgent movement. During Prevost’s time there, the region was also affected by El Niño and severe climate disruptions. And on top of that, more than a million Venezuelans fled the Maduro regime and entered Peru, creating enormous pastoral and social pressures. So Prevost had to manage migration, climate-related crises, political instability, and the challenge of governing a diocese that had been shaped for decades by a very different ecclesial culture. And he handled all of it quietly, calmly, and without creating major conflict. Several years later, there was another crisis in a different diocese several hundred miles away. The bishop there belonged to the Neocatechumenal Way and was trying to reshape the entire diocese around that movement, creating major tensions with priests and widespread disruption. Francis removed the bishop and sent Prevost there as apostolic administrator — not as bishop, but temporarily to stabilize the situation. Within a year, Prevost had calmed the entire diocese. At that point Francis began appointing him to various Vatican offices, putting him, as it were, on the boards of important dicasteries. Then in 2023, Francis brought him to Rome to head one of the most important Vatican offices: the Dicastery for Bishops, responsible for the selection of bishops worldwide. Francis explicitly said: “I want a missionary to lead this office.” Prevost managed it extremely well. A few months later Francis made him a cardinal. The dicastery included twenty-three cardinals, all electors, who met roughly every two weeks. Prevost presided over those meetings. There were also bishops and several women participating in the process. The cardinals who worked with him there became a crucial factor in his eventual election. They saw how carefully he listened, how effectively he managed discussions, how clearly he summarized issues, and how naturally he exercised authority. They saw that he had the linguistic ability, the judgment, and the temperament to govern. So when cardinals entered the conclave asking, “Who is this Prevost?” the men who already knew him were able to explain exactly who he was. By the second ballot the next morning, the situation had changed dramatically. Prevost moved into first place. Erdő, after his weak performance reading the votes, dropped sharply. Parolin remained competitive, but the momentum was clearly shifting toward Prevost. Still, nobody had yet reached the required threshold. To be elected pope, a cardinal needed 89 votes out of 133 — a two-thirds majority plus one.So they proceeded to the third ballot. At that point, Prevost surged ahead. By lunchtime, after the morning voting sessions, it had become clear that Prevost was on the path to the papacy unless something extraordinary intervened.
Robert Duncan: I feel like I could ask at least five hundred more questions about the conclave. But now that we have a full year of Pope Leo behind us, and given how close you were to Pope Francis, I want to ask whether — with the benefit of hindsight — the conclave really did elect a continuity candidate.
Gerard O’Connell: I think it’s very clear that he is a continuity candidate. From the moment Prevost appeared on the balcony, dressed in the traditional papal garments in the style Benedict XVI had worn, many people immediately began constructing a narrative that he was somehow more Benedict than Francis. But that was not true.
Robert Duncan: Why do you think he chose to wear that? He must have known how symbolic it would appear.
Gerard O’Connell: Yes, obviously. I think he likes protocol. He is a canon lawyer, so he respects law and structure. He is also trained in mathematics, so he is very precise. In fact, he came out with a prepared written text. Francis came out with nothing written and simply spoke from the heart.
Robert Duncan: But hadn’t Francis, in a sense, already given future popes permission to depart from some of those protocols? Even if the rules technically remained, Prevost would have been free not to follow them.
Gerard O’Connell: I think Prevost felt that, as pope, he needed to be very careful. That is how I see it. So he scripted carefully what he wanted to say. And the very first word he emphasized was peace. Francis had been deeply committed to peace, and Leo continued that emphasis immediately: “Peace be with you all.” Over the course of this first year of his pontificate, he has remained entirely consistent on that theme: peace, peace, peace. End conflicts. Begin negotiations. He has made no attempt to hide his commitment to peacebuilding. Then he spoke about working together. His core themes have been peace and unity. Francis, at the beginning of his pontificate, spoke of himself as bishop among the people — “I am bishop, you are the people, and we journey together.” Leo expressed something similar, but he emphasized collaboration with the Roman Curia, with bishops, and with the wider Church structure. Then, somewhat surprisingly to some observers, he strongly emphasized concern for the poor — another central theme of Francis. And then he spoke explicitly about synodality. Most people in the global audience probably did not even know what the word meant. But Leo said very clearly that he wanted “a synodal missionary Church.” That was an unmistakable signal: I intend to continue what Francis began. Francis often said, “I begin processes.” He saw himself as someone laying foundations rather than completing structures. In a sense, he saw himself as the architect beginning the work, while others would continue building the house afterward. Leo’s language about a missionary, synodal Church showed very clearly that he saw himself continuing that trajectory. And finally, he emphasized proclaiming Christ to the world. That, he said, is ultimately what the Church exists to do.
Robert Duncan: Has he done anything so far — whether in synodal governance or in these broader themes — that places his own emphasis on Francis’ ideas in such a way that, hypothetically, Francis himself might have been uneasy or concerned about the direction?
Gerard O’Connell: On peace? No. Of course, they have very different personalities. Francis was more Latin in temperament — outgoing, spontaneous, expressive. Leo is more reserved. “Introverted” would be too strong a word, but he is certainly more measured. He likes precision in his language. Francis often spoke off the cuff. He would prepare a text and then set it aside entirely. Leo stays very close to his prepared remarks. We have now seen this repeatedly over the course of the year. You could count on one hand — perhaps not even needing all five fingers — the number of times he has departed from his text.
Robert Duncan: Something that remains mysterious to me is this: Pope Leo has clearly made a deliberate decision to read carefully prepared texts and to speak cautiously, yet he will still meet journalists informally on Tuesday evenings and speak off the cuff about important matters. How do you see those two things fitting together rather than being in tension?
Gerard O’Connell: Well, I think he himself said at the beginning that he was learning how to be pope. Francis, in some ways, was a freer spirit. He had experienced major internal struggles within the Jesuit order. With Leo, there is no evidence of those kinds of conflicts in his background. He governed firmly and challenged people when necessary, but generally in a spirit of harmony. As I said earlier, his two guiding priorities seem to be peace and unity. Soon after his election, he met with the cardinals and made very clear that he intended to continue along Francis’ path. He specifically referenced Francis’ programmatic document Evangelii Gaudium — The Joy of the Gospel — and highlighted several themes from it that he intended to continue. Then, in June 2025, he met with the Council of the Synod, the group elected to continue the synodal process begun under Francis. They immediately began asking him many questions. He entered the meeting carrying a notepad and told them: “I’m not the Lone Ranger. This is synodality. We are meant to work synodally.” Francis pushed the synodal process forward. Leo, in many ways, is now institutionalizing and building it more deeply from within. At the same time, his relationship with the Roman Curia has been notably different from Francis’. Traditionally, during a papal transition, Vatican employees receive a bonus — roughly 500 euros — in recognition of the additional work involved. When Francis became pope, he redirected that money to the poor. Leo restored the bonus to the employees. That immediately generated goodwill. Then he told the Curia: “Popes come and go, but the Curia remains.” That was very significant for them. In particular, the Secretariat of State — the office closest to the pope — feels more valued and strengthened under Leo than it did under Francis.
Robert Duncan: I’m not sure whether this was in your book or elsewhere, but I remember reading that one Vatican official expressed concern that Prevost was “not Curial,” and another replied, “Don’t worry, we’ll make him one of us.”
Gerard O’Connell: Yes. On the night of the election, after the white smoke appeared, nobody yet knew who had been elected. Many officials from the Secretariat of State came out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter’s Square. They were convinced it was Parolin. The election had happened so quickly that many interpreted this as proof that Francis had not left behind a divided Church. In reality, that interpretation was probably correct — the cardinals found unity very quickly. But among those gathered on the balcony from the Secretariat of State, there was a widespread expectation that the new pope would be Parolin. So when Prevost appeared instead, some of them said: “Ah, well, we’ll make him one of us.”
Robert Duncan: For people who may not understand that phrase, what exactly does it mean?
Gerard O’Connell: It means they believed they could gradually shape him into their way of operating and thinking.
Robert Duncan: Can you say more about that?
Gerard O’Connell: I think what they meant was that they hoped to guide him back toward a more traditional style of governance — more in continuity with the Curial culture that existed before Francis.
Robert Duncan: So perhaps the real divide was not inside the College of Cardinals itself. In other words, if the speed of the conclave demonstrates that Francis had not left the Church divided, that only requires a certain unity among the electors. But what you are describing suggests there were still tensions within the Curia itself.
Gerard O’Connell: Yes. The Curia — and I would say also the Vatican media apparatus — had largely convinced themselves that Parolin would be elected. The Italian media had strongly promoted him as the frontrunner, claiming he entered the conclave with thirty-five or forty votes. In reality, that was not true, but many people inside the Vatican believed it. They assumed that such a rapid election could only mean Parolin had won. Some also thought Cardinal Tagle of the Philippines might emerge as a candidate, but he did not perform strongly in the voting. So when Prevost appeared, many inside the Vatican were genuinely surprised. And even the crowd in St. Peter’s Square did not immediately know who Prevost was.
Robert Duncan: Do you think the fact that he was American also created anxiety or hesitation within the Curia?
Gerard O’Connell: They already knew him. He had been part of the Roman Curia for two years, so technically it was a Curial cardinal who had been elected pope. But he had never belonged to any of the major power blocs within the Curia.
Robert Duncan: He kept a low profile.
Gerard O’Connell: Very much so. He remained under the radar, both publicly and privately. He was friendly with people, but he had never publicly clashed with anyone. He was not one of the prima donnas of the Roman Curia. So many people inside the Vatican were somewhat taken aback by his election. At the same time, they regarded him as a good candidate. But because he had maintained such a low profile, some thought he could perhaps be shaped or guided. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the British series Yes, Minister.
Robert Duncan: I haven’t, actually.
Gerard O’Connell: It’s wonderful. It’s decades old now, but the premise was that Britain’s civil service remains constant while elected politicians come and go. A new minister arrives, and the civil servants politely say, “Yes, Minister, yes, Minister,” while gradually ensuring that everything continues operating exactly as it always has. There was a similar mentality among some within the Roman Curia — a feeling that the pope could, over time, be molded or influenced into the established way of doing things.
Robert Duncan: A year later, do you think Pope Leo has maintained his independence?
Gerard O’Connell: I think he is increasingly asserting it. For the first six months or so of his pontificate — really from May until January 6 — much of the program had already been determined because of the Jubilee Year. The schedule and major events had largely been prepared in advance, and Leo was essentially carrying out the program Francis himself would likely have followed, with only a few changes. But since January 7, 2026, he has increasingly begun charting his own course. You can see this especially in his appointments. Several of the people he has chosen were not anticipated at all.
Robert Duncan: How would you characterize the kinds of people he is selecting?
Gerard O’Connell: He is very much his own man. He has his own way of thinking.
Robert Duncan: Which is what, exactly?
Gerard O’Connell: He listens carefully, and then he decides. People often do not know whom he is going to choose. For example, when he appointed his successor at the Dicastery for Bishops, nobody expected Archbishop Iannone — an Italian — to be chosen. There had been many other names circulating, but not his. Likewise, when he appointed the head of the office for legislative texts, he brought in someone from Australia. Again, nobody anticipated it. And his appointment for head of the papal household also surprised people.
Robert Duncan: How does he know? Who is he listening to when he makes these appointments?
Gerard O’Connell: That is a very good question, and honestly, nobody is entirely sure whom he is listening to most closely. He is clearly listening — that much is certain. He meets with many people from different parts of the Church. But no one can confidently identify a fixed inner circle around him. What is clear is that his choices so far have been remarkably independent. Take the appointment of the Archbishop of New York. He chose someone he personally knew and trusted. That tells you something important: he makes up his own mind. I think his response to President Trump was another revealing example of that independence. On the papal flight, he spoke with five or six journalists individually — I was on the plane — and he added slightly different nuances to each conversation. But underneath it all, he had a very clear sense of what he wanted to communicate. And one thing he made clear was: “I am not afraid of the American administration.”
Robert Duncan: The New York Times later portrayed some of his subsequent comments to journalists as a softening or partial retreat from that initial strong stance.
Gerard O’Connell: Well, that is one interpretation. I am not entirely convinced by it. When Leo used the phrase about “tyrants” governing parts of the world, many immediately assumed he was speaking specifically about President Trump. But in reality, those speeches had been prepared before Trump made the statements people were reacting to. If we really want to understand Leo’s thinking, I believe we have to go back to his January 9 address to the diplomatic corps. That speech was prepared very carefully and expressed, in a structured way, his broader worldview. I think that speech provides the interpretive framework for understanding many of his later comments. So I do not entirely agree with the New York Times interpretation. I understand why people thought he was perhaps distancing himself from earlier remarks or blaming journalists for misunderstandings. He did refer to “certain interpretations.” But fundamentally, I think his views on state power, global injustice, poverty, and the concentration of authority need to be read through the lens of that January 9 speech to the 184 ambassadors accredited to the Holy See.
Robert Duncan: Given what you said earlier — that Prevost’s name was already circulating privately as early as March 2024 — did you, as a journalist close to Francis, make an effort at that point to get to know Cardinal Prevost better?
Gerard O’Connell: I had already gotten to know him before then, actually. I had several private conversations with him — some lasting an hour or more — so I already had a sense of who he was. Though certainly not with the same degree of closeness that I had with Pope Francis.
Robert Duncan: Without revealing anything private, is there something you learned from those conversations that perhaps the broader public still does not fully understand about him — either his personality or how he thinks?
Gerard O’Connell: I think many of the essential traits are already becoming visible publicly. He is very direct. He listens extremely carefully. Often, you have to ask him a question before you fully see what he thinks. He is clearly a man capable of governing. He does not rush decisions. That struck me strongly. I also think he is quite attentive to how the media portrays him. At a personal level, I found him genuinely humble. He is not someone who talks down to people. He speaks very directly, person to person, almost as an equal. And that is not always the atmosphere you encounter in the Vatican. Sometimes there is a sense that “we know and you don’t.” With Prevost, I found him very open, very friendly, and very willing to listen. He does not instinctively move toward confrontation.
Robert Duncan: Do you think he has evolved over the course of Francis’ pontificate? At Catholic News Service, we interviewed him in 2012 during the Synod on the New Evangelization. At the time, he gave remarks about cultural trends he believed challenged the Church — issues like gender ideology, same-sex marriage, and positive portrayals of those ideas in Hollywood. Then, when he became a cardinal in 2023, we asked him whether his thinking had changed since that earlier speech, and he pointed to Francis’ emphasis on welcome and mercy. I wonder whether you think it is fair to interpret those 2012 remarks as more conventionally conservative, and whether Francis’ pontificate genuinely changed him in some way.
Gerard O’Connell: I think it is very clear that he is open to learning and developing. He does not have a closed mind. You asked earlier what struck me personally about him. One thing is precisely that: he is not rigid in his thinking. His ideas develop. He grows. And I think we can already see that happening during his pontificate. He himself has acknowledged, for example on the diplomatic front, that he is learning. I have also noticed changes in the way he delivers speeches and presents himself publicly. During the trip to Africa, we saw how powerfully he can speak when he chooses to. He came across very strongly there. I think over time we may see him become more spontaneous — perhaps allowing more room for the Spirit, if you will — and speaking more off the cuff, as he occasionally already does at Castel Gandolfo. If you go back to the Second Vatican Council and read the history carefully, you see that many of the more than two thousand bishops who arrived in Rome came with very fixed ideas. But once they encountered bishops from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, and North America, many realized the Church experienced reality very differently across the world. For many of them, it was almost like going back to school. I think the synods that Prevost participated in — especially the synods on synodality — were also a kind of school for him, and for many other bishops and cardinals as well. They began to understand that perhaps no single person or group possesses a monopoly on truth, and that there are different ways of approaching certain questions. One thing is very clear about Leo: he is not interested in escalating polarization. He is actively looking for ways to bring opposing sides together.
Robert Duncan: On the plane returning from Africa, he was asked about same-sex blessings, and he said he would not go beyond what Francis had already established in the relevant document. Before I ask the broader question, perhaps you want to respond directly to that.
Gerard O’Connell: I think the most important thing he said in that answer came at the very beginning. He said that sexuality is not the central issue of Catholic morality. Then he pointed instead to larger questions: justice, poverty, the suffering of the poor, and many other moral concerns. He made the point that sexuality cannot become the defining center of Catholic moral teaching. That was a very significant statement, and it is entirely consistent with what Francis wrote in Evangelii Gaudium, The Joy of the Gospel. So on these issues Leo is navigating very carefully. He is not trying to provoke polarization. In fact, he is trying to reduce it.
Robert Duncan: Do you think Francis himself bears any responsibility for the polarization?
Gerard O’Connell: Look, the polarization existed before Francis. People accused Francis of creating confusion and division. I remember discussing this directly with Cardinal Müller in an interview we include in the book. He raised the charge that Francis had created confusion. And I asked him: would you say the same thing about John Paul II in 1986, when he organized the interreligious gathering in Assisi? At the time, many accused John Paul II of creating confusion and even syncretism. And Cardinal Müller acknowledged that point. Then I mentioned Paul VI and Humanae Vitae. The reality is that polarization also enters the Church from the political world. People live within political cultures, and increasingly they tend to see everything in black-and-white categories, with no room for nuance or complexity. Francis resisted that mentality very strongly. He consistently argued that reality is not simply black and white. And I think Leo approaches things in a very similar way. He has said he will not go beyond what Francis established, but neither is he going to reverse it. There was a narrative among some people that Leo would immediately roll back Francis’ reforms. That has not happened. He has a different style and a different personality. The cardinals did not want a clone of Francis, and they did not elect one.
Robert Duncan: We’ve spent a lot of time discussing what might be called “inside baseball” — the dynamics of the conclave, the significance of appointments, and the clues they may offer about where Pope Leo intends to lead the Church. But for most ordinary Catholics, when they think about the election of a pope and what a papacy means for their lives, they are often focused on one or two particular issues they care deeply about. That might be sexuality, the liturgy, or another specific concern, and they wonder whether the pope will deliver on that issue. How would you reframe that? How should Catholics more broadly understand the ministry of the pope? And what can Pope Leo do to genuinely bring people together?
Gerard O’Connell: I think, fundamentally, people look to the pope as a spiritual leader — someone who leads them toward God, someone who offers consolation in a divided world, someone who works to overcome conflict and division. Francis was very clear about this, and Leo has been as well: we are all children of God, brothers and sisters — Fratelli Tutti. The Church is open to everyone. Francis famously said, “Todos, todos, todos” — everyone, everyone, everyone. Leo has expressed the same vision. I think people are searching for someone who will help lead them to God, help them live better lives, help them endure suffering and difficulty, help them navigate polarization, and also address the profound injustices present in the world. People see injustice everywhere. They see conflict. They see poverty. And they want someone willing to stand up and say: we are not on the right path. I think that is what Leo is doing. And it is what Francis did. People do not primarily look to the pope as a politician. They look to him as a man of God. They perceive holiness. Many saw that in Francis, and they seek it again in Leo. They are looking for someone who can offer hope for a better world than the one many currently experience — someone who can call people to responsibility. Leo was very striking, for example, when he contrasted the immense wealth accumulated by figures like Elon Musk with the suffering of people at the opposite end of the economic spectrum. He said clearly that we cannot continue with a world in which inequality continues to grow. People want someone willing to say those things openly. I was also struck when Leo visited Algeria — the first pope in the history of the Church to do so. At one point, speaking on national television, he read the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit…” And afterward, the president of the country publicly welcomed him as a champion of justice and a champion of peace. I think it is very significant that the cardinals elected a pope deeply committed to social justice and peace at a moment in history marked by conflict, inequality, and instability. For me, this is part of how God works in human history. And I think that is what we are witnessing now.
Robert Duncan: If you had one big-picture, concrete prediction for the future of Pope Leo’s papacy, what would it be?
Gerard O’Connell: I think he is going to emerge more and more as a major voice on the question of peace and on overcoming division between peoples — helping humanity rediscover that we belong to one human family, that we are brothers and sisters. And I think he will speak very strongly about poverty and economic injustice. Using Francis’ language, which Leo himself has repeated, he will continue insisting that “this economy kills,” and he will challenge the world by asking whether we cannot build something better and more just. Within the Church itself, I think he will bring a significant degree of unity.
Robert Duncan: Even with President Trump?
Gerard O’Connell: Look, President Trump has perhaps three more years. Leo could have twenty. Barring some unforeseen circumstance, Leo will outlast President Trump. And Trump is not the only leader in the world. We see what is happening in the Holy Land with Netanyahu. We see what is happening in Ukraine with Putin. The Church has watched empires come and go throughout history, and it will watch this pass as well. Presidents come and go.
Robert Duncan: Gerry O’Connell, thank you so much for sitting down with Catholic News Service.
Gerard O’Connell: Thank you.