Parolin and Prevost: A tale of two papabile

The reshaping of the Catholic Church under Pope Francis has resulted in a successor few expected: Pope Leo XIV of America, an outside voice whose Vatican tenure as Cardinal Robert Prevost was relatively brief before his ascension to the Throne of Peter.

Vatican insiders had predicted him as papabile, though in most reports well behind the Italian cardinals Pietro Parolin, Pierbattista Pizzaballa, and Matteo Zuppi, as well as the Filipino Luis Tagle and Africa’s Peter Turkson and Fridolin Ambongo Besungu.

Parolin in particular received widespread attention, having served as the Vatican's cardinal secretary of state throughout the Francis papacy and as a member of the inaugural Council of Cardinals, formed in 2014.

The veteran Church statesman was the odds-on favorite in Vegas and elsewhere, with Tagle trailing closely in the final days before the 2025 conclave, setting up a presumed showdown between old and new, West and East.

Instead, it appears the deciding factor was the relationship between the Global North and South—not in the candidate field but in the Sistine Chapel voting blocs.

The 133 electors, comprising the largest and perhaps most diverse conclave in history, were treated to a bevy of prior intel, that of their own procurement, from outside influencers, and from other cardinals.

Did these factors influence the votes? We may never know, though experts reported that Parolin went into the proceedings with roughly a third of the votes needed to become Bishop of Rome. According to reports, he was ultimately rebuffed due to a lack of support from Africa and Asia.

As the story is being told, the first two ballots quickly showed Parolin to have no path to victory, perhaps for a variety of reasons. He was questionable on immigration. He spearheaded the controversial 2018 Vatican-China agreement. He was linked to one of several recent financial scandals at the Holy See. Ultimately, he was a moderate who began at the Vatican long before Francis and only later became an ideological ally. 

Perhaps telling is that days after the pope’s death, Parolin—in his last major chance to make a global case for his conclave candidacy—preached a Mass of mourning in St. Peter’s and failed to mention synodality, the late pontiff’s guiding principle.

A slip of the mind? A subtle appeal to the conservative wing? Whatever the cause, by closing time he was no longer the man to beat. His final descent cleared the way for a candidate further down the slate.

Enter Prevost, an American who’s not too American and who spent most of his career working in Peru. In that sense, he was a Latin American candidate like Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio before him, but from a country far less connected to Europe. As is now known, Pope Leo’s own ancestry is also not exactly White.

His fellow cardinals suggest they saw him as a unity candidate. Pastoral and not too adventurous. Theological, precise, but still approachable. A spiritual son of the African saint Augustine, ready to teach and to minister.

Catholics I spoke to before the conclave were hardly enthusiastic about an American pope, envisioning the reign of controversial conservatives like Cardinals Raymond Burke or Timothy Dolan—who, ironically, is said to have played kingmaker in the triumph of Prevost.

Although most U.S. electors are progressives who received their red hats from Pope Francis, the notion persisted—across ideological persuasions—that selecting an American pope would send all the wrong signals.

Yet, here we are. A Chicago emigrant man seemingly beloved by all is now known as the Holy Father, and has already linked himself to the Francis papacy in a way that has his devotees singing a similar tune.

By all accounts, Leo XIV is not the pope we expected but he is the one we wanted.

Nate Tinner-Williams is co-founder and editor of Black Catholic Messenger.

Want to donate to BCM? You have options.

b.) click to give (fee-free) on Zeffy

b.) click to give on Facebook