Habemus Papam!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I think you're right. But I'm not American, so it's easy for me to see that US politics didn't really factor in. Most people in the world, including cardinals wrestling with evangelization, Curia issues, trying to keep the various factions from splintering... aren't going to be looking at Trump et al.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s very interesting to have an American pope in a time when America is frankly tanking in the eyes of the world. I wonder if the conclave felt an American Pope could better influence American political leaders on things like restoring humanitarian efforts, refugee and immigrant treatment, etc. Not to make it all about us, but it’s just surprising to see an American chosen

You and I may not like what is happening in the US to put it mildly but do not mistake that for tanking in the eyes of the world. There is one superpower -- military, cultural, economic and it is the US. All of Europe is not equal in any catagory. Neither is China. That is not why he was elected but it is where we are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why anyone would be happy given this: "In picking the 69-year-old Prevost, the papal conclave looked past allegations that he had mishandled or failed to act on sexual abuse cases involving priests in both Peru and the United States."

Do any cardinals care about sexual abuse.

Do any religious men with power anywhere care about sexual abuse? I have yet to see evidence of that, anywhere in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His dad was French and Italian, and his mom is Spanish with the last name Martinez. He is a Peruvian citizen as well.

I imagine he was picked to navigate the American political scene as well as appeal to Latin America.

His mother is Black. https://www.nola.com/news/first-american-pope-roots-new-orleans/

Did you read this on lipstickalley.com like I just did ha ha! Nola.com was like "just so you know...he's (part) black by the way". Fun pope announcement day evening development!

They took down that page. I don't think it's true.

His maternal grandparents, and his mother, might be Creole, according to the NYT: here's a gift article -

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/us/pope-leo-creole-new-orleans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F08.J1Y1.hWIH71ynqQ9B&smid=url-share

Creole does not mean Black. It can either mean white Europeans people who were born in the Caribbean and south Americans; or mixed African/native tribes/European.

His father's name Prevost is originally French. Which means he could be white European by way of Canada, and New Orleans, since a lot of Acadians moved there. Or he just be French.

As a French woman with white European and Asian heritage, I love this. I think his origins might have greatly informed his decision to work abroad, in Peru and other countries with a heavily mixed population. Italy, Spain, southern France all have a lot of North African genes in their populations as well.

His great grandfather’s birthplace was listed as Haiti, but ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His dad was French and Italian, and his mom is Spanish with the last name Martinez. He is a Peruvian citizen as well.

I imagine he was picked to navigate the American political scene as well as appeal to Latin America.

His mother is Black. https://www.nola.com/news/first-american-pope-roots-new-orleans/

Did you read this on lipstickalley.com like I just did ha ha! Nola.com was like "just so you know...he's (part) black by the way". Fun pope announcement day evening development!

They took down that page. I don't think it's true.

His maternal grandparents, and his mother, might be Creole, according to the NYT: here's a gift article -

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/us/pope-leo-creole-new-orleans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F08.J1Y1.hWIH71ynqQ9B&smid=url-share

Creole does not mean Black. It can either mean white Europeans people who were born in the Caribbean and south Americans; or mixed African/native tribes/European.

His father's name Prevost is originally French. Which means he could be white European by way of Canada, and New Orleans, since a lot of Acadians moved there. Or he just be French.

As a French woman with white European and Asian heritage, I love this. I think his origins might have greatly informed his decision to work abroad, in Peru and other countries with a heavily mixed population. Italy, Spain, southern France all have a lot of North African genes in their populations as well.

His great grandfather’s birthplace was listed as Haiti, but ok.

Confirmed of Black Creole descent.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09/us/pope-leo-creole-lineage-hnk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Who ever cares about Vance? We will hardly remember his name, doughy face and stupidity in a few years. Trump is old. A youngish Pope was elected and he is going to be Pope for much longer than these two will be significant in politics. Plus American Catholics represent not even 4% of the Catholic population worldwide. He tweets about Vance because he is from the US and doesn't like policy on migrants. But ultimately he's a Republican, anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ. Not sure why people are rejoicing like it's some great move just because he dislikes Vance. He aligns with Vance on many things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to those who say he’s a liberal, what about this?

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/08/pope-robert-prevost-lgbt/

He is a liberal Catholic. Pro-Latin America. Which is a very specific thing.

He is pro-choice of course. Also anti-IVF and any reproductive technology.

Anti-LGBT and Gay marriage. Both of these are not optional for someone who is in that kind of a position of power within the Church.

He is also someone who likely has a Latin American sensibility about distribution of wealth and does not love the new power we have deemed billionaires worthy of.

He holds the position that the Catholic Church long has on immigration, on meeting the needs of the poor and on the environment and the need for Peace.

None of this puts him out of step with the Bishops of the world, with the US Bishops' Conference or with the Vatican.
The fact that he has navigated the Vatican for so long means that he won't be easily tripped up.

I think it's a great choice. And yes, most definitely a choice meant to put a check on any of the US Conservative Catholics (Supreme Court Justices, anyone?) who think that they are called by their faith to affirm immigrants being sent to concentration camps. Obviously.

According to MSN, he's also a registered Republican, something that has been verified by other news sources (e.g., NewsMax).

I'm the PP who wrote this. It doesn't surprise me that he's a registered Republican. That doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Liberal Catholic is not at all the same thing as progressive.

+1 lots of registered Republicans in my Catholic family. None have voted for a Republican candidate since Bush, some not since Reagan, and many of those voted for Carter.

Same with my family. Lots of registered Republicans who never vote that way. My father, who would be in his 80's if he was alive, identified as a Republican his whole life, in part because he never got over the Democrats and their support of segregation during his childhood. Every single election, going back to at least Carter, he'd vote for Democratic candidates.

Today, I also have family members who keep their Republican registration so that they can vote in primaries and try to stop MAGA candidates, but when they fail, they vote Democratic in the general election.

So, no, keeping his Republican registration, without evidence that he voted that way, doesn't bother me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to those who say he’s a liberal, what about this?

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/08/pope-robert-prevost-lgbt/

He is a liberal Catholic. Pro-Latin America. Which is a very specific thing.

He is pro-choice of course. Also anti-IVF and any reproductive technology.

Anti-LGBT and Gay marriage. Both of these are not optional for someone who is in that kind of a position of power within the Church.

He is also someone who likely has a Latin American sensibility about distribution of wealth and does not love the new power we have deemed billionaires worthy of.

He holds the position that the Catholic Church long has on immigration, on meeting the needs of the poor and on the environment and the need for Peace.

None of this puts him out of step with the Bishops of the world, with the US Bishops' Conference or with the Vatican.
The fact that he has navigated the Vatican for so long means that he won't be easily tripped up.

I think it's a great choice. And yes, most definitely a choice meant to put a check on any of the US Conservative Catholics (Supreme Court Justices, anyone?) who think that they are called by their faith to affirm immigrants being sent to concentration camps. Obviously.

According to MSN, he's also a registered Republican, something that has been verified by other news sources (e.g., NewsMax).

I'm the PP who wrote this. It doesn't surprise me that he's a registered Republican. That doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Liberal Catholic is not at all the same thing as progressive.

+1 lots of registered Republicans in my Catholic family. None have voted for a Republican candidate since Bush, some not since Reagan, and many of those voted for Carter.

Same with my family. Lots of registered Republicans who never vote that way. My father, who would be in his 80's if he was alive, identified as a Republican his whole life, in part because he never got over the Democrats and their support of segregation during his childhood. Every single election, going back to at least Carter, he'd vote for Democratic candidates.

Today, I also have family members who keep their Republican registration so that they can vote in primaries and try to stop MAGA candidates, but when they fail, they vote Democratic in the general election.

So, no, keeping his Republican registration, without evidence that he voted that way, doesn't bother me.

+1. A good friend of mine says "I may be Republican, but I'm not stupid."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

DP but that's not fair. Conclave was fiction, but most people familiar with the conclave process agree the movie got the process pretty correct, including the way politicking works behind the scenes and the fact that spiritual concerns still influence the process. The twist at the end was unrealistic, but the rest of the movie is considered to have a lot of accuracy.

So a bit different from thinking Airplane accurately reflects how airlines work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

DP but that's not fair. Conclave was fiction, but most people familiar with the conclave process agree the movie got the process pretty correct, including the way politicking works behind the scenes and the fact that spiritual concerns still influence the process. The twist at the end was unrealistic, but the rest of the movie is considered to have a lot of accuracy.

So a bit different from thinking Airplane accurately reflects how airlines work.

In fact it was reported many cardinals, including Leo!, watched the film to learn more about process due to its reputation for accuracy. This was the first conclave for the 80% elected by Francis, including Leo, so the majority were trying to prepare as best they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

DP but that's not fair. Conclave was fiction, but most people familiar with the conclave process agree the movie got the process pretty correct, including the way politicking works behind the scenes and the fact that spiritual concerns still influence the process. The twist at the end was unrealistic, but the rest of the movie is considered to have a lot of accuracy.

So a bit different from thinking Airplane accurately reflects how airlines work.

NP. Very few people are involved with the conclave process and really understand how it works. Hollywood is always doing things like Oliver Stone's JFK, and some viewers always take it as gospel, so to speak.