Anonymous wrote:So to your average Catholic person, what difference does the Pope make? Because from my perspective, Francis was very forward thinking yet it seemed to have no effect on the conservatives in America, as they elected Trump and Vance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift article from WSJ explaining how Robert Prevost rose to the top amongst all the cardinals and earned the trust/votes. Really interesting. TL;DR: It's all about messaging.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-leo-xiv-conclave-election-robert-prevost-0eb0f255?st=GkLEdd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

This part is key and to me explains why an American was on the table:

"Day after day, cardinals sat through speeches on issues facing the church, from sex abuse to the increasingly dire state of the Vatican’s finances. During coffee breaks, cardinals concurred that they needed to elevate a proven manager."

The American cardinals are known as the most capable administrators, especially financially. Once you have proven management skills in a candidate, there are other boxes to look at to tick: extent to which the candidate can be seen more as a citizen of the world (and multilingual) rather than very parochial, moderation between the more liberal and more conservative wings, Vatican experience, relatively clean record, etc.

Prevost ticked all those boxes as the "least American of the Americans."

Very insightful, I remember hearing about the idea that they were looking for a financial steward before the conclave, it makes sense that this would give the Americans a boost due to culture/education in the US that is more likely to emphasize financial acumen.

Apparently Tagle had demonstrated managerial weaknesses, what likely sunk him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift article from WSJ explaining how Robert Prevost rose to the top amongst all the cardinals and earned the trust/votes. Really interesting. TL;DR: It's all about messaging.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-leo-xiv-conclave-election-robert-prevost-0eb0f255?st=GkLEdd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

This part is key and to me explains why an American was on the table:

"Day after day, cardinals sat through speeches on issues facing the church, from sex abuse to the increasingly dire state of the Vatican’s finances. During coffee breaks, cardinals concurred that they needed to elevate a proven manager."

The American cardinals are known as the most capable administrators, especially financially. Once you have proven management skills in a candidate, there are other boxes to look at to tick: extent to which the candidate can be seen more as a citizen of the world (and multilingual) rather than very parochial, moderation between the more liberal and more conservative wings, Vatican experience, relatively clean record, etc.

Prevost ticked all those boxes as the "least American of the Americans."

Very insightful, I remember hearing about the idea that they were looking for a financial steward before the conclave, it makes sense that this would give the Americans a boost due to culture/education in the US that is more likely to emphasize financial acumen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the cardinals considered in the conclave but it will be jarring for American Catholics to hear the Pope speak in American English. It will have a different effect on them, including all the American and English speaking world leaders who will meet the Pope in years to come.

Why would it be jarring? Genuine question.

- non-Catholic

DP, but because in the US, the Pope has always been viewed as essentially a foreign dignitary. So it would be like if the German Chancellor or the Japanese PM showed up with a Chicago accent. It personalized the relationship in a surprising way -- he is, to some degree, one of us. This is bizarre.

To works leaders outside the US, it may be strange because of the unique position the US is in as a world leader. They are used to a hegemonic relationship with the US in which it always has the upper hand. To interact with an American Pope with an American accent could feel confusing, as their association with the accent will be so strong.

For me, it is very wild to hear the Pope speaking with a Midwestern accent, and to have what read as American expressions and mannerisms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift article from WSJ explaining how Robert Prevost rose to the top amongst all the cardinals and earned the trust/votes. Really interesting. TL;DR: It's all about messaging.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-leo-xiv-conclave-election-robert-prevost-0eb0f255?st=GkLEdd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

This part is key and to me explains why an American was on the table:

"Day after day, cardinals sat through speeches on issues facing the church, from sex abuse to the increasingly dire state of the Vatican’s finances. During coffee breaks, cardinals concurred that they needed to elevate a proven manager."

The American cardinals are known as the most capable administrators, especially financially. Once you have proven management skills in a candidate, there are other boxes to look at to tick: extent to which the candidate can be seen more as a citizen of the world (and multilingual) rather than very parochial, moderation between the more liberal and more conservative wings, Vatican experience, relatively clean record, etc.

Prevost ticked all those boxes as the "least American of the Americans."

Very insightful, I remember hearing about the idea that they were looking for a financial steward before the conclave, it makes sense that this would give the Americans a boost due to culture/education in the US that is more likely to emphasize financial acumen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift article from WSJ explaining how Robert Prevost rose to the top amongst all the cardinals and earned the trust/votes. Really interesting. TL;DR: It's all about messaging.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-leo-xiv-conclave-election-robert-prevost-0eb0f255?st=GkLEdd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

This part is key and to me explains why an American was on the table:

"Day after day, cardinals sat through speeches on issues facing the church, from sex abuse to the increasingly dire state of the Vatican’s finances. During coffee breaks, cardinals concurred that they needed to elevate a proven manager."

The American cardinals are known as the most capable administrators, especially financially. Once you have proven management skills in a candidate, there are other boxes to look at to tick: extent to which the candidate can be seen more as a citizen of the world (and multilingual) rather than very parochial, moderation between the more liberal and more conservative wings, Vatican experience, relatively clean record, etc.

Prevost ticked all those boxes as the "least American of the Americans."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift article from WSJ explaining how Robert Prevost rose to the top amongst all the cardinals and earned the trust/votes. Really interesting. TL;DR: It's all about messaging.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-leo-xiv-conclave-election-robert-prevost-0eb0f255?st=GkLEdd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

This part is key and to me explains why an American was on the table:

"Day after day, cardinals sat through speeches on issues facing the church, from sex abuse to the increasingly dire state of the Vatican’s finances. During coffee breaks, cardinals concurred that they needed to elevate a proven manager."

The American cardinals are known as the most capable administrators, especially financially. Once you have proven management skills in a candidate, there are other boxes to look at to tick: extent to which the candidate can be seen more as a citizen of the world (and multilingual) rather than very parochial, moderation between the more liberal and more conservative wings, Vatican experience, relatively clean record, etc.

Prevost ticked all those boxes as the "least American of the Americans."

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift article from WSJ explaining how Robert Prevost rose to the top amongst all the cardinals and earned the trust/votes. Really interesting. TL;DR: It's all about messaging.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-leo-xiv-conclave-election-robert-prevost-0eb0f255?st=GkLEdd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift article from WSJ explaining how Robert Prevost rose to the top amongst all the cardinals and earned the trust/votes. Really interesting. TL;DR: It's all about messaging.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-leo-xiv-conclave-election-robert-prevost-0eb0f255?st=GkLEdd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the cardinals considered in the conclave but it will be jarring for American Catholics to hear the Pope speak in American English. It will have a different effect on them, including all the American and English speaking world leaders who will meet the Pope in years to come.

Why would it be jarring? Genuine question.

- non-Catholic

Language is an intimate thing. I think those whose first language is not English would understand better. For me, English is technically my second language though also my dominant language, but when I hear someone speak to me in my first language, it feels so intimate in a way, like it hits me more directly. So yes it is one thing for Americans to hear the Pope through broken English and translation, and a totally different feeling to hear him in our native tongue. I'm sure it will feel different for American Catholic politicians to hear this Pope admonish then in American English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the cardinals considered in the conclave but it will be jarring for American Catholics to hear the Pope speak in American English. It will have a different effect on them, including all the American and English speaking world leaders who will meet the Pope in years to come.

Why would it be jarring? Genuine question.

- non-Catholic