INTERVIEW - "The Pope is needed more than ever. As a moral authority in a world that is falling apart," says church historian Hubert Wolf about the last absolute ruler

Mr. Wolf, on Wednesday the cardinals with voting rights will meet for the conclave. Your expert guess: Who will become pope?

I'm not a fortune teller, but a historian. The situation at the last two conclaves was relatively straightforward. This time, I have no idea, because the electoral body is very disparate and largely unknown.

The last conclaves were relatively short. Benedict was elected in four rounds, Francis in five. Do you think it will take longer this time?

I think it will take a little longer this time, yes. But not much longer. The electoral body is composed differently; many cardinals don't know each other. Some come from some island, have been to Rome once, picked up the red hat, and then flew back out. I imagine they might need nine rounds of voting.

So by the end of this week there will be a new Pope.

I think so. Until Friday evening.

This conclave is somewhat different from previous ones. The cardinal electors come from over seventy countries, and the balance has shifted away from Europe and toward Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. What does this mean?

It is the largest conclave in the history of the Catholic Church. In the Middle Ages, around twenty cardinals were elected each year. In the early modern period, up to seventy. Then John Paul II set the maximum number at one hundred and twenty. Francis has exceeded this number again. And the balance has shifted. But not to the extent that there is now a fixed party from the Global South. The group of newly appointed cardinals is very disparate. A cardinal from an island near Australia has completely different problems and expectations than one from Sub-Saharan Africa or South Korea. It is very difficult even for the cardinals themselves to assess what this means. They first have to find their feet.

Cardinals from Europe are in the minority. Why do they continue to dominate the list of papabili?

They can only become favorites at a betting office if you know them and can bet on them. On the other hand, the conditions are different today than they were during the last papal election. Back then, when Francis was elected, there was one dominant theme: criticism of the Curia. The tenor was: We need someone to clean up the mess. An unused force. So, ideally, not someone from the Curia, and not an Italian.

And today?

Today, entirely different problems dominate. The Curia, the Vatican, is in the grip of a financial crisis. It's practically impossible to pay the employees' salaries. Cardinal Marx reported on this during the pre-conclave. Now, someone is needed to get this situation under control. And suddenly, the focus is once again on candidates who know the Curia and have administrative experience.

So the next Pope must, above all, consolidate?

Yes, I think, after all the fuss Francis has caused, someone should come forward to ensure that the whole thing doesn't fall apart. And, above all, that it doesn't go bankrupt. The cardinals are well aware of this.

Many of the eligible cardinals were appointed by Francis. What does this mean? Does the spirit of reform still resonate?

The cardinals appointed by Francis are not a homogeneous group either. And as for the reform, I'm skeptical: Was Francis a reform pope? No, there are still no married priests, women are not ordained as deacons, there is no administrative jurisdiction, and synodality remains an empty phrase. Do the bishops have more power? Has the Curia been reduced in size? No. The Pope has delegated no power and has not relinquished any power.

But he at least brought the issues to the table?

Yes, but he refused to draw the necessary conclusions. At the Amazon Synod, the bishops voted by a four-fifths majority to allow married priests. Francis simply ignored it. Of course, he can do that. But that has nothing to do with reform.

But Francis has set a precedent in his demeanor: his renunciation of pomp and luxury, his emphatic modesty. Could the next pope go back on this?

Of course he can. Whatever the Pope decides is binding. He represents Christ on earth and has the authority to change anything that isn't dogmatically established. And as for modesty: Do you think it was cheaper to guarantee the Pope's security in the Santa Marta guesthouse than in the Apostolic Palace? Of course, the tiara, the Pope's triple crown, which was abolished in the 1960s, won't be brought back out of the closet. But that's a facade. The comprehensive powers remain.

In the conclave, the cardinals commit themselves to electing the man who, according to God's will, should become pope. In your opinion, what should the next pope be: a theologian, a politician, or, above all, a shrewd diplomat?

I would say quite simply: The next Pope must be Catholic. Catholic in the truest sense of the word: He must hold the world Church together and, as the Greek "katholon" suggests, make decisions and act with a view to the whole. And that means: He must hold together the various forms of Catholicism in different cultures around the world on the basis of the one creed.

A balancing act: He has to defend things in one place that he has revealed in other places?

It must enable unity in reconciled diversity. Then, for example, one would have married priests and ordained women as deacons in Switzerland. This is not yet the case in certain patriarchal cultures in Africa or Asia. And yet the Church as a whole would be united by faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Would Francis be exemplary in this respect, especially in the both-and approach that he has cultivated?

He facilitated a more open culture of dialogue. But as Pope, he didn't implement what he had learned as a pastor. And he should have, because he was Pope. He has tremendous authority. And once you have authority, you have to use it at some point. I can't be a judge and not pass judgment.

The power of the Pope is demonstrated not least in the conclave, a unique, magnificent, and impressive procedure. But does it still make sense today?

Yes, I still think it's a wonderful thing. It's an example of how the Church has learned brilliantly from history. The procedure has been continually adapted based on experience. The fact that the cardinals are cut off from the outside world is intended to speed up decision-making and keep outside influences at bay. Over time, the two-thirds majority was introduced to give the elected official more authority.

But the conclave is no longer a true conclave. There are meetings beforehand; the cardinals are in Rome, holding discussions, making agreements. There's no such thing as isolation.

Of course, there are these meetings beforehand. But during the immediate election process, during those four or five days, there are no cell phones, no daily newspapers, no television, no internet. No meetings with staff in Santa Marta either. During this time, the cardinals are entirely among themselves. There can be no outside influence. And the pre-conclave serves a good purpose: cardinals over eighty who are not eligible to vote also participate. There, they analyze: Where do we stand? And the cardinals can get to know one another.

The conclave is also a magnificent display of the power of the Church. Isn't Rome also celebrating a form of centralism that no longer exists?

I wouldn't say it's about Rome. It's primarily about Christ. And the church that goes back to him. "Roman Catholic" is the denominational name in Germany and Switzerland. That's contradictory. But that's precisely where the tension that a pope must represent becomes apparent: the tension between Roman and Catholic. Between the universal church and the center of Rome.

Is this still possible today?

Religion has a hard time in the Western world. But in the religious marketplace—in "god selling," as sociologists call it—those religions that have a strong core and a good presentation have it easier. In this respect, Catholicism, with the Pope, has the advantage. Look at how many people attended Pope Francis's funeral. How many millions watched it on television. And how many people will be waiting in the coming days until black or white smoke rises from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel. There are few events that are followed so closely around the world.

You are a conclave expert: What do you say about “Conclave,” the film adaptation of Robert Harris’ novel about the papal election?

A superbly made film! But the plot doesn't quite fit with the conclave's regulations.

He has flaws? Which ones?

Let's just say: The author and director took dramatic liberties. Point one: A cardinal appointed "in pectore," like Cardinal Benítez in the film, ceases to be a cardinal upon the death of the pope who appointed him. He has no way of legitimizing his identity and therefore cannot be recognized. Point two: During the conclave, not only are cell phones banned, but emails too. It is impossible for emails to be sent from the Santa Marta guesthouse. Point three: Cardinals and sisters, who clean the rooms and provide the food, do not meet. The cardinals go into the conclave, while the sisters clean the rooms. Then a buffet is set up, and when the cardinals return, the sisters are gone. And point four: A hermaphrodite—and that is the one elected in the film—cannot become pope. Only a Catholic man can be elected. These are four great plots, but four wrong ones.

They say the Pope is the last absolute ruler in the world. Does this figure even fit our times? Do we need a Pope?

He is perhaps needed more than ever today as a point of unity and an anchor in a world that is falling apart. The Pope may not have any divisions, but he does have tremendous moral authority. But he can only bring this authority to bear if he and the Catholic Church regain the credibility that was lost through the horrific abuse. The first step to this is for the new Pope to release all the files of his last five predecessors on this topic in the Vatican archives. So that we know what they did or did not do. Anyone who proclaims faith needs credibility. And the supreme guarantor of faith, the supreme witness of faith is the Pope. And if he is not credible, then no one will believe him.