The 133 cardinal electors who will process into the Sistine Chapel tomorrow are feeling battered and confused by the prospect of choosing a new pope in a ruthless digital age. Many of them show it in the faces, flinching at the sight of the press.
The cardinal-electors must elect a man of shining moral integrity. It doesn’t take a cynic to work out which of the candidates don’t fit that description
But the journalists are struggling, too. For centuries, the interregnum between a pope’s death and the vote has been a season of mud-slinging – an opportunity for supporters of various cardinals to kick their rivals. But nothing in recent history compares to the damaging online stories now appearing several times a day.
A week ago, there was a consensus. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Pope’s Francis’s wily Secretary of State, was the frontrunner. Even his enemies conceded that he probably had 40 of the required 89 votes in the bag; his supporters claimed 50 or more.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in