[nodumbideas]

It’s a really interesting point; the postwar conclaves have arguably been some of the least (openly?) political in a history. The next one will probably be more politicized than the last one. You can imagine lots of commentary from non-Catholics on who they think “should win,” tied to political or cultural ideas.

In some ways this is new, but it’s also possibly a reversion to the mean on how it’s worked historically? One difference is that in the 16th century, the impact of the Pope on day to day life was higher (at least in Catholic Europe).

[antognini]

One of the reasons that there were historically so many machinations around the election of the Pope was that the Pope was not only a spiritual leader but a temporal ruler as well. The Pope was the monarch of the Papal States in central Italy (along with a number of other territories throughout Europe that changed hands more frequently). So it was a position of immense political power and wealth.

Starting in the 18th century the Papal States began to be chipped away by European powers, and this culminated in Pope Pius IX losing all control political control of the Papal States in 1870 to the Kingdom of Italy. Since then the papacy's temporal power has been limited to the Vatican City, along with the moral weight of the position.

[eadmund]

> You can imagine lots of commentary from non-Catholics on who they think “should win,” tied to political or cultural ideas.

I’m not Catholic, but I do think that it makes sense for the next pope to be one.

[lo_zamoyski]

> in the 16th century, the impact of the Pope on day to day life was higher

Not so. The mass media have instantly made every sneeze of the pope common knowledge, or common fake news. In prior centuries, the pope's prominence in the consciousness of daily life was low. He was a remote figure. You wouldn't hear of his death for weeks.