Bergoglio's Rising: Conclave is starting (2013) Part II

Extra Omnes

That morning, after passing through security, Bergoglio left his suitcase and went to his room, which, as determined by lottery, was room 207 in Santa Marta.

This morning at 10:00, over 150 cardinals, both electors and those above eighty, processed into St. Peter’s Basilica for a solemn Latin Mass attended by around 7,000 people, including clergy, religious, lay faithful, diplomats, and global media. Thunder rolled outside as heavy rain fell. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI followed the event from Castel Gandolfo. When the Mass ended, the cardinals processed out amid camera flashes, the faithful quietly wondering who among them would be the next pope. In the sacristy, after vestments were removed, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia approached Bergoglio with a sudden remark: “You could be the next pope!”

The historical record offers some perspective on the length of the conclave. It shows that eight conclaves were held over the past hundred years, and most were short. The longest was for the election of Pius XI in 1922, which took fourteen votes. The most rapid came on the eve of World War II in 1939, when Pius XII was elected in three ballots. Since then, John XXIII was elected in 1958 after eleven ballots, Paul VI in 1963 after five ballots, John Paul I after four and John Paul II after eight—both in 1978—and Benedict XVI in 2005 after four. This would suggest that the 2013 conclave could also be short, but cardinals seemed unsure about this as they began...

O’Connell, Gerard. The Election of Pope Francis: An Inside Account of the Conclave That Changed History. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2019.

In Le Monde, Stephanie Le Bars wrote about ten cardinals who could become pope: Ravasi, Scola, Schönborn, Ouellet, Scherer, Sarah, Tagle, Ranjith, O'Malley and Erdo. 

With minutes to go before the conclave began, the windows of the cardinals' rooms in Santa Marta were tightly locked and the blinds closed. All contact with the outside world was cut off; those inside would now shoulder the burden of their sacred duty alone. Here, in the heart of the Vatican, a sacred silence reigned. The cardinals, electors, and everyone involved in the conclave process were completely cut off from communication. Security was as impenetrable as an iron wall, protecting both Santa Marta and all the paths leading from there to the Sistine Chapel. At lunchtime, the electors gathered in groups in the dining hall. Those experiencing the conclave for the first time were amazed by the uniqueness of the environment.

Today's conclave will take place in the Sistine Chapel, famous for its historic atmosphere. However, when we look back at history, we see that popes were not always elected in this sacred place. Over the centuries, popes were elected in different places and by different methods. For example, in 731, Pope Gregory III was elected by ‘acclamation,’ that is, by the enthusiastic approval of the people. In 1585, Sixtus V ascended to the papacy ‘almost by inspiration,’ that is, through a special spiritual sign. However, in general, popes are elected by secret ballot. The first papal election by secret ballot took place in 1276 in Arezzo, 135 miles north of Rome. Since then, almost all papal elections have been conducted by conclave since 1294. The election held in 2013 will be the 75th conclave. Almost all papal elections have been held in Italy, mostly in Rome. Fifty-one conclaves took place in the Vatican, and 24 of these were held in the historic Sistine Chapel. Additionally, ten elections between 1550 and 1700 were held in the Pauline Chapel in the Vatican. Thus, this election will be the 52nd conclave in the Vatican and the 25th conclave in the Sistine Chapel. A new chapter is about to be opened in the depths of history.

These electors came from 48 different countries and five continents. There were 60 cardinals from Europe, 28 of whom were Italian. There were 19 from Latin America, 14 from North America (11 from the United States and 3 from Canada), 11 from Africa, 10 from Asia, and only 1 from Oceania (Australia) participating in this historic vote.

Additionally, 18 were members of religious communities and apostolic life communities who had dedicated their lives to God. Among them were one Jesuit, three Little Brothers of St. Francis, one Capuchin Franciscan, four Salesians, two Dominicans, one Redemptorist, one Lazarist, one Sulpician, one Oblate of Mary Immaculate, one Scalabrinian, one Schönstatt Institute priest, and one Mariamite Maronite.

Long tables at the Sistine Chapel await thearrival of cardinals for the conclave to elect the next pope, Tuesday, May 6,2025. | Credit: Vatican Media

The cardinal electors, dressed in red robes, were preparing to be taken from Santa Marta to the Pauline Chapel. The Pauline Chapel was built by Pope Paul IV Farnese between 1537 and 1540. It was located at the top of the Scala Regia, or Royal Staircase, designed by Bernini, which connected the Vatican Palace to St. Peter's Basilica. When they arrived at the chapel, the cardinals gathered together and waited for the ceremony to begin, admiring Michelangelo's two magnificent works on the walls: ‘The Conversion of Saint Paul’ and ‘The Crucifixion of Saint Peter.’ These works were commissioned by Paul III and created after Michelangelo completed ‘The Last Judgment’ in the Sistine Chapel.

By now, most of the cardinals had decided who to give their first vote to. Many also had second and even third choices in mind, as they would need to turn to alternatives if their first candidate failed to gain support. However, as in the past, those who were undecided would typically cast their first vote for a name they admired, respected, or wished to encourage. The announcement that divided their thoughts signalled the start of the ceremony. This ceremony, rich in history, ritual, and pomp, began at 4:30 PM with a grand ceremony at the Pauline Chapel, accompanied by prayers. In accordance with the Ordo Rituum Conclavis, a brief address was given by the cardinal.

Then the cardinals slowly walked towards the Sistine Chapel. At the front of the procession was the cross, followed by the Sistine choir, then two ceremonial officers, two sacristans, and the cardinal dean's religious assistant. Next came the Secretary of the College of Cardinals, Archbishop Baldisseri; Cardinal Grech, who would lead the meditation; and the cardinal electors. They were arranged in hierarchical order and by age: first the cardinal deacons, then the cardinal bishops, and finally the cardinal archbishops. A deacon followed them, carrying the Book of the Gospel.

During the procession, the famous Sistine Chapel Choir guided the cardinals with Latin hymns. They first sang the Litany of the Saints, calling upon the intercession of all the saints. Then rose the Veni Creator, a hymn from the 9th century, asking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was the moment for the cardinal electors to prepare themselves for the monumental decision they were about to make ,for the universal Church and the world.

They entered the Sistine Chapel in pairs. Walking to the center, they paid homage to the crucifix before taking their predetermined seats along the chapel’s two sides.

Many cardinals, especially those seeing it for the first time, gazed with awe and reverence at the stunning frescoes adorning the chapel walls. These masterpieces were commissioned by Pope Sixtus IV and painted by renowned Renaissance artists such as Botticelli, Perugino, Pinturicchio, Ghirlandaio, and Rosselli. The frescoes depicted scenes from the lives of Moses and Jesus. Completed in 1482, Sixtus IV celebrated the chapel’s first Mass there on August 15, 1483. The very first conclave held in the Sistine Chapel took place in 1513. As the cardinals took their places, their eyes were drawn upward to the magnificent ceiling, the work of Michelangelo, one of the greatest masters of the Italian Renaissance. It was filled with scenes from the Book of Genesis. The most famous of these is the image of God reaching out to touch Adam’s finger during Creation, painted between 1508 and 1512 under the patronage of Pope Julius II.

In front of every cardinal in the Sistine Chapel were three important texts: the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which governs the papal election process; the Ordo Rituum, detailing the conclave rituals; and the Liturgy of the Hours prayer book. Additionally, a list containing the names of all cardinal electors was placed before them. After all cardinals took their seats, the conclave’s presiding officer, Cardinal Re, read aloud the oath pledging to follow all the rules of the papal election and to keep complete secrecy about everything that happened during the conclave. This oath forbade leaking any information about the election, prohibited any audio or video recordings, and barred any outside interference in the process. Breaking the oath carried an automatic penalty of excommunication.

Following the cardinal dean’s reading of the oath, each cardinal, in order of hierarchy, went to the open Bible placed in the center of the Sistine Chapel and repeated the oath personally, placing his hand on the book. This entire process was broadcast live by Vatican Television.

Once the oaths were completed, Monsignor Marini, the ceremony’s master, loudly commanded, “Extra omnes!” (“Everyone out!”). Millions around the world watched this thrilling moment. Except for those who were not allowed to vote, Monsignor Marini, and Cardinal Prosper Stanley Grech, everyone else left the chapel immediately. Marini then slowly closed the two massive wooden doors of the Sistine Chapel. Outside the doors, two Swiss Guards stood firmly, dressed in their colorful uniforms and holding long halberds, allowing no one to enter.

The Two Popes

All 115 cardinal electors wrote the name of their chosen candidate on their ballots, carefully folded them, and then proceeded one by one to the podium to cast their votes in order. Each cardinal held their ballot between their thumb and index finger, raised it clearly so everyone could see, and then walked towards the altar where a silver and gold-plated urn decorated with the figure of the Good Shepherd awaited. This urn was crafted by the Italian sculptor Cecco Bonanotte.

Upon reaching the altar, beneath the breathtaking sight of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment, each cardinal loudly and clearly proclaimed the oath:
“I cast my vote for the one whom I believe to be worthy before God.”

Afterwards, they placed their ballot on the gold-plated plate atop the altar, tilted it gently to allow the ballot to fall into the urn, and finally paid their respects to the crucifix before returning to their seat. The next cardinal then repeated the same ritual.

Once all 115 electors had cast their votes, three officials approached the podium to begin the count. The tension was palpable; everyone held their breath for this historic moment. The first official shook the urn to mix the ballots, using the same urn from the previous conclave. Then, the second official took each ballot and transferred it to a second, empty urn. This step verified that the number of ballots matched the number of electors if there was any discrepancy, that round would be declared invalid.

When the count was complete, the three officials sat at the table in front of the altar. The first opened each ballot, quietly read the candidate’s name, and took note. The second repeated the process, and the third announced the name aloud to the entire assembly before recording it on a specially prepared sheet of paper. From the outside, the windows of the Sistine Chapel were completely darkened. However, given advances in modern communication technology and risks of electronic eavesdropping, the security measures from the 2005 conclave were deemed insufficient. For the 2013 conclave, additional precautions were introduced, including Faraday cages and other cutting-edge devices designed to block smartphone signals and prevent electronic surveillance.

To secure the votes, the third official pierced the word “Eligo” (“I elect”) on each ballot with a needle and thread, binding the ballots together. Once all were read, knots were tied at the ends of the threads, and the linked ballots were set aside.

The Two Popes

The third and final phase of the voting, the counting of the ballots, had begun. The results brought many surprising moments. Before the conclave, many cardinals had expected a wide distribution of votes in the first ballot, but no one anticipated just how broad it would be: a total of twenty-three cardinals received at least one vote, meaning one in every five cardinals was supported. Moreover, four of them received ten or more votes, while another received four votes.

Cardinal Scola led with thirty votes, though he did not receive as many as some cardinals and the Italian media had predicted. The biggest surprise was Cardinal Bergoglio from Argentina, who came in a close second with twenty-six votes. In fact, he should have had twenty-seven, but one ballot mistakenly recorded his name as “Broglio.” This was an extremely promising start for the Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

Coming in third was Ouellet, who performed better than expected, garnering twenty-two votes and establishing himself as a strong candidate. O’Malley was a surprise with ten votes, marking the highest number ever received by an American candidate. On the other hand, the highly promising Brazilian Cardinal Scherer received only four votes, which was unexpectedly low. Outside these frontrunners, five cardinals, Schönborn, Turkson, Pell, Monsengwo Pasinya, and Dolan, each received two votes. Another thirteen cardinals garnered a single vote each, including the misspelt “Broglio,” which was clearly meant for Bergoglio.

The voting process concluded with the burning of the ballots. After double-checking the count reports, officials took the ballots and records to one of two specially prepared ovens in the back left corner of the Sistine Chapel. These two ovens were connected to a narrow chimney that led outside, a symbol watched by the world for centuries to see if a new pope had been elected. This tradition dates back to the 18th century when the master of ceremonies decided to announce the results to the world by the colour of the smoke, black or white, rising from the ballots’ burning. (Following the rules, the ballots from this first vote were burned in the old oven used in every conclave since 1939.)

PART 1: In Bergoglio’s Shadow: The Conclave After Ratzinger

References

·   O’Connell, Gerard. The Election of Pope Francis: An Inside Account of the Conclave That Changed History. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2019.

·      Pope Francis. Life: My Story Through History―An Autobiography of the Life and Legacy of Pope Francis. Thomas Nelson, 2022.

In Bergoglio’s Shadow: The Conclave After Ratzinger Part I

“Hello?”

“Your Eminence, it’s Gerry. I’m calling you from Rome. I hope I’m not disturbing you. The pope has resigned.”

The process began like this. The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI sent shockwaves through the Vatican and the Catholic world. For the first time in hundreds of years, a pope was stepping down from his position. "For a moment I was paralyzed." Francis would later use these words to describe the shock he felt.

He received the news not in Rome, but in Argentina. It was an ordinary day. The phone rang. The caller was his long-time friend, journalist Gerry O’Connell. When Gerry said, “The pope has resigned,” Francis was stunned. The sentence didn’t fully register at first because it was not just any piece of news.

I could hardly believe what I was hearing. This was something I had never expected to hear in my lifetime: a papal resignation, though technically allowed under canon law, felt unimaginable. In those first few moments, I thought to myself, “I must have misunderstood. This can’t be real.”

That morning, Gerry had only said those few words, then quickly hung up, promising to call back later. He had a lot of work to do. Two or three hours later, he rang again. This time, he explained everything clearly. The resignation would take effect on February 28, at 8:00 PM. The conclave to elect the next pope would begin shortly after March 10.

Get your tea or coffee ready; we are about to take a long journey…

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, second from left, travels on the subway in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2008. (AP Photo/Pablo Leguizamon, File)

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio arrived in Rome just before Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. He had made the long journey from Buenos Aires, as always, without ceremony flying economy class.

Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation placed the College of Cardinals in an unusual and historically unprecedented situation. For the first time in over seven centuries, a pope was leaving his office not by death, but by choice. This extraordinary decision gave a different tone to the “General Congregation” meetings held before the conclave. Unlike in the past, when quiet alliances and familiar names dominated the room, the atmosphere now felt more open and more free. For once, there were no fixed scripts. No secret promises. Just a group of men trying to discern the future of the Church. Many names were mentioned as papabili potential candidates for the papacy. Some attracted media attention, others were whispered about in back rooms. But no clear favourite had emerged. The picture was so unclear that even the name of Bergoglio long overlooked by many had yet to be spoken aloud. And in the middle of all this uncertainty, an Argentine cardinal, dressed plainly and carrying no air of ambition, was quietly moving toward a moment that would change history.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s name started to come up often as a possible candidate for pope. However, some political groups in Argentina worked to stop him from being chosen. I will write about that process in a separate blog. In the 2005 conclave, when Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope, Bergoglio was also one of the important candidates. But would he be among the candidates again in the 2013 conclave? An anonymous cardinal shared what happened in 2005 with the Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli. Brunelli published parts of this diary in the autumn issue of Limes, an Italian geopolitical magazine. According to the cardinal, the first vote was very divided. About 30 out of 115 cardinals received votes. But only seven cardinals got a significant number of votes. This shows the hidden balance and surprises in the election process.

According to The Election of Pope Francis: An Inside Account of the Conclave That Changed History by Gerard O’Connell: 

"In the first round of voting, Cardinal Ratzinger seemed almost unstoppable with 47 votes. However, there was a significant group opposing him, and they voted for different candidates. Leading this group was Jorge Mario Bergoglio with 10 votes. He was followed by Martini with 9 votes, Ruini with 6, Sodano with 4, Rodríguez Maradiaga with 3, and Tettamanzi with 2 votes.

In the second round, the numbers shifted: Ratzinger increased his votes to 65, while Bergoglio received 35.

By the third round, Ratzinger had 72 votes, just 5 short of the required 77 for election, and Bergoglio had 40 votes. This was enough to block the German cardinal’s election. One of the key moments in the conclave was this deadlock. Later, during lunch at Santa Marta, Ratzinger’s supporters—especially Latin American Cardinal López Trujillo—tried to convince the region’s cardinals to vote for Ratzinger. Meanwhile, Cardinal Martini suggested that if opposition continued and the election became deadlocked, a compromise candidate could be found. The diary notes that tensions ran high during this lunch, with various discussions taking place. Some electors believed Bergoglio realized that if Ratzinger’s election was blocked, the conclave could be prolonged and might lead to divisions within the Church. He also understood that this situation could result in the election of a lower-profile third candidate. It is said that because of this, Bergoglio withdrew from the contest to preserve Church unity.

In the fourth round, as votes were counted, Ratzinger took notes and around 5:30 PM was elected with 84 votes. Bergoglio received 26 votes. Cardinals Schönborn, Biffi, and unexpectedly Law from Boston each received one vote. Two other votes were cast but not recorded. 

When Ratzinger reached the required 77 votes, there was a brief silence followed by long, heartfelt applause. Cardinal Danneels’ remark, “This conclave tells us the Church is not yet ready for a Latin American pope,” captured the mood of the moment."

1 of 5 | FILE - Pope Francis, left, and Pope Benedict XVI, meet each other on the occasion of the elevation of five new cardinals at the Vatican, on June 28, 2017. Pope Francis has exposed the political "maneuvers" to sway votes during the past two conclaves and denied he is planning to reform the process to elect a pope in a new book-length interview published Tuesday April 2, 2024. (L'Osservatore Romano/Pool photo via AP, File)

Towards the Conclave

After the unexpected resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, a sense of uncertainty spread throughout the Catholic world. Cardinal electors began arriving in Rome, and before the conclave began, they met with one another, discussed possible candidates, and reflected on the kind of leader who could open the door to a new era for the Church. No one knew who would emerge as the leading figure, but a few names were gaining attention. One of them was Cardinal Wilfrid Napier from South Africa. Known for his dynamic personality, frank speech, and views that reflected the spirit of the African continent, Napier believed that the next pope should be “young, spiritually deep, open to reform, and in harmony with the world.” In his view, the ideal candidate would be in his sixties, energetic, humble, and someone with a genuine relationship with Jesus.

Another notable name was Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. George pointed out that this time, the list of candidates was more serious than in past conclaves. “Now we have not only names people want to see,” he said, “but candidates who can truly lead the Church.” For George, the next pope had to be a good administrator, sensitive to the needs of the poor, capable of representing the universal Church, and a person of strong character. As the cardinals shared their thoughts, it became clear that this conclave was not only about electing a spiritual leader it was about finding someone who could also reform the Roman Curia and bring real change to the governance of the Church.

The words of Cardinal Telesphore Toppo captured the spirit of the upcoming conclave. Hailing from the Indian state of Jharkhand, Toppo was the world’s first tribal cardinal and he had just arrived in Rome, carrying more questions than answers. He didn’t claim to know who the next pope would be, but he had a clear conviction: a pope is not merely the result of personal virtues, but of a strong local Church. His view echoed the recent history of the papacy: John Paul II had emerged from the rooted Catholicism of Poland, and Benedict XVI from Bavaria, a bastion of German Catholic tradition. For Toppo, regions like the Philippines, where the faith was vibrant and united, might one day give rise to a pope. In this context, one figure stood out: Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Archbishop of Manila, whom Toppo called “Asia’s number one.” But Tagle wasn’t the only name being whispered. As Toppo put it, while the guidance of the Holy Spirit was the official principle, cardinals often tried to listen for that Spirit’s voice even in the murmurs of the room.

When it was announced that the conclave would begin on March 12, Italian newspapers screamed the headlines with dramatic flair. That same day, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave a short but powerful speech during the General Congregations a moment that shifted the entire atmosphere of the hall.

When he finished speaking, there was silence. Then, applause. Then came the quiet, focused glances as if something had suddenly changed in the minds of a few:

“Could this be the one?”

Years later, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor would recall the moment: “I believe that some cardinals heard an inner voice. Maybe this man was the one to lead the Church into a new direction.” The conversations behind the scenes began to stir. That very afternoon, Bergoglio was having a modest lunch with his old friend, Cardinal Lozano Barragán. No one told him that his name was no longer whispered, but spoken out loud. Meanwhile, in other places for instance, at the apartment of Curia heavyweight Cardinal Attilio Nicora about fifteen cardinals had gathered to "establish a direction" before the first vote. Some were from Europe, but most had come from other continents. One name had already emerged: Bergoglio.

That evening’s estimates suggested he would enter the conclave with at least 25 votes. Compared to Ratzinger’s commanding lead in 2005, this was a strong base. Yet nothing was certain. As Cardinal Coccopalmerio would later reflect: “Sometimes it’s a feeling, an inner voice… Maybe it’s the whisper of God. We think it’s just our own thought but maybe it isn’t.”

Coming Next: The Conclave Begins

In the second part of this series, we will walk through the 2013 conclave step by step: the vote counts, the early surprises, the shifting alliances, the tense lunchtimes, the moments of hesitation and finally, the arrival of that timeless declaration:

“Habemus Papam.”

We will follow it all, line by line, and uncover what happened behind the curtain.

References

·   O’Connell, Gerard. The Election of Pope Francis: An Inside Account of the Conclave That Changed History. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2019.

·      Pope Francis. Life: My Story Through History―An Autobiography of the Life and Legacy of Pope Francis. Thomas Nelson, 2022.

Picture 1: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2022-10/tagle-why-holy-see-is-renewing-the-provisional-agreement.html

Picture 2: Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan speaks to CNA at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, Nov. 6, 2014. | Bohumil Petrik/CNA.

Picture 3: Cardinal Wilfrid Napier speaks at the Vatican Press Office on Oct 14 2014. Credit Bohumil Petrik/CNA

Picture 4:  Cardinal Francis George retired as Chicago archbishop in the fall of 2014.  (Paul Beaty / Associated Press

Picture 5: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2021-02/patent-vaccine-coronavirus-turkson.html

Picture 6: https://www.vaticannews.va/pt/igreja/news/2024-08/cardeal-scherer-coragem-crer.html

Picture 7: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pope-francis-profile-jorge-mario-bergoglio-a-humble-man-who-moved-out-of-a-palace-into-an-apartment-cooks-his-own-meals-and-travels-by-bus-8533450.html

Echoes of the Papacy: From Vatican Walls to the Edges of the Earth #part1

The Pope Effect

The fact that Pope Francis, elected in 2013, is a member of the Jesuit order, and now, with the election of Pope Leo XIV (formerly Cardinal Prevost), who led the Augustinian Order from 2001 to 2013, raises a compelling question: Is it just a coincidence that these two popes emerged from different but ideologically aligned traditions rooted in intellectual discipline and service-centred spirituality? Or is this a deliberate and strategic shift, the Church's conscious response to a changing world? Perhaps it's no coincidence at all; perhaps it's providence, a reflection of the Church's evolving identity—one that seeks not only to exist through rituals and dogma but to thrive through thought, simplicity, solidarity with the poor, bold steps on issues like homosexuality, clear opposition to war, and empathy for migrants.

One of Pope Francis's first acts as Pope was his visit to Lampedusa, the Italian island heavily burdened with incoming refugees, to draw attention to their suffering. But here, we must ask:

What changed?

What compelled the Church to move in this direction?

https://www.vaticannews.va/es/papa/news/2025-05/la-ultima-entrevista-del-cardenal-prevost-sobre-francisco.html

At this point, we should remember the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) in 2013. This move, almost unheard of in modern times, was more than just a matter of old age. It was a quiet admission of a crisis within the Church.

Benedict’s time as pope was marked by a series of major scandals:

The sexual abuse cases, money laundering allegations linked to the Vatican Bank, and the Vatileaks documents that exposed internal secrets and power struggles. These dark revelations, taking place in what should have been the Church’s most sacred spaces, left wounds, both in public opinion and in the hearts of the faithful.

Though Benedict XVI was seen as one of the greatest intellectuals in the Catholic world, he lacked strong public speaking skills and struggled to connect with people. That gap was filled by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. He was the one speaking to the media in the Pope’s place, deflecting tough questions, managing the public image, and navigating the hidden corridors of Vatican power. A clever and calculating diplomat, Bertone knew how to manage the narrative when scandals erupted.

Bertone was not just a “secretary” in the Vatican—he was an architect. Behind the scenes, he built a network: a structure, a circle of loyalty, and influence. Everyone could see the complex games of power unfolding around the Pope, but no one seemed able to stop them. And perhaps Benedict saw this too. He realized that he no longer had the strength or the allies to carry out reform. As long as Bertone’s inner circle remained intact, the Church could not truly breathe again.

So there was only one move left:

To step down.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2022-11/pope-francis-general-audience-wednesday-catechesis-16-november.html

“The duty of the Conclave was to give Rome a bishop. It seems that my brother Cardinals have gone to the ends of the earth to get one.”

— Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis), 13 March 2013

That day, under the domes of the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals gathered to do what they had always done: elect an archbishop for Rome. But this time, the one they chose did not come from Rome. He came from the margins.

As he himself put it : “from the end of the world.”

When Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013, he chose a name no pope before him had ever taken: Francis. This was not a random decision; it carried a deep symbolic meaning, a message in itself. Bergoglio chose the name of Saint Francis of Assisi, the man who renounced wealth and privilege, who preached peace, and lived among the poor. But the true meaning behind this name lies in a story from Francis's own life.

According to tradition, one day while praying in the ruins of the San Damiano chapel, Saint Francis heard the voice of God say: "Francis, go and rebuild my Church, which, as you see, is falling into ruin."

At first, Francis took these words literally. He began to repair the crumbling chapel with stones and mortar. But over time, he came to understand: God was not speaking of walls and buildings. What truly needed rebuilding was the Church’s spiritual and moral foundation. What had collapsed was not the structure, but faith, conscience, and essence. Pope Francis understood this, too. By choosing the name "Francis," he was not merely honouring a saint; he was embracing the mission the saint had left behind. In taking on this name, he accepted the bold and heavy responsibility of helping to restore a Church wounded by scandal, distanced from the people, and disconnected from the poor. But he sought to do this not with bricks, but with compassion; not from the grandeur of palaces, but by living in a modest guesthouse; not by speaking from the heights of hierarchy, but by standing beside the people themselves.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/biography-of-robert-francis-prevost-pope-leo-xiv.html

The newly elected Pope Leo XIV now faces an important choice: will he continue in the footsteps of Pope Francis, or will he draw his own path forward? One thing is certain: today’s Christianity, with some exceptions, faces the danger of reducing faith to a set of repeated rituals, while overlooking metaphysics: the deep, invisible, and meaning-filled layers of existence. In churches, incense continues to rise, prayers are whispered softly, and hands are joined in reverence, but often, the mind is empty, and the spirit is elsewhere.

Pope Francis adopted a language that touched the wounds of the world. Pope Leo XIV, in turn, may become a leader who brings back Saint Augustine’s philosophy of “communal spirit” to the global conversation. And this leads us to an essential question:

Is the Church now searching for God not only in the heavens, but also in the eyes of a poor child and in the quiet hope of a refugee?

See you in Part II

Modernization in the Ottoman Empire: A New Beginning with Mahmud II

Sultan Mahmud II not only reformed the military; he transformed almost every aspect of Ottoman society, from politics to social life, from healthcare to education, from the arts to the bureaucracy. While dismantling traditional institutions one by one, he built modern structures influenced by European developments. The abolition of the Janissary marked the start of this massive transformation, which was not just military but also political and cultural. Mahmud did not simply try to catch up with the times; he redefined the central power of the state.

Sultan Mahmud II

Sultan Mahmud II wanted to weaken the local leaders and families who had strong control over parts of the Ottoman Empire. In 1821, the Greek Rebellion started, and Mehmed Ali Pasha, the governor of Egypt, helped the Sultan stop it. But Mehmed Ali Pasha then asked for more land and tax income as a reward. This put the Sultan in a difficult position. He had two choices: either make deals with local leaders and European powers or use the crisis to create a strong, centralized government with emergency powers.

But the Sultan’s problem was not only local leaders and rebellions. After the French Revolution in 1789, many European countries started building large armies made up of ordinary people. France began drafting many young men as soldiers, and other European countries copied this system. The Ottoman Empire also needed a strong infantry army like this.

Before, Sultan Selim III and Alemdar Mustafa Pasha tried to make army reforms but failed. Now Sultan Mahmud II faced the same challenge. He could either reform the existing Janissary corps or create a completely new army. After the Greek Rebellion was suppressed, new units called “Eşkinci” were formed inside the Janissaries. The Janissaries protested this and rebelled.

Sultan Mahmud II saw this rebellion as an opportunity. He used force to destroy the Janissary corps completely. This was not just a military change but also removed the biggest obstacle to central government power. With this, the Sultan took a big step toward building a stronger, more centralized empire.

Portrait of Sultan Mahmud II, given by Mustafa Reşid Pasha to King Louis-Philippe of France, now at the Musée de Versailles

Asakir-i Mansure-i Muhammediye

After the Janissary Corps was officially abolished in 1826, Sultan Mahmud II created a new army called Asakir-i Mansure-i Muhammediye. He chose Ağa Hüseyin Pasha, a loyal man from the old corps, as the commander of this new army. Other important officials were also assigned to help organize the new structure. The plan was to form an army of about 12,000 soldiers, divided into eight units. These soldiers were supposed to be trained using modern European military methods. However, the Ottoman Empire didn’t have many officers who knew these methods. So, the Sultan asked the governor of Egypt, Mehmed Ali Pasha, to send officers to help train the new army. But Mehmed Ali refused, because he thought this new army might become a rival to his own forces.

Since no help came from Egypt, the Sultan appointed Osman Ağa, a former officer from the Nizam-ı Cedid army. Although he was a cavalry officer and not very experienced in infantry training, he was the only available option.

The Sultan also chose Emin Ağa, who had served in the Nizam-ı Cedid and studied at the Enderun Palace School, to help train the soldiers. So, some experienced men from earlier military reforms joined the new army’s training efforts. Meanwhile in Istanbul, a former navy commander named Hüsrev Pasha started training a group of sailors in the French military style. He had earlier set up similar units while he was in Egypt. Later, Hüsrev Pasha came to Istanbul and told the Sultan that he was using the newest training methods from France. Sultan Mahmud II watched these training exercises at the Gülhane Pavilion and liked Hüsrev’s faster and more active style. He ordered this method to be used for the army.

Hüsrev Pasha, who had lost his position because of Mehmed Ali Pasha’s influence, later became the governor of Anatolia and then the commander of the army. Under his guidance, infantry training changed. For cavalry, an Italian officer named Calosso was hired. He tried to train the cavalry in the Hungarian hussar style, with new saddles and riding techniques.

But the Ottoman cavalry found it hard to adapt. They were used to sitting on horses with their legs crossed or pulled up, almost like sitting on the floor. The new style required them to sit with their legs down, which felt strange and uncomfortable. An English officer, George Keppel, said that the skilled old riders were gone, and the new ones were clumsy. Another English naval officer, Adolphus Slade, wrote that Calosso himself thought the changes were a mistake because they replaced effective traditional fighters with a small number of modern-style but less capable soldiers.

The Ertugrul Cavalry Regiment crossing the Galata Bridge painted by Fausto Zonaro in 1901.

Abraham and Isaac

The Image of Sacrifice: A Look at the Story of Abraham and Isaac Through Four Works of Art

Sacrifice is one of the oldest rituals in human history. It is often seen as a sign of deep faith, but it also brings difficult questions:

Where is the line between obedience and free will? How can a father be ready to sacrifice his own son?

Does God really want this — or is it just a test?

All these questions appear in one powerful story: Abraham’s test with his son Isaac. This story is important in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is not just a religious event, but a symbol of human struggle, belief, and emotion. That’s why it has been shown in many artworks across history. Each artist tells the same story in a different way, using their own style, beliefs, and feelings. It is like painting the same moment again and again — but always with a new meaning.

In this blog, we will look at four artworks that show this story in different styles:

·        Caravaggio’s dark and dramatic painting,

·        A 14th-century Jewish manuscript illustration,

·        Rembrandt’s emotional and thoughtful version,

·        Domenichino’s calm but powerful composition.

They all show the same story, but each one tells a different truth. Because to really understand a scene, we must not only look at it but also feel what it says across time.

 “What does sacrifice truly mean? And is it always about giving up someone—or sometimes, is it about giving up a part of ourselves?”

The Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio (1603)

The painting was created around 1603 and is now in the Uffizi Gallery. It shows a famous story from the Old Testament where God tests Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. Caravaggio captures the dramatic moment when Abraham is about to sacrifice Isaac but is stopped by an angel sent by God. The angel tells Abraham not to harm the boy because he has proven his faith by being willing to give up his son. Instead, a ram is offered as a sacrifice.

Caravaggio makes the angel very human-like by placing it close to Abraham and showing the angel firmly holding Abraham’s wrist to stop him. In the background, there is a wide landscape with hills, small houses, and a village. This scene reflects Caravaggio’s early training in northern Italy, in regions like Lombardy and Veneto.

Some critics believe that the building on the hill represents a church with a baptistery, symbolizing the future Catholic Church. The light shining over the landscape is seen as a symbol of divine grace. In this interpretation, Isaac’s sacrifice points forward to the sacrifice of Christ. The painting was likely commissioned by Maffeo Barberini, an important Vatican official at the time who later became Pope Urban VIII. His payments to Caravaggio confirm the artist’s authorship.

The artwork was donated to the Uffizi in 1917 by John Fairfax Murray. Murray bought it as a painting by Gherardo delle Notti from a company that had acquired part of the Colonna Sciarra family’s property in Rome during the late 19th century.

• Date: Around 1603
• Museum: The Uffizi Gallery
• Collection: Painting
• Location: Room D29, Caravaggio and Artemisia section
• Technique: Oil on canvas
• Size: 104 x 135 cm
• Inventory Number: 1890 no. 4659

Sacrifice of Isaac, The Hammelburg Mahzor, 1347–48, Hammelburg, Germany. University and State Library Darmstadt.

This illustration comes from a Jewish manuscript made in 14th-century Germany, known as the Hammelburg Mahzor. It shows the well-known story from the Hebrew Bible: God commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Just as Abraham is about to kill his son, a messenger from God stops him and says, "Now I know that you fear God." Then Abraham sees a ram caught nearby and offers it instead. The Bible says this happened on "the mount of the LORD," in the land of Moriah. Abraham named the place Jehovah-jireh — meaning "The Lord will provide."

Later texts connect this mountain to Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, also called the Temple Mount. It became a key holy site in Jewish tradition. However, in the Samaritan version of the Bible, the mountain is not Moriah but Mount Gerizim, believed to be the holiest place by Samaritans.

This medieval illustration does more than just retell the story. It teaches a message about faith, obedience, and divine mercy. As a manuscript for Jewish worship, the image served to remind worshippers of God's tests and His grace, all through strong, symbolic imagery, not dramatic realism. Unlike Caravaggio’s intense emotional realism, here we see a more didactic and structured style. It’s not about emotional shock — it’s about moral clarity.

Abraham and Isaac, Rembrandt, 1634

This powerful painting by Dutch master Rembrandt van Rijn tells the dramatic story of Abraham, who was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. Created in 1634, this artwork is known for its emotional depth and striking use of light and shadow. Rembrandt focuses on the moment when Abraham is just about to kill Isaac, but an angel suddenly appears and stops him. The expressions on their faces, especially Isaac’s fear and Abraham’s shock, are painted with incredible detail. The background is dark, helping the figures stand out even more. This dramatic lighting effect is called chiaroscuro, a technique Rembrandt mastered.

Rembrandt was interested in this biblical story. He painted several versions, including a later one in 1635, now in the Hermitage Museum. He also made an etching in 1645, which shows the painful moment before the sacrifice, highlighting the psychological tension rather than the action itself.

In all his works on this theme, Rembrandt doesn’t just tell a story — he explores big ideas: faith, fear, obedience, and divine intervention. His ability to show human emotion with honesty and power makes him one of the greatest artists in history.

·         Title: Abraham and Isaac

·         Artist: Rembrandt van Rijn

·         Date: 1634

·         Medium: Oil on Canvas

·         Dimensions: 193 x 132 cm

·         Location: Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, Russia

God commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, Domenichino.

This moving painting by Domenichino shows the biblical story where God tests Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Just as Abraham prepares to strike, an angel appears and stops him — a dramatic moment from Genesis 22:1–19. Domenichino was trained at the Carracci Academy in Bologna and moved to Rome in 1602. He was part of a generation of artists who combined naturalism with classical order. This painting was made for the Royal Alcázar in Madrid as part of a commission that brought works by major Italian painters to Spain.

The scene is full of quiet tension. Abraham leads his innocent son toward the altar, unaware of the angel’s coming intervention. Domenichino places the figures in a broad, calm landscape, inspired by Annibale Carracci’s natural settings and Flemish painters like Paul Bril. These wide, atmospheric views would later influence artists such as Claude Lorrain and Nicolas Poussin.

More than a dramatic story, this image also carries symbolic meaning. Christian viewers often saw Isaac’s near-sacrifice as a foreshadowing of God sacrificing Jesus, adding a layer of spiritual reflection.

·         Title: The Sacrifice of Abraham

·         Artist: Domenichino

·         Date: 1627–1628

·         Medium: Oil on Canvas

·         Dimensions: 147 x 140 cm

·         Current Location: Not on display

·         Provenance: Royal Collection