Er ... maybe it's more time for a media primer. Let's call it What To Expect When You're Expecting a Conclave, or at least what kind of coverage you can expect -- and where to look most. 

The last time the Vatican had to call its cardinals to Rome for a conclave, I went there as well to cover the developments. Even before I had boarded the plane in March 2013, global media had begun predicting how the conclave would develop, which "papabili" (potential candidates) ranked above the others, and what the Catholic Church would have to say with its next election ... even before the Camerlengo had prepared the Sistine Chapel for the conclave. 

Even the Italian media, which one would assume had more experience with the secretive nature of the process, busied itself with papabili charts and long discussions of who moved up and down the probability list on a daily or hourly basis. Those reports came complete with up-and-down arrow graphics, on RAI, which I watched every day.  It was all meaningless speculation of the Wild A** Guess variety, but it was also great fun, if only barely meaningful.

We find ourselves back at the beginning of a new conclave, and even without traveling to Rome this time (alas!), the same WAG speculation has already begun. Call it Fantasy Conclave, where participants get to fill out their rosters and see how many points they score in the end ... except that no one will know the actual score. The cardinals burn the ballots after each round, which is why we will see smoke emanating twice a day from the Sistine Chapel -- black for unsuccessful ballots, and white when the cardinals successfully elect the next Pope.

In truth, we know nothing of the discussions or even the topics that will arise. This electorate consists of 135 cardinals, not even enough for a good polling sample, and these officials are not given to airing their thoughts before the doors close. There is simply no basis for anything other than speculation as to who's up or down, which issues will dominate, or which direction the cardinals want for the Catholic Church in the next papacy. 

Still, though, it's mainly harmless to play Fantasy Conclave, as long as everyone understands those caveats. It does give the media a chance to cover the issues and currents inside and outside of the Church, and at least introduces audiences to truly interesting people who live to serve others. 

So let's start playing today with the Wall Street Journal, where some informed sources do set the context, at least:

After Francis’ stormy 12-year pontificate, some cardinals now say they want a successor who can steady the ship and defuse tensions between progressives and conservatives over divorce, same-sex relationships, priestly celibacy and other contentious issues.

“Many cardinals are tired of the roller coaster that has been this pontificate. Many of them will look for some stability,” said Massimo Faggioli, a church historian at Villanova University.

Francis appointed 108 of the 135 cardinals who can vote, so it is unlikely a majority will repudiate his efforts to bring the church closer to ordinary believers, especially the poor and marginalized, by emphasizing its pastoral role over doctrinaire finger-wagging.

Only a small number of traditionalist cardinals want to return to a papacy that enforces a universal orthodoxy on sexual morality and gender issues, in the manner of Francis’ predecessor Benedict XVI.

Yesterday, I mentioned that at least half of the College of Cardinals had been appointed by Pope Francis. This article reminds me that it's actually closer to 80%. Is that determinative? Maybe, but as Cardinal Timothy Dolan reminded people yesterday, the cardinals in the conclave that produced Pope Francis had been entirely appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. This is not a political question in the sense of American elections, or perhaps better, American judicial appointments. Cardinals govern dioceses and have their feet in the fields, so to speak, and have a habit of coming to their own conclusions. 

With that said, Faggioli probably has a good sense of where those conclusions have been leading. Vaticanistas such as my friend Francis X. Rocca pay close attention to the discussions that take place at synods as well as debates that arise outside of them. Stick to the media that routinely cover these issues, such as Crux, The Pillar, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Agency, and even The Daily Wire, where Bree Dail reports from the Vatican, among other reliable Vatican-based sources. (One point you'll notice: these outlets mainly avoid Fantasy Conclave in favor of traditional reporting and analysis.) 

On the other hand, less well-connected media cover the upcoming conclave more like this:

"It is exceedingly hard," WKYC notes, "to predict how more than 130 cardinal-electors might coalesce around a single future leader." That's true enough, but then they claim that "some names have emerged as short-list frontrunners." Perhaps thats true among the reporters, but the cardinals haven't even started their meetings, let alone their discernment. That won't begin formally until after the funeral for Pope Francis this weekend, as Crux's Elise Ann Allen explains:

Prior to the conclave itself, there will be around a week of general congregation meetings, when the cardinals gather, discuss key priorities for the Church, and get to know one another.

The general congregations this year will be especially important, as many of the cardinals Pope Francis appointed throughout his papacy come from remote and obscure places and are unknown to the rest of their fellow electors.

With that in mind, how could there even be a "short list"? That term usually gets applied to Cabinet or judicial appointments when a single person is the decider, such as at the start of American presidential administrations. When 135 deciders have to choose from 135 candidates -- and technically more, since the Pope doesn't necessarily have to be a cardinal -- the term becomes meaningless. Given that Pope Francis had been gravely ill for weeks before his death, undoubtedly some of these cardinal-electors have been considering what path to take next, but it seems exceedingly unlikely that any one of them has made up his mind, let alone enough for a "short list" to emerge. 

(Side note: It seems even more meaningless in this report, since it doesn't mention Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the second-ranking official at the Vatican, nor any of the African bishops that might make for attractive contenders.)

At least you won't lose money consuming this kind of coverage. Unfortunately, some Fantasy Conclave leagues cost money to enter:

The papal conclave is a prayerful and devout attempt to discern the person whom the Holy Spirit is calling to be the next bishop of Rome.

For those so inclined, it's also an opportunity to make money betting on the outcome.

Why it matters: Rarely do the sacred and profane clash more obviously than during periods of speculation surrounding a conclave.

The big picture: The idea of the wisdom of crowds — that a group will make better and wiser decisions than any individual — undergirds not only conclaves but also all democracies and public markets.

For one thing, a conclave is not exactly a democracy. It is a selection committee within a monarchical structure, so "the wisdom of crowds" plays no role at all in the process, unless it's a reference to the squeeze needed to get 135 cardinal electors into the Sistine Chapel. The wisest decision would be to refrain from betting on such a confidential process. Want some evidence for that? Before this past weekend, the leading bet on these markets was "No new Pope in 2025." 

(Side note 2: None of the candidates with the best odds on Polymarket got mentioned in the earlier WKYC report, except for Peter Erdo. Cardinal Parolin has the lowest odds in this betting parlor.)

In truth, though, this kind of speculation is still fairly harmless, as long as one doesn't take it seriously. It gives everyone a chance to engage the process and the historical weight it carries, introducing us to some fascinating figures within the Church, and maybe even bringing us a little closer to the Gospel and the Lord. The Holy Spirit does work in mysterious ways, after all.