I’ve been saying this for five years on occasional blogs. No one seems interested except those who disagree. Since you now provide a nice opening, I will repeat a few short points.
The most important fact is that Wuerl and McCarrick got Bergoglio elected. They strategized and, at the conclave, rallied the Cardinals. The reason for several votes is the choice was moving to Ouellet. He interrupted and said essentially, “Brothers, I’m honored, but if you elect me I will decline.”. They then gave O’s block of votes to B. That is the only thing that pushed Bergoglio into electable range. Prior, he was not seen as papabile except by Wuerl and McCarrick and their group.
note - No money, no blackmail, no bribery, no graft, was involved in this papal election (these men are savvy and super smart; do you really think they need to stoop to such barbaric methods?)
Bergoglio was elected to move the Church in the “progressive” direction. The Cardinals who gradually moved to support Bergoglio were motivated by a shared vision. No need to document it, you’ve seen it play out for years.
Not only do they believe the Church needs to get with the times and update old ideas - another anticipated benefit is the Church regaining status and prominence! The Church has slipped in the worldly scheme of things. If a Cardinal telephones someone in govt, media, education, religion and says, “Jump!” no longer does the recipient say, “How high?!”
Don’t believe this is only about power, it’s about effecting the good goals and Christian aims of the Catholic faith.
Whether there was blackmail and/or bribery involved remains to be seen.
I strongly suspect that financial malfeasance played a large role in Bergoglio’s election.