Pope Francis’ criteria for selecting new cardinals is both noble and corrupt. His Holiness chooses candidates from the peripheries who no one knows and who have no known track record except they are aligned with the Holy Father’s ideologies and come from the peripheries except for those minority of candidates who don’t. I would not see San Diego as the periphery but certainly Los Angles has far more Catholics of every ethnic background from the peripheries living there plus an archbishop which this pope has marginalized—one who heads one of the largest archdioceses in the world and evidently well given how big it is and how corrupt the previous archbishop/cardinal was.
But one wonders what kind of vetting took place. This pope has promoted some very questionable people to the episcopacy, some who are now in prison or should be, very much in the vein of Cardinal McCarrick.
One new candidate come from a region so small (smaller than my parish) that it is not even a diocese.
How can a candidate like that lead the world-wide Church as the Bishop of Rome?
How many of these candidates from small places and dioceses are capable of what it takes to be pope, intellectually, morally and administratively, not to mention the debt of their Catholicism?
So, what would be the most important criteria for the next pope?
He must be able to speak Italian fluently, like Pope Saint John Paul II, from Poland, Pope Benedict XVI, from Germany and Pope Francis from Argentina (but technically Italian).
How can a pope be the Bishop of Rome and at the same time not speak Italian nor have the gift or ability to learn it and fluently?
So, the main criteria for the next pope is that he be fluent in Italian. All other traits are on the table!