The Catholic Church is currently undergoing a nine-day period of mourning and prayer for the late Pope Francis, but everyone knows that a papal conclave, the gathering of the College of Cardinals to select a new pope, is coming up soon. Already, headlines and pundits are speculating on whom the next pontiff might be and what views he might hold: Which cardinals are the leading candidates? Will he be liberal or conservative? Will he be left-wing or right-wing?

But the election of a new pope does not conform to the liberal-conservative, left-right dichotomy commonly applied to American politics, nor to the campaign style of candidacies, nominations, and elections common in the U.S. In fact, in many ways, a papal conclave transcends standard political norms.

The contention that certain cardinals are “frontrunners” to be pope, a contention frequently repeated on social media and in news headlines, is simply misleading. The Latin term papabile refers to a cardinal whom the outside world perceives to be a prominent figure who may be considered. But it isn’t always the case that one of the papabili is selected, or even put forward for a vote.

In August of 1978, for example, Italian Cardinal Archbishops Giuseppe Siri of Genoa and Giovanni Benelli of Florence, and the curial Cardinal Sergio Pignedoli were considered likely candidates for pope. Siri had been a popular contender for the papacy since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 and was viewed as a traditionalist who could counterbalance some of the reforms brought about under Popes John XXIII and Paul VI; Benelli’s prominence was linked to his strong support for Paul VI and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council; Pignedoli was considered a compromise, a balance between Siri’s traditionalism and Benelli’s reformer’s spirit. The cardinals elected Albino Luciani, the Latin Patriarch of Venice, who chose the name John Paul I.

A few months later, following Pope John Paul I’s untimely death, Benelli and Siri were once again hailed as papabili heading into the October conclave, particularly given news that both had garnered significant support early on in the August conclave. However, the cardinals chose a relative unknown to sit upon the Chair of St. Peter: Karol Wojtyła, the archbishop of Krakow, Poland, who took the name John Paul II. A non-Italian had not been elected pope since the early 1500s, resulting in commentators and pundits completely overlooking the young Polish archbishop.

In 2005, it was easier to predict that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger would emerge from the conclave as Pope (choosing the name Benedict XVI): He had been a close ally and advisor to John Paul II, Prefect of the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF (now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, DDF), and was dean of the College of Cardinals. However, Ratzinger had asked to retire from the CDF on several occasions, and concern about his health led some to speculate he would not be able to lead the Church and might even refuse the papacy were it offered to him. Others who were considered papabili included former Milanese archbishop Carlo Maria Martini, Patriarch of Venice Angelo Scola, Martini’s successor as archbishop of Milan Dionigi Tettamanzi, and Nigerian curial Cardinal Francis Arinze.

When Benedict XVI resigned the papacy in 2013, Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was considered papabile largely on account of the support which had coalesced around him in the 2005 conclave. Although he was eventually elected and took the novel papal name of Francis, Bergoglio was considered a less likely choice for pope than Scola and Canadian curial Cardinal Marc Ouellet; New York’s archbishop Timothy Dolan and the youthful Cardinal Luis Tagle were also considered papabili.

In short, attempts to predict who will be the next pope are often wide of the mark, and framing this cardinal or that as a “frontrunner” for the papacy – as though polling numbers are readily available – is laughable. By the same token, efforts to frame the election of the next pope in terms of the liberal-conservative, left-right axis commonly applied to American politics is also largely futile.

In the coming weeks, 135 cardinals will be eligible to participate and vote in the conclave. While some may have political minds and motives, the question that each cardinal should be asking himself when selecting a new pope is not “Does this candidate align with my political views?” Many cardinals have nuanced and varied political views themselves, in no small part due to their Catholic faith. In pre-conclave congregations, the cardinals discuss the needs and challenges facing the global Catholic Church. They invoke the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their voting, seeking to elect a man who can serve the Church as the Vicar of Christ, Peter’s successor; who can identify and address the needs of the nearly 1.5 billion Catholics across the globe, who can speak with moral clarity on issues ranging from abortion and gender ideology to mass migration and global conflicts, and who can be the primary shepherd of the Catholic Church. These considerations do not align with and, frankly, cannot be answered by the standard liberal-conservative, left-right paradigms most often applied to politics.

Some questions or considerations may align more nearly with standard political dichotomies: for example, whether or not to relax restrictions placed on the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, also called the Traditional Latin Mass or the Tridentine Mass. The question of immigration concerns is another: Some priests and bishops emphasize the Catholic Church’s teachings on accepting and assisting immigrants, while others emphasize the Church’s teachings on national sovereignty and cultural identity.

Other questions may appear, superficially, to fall somewhere on the liberal-conservative, left-right axis, but take on a much different hue and color when approached from a Catholic perspective. Pope Francis was considered by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike to be “progressive,” a pastoral reformer in the eyes of some and a subversive revolutionary in the minds of others, but never wavered on the matter of whether or not abortion is moral: The Catholic Church teaches definitively and unequivocally that abortion is a grave moral evil. This is not a matter of politics, although those aligned with the political left often support abortion and its liberalization and those on the political right often oppose it. For Catholics, the issue transcends (or ought to transcend) politics and be seen as simply a matter of morality, according to Catholic moral teaching.

The vast majority of questions which cardinal electors will be asking themselves – and each other – once the doors to the Sistine Chapel are sealed will relate to both character and theology – i.e., the suitability of the potential candidates. What character should the next pope have? Pope St. John Paul II was a man of charisma and gravitas, a man who could balance the austere authority of his office with the joyful heart of a father who loves his children. Pope Benedict XVI was more reserved, a scholar and a teacher but still a skilled communicator. Pope Francis was an innovator, often speaking off-the-cuff and rarely shying away from controversy. What character traits in a new pope will best serve the Catholic Church?

Likewise, matters of theology will come into play. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both laid great emphasis on the traditional teachings and age-old doctrines held by the Catholic Church, with little attempt at innovation, while Pope Francis introduced and explored new ideas. Issues prevalent in the modern world, some of which are spurred on or centered upon by political factions, will need to be addressed theologically by the next pope. Once again, even Pope Francis, who was often labeled as a “progressive,” took a theological approach to these issues which defied the “progressive” label, condemning on moral and theological grounds such contentious issues as transgenderism, gender ideology, and in-vitro fertilization in the Vatican document “Dignitas Infinita.”

Hot off the heels of a historic presidential election, it’s easy to understand why many media outlets and commentators are approaching the papal election in similar terms, but actually fitting the imminent conclave into an American political framework is significantly less easy.

S.A. McCarthy is a writer at The Washington Stand and George Neumayr fellow and contributing editor at The American Spectator. His work has also been published in RealClearPolitics and RealClearInvestigations, the Daily Signal, the Christian Post, Crisis Magazine, The Wanderer, and other outlets. He served as a teacher at a Catholic school before beginning his career in journalism.