Why do they keep selecting Popes at that age? John Paul II was a tremendous Pope for many years, and now we keep getting the equivalent of one-and-dones. I am not Catholic, but see the importance of a strong and successful Pope leading the church internationally.
Don’t worry. The next one probably will be younger.
There’s an answer to that: The papacy is NOT supposed to be a cult of personality, and no one pope is supposed to be that central of an historical figure. The Church doesn’t need nor want a “Francis era” or a “Benedict era” the way that that England has a Victorian era or an Elizabethan era. The fact that Pope John Paul II was such a good pope was a blessing; just imagine if a lesser man had served so long! And, in a way, Francis’s constant commentating has had a huge down side.
The United States protected against all-powerful, nation-shaping presidents by forbidding more than eight years. And indeed, the man who broke that rule radically transformed the very notion of American freedom. The papacy has not been something from which one retires or is ousted from in elections. Even in successions of wicked men from the highly politicized era of the Renaissance (whose wickedness is often exaggerated, but also often very severe), the institution survived infallible; for all his debaucheries, even Pope Alexander never issued false doctrine from the Chair of St Peter. This was acheived in large part by selecting men who were too old to have grand ambitions, and too short lived to restructure the institution.
Caveat: if you think that the continuing problems of the modern world require a strong, long-lasting pope, it is possible that the next conclave may select a younger pope. But with a 2,000-year history of “urgent, modern” problems, I wouldn’t hold my breath. In fact, Pope Francis flapping lips may only make them MORE likely to opt for a short reign.