First, no surviving cardinal from the 1978 conclaves was still of voting age (under 80) in 2013, 35 years later. The resigning Pope Benedict XVI (the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger then 86 years old) did not participate in Conclave 2013.
That means that each and every voting cardinal of 2013 was appointed by John Paul II or Benedict XVI.
Do not believe media propaganda about John Paul I. He had a sunny disposition and a sunny smile but he was the classic "fine Roman hand", essentially an iron fist in a velvet glove. Study his handling of pervasive theft of Church funds by priests and officials of the Patriarchate of Venice. He played possum for three years while his investigators compiled the evidence. He played the role of amiable dunce. Then he sprung by ordering each and every priest of the Patriarchate to show up one morning at the cathedral, locked the doors, read the riot act with details of the thefts, naming names, levying massive penalties and demanding full restitution. He was also a lifelong disciple of the magnificent Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who chaired the Holy Office of the Inquisition under Pope Pius XII. He had had a falling out with Cardinal Ottaviani only when Ottaviani publicly advised disobedience to the persistently liberalizing papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI. Luciani objected on the basis of preserving papal authority intact and not to support liberalism in any form.
The funeral Mass of Paul VI was celebrated by the senior member of the College of Cardinals, Carlo Cardinal Confalonieri who had been a Vatican official of high rank since World War I. Confalonieri had a beatific smile on his face suggesting his joy at consigning Paul VI to the grave. Paul VI had promulgated a prohibition against cardinals over eighty voting in conclave, apparently trying to rig the election of a "progressive" successor. Confalonieri, Ottaviani and Amleto Cardinal Cicognani, barred from conclave, went to the airport, greeted each cardinal arriving for conclave, gave them an earful of what had transpired under John XXIII and Paul VI, and successfully urged the election of Albino Cardinal Luciani to be the new sheriff in town to clean up the mess.
John Paul I was murdered although the Vatican will never admit such things. Take that to the bank. Claire Sterling, then of Reader's Digest, wrote a compelling account of the evidence of the murder. Probable means: poisoning of his morning coffee.
When the cardinals reconvened in conclave after John Paul I's sudden death, it was no more Mr. Nice Cardinal. Apparently convinced that John Paul I had been sound enough of belief but a bit naive in trusting the household staff, they next went for Karol Cardinal Wojtlywa who had survived the nazis as an active participant in the underground (whose then girlfriend had her brains blown out by the Gestapo/he apparently never dated again thereafter but began studies for the priesthood) and made a career of challenging the communists as a very public church official. His candidacy was advanced by a truly grand cardinal Stefan Cardinal Wyszinski who had been Wotlywa's bishop when he was a young priest but had not gotten along with him. They became quite close in later years.
As soon as he was elected John Paul II summarily fired the entire household staff on the basis that he wanted a staff entirely comprised of people fluent in Polish (whom he brought in from Poland) including caretakers, kitchen staff, servants and everyone else. Bear in mind that such staff turnover was entirely unprecedented and that Pope St. John Paul II was quite fluent in 11 languages including Italian. Draw your own conclusion. John Paul I's physicians had given him a clean bill of health as he headed into conclave, a heart condition of ten years earlier having been successfully resolved.
In short, Francis and John Paul I could not have been more different and, though I have no explanation as to why cardinals appointed by Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI would have elected Bergoglio, your theory as to what the cardinals THOUGHT they had elected in John Paul I is simply not supported by known fact. Whatever their motives may have been, we are not likely to ever know. It may well be that they thought Bergoglio to have co-operated with the Argentine junta in the "dirty war" in which many communists "disappeared." Upon Bergoglio's election, the liberals had their panties in a twist over the possibility that he was an Argentine fascist. Wrong call on their part but that does not mean that the cardinals did not believe it.
Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio was rumored to be the second place finisher at the 2005 conclave that elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Benedict XVI. He was a apparently backed then and later by would be perpetrators of a palace coup including the likes of Walter Cardinal Kaspar and several aging European radicals and some like Madariaga of Honduras as well. They had hoped to elect Carlo Maria Martini, a left wing Jesuit of quite heterodox views who was Archbishop of Milan for 23 years until his death in 2002. They have been dying off or aging out but not soon enough to prevent Bergoglio's election. What they could not do was roll back his advanced age. He admits that his papacy will be short. Like Obama, he seems determined to do as much damage to tradition, to papal authority, to the Curia as he can in the short time available to him.
May there be another conclave SOON and may God send us a young, vigorous, genuinely CATHOLIC pope ASAP.
May God bless you and yours!
I wanted to call your attention to my #97 which is not totally comprehensive. Not to proselytize but to set certain popular historical errors aside. You may well disagree with us on matters of theology but the history in that post (which has nothing to do with differences between Catholics and other Christians) is the history. In controversies as to these facts, I choose what I believe to be true when I cannot be absolutely sure but I approach such controversies with the mind of a recovering trial lawyer ad looking for the best evidence.
An Evangelical Christian working as a tech at the dialysis center where I receive treatment lent me a book by a former atheist or agnostic reporter for the Chicago Tribune and Yale Law School alumnus. The book is The Case for Christ and was written by Lee Strobel about his own investigation of Christ and the Scriptural accounts about Him that led to his own conversion when, to his horror, his wife had suddenly become a fervent Evangelical believer. He was going to muster the evidence, debunk the claims about Jesus Christ and teach his gullible wife a lesson.
Instead, after consulting about 20 experts and scholars on Scripture, the crucifixion, the Resurrection, the early Christian community, St. Paul, relations between early Christians and the Jews at Jerusalem. etc., he concluded for Jesus Christ and His absolute authenticity. The now Rev. Mr. Lee Strobel is an assistant pastor at an Illinois Evangelical MegaChurch; Willowbrook Community Church. Allow this Catholic to recommend to you and to my fellow Catholics the thoroughly Reformed Rev. Mr. Strobel's book.
I also lent the Evangelical dialysis tech a copy of the late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen's Life of Christ, one of the more outstanding volumes in my extensive collection.
Again, God bless you and yours.