The Conclave: A Sometimes Secret and Occasionally Bloody History of Papal Elections (23 page)

The election begins fifteen days after the pope’s death, though the period may be extended to twenty days. A cardinal arriving late will be admitted, as long as the election has not taken place. In a major change to previous provisions, John Paul says that the electors may live in the Hostel of St. Martha, recently built inside the Vatican City. The election has to take place within the Vatican City, not, as in the Middle Ages when cardinals accompanied popes on their travels, wherever the pope dies. Careful instructions are laid down for the secrecy of the conclave and especial mention is made of keeping people away while the cardinals are going between the Hostel and the Sistine Chapel, where the voting takes

162
Afterword

place. Apart from the cardinals a small number of other people are allowed in – priests to hear confessions, nuns to look after the sacristy, masters of ceremonies for liturgical celebrations, and the secretary of the college of cardinals. Each cardinal is allowed one cleric as an assistant, the “conclavist.” All are required to take an oath of secrecy, and the security of the Sistine Chapel is to be checked. The cardinals then themselves take an oath of secrecy, and at this point everyone not among those permitted to remain has to leave.

Traditionally there have been three methods of electing a pope: acclamation, “compromise” (the establishment of a committee for the purpose), and “scrutiny” or ballot. In
Universi Dominici Gregis
John Paul II abolishes all but the last and returns to the two-thirds majority, unless the number of electors is not divisible by three, in which case it is two-thirds plus one. The ballot papers have on them “Eligo in Summum Pontificem,” “I elect as Supreme Pontiff,” and the cardinal adds the name, folds the ballot slip so that it cannot be seen, puts it in a receptacle – a chalice – on the altar, and returns to his place. The scrutineers, who have been cho- sen by lot, shake up the receptacle, then proceed to the counting of votes. These ballots are then burned, along with any notes that the cardinals may have made in the course of the session. A record of the total votes is, however, kept and put in a special archive, to be opened only with the permission of the pope. This record would not contain information about who voted for whom.
Universi Dominici Gregis
makes no mention of burning straw with the ballot papers to produce black smoke, indicating that the ballot has been unsuccessful. One can only presume that the practice will continue and that white smoke, without the straw, will still indi- cate the choice of a new pope. As a signal to the outside world, however, the burning of the ballot papers has been notoriously unreliable.

Universi Dominici Gregis
lays down that two votes should be taken in each session, two sessions a day, with a break of a maxi-

How to Spot a Pope
163

mum of a day if no result has been arrived at after three days. Voting is then resumed for seven more ballots, another pause, seven more ballots, a pause and exhortation from the senior cardinal present, and then seven more ballots. At this point, how- ever, there occurs a major innovation. Pope John Paul then prescribes that, if the electors so wish, they can proceed to voting by an absolute, rather than a two-thirds, majority. They can do so in one of two ways: either they can continue voting until one candidate had an absolute majority over all others or they can vote only on the two names which got the highest number of votes in the previous ballot.

This provision could have interesting consequences. The requirement that a two-thirds majority must be achieved means that a compromise candidate has to be introduced if there is a more or less even split of the votes between two others. If, however, after some ten days there is no sign of a compromise and a major- ity vote is agreed to, then a different dynamic is introduced. Take, for example, the election of John Paul II. After the second ballot Cardinal Benelli was well in the lead, with more than four times the number of votes as Cardinal Wojtyla. At that point his supporters and those of the next ranking candidate, the moderate conserva- tive Cardinal Felici, might have sat tight and waited for a majority vote on the two of them. Had that happened then Benelli would probably have been elected rather than Wojtyla. It would have been a very different pontificate – though much shorter: Benelli died almost exactly four years later.

The Constitution of John Paul II continues with warnings against simony in papal elections, conspiring for a new pope in the lifetime of the incumbent, any form of “capitulation,” or any attempt to introduce a veto. It ends with instruction to the one elected to accept the o
ffi
ce. It also envisages the possibility, though almost as an afterthought, that the person elected may not be present. If this is the case, particularly if the person so elected is not even a bishop, the cardinals wait to do homage until he is ordained

164
Afterword

bishop, then all proceeds as normal, including taking possession of the Lateran basilica, the pope’s cathedral in his real o
ffi
ce as Bishop of Rome.

But what of the person to be chosen by this process? Between the death of a pope and the election of his successor such cardinals as are in Rome meet in formal “congregations” to conduct necessary business, including arranging the funeral and organizing the conclave. They also choose two priests to address them, one more or less immediately, one inside the Sistine Chapel at the last minute before the conclave opens. They are to speak about the state of the Church and what sort of person is needed. The cardinals will have decided on the latter long before. They do not talk about it in the congregations but on the phone, over dinners in the colleges in which they are lodging or more comfortably in restaurants. They choose who they want and discuss tactics to be employed both before the conclave opens and afterward.

There are some criteria, however, which are almost certain to come into play. As Benelli noted (cf. above, p. 154), most cardinals are also diocesan bishops and would prefer someone – like Wojtyla

– who understands their problems. But they would not be averse, one can presume, to someone who had served both in a diocese and in the curia; administrative experience at both levels would certainly be an advantage.

There is an argument about John Paul II that, as he has chosen almost all the electors and they are in his image, they will therefore tend to vote for someone like him. I doubt that, precisely because they are diocesan bishops. The one thing above all others which causes resentment among prelates worldwide is the Vatican’s effort to draw back to itself responsibility for matters which, in the aftermath of Vatican II, people thought were to be more broadly distributed. Diocesan bishops have lost authority to the center. They will not wish that policy to continue. The theory that they will appoint someone in that mold seems inherently unlikely. It is moreover a theory, as the devout might point out, that omits the

How to Spot a Pope
165

influence of the Holy Spirit. It is also one which history does not particularly support. To take one example, Pope Pius XII had appointed all but eleven of the fifty-one cardinals who elected his successor – but anyone less like the severe and ascetic Pius than the rotund, and now Blessed, Pope John XXIII would be hard to imagine.

There are other considerations. In his excellent book
Inside the Vatican
Tom Reese, then of Georgetown University’s Woodstock Theological Center but later editor of the U.S. Jesuits’ weekly
America
, proposed a number of criteria which cardinal electors are likely to have in mind when selecting the next pope. Age is a factor, so is experience. Fr. Reese suggests that a pope has to have media savvy and a grasp of languages (at least Italian, Spanish, English, and French). Nationality is also an issue, he suggests, because it would be problematic to have someone from a nation which plays a major role in international affairs. This criterion tends to favor Italians, because in modern times their country has not played a particularly large role in world politics. Even so, the failure of Pius XI openly to condemn the Italian dictator Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, despite worldwide protests, shows that not even an Italian pope can always be neutral.

Age is important not so much in itself but in contrast to what has gone before. After a long pontificate cardinals like to choose some- one whose period of o
ffi
ce is expected to be on the short side. Thus the conclave which followed the almost twenty-year pontificate of Pius XII elected John XXIII, the oldest pope this century. Even Leo XIII’s rule of twenty-five years, after the thirty-two years of Pius IX (the longest in history), is no real exception. Leo was sixty-eight on his election and sickly; the cardinals did not expect him to survive for another quarter of a century. The odds are that, after the two decades and more of John Paul II, the cardinal electors will be looking for the next papacy to be distinctly shorter.

In the second election of 1978 the cardinals chose a particularly

healthy candidate: Wojtyla was known for his canoeing, walking,

166
Afterword

and skiing. But they also chose him because, as we have seen (cf. above, p. 156), he was not Italian. There has been talk of a cardinal from a third-world country, from South America or Africa for example. But there is an ecclesiological question (i.e., an issue arising from the structure of the Church – the “ecclesia” – itself ) involved here. The pope, as was said right at the beginning, is Bishop of Rome; that is his claim to whatever status he may have within the wider Catholic Church. Within the Church he is the Primate, but he is one bishop among very many others who work as a college for the good of the Church. That was one of the funda- mental doctrines of the Second Vatican Council. The further a pope’s ethnic origins are from the city of Rome, the more remote he appears from the bishopric of Rome. He becomes more of a president than a bishop among bishops,
primus inter pares
, first among equals. The suggestion, often mooted, that the pope should be elected by a council or by a synod of bishops, also tends to make him more presidential. In
Universi Dominici Gregis
John Paul II expressly ruled out such ideas, stressing that (the legal fiction by which) cardinals are priests of Rome closely links them with the clergy of the city upon whom, as this book has recorded, the burden of electing the city’s bishop especially fell.

It has been suggested above that the new rules for majority voting introduced by John Paul II may possibly make for a longer election. There is another consideration. Hitherto the cardinal electors have, at least since the election of 1878, lived in uncom- fortable surroundings adjacent to the Sistine Chapel where the vot- ing takes place. After the two elections of 1978 the lanky Cardinal Hume of Westminster was heard to complain of the shortness of the beds. Now, however, the cardinals are to reside in the Hostel of St. Martha, within the Vatican City but nonetheless a short distance away from the chapel. The hostel has comfortable and spacious accommodation for one hundred and thirty-one electors. They will certainly be less pressured by the discomfort of their quarters. But that element of discomfort, intended to speed up papal elec- tions, was the reason why conclaves were invented in the first place.

The list below follows that to be found in the latest edition of the Vatican’s yearbook, the
Annuario Pontificio
, though some of the dates may differ slightly. There is general agreement that the dating of the earliest “popes” is conventional. The term “installation” is used rather than coronation or enthronement because at various times there were different forms of a pope’s taking o
ffi
ce, and indeed different ways of timing the beginning of a pontificate. Sometimes the date of an election is unclear, but that of taking o
ffi
ce is known, and vice versa. Those dates marked with an asterisk (*) indicate an abdication, sometimes a voluntary act, but most times not.

168
Appendix