By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological
Center John Paul II has tossed out over 800 years of tradition and will allow
the next pope to be elected by an absolute majority of the college of
cardinals rather than by a two-thirds majority. This is the most radical
change in the process of electing popes since 1970 when Paul VI took the
vote away from cardinals who had turned 80 years of age.
According to the 1179 decree of Alexander III, the election of the pope
required a two-thirds majority of the college of cardinals, a law that
remained in force until Pius XII made it two-thirds plus one in 1945.
Pius XII added the extra vote to eliminate the cumbersome process then
in place to make sure that a cardinal did not vote for himself.
In his apostolic constitution Universi
Dominici Gregis, John Paul states that two-thirds of the votes
of the cardinal electors present are required to elect the pope. If the
number of cardinals present is not equally divisible by three, one additional
vote is required. Thus John Paul, unlike earlier popes, does not appear
to be worried about a cardinal voting for himself.
More importantly, if after three days of voting (with as many as two
ballots in the morning and two in the afternoon), no one receives a two-thirds
vote, the voting is suspended for one day of prayer and discussion. This
is followed by another seven ballots and another day of prayer and discussion.
If after two additional sets of seven ballots the cardinals still have
not elected someone by a two-thirds vote, an absolute majority of the
cardinals can vote to change the rules to allow the election of the pope
by a absolute majority. (An absolute majority is more than half of the
electors).
What this change means is that if an absolute majority votes for a particular
candidate on the very first vote of the conclave, there is no incentive
for them to compromise. All they need to do is hold tough through the
requisite series of ballots until they will be permitted to change the
rules and elect their candidate.
This is a radical departure from church tradition that encouraged compromise
and consensus in the selection of popes. In the past, just over a third
of the cardinals could stop the election of a particular candidate who
they found objectionable. This forced the majority to compromise with
the minority in finding a candidate who was acceptable to two-thirds of
the cardinals.
The authors of the new rules appear to believe that the church, or at
least the college of cardinals, is a democracy where the majority should
rule. For American political scientists the change is reminiscent of a
similar change in the rules governing Democratic Party conventions, which
before 1936 required a two-thirds vote of the delegates to nominate a
presidential candidate.
Universi Dominici Gregis does not explain why this revolutionary
change was made. Perhaps it was feared that now that the cardinal electors
will have decent living quarters in Domus Sanctae Marthae, as opposed
to cubicles in the Apostolic Palace, there is less incentive for them
to elect a pope and go home. Changing the rules reduces the likelihood
of a long conclave.
Divisions within the college of cardinals have sometimes made it difficult
for a candidate to obtain a two-thirds majority vote. In the thirteenth
century the papacy was vacant for a year and a half before the election
of Innocent IV and for three and a half years before the installation
of Gregory X. In recent times, especially since the fall of the papal
states, conclaves have been shorter. The last conclave to go more than
four days was in 1831. It lasted 54 days.
The practical consequences of the change in the election rules is significant.
If a conservative majority holds the college of cardinals, it is now much
more likely that they will elect a hard-line, authoritarian conservative
rather than a pastoral conservative. Likewise, if a liberal majority holds
the college, it is now more likely that they will elect a hard-line liberal
rather than a pragmatic progressive.
Liberal Catholics who hoped for change in the next papacy are probably
going to be disappointed. The change in election rules means that liberal
Catholics may find John Paul's successor even less to their liking than
John Paul himself. As today they now look back fondly on the days of Paul
VI, they may in the future look back fondly on the days of John Paul II.
Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center,
wrote about papal elections in America, November 19, 1994. His book, The
Vatican: Organization and Politics of the Catholic Church will
be published in the fall by Harvard University Press.
America, April 13, 1996
Copyright © 1996 by America
Press
All rights reserved
See also