Talk:Papal conclave

Template:Mainpage date Someone needs to update the papal conclave page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclave) before JPII kicks and the next conclave starts, and that's going to happen very, very soon. I think the Pope page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope) is up to date.

The conclave page is wrong about the methods of choosing a pope ("The election may come:..."). Current law dictates that a secret vote be taken; this is the only way to elect a pope, as dictated by John Paul II.

Also, the cardinals don't remain in the Sistine Chapel anymore. They vote there (twice a day) but they will ride a shuttle bus back and forth to dormitory housing, which is much cushier than the old regime. Remember, these are the days of the Popemobile. You should also get in something about a ban on cell phones and so on. Anyone who leaks about what goes on inside is immediately excommunicated.

And the current pope has changed the voting rules: "[I]f no cardinal has been elected by a two-thirds majority after a certain number of ballots, the cardinals may agree by absolute majority (half + 1) to elect the Pope by an absolute majority instead of a two-thirds majority" (see first link below). This change will make it much easier to get a hardline conservative into the position: the hardliners just have to wait out the two-thirds majority votes, then get their guy in with just an absolute majority, no compromise required.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/election.asp

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=62

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1051840,00.html

http://www.itv.com/news/2006456.html

---

May a Roman-Catholic cardinal be a woman?

"If any cardinal elector is by reason of infirmity confined to his or her room, the..."

and

"... each cardinal wrote only his or her own name on the ballot..."

Maybe this is a result of some automatic political-corectness tool?

lsla

No, a woman cannot be a cardinal in the Catholic Church. Since the apostles were all men, church tradition has only allowed men to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. (This would include being a deacon, priest, or bishop. FYI, you must be a bishop to be a cardinal.) It is possible for a married man to be a cardinal, but this is quite unlikely. Kenj0418 02:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• It is incorrect that one need to be a bishop to be a cardinal. (For example, Avery Dulles, a priest, is a cardinal, but too old to vote.) Cardinalates are often tied to specific ecclesiastical offices, especially the main dioceses in most countries and 18 "cardinal deaconates" around Rome (see Britannica). This is the reason that all current cardinals are priests, so far as I know. A cardinal could in theory be a woman, but it has never happened. Zagloba

• • No, as the rule stands. One need to be at least ordained a Priest (so yes, Monk could as well) to become a Cardinal. Since the Catholic church currently doesn't allow a woman to be ordain a Priest, woman can't become a Cardinal. -- KTC 01:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

For those of us without the benefit of having had latinum in school, could somebody translate "habemus papam: eccellentissimus ac reverendissimus cardinal..." from the last paragraph? Thx :-) Greetz Hexren [email protected]

It means: "we have a pope: the most excellent and most reverend cardinal...". I don't think the word "eccelentissimus" is used - I believe it is "eminentissimus" in the accusative form (v.i.). Aloysius Patacsil 06:53, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

---

Lord Emsworth: Wikipedia style mandates the Oxford comma, for all the obvious reasons; see the style guide. The good guys won this time, and you may as well recognize it. :)

AlexKepler 22:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The manual does not mandate anything. In fact, it provides that "Rules ... must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity." I prefer to write in British English (as is, definitely, permitted by Wikipedia on non-American topics), in which the Oxford comma is not always used. Therefore, I would hope my preferences would be in this case respected. -- Emsworth 22:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's why I didn't revert it myself; you're doing a lot of work and weeders like me respect that.

That said, (1) you elide the "[the rules] are meant for the average case" part of your quote, and this is the _textbook_ average case, (2) the style guide notes that pages will gradually be made to conform to the guide, which is the sense of 'mandate' I intended, and to which end I put the comma in, and (3) the Oxford comma is not always used in American or Canadian English either, but for exactly the reasons listed in the style guide is Wikipreferred in nonambiguous cases. Given (2) I suggest learning to love it; come on in, the water's fine.

I'll submit the matter for your reconsideration and leave it at that, with the reminder that it'll probably happen eventually, at least if the autoedit scripts ever take off.

AlexKepler 23:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Habemus Papam

Various sites differ on the appropriate form of the Latin sequence. Unanimously, they begin "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: habemus Papam." Thereafter, however, they continue differently. [1] gives "Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum ... Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalam ... qui sibi nomen imposuit ..."; the WAV file referring to John Paul I's election confirms it. But for John Paul II, I've found "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus Papam, Carolum Wojtyla qui sibi nomen imposuit ..." more often (see [2], [3], [4], [5]) but I've also noted the alternative (see [6]). I would be much obliged if informed of which is correct. -- Emsworth (Talk)

Featured on Yahoo!

This page is currently one of the top links from Yahoo!'s Full coverage of Pope John Paul II page. Just thought I'd share. Gentgeen 19:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's good that we have this as a featured article already. A lot of people will be looking this up in the next few days. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papal election, 2005

I've removed the link in the "see also" section on two grounds:

1. We shouldn't be talking about this yet. See Talk:Papal election, 2005.
2. Why this election in the "see also" and not, say, links to potential articles on all others? A more structural approach is called for. List of papal elections?

JRM 02:03, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I see people keep inserting links to that article; although it's now named Papal election of 2005 speculations. I'd prefer the courtesy of explaining to me why I'm wrong in arguing it should not be linked to, but I have no intention of making this a lame edit war. I'll leave it more talkative people to others to sort out the issue. JRM 11:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

The Cardinal Camerlengo

The death of the Pope is verified by the Cardinal Camerlengo, or Chamberlain, who traditionally performed the task by gently striking the Pope's head with a small silver hammer and calling out his Christian (not papal) name thrice. The ceremony has not been observed during the twentieth century; under Universi Dominici Gregis, the Camerlengo must merely declare the Pope's death in the presence of the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, and of the Cleric Prelates, Secretary and Chancellor of the Apostolic Camera.

Well, unless I'm terribly mistaken, the ceremony with the silver hammer happened most recently on April 2nd when the Pope John Paul II passed away. Would someone more knowledgeable please confirm this?--Conwiktion 04:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Don't know if I doing this properly, but to respond to this question, according to the media, both of those traditions were abolished by Pope John Paul. Presumably, the Cardinal Chamberlain acts upon medical advice, and declares the Holy Father to be dead. It is his declaration, though, not the doctor's, which makes the death official. (David the Monk)

Media reports said this ceremony was performed. It wasn't. In fact it has not been performed for many decades. Pope John Paul finally abolished this long abandoned ceremony in 1996. FearÉIREANN 23:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Short Outline

Can someone tell me why we need a short outline as the exact same content is in the rest of the article. -- KTC 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Change to majority requirement

Just to clarify as it seems to be a confusing issue. According to Universi Dominici Gregis, the afternoon ballot on the first day of the conclave might not actually happen, but if it does, there's only 1. Then there's 3 days of 2 ballots in the morning, and 2 ballots in the afternoon. Then "voting is to be suspended for a maximum of one day in order to allow a pause for prayer, informal discussion among the voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Deacons." After that, there's 7 ballots, then similar suspension and address by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Priests. Next is 7 ballots again and then suspension and address by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Bishops. Again 7 ballots, and if it's still deadlocked, then the electors can change the majority requirement.

It's not 13 days, 28 days, or 30 ballots. It's difficult to count the days from the start, so if one do want to do it and insert something about how many ballots from the start, it's either 33 ballots from the start or 34 if there was a ballot taking place in the afternoon of the first day. -- KTC 18:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Election question

What would happen if all the cardinals were either over 80, or were, through health and other reasons, unable to take on the role of Pope?

Well, not sure about having no eligible Cardinal-electors but as to becoming Pope, it is not a requirement that a Pope be elected from within the College of Cardinals. Any practising male Catholic are technically eligible. -- KTC 14:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The possibility of "no voters" could theoretically occur - might make an interesting alternative universe story.

This could happen in this universe, in the following ways:

1. A terorrist or other attack at a time like right now when all the cardinals are gathered together
2. (less likely) A pope with an extended period of incapacity -- long enough that the cardinals (who start off pretty old anyway) all pass the 80 year mark.

There is no current provision for what would happen in this case:

see Universi Dominici Gregis

The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty. The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded.

Could the Uniate Churches provide somebody perhaps? An interesting hypothetical question anyway.

Not according to Universi Dominici Gregis. This could be changed by the next pope. I'm sure if something like this did happen, all of the bishops would go someplace and figure something out. They are considered part of the Apostolic succession, so that would still lend the eventual result legitimacy. Kenj0418 22:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to offer the suggestion to the relevant authorities? Or develop a story on the subject?

The occasion of all cardinals being over 80 and a papal election occurring is extremely unlikely - and under normal circumstances if the situation could be foreseen something could be developed for the occasion.

Next question:

Under what circumstances could the "no incoming information" rule be breached? That is: there is a change of circumstances that might materially affect what happens inside the conclave and for which arrangements have not been made for breaching the secrecy. (There might be an ongoing situation where it can be arranged that a message "x has happened" is transmitted.)

Approval voting

The approval voting page says that it is the system used for papal elections, but the wording on this page doesn't quite match it (and there isn't a link from here to there). Can I ask someone knowledgable to clarify both pages? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papal Conclave

Why not change the name of this article to Papal Conclave, any votes?

1. Coojah 20:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
2. i agree BANi 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• we should since its almost always called a Conclave in the media and is used more than Papal election.

1. SO DO I LESTER 22:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)