A new model conclave?

Rome has a good claim to be the rumor capital of the planet. Many speculations heard along the Tiber are nonsense, of course, not least those concerning papabili: men who are (to translate freely) “popeable.” Some rumors, however, should be taken more seriously; should they turn out to be fact rather than scuttlebutt, real damage could be done to the Church. In this latter category are current rumors that changes to the process that guides the Church through a papal interregnum are being considered, perhaps to make choosing a pope more “synodal.”

What might those changes be?

Ever since Paul VI’s 1970 motu proprio, Ingravescentem Aetatem, cardinals over 80 cannot vote in the conclave to elect a new pope. Yet those senior churchmen remain members of the General Congregations of Cardinals that meet to consider the state of the Church between the vacancy of the Chair of Peter and the immurement of the conclave itself. Such eminent voices-without-votes can be influential. In 2013, for example, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the 80-year-old archbishop emeritus of Westminster, helped rally support for the candidacy of the man who became Pope Francis.

Last December, I discussed the possibility that cardinals over 80 might be excluded from future General Congregations with a highly respected cardinal (himself over 80), who warned that such an alleged “reform” would “deprive the Church of its memory.” To which I would add, “…and not a little wisdom.”

How would the process of preparing to select a new pope be improved by denying a voice in that process to such men as Nigeria’s Cardinal Francis Arinze? Or Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong? Or Cardinal Camillo Ruini, former Vicar of Rome? Or Cardinals Angelo Scola and Marc Ouellet, who received significant numbers of votes in 2013? Or Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a distinguished historian? Or Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, former president of the Council of Bishops’ Conferences of Europe? Or South Africa’s Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier? Or Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, former secretary of St. John Paul II? Or Cardinal Dominik Duka, emeritus archbishop of Prague? Or Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the founding and current president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors?

According to another rumored “reform,” discussions at future General Congregations (presumably limited to cardinals under 80) would be conducted according to the “Conversation in the Spirit” model used at recent Synods. Any such “reform” would certainly be deeply resented and might be strongly resisted, as it would bring “facilitators” into a process long reserved for cardinals. Moreover, the “Conversation” process is artificial and manipulative. It allows for no real debate about differences of perspective or judgment. And by its very nature it yields least-common-denominator “agreement” rather than true discernment or wisdom.

At this delicate moment in Catholic history, fundamental questions of doctrine, morals, and pastoral practice are being contested. “Conversation in the Spirit,” however, treats all opinions as equally valid. A pre-conclave discussion process among the cardinal-electors in which there is no room for fraternal challenge and correction is not serious. It will leave unclarified what badly needs clarification, if the ensuing conclave is to get to grips with real issues rather than be dominated by often-flawed media storylines.

An even more disturbing rumor would have the conclave itself run according to the “Conversation in the Spirit” model, with voting effectively replaced by the emergence of a consensus pope through a facilitated discussion process (the choice perhaps being ratified by a confirming vote). This is so far-fetched, however, that it ought not be taken (too) seriously. Of more concern is the possibility that the voting procedure would be “reformed” to allow the election of a pope by a majority of 50% + 1 rather than the present 2/3 majority.

In 1996, John Paul II changed the rules so that a pope could be elected by a simple majority after a conclave had deadlocked through 33 ballots over several weeks. Benedict XVI recognized this for the mistake it was and revised John Paul II’s formula such that, after those thirty-three inconclusive ballots, a run-off between the two top vote-getters (who themselves cannot vote) would take place, but the victor must command 2/3 of the electorate.

The 2/3 rule has served the Church well for centuries. It has often helped ensure that a new pope—even one who emerges from a contentious conclave—has sufficient support to govern effectively. Tampering with the 2/3 rule would be a mistake. Some would doubtless regard it as an attempt to produce a certain result. And any such outcome would ill serve both the new pope and the Church, as the pontificate would begin under a dark cloud of suspicion.