On November 4, 2023, The Pillar website announced that a reform of the papal conclave would be under consideration.
The information had been relayed by Il Sismografo and by Aldo Maria Valli but was immediately denied by the Press Office of the Holy See and Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, SJ, Pope Francis’ canon lawyer.
What was it about, exactly?
And what would be the risks of such a reform if it occurred?
A Conclave to Ensure Succession
The same day, November 4, Diane Montagna of the Remnant—an always well-informed journalist—also affirmed that Francis was currently examining, with Cardinal Ghirlanda, a document to reform the conclave.
This reform would exclude cardinals over the age of 80 from the preparatory phase, would modify the form of general congregations, and would revolutionize the rules relating to the election of a Pope, by the introduction of laity and men and women religious into the electoral college, making up 25% of the vote.
According to Aldo Maria Valli, “the idea would be that the cardinal electors, chosen for the most part by Pope Francis, have 75% of the votes, while the remaining 25% would be allocated to the laity and to religious, appointed by the Pope before the vacancy of the apostolic seat. The document in question would exclude all non-voting cardinals—that is to say, those who have reached the age of 80—from the general congregations preceding the start of the papal election.”
The Italian journalist comments: “It’s important not to forget that, in the opinion of many, the new Pope is chosen precisely in the general congregations, because it is in this preparatory phase that the problems of the Church and the qualities which should characterize the appropriate candidate are discussed.”
Aldo Maria Valli brings up the potential establishment of “small working groups with a leader to guide the discussions, in the manner of what happened during the synodal assembly in October,” as well as the extension of 25% of the vote to laity, including women, appointed by Francis,--which in practice would make it possible to find in the conclave, as we saw during the Synod, pro-LGBTQ+ nun Jeannine Gramick or alter-globalist Luca Casarini.
This desire to “synodalize” the conclave reminds some Roman observers of the electoral redistribution that some politicians engage in before elections they fear losing.
In 1811, the governor of Massachusetts in the United States, Elbridge Gerry, became famous for this way of doing things, to the point of giving it his name. In fact, gerrymandering refers to an operation of “electoral optimization” that the French refer to, in a less nuanced way, by the expression “electoral surgery.”
The Cardinal Denies
Since Sunday, November 4, the Vatican Press Office has denied it, and the next day, so did Cardinal Ghirlanda himself, who, contacted by LifeSiteNews, responded: “Before your email I had no news about the Conclave reform that you mention.”
And he called the news circulating on the internet “absolutely false.” In a response to EWTN reported by the Catholic News Agency, he affirmed: “I do not know anything about it and any implication I have in it is a pure lie.”
Is Cardinal Ghirlanda as ignorant or innocent as he claims to be? His past role with Francis marks him as the right man for such a reform. Indeed, he played a key role in drafting Praedicate Evangelium, the document reforming the Roman Curia.
He was also the originator of contested ideas, like the 2022 statement, according to which “the power of governance in the Church doesn't come from the sacrament of Holy Orders, but from the canonical mission.” It is difficult to see him as innocent as a lamb. Furthermore, the Pope himself recently expressed the possibility of a conclave reform.
The Pope Mentioned the Possibility of Reform
In his book-interview with Sergio Rubin and Francesca Ambrogetti (Ediciones B, March 2023), El Pastor: DesafÃos, razones y reflexiones de Francisco sobre su pontificado [The Pastor: challenges, reasons and reflections of Francis on his pontificate], the Pope has already spoken of possibly modifying the election of his successor:
“In fact, I could issue a decree that modifies the conditions of entry into the conclave and allow a bishop who is not a cardinal to participate. From a dogmatic point of view, there would be no problem.”
The Spanish-speaking blog Specola of November 6 was surprised by the speed of the press room's denial, and saw in this haste the sign of great excitement at St. Martha’s House: “The Pope is in a hurry and it shows, the ‘franciscans’ [the followers of Francis] even more so, because their lives depend on the existence of a ‘Francis II’ to keep them in their positions of command.”
The Vaticanist from katholisches.info, Giuseppe Nardi, shows in figures what the advantages of such a reform would be for these “franciscans”: “Here are the figures from the college of cardinals: the Church currently has 241 cardinals in total; 105 cardinals are over 80 years old and are therefore no longer electors of the Pope, but are members of the general congregations.
“136 cardinals are electors of the pope [while only 120 are required]; 98 of the papal electors were appointed by Francis; 72% of the current voters to elect a Pope therefore received the purple from Francis. If, in the future, a quarter of the electoral college were to be composed of non-cardinals (secular and religious), the electorate would have to be expanded by at least 30 voters.”
“Because of the electoral college is currently overcrowded by Francis in his desire to create electors, there should be proportionally 45 lay electors of the Pope. The share of named Bergoglians in the electoral body would thus increase from 72% to around 80%.”
“If we add the Bergoglian minds who made the election of Francis possible in 2013, we obtain an overwhelming majority. Even if we take into account the uncertainties, such as those resulting from the exotic appointments dear to Francis, this should ensure easy-to-calculate majorities.”
And he specifies: “Ghirlanda’s argument in favor of the ‘revolution’ can easily be guessed: democratization, synodalization, and de-clericalization through the integration of lay people and women…” Even in the name of these ideals, we cannot help but think of a very political “electoral optimization.”
An Enlightening Historical Precedent
On November 22, on the First Things website, the American academic George Weigel made this very useful historical reminder: “In January 1904, the new Pope Pius X abolished the ius exclusivæ in the Constitution Commissum nobis, which decreed automatic excommunication for anyone interfering in a future conclave and warned that doing so would risk ‘the indignation of God Almighty and His apostles, Saints Peter and Paul.’” (For the record, in 1903, Emperor Franz Joseph vetoed a papabile, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro.)
“Commissum nobis may seem like an anachronism today. But perhaps not. It has been recently suggested. . . that the present papal administration is considering a ‘reform’ of the conclave procedure.”
“Such a ‘reform,’ it is speculated, would eliminate non-voting cardinals over 80 years old from any role in a papal interregnum, barring them from the General Congregations in which they currently have a voice. In their place would be substituted a mixture of lay men and women, clergy, and religious. Small groups, including both cardinal-electors and these others, would then meet, using Synod-2023’s facilitated ‘Conversation in the Spirit’ methodology to ‘discern’ what the Church needs in a new Pope.”