Pope Francis: The pending questions

The Holy See has denied that Pope Francis received Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda in the first week of his hospitalization at Gemelli. The news spread very quickly and created a lot of turbulence. The fear was that Pope Francis intended to change the rules of the Conclave, as had been rumored for some time. Then, it was also thought that the Pope wanted to clarify the conditions of his possible resignation or define a way to announce one.

Many conspiracy theories are spreading these days, as always they will in periods of scant information. They have little to do with reality. It seems unlikely, for example, that the Pope would change the rules of the Conclave today, and thus telegraph blatantly his desire for personal control over the race for his successor. It would be a decision that few could accept and would almost certainly create a common front against Pope Francis.

It also seems unlikely that Pope Francis would want to renounce the pontificate at this stage.

There has often been talk about an apartment ready for the Pope in St. John Lateran. Last week, it was said that the Pope would like to return to Saint Mary the Major, where he would have an apartment ready and where he chose he will be buried one day. Regardless of the Pope’s intentions, his clinical condition does not leave room for a transfer outside the Vatican. At most, he will return to the Vatican and perhaps even to the Apostolic Palace, where everything is already in place to care for a sick Pope.

If that were to happen, it would be the greatest paradox of the pontificate: The Pope who rejected the Palace was forced by his health to return to the Palace. It is suggestive but also, at the moment, unlikely.

We don’t know if Cardinal Ghirlanda went to the Pope on a different day than the one denied. We do know, however, that Ghirlanda has been Francis’s leading consultant for recent legal reforms starting with Praedicate Evangelium.

These are two issues that concern a future conclave precisely, and that would require clarification.

The first issue concerns the inclusion or non-inclusion of Cardinal Angelo Becciu in a possible conclave. The second issue concerns the inclusion or non-inclusion of all the cardinal electors in the Sistine Chapel.

Becciu’s case is quite sensational. From a press release from the Holy See Press Office, we know that Cardinal Becciu had resigned from all his duties and renounced all his cardinalatial prerogatives, but kept his red hat. He was not included in the meetings of the dicasteries of which he was a member as a cardinal, and he lost all his duties in the Curia. Pope Francis invited him to participate in celebrations and consistories, however, and Becciu always dressed as a cardinal and sat among the cardinals on those occasions.

The case of Becciu is, therefore, not that of Cardinal Louis Billot, who in 1927 renounced the dignity of Cardinal after a confrontation with Pius XI, the only Cardinal of the 20th century to do so, and who no longer participated in cardinal meetings and died as a simple Jesuit.

Becciu renounced his prerogatives at the Pope’s request, and then, again at the Pope’s request, he resumed participating in celebrations and consistories. Only in one case did the Cardinal not participate: at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday last year, shortly after his first-degree conviction in the Vatican trial on managing the funds of the Secretariat of State. But he explained his reasons in a letter sent to Cardinal Giovan Battista Re, dean of the College of Cardinals.

That said, it is not clear whether Becciu can participate in a Conclave.

It is a decision that the cardinals will have to make by majority vote in one of the very first general congregations. The risk is that precluding him access to the Chapel could give him grounds for appeal and even cast doubt on any election from which he were thus excluded.

It revolves around interpreting the Pope’s actions after the Cardinal’s resignation. Number 36 of Universi Dominici Gregis, John Paul II’s apostolic constitution that defines the rules of the Conclave, emphasizes that “cardinals canonically deposed or who have renounced, with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, the dignity of a cardinal” do not have the right to vote in the Conclave.

Again, number 36 establishes that “during the period of the Vacant See, the College of Cardinals cannot readmit or rehabilitate these people.”

Therefore, the debate will concern whether, with his gestures, the Pope has readmitted Cardinal Becciu to the dignity of Cardinal, even if not formally. Cardinals cannot, in fact, readmit and rehabilitate a cardinal while the see is vacant. They can, however, look at the Pope’s actions. If Pope Francis were to clarify the interpretation of the rule, it could be very helpful.

The second issue that needs clarification concerns the total number of electors presenting themselves in the Conclave. Paul VI established the maximum limit of cardinal electors at 120. Pope Francis has exceeded the limit, as John Paul II before him, and at the moment, there are 138 cardinal electors, plus possibly Cardinal Becciu.

Will all these cardinal electors enter the Sistine Chapel? On the one hand, one thinks so because the Pope himself creates the exception to the rule by derogating from the number 120. However, regardless of the number of cardinals created, Paul VI’s rule remains in force and speaks of only 120 cardinal electors.

A restrictive interpretation of this rule would bring only 120 cardinals to the Sistine Chapel, excluding the last 18 created by Pope Francis. This is because point 33 of the Universi Dominici Gregis establishes that “the number of cardinal electors must not exceed 120“.

It is true that the same Apostolic Constitution, at number 36, states that “a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, who has been created and published in Consistory, has by that very fact the right to elect the Pontiff, by number 33 of the present Constitution, even if he has not yet been given the hat, nor given the ring, nor taken the oath”.

Here, too, an interpretative rule would be helpful.

Benedict XVI, after his resignation, implemented some changes to Universi Dominici Gregis, using a motu proprio to expedite the implementation in an uncertain period. After his resignation, many cardinals were pushing for a conclave to be held as soon as possible.

Pope Francis, who has used the instrument of the motu proprio more than any Pope in recent history, could do the same to clarify the Conclave norms and end speculation.

The situation generated by these conclave rules is ultimately the result of Pope Francis’s unfinished reforms.

Every reform and decision of the Pope has needed further clarification and regulations. The Pope’s call to simplify the Curia has complicated the law precisely because he has not considered the law. Today, we find ourselves with many things to sort out. Not only the rules of the Conclave. And yet, the next Conclave could represent a transition to something more structured, more precise, less vague.

Something more than the Church as a field hospital.