why can't elderly cardinals vote for the next Pope?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I have been meaning to ask this question for a long time. Pope Paul IV declared in 1970 that cardinals over the age of 80 would not be allowed to vote in a conclave. He also declared the number of cardinals voting to be not more than 120. Yet Pope John Paul II has repeatedly waived the latter requirement, as he is allowed to do, while holding steadfast to the age limit. He has stated that it is not fair to burden elderly bishops with such important responsibilites. Doesn't it seem odd that our octogenarian cardinals will not be allowed to vote on a successor to our octogenarian Pope, who appears to be handling his enormous burden with tremendous strength, despite his debilitating illness. I have heard some say that he desires none of the to be those who came of age pre-Vatican II. What do you guy think? Here is an article about elderly cardinals not happy to be relieved of this burden: here

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.

Is it the case that only voters can be elected? If so that might have something to do with it.

Perhaps, it has something to with the reality of old age and mental accuity. Maybe there is a fear of diminished capacity.

Perhaps, the thought is that getting a bunch of cardinals to fly halfway around the world would be too stressfull for them.

Course you could solve that problem by electing the Pope by email. That does present the difficulty of having no ballets to burn to indicate if a Pope has been elected. Maybe they could throw a PC out the window if there is no Pope elected and Mac if there is one. (The entire content of this last paragraph is intended as a joke.)

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.


My apologies for the sloppiness of the original post. How embarrassing. I shouldn't do things in a hurry. Corrections are as follows:

--Pope Paul VI, not IV decreed the voting requirements --"...fair to elderly bishops." should read ...elderly cardinals instead --...insert the word cardinals where it says "he desires none of the..." --"what do you guy think" should have an s at the end of "guy"

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.


Is it the case that only voters can be elected? If so that might have something to do with it.

no, any male catholic can be made pope during the election, even you or I, although the reason the cardinals elect is because you or I would probably not be the best qualified...

Perhaps, it has something to with the reality of old age and mental accuity. Maybe there is a fear of diminished capacity.

no, it has to do with retirement and with contact. bishops and priests retire at a certain age. the only bishop who is to serve until death is the pope. after a certain point the cardinals are still cardinals, but take on a less active role. Also, older cardinals don't need to work with the future pope. if God can inspire the older cardinals to the right choice, He can certainly inspire the younger cardinals to the same choice and make them feel that since they voted him in, that they can work with him more closely (his job is incumbant on them, as opposed to placed on them).

Perhaps, the thought is that getting a bunch of cardinals to fly halfway around the world would be too stressfull for them.

nope, most of the older cardinals still come to the elections and may still debate the choice but may not nominate or vote.

Course you could solve that problem by electing the Pope by email. That does present the difficulty of having no ballets to burn to indicate if a Pope has been elected. Maybe they could throw a PC out the window if there is no Pope elected and Mac if there is one. (The entire content of this last paragraph is intended as a joke.)

yeah, aside from fraud, but since you meant it as a joke: too many PC's destroyed. should throw out the macs when a failed election occurs and play the windows startup tones when the new pope is elected... no PC's lost at all.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 23, 2004.


Very funny Dan. How about video conferencing or touchscreen voting to guard against hanging chads.

Yes, mental acuity may be an issue, but it just seems strange that if the Holy Father were merely a Cardinal, because of the age limit, he could not vote for a Pope, yet he could be elected Pope. Again, I've heard it theorized that he would like to eliminate any "pre-conciliar" electors who may wish to elect a more "conservative" (for lack of a better word) Pope, or at least wish to force other electors to compromise with them. In other words, the Holy Father would rather have Pope John Paul III come out of the next conclave rather than Pope Pius XIII.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.



you said "any male catholic can be made pope during the election"

Actually any living male human being on the planet can at least in theory be ELECTED (not "made") pope. He is then informed he has been elected. If he is already a bishop he becomes Pope immediately he accepts the election. If he accepts and is not a bishop, he is immediately administered the necessary sacraments (episcopal ordination preceded if necessary by baptism, confirmation and holy orders). On receiving episcopal ordination he becomes Pope.

I understand the reason for Pope Paul's ruling but it does seem very arbitrary that on his 80th birthday a cardinal suddenly becomes ineligible. Particularly when you consider that a man like Cardinal Law who was removed from office for not doing his job properly, still has a vote. I guess it would be a worse alternative for the Pope or some type of commission to make judgments on each individual Cardinal as to when he has become too frail, or mentally feeble, to be worthy of having a vote.

Maybe a viable compromise would be to have the over-80 cardinals elect (annually?) a group of say 12 cardinals from among themselves and only these 12 could vote for a Pope.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 23, 2004.


Good point about Cardinal Law, Peter. And who's to say that only Cardinals over 80 can have mental defect or be burdened. My dear mother died before she was 80 years old of Alzheimers. By the time she was 72 or 73, she was incapable of rudimentary mental exercises. You are right, the age of 80 seems arbitrary. That is why it seems that something more is taking place.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.

The 80 year age limit gives the present Pope some control over who will be voting for his successor. This is the most important reason for the age limit and is why, I believe, Pope John Paul II is not willing to resign before his death. Quite possibly, he will have himself chosen every Cardinal that will vote for his successor.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 24, 2004.

If he wants more control over who votes, why not make the age limit 70? or 60?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 24, 2004.

Pat please explain what John Paul would hope to achieve by doing this? Do you see some difference in philosophy, as a group, between those chosen by previous popes and those chosen by him? He has been criticised for appointing too many "conservative" cardinals recently and yet Card Ratzinger is one of the few remaining pre-JP2 cardinals.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 25, 2004.


Once appointed to a position that lasts for life, such as a bishop, cardinal, or judge, people often change through their own hubris and pride. Once appointed, it cannot be undone. Even if it is clear that Satan has turned their heart and mind to evil purposes within the highest eschelon of the ecclesiastical system.

At the same time, a person's previous life is some indicator of their belief system and their character. The Holy Father, any Holy Father, appoints Cardinals for many reasons but the most important is that the Cardinal may be voting for his successor. The age limit provides a collegial way for the sitting Holy Father to eliminate those Cardinals that, once appointed, show their openness to harming the Deposit of the Faith.

Changing the age limit would throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many good men among those chosen that the Holy Father wishes to remain for their prudent (and humble) vote.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 25, 2004.


Maybe I'm being dense, but are you saying Pat that the Holy Father believes that cardinals over 80 show their openness to Harming the Deposit of Faith and therefore should be removed from voting power? I agree it would be difficult or impossible to remove every Mahoney or Law, but creating an age limit only effectively removes one kind of cardinal, a pre-conciliar one.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 25, 2004.

yes, peter k, it is widely known that many of the older cardinals are much less conservative than the more recent cardinals.

my TIME life story on JPII even states that the older cardinals were suprised at the fact that JPII was so conservative after they elected him to be a visionary of the future who would bring modernization to the church. I've also read that predictions back then stated that the next pope would be JPII's dynamic opposite because the cardinals would not elect such a staunch conservative again. that is why God has left the pope alive long enough to appoint the cardinals of today, who will elect a good pope for the next in the line of peter...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 25, 2004.


Paul said "it is widely known that many of the older cardinals are much less conservative than the more recent cardinals"

Brian seems to be arguing the opposite, that those "brought up in pre-conciliar times" are more conservative. Do either of you have any real evidence, other than a few isolated statements and acts by a few individual cardinals?

BTW I think political terms like "liberal" or "conservative" are of limited value when discussing the Church as a Church.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 25, 2004.


Peter K,

I'm only telling you what is commonly known, and has been understood for centuries. I'm not up to arguing with you about something that should be as plain as day. If you don't get it, or disagree, more power to you.

Peace.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 25, 2004.



Brian seems to be arguing the opposite, that those "brought up in pre-conciliar times" are more conservative. Do either of you have any real evidence, other than a few isolated statements and acts by a few individual cardinals?

TIME Magazine life story on John Paul II. I'd give you the exact name, publisher, and date of last copyright if i hadnt already packed it to move home for the summer.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 26, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ