I’m writing this note before the conclave, and it’s likely to be moot by the time it goes up on Thursday, but here goes.
A reader writes:
i am practicing catholic from india. your statement that a layman could become a pope is very confusing i am a married person with 2 children do you think that i could become a pope if 2/3rd of the cardinals vote me as the pope. more over which cannon law allows a person who has not taken celebecy to become a pope. we also request that you dont make such irresponsible statements about the catholic faith which is followed by millions of catholics in the world
I appreciate your concern for accuracy and for not misleading the faithful, but I think that there has been a bit of a miscommunication here.
Any discussion of the possibility of a layman being elected pope in this day and age is purely hypothetical. There is basically no chance whatsoever that this would happen in today’s environment. For the sake of accuracy, though, I note that it is a hypothetical possibility.
Canon law expressly provides for the situation in which a non-bishop is elected pope. It says that if a non-bishop is elected pope then he is to be consecrated as a bishop immediately. This provision of canon law does not restrict the election of a pontiff to priests. It simply refers to him not being a bishop. Therefore, he could be a priest, a deacon, or a layman.
There is also nothing in canon law or other lay preventing the cardinals from electing a man who is married or has children. They would never do so in real life at this point in Church history, but there is nothing in canon law stopping them from doing so. If they really felt that a married layman with kids was the best person to lead the Church, they are empowered to elect such a person.
Indeed, in Universi Dominici Gregis, John Paul II exhorted them, saying:
Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way [SOURCE].
There are no restrictions on that. The only restrictions that would exist would be one that of their nature prevent one from being consecrated a bishop. That means that women could not be elected (or that such an election would be invalid), but it is possible in principle–even though it is rare in the Latin church–to be married still receive holy orders.
Indeed, Scripture seems to indicate that the first pope was that way.
So if the cardinals did give you a two-thirds vote, you would be validly elected pope.
I think you have nothing to fear in regard to this possibility, though. It would be very foolish for the cardinals to elect any layman today, for it would be very, very bad for the Church. Consequently, they will not do so.
I think you have nothing to fear in regard to this possibility, though. It would be very foolish for the cardinals to elect any layman today, for it would be very, very bad for the Church. Consequently, they will not do so.
I’m not sure I see why it would necessarily be bad for the Church. I agree that in the vast majority of cases it would probably be bad, but still. . . .
I believe the last lay member of the Sacred College of Cardinals served under Bl. Pius IX.
I think the last non-bishop to be elected to the Papacy was Gregory XVI in 1831. (At the time of his election he was a Cardinal but not yet a bishop.) He reigned for 15 years.
It’s been a long, long time since a layman was elected Pope. If I recall correctly, Pope Fabian in the 200s A.D. was a layman who came to Rome to watch the election of the next Pope. He came into the crowd, and then a dove came out of nowhere and plopped down on his head. Everyone saw it and took it as a sign that the Holy Spirit had selected Fabian, who was promptly ordained a deacon, priest, and bishop and installed as Pope.
It’s probably just as well that we don’t usually choose our Popes that way, but in Fabian’s case it seemed to work just fine.
Oops. Sorry, that last post was from me.
I do not understand why electing a layman is per se so very, very bad for the Church.
Unlikely, yes.
But per se very, very bad. No.
Remember, there are many fine monks and friars and brothers who are laymen.
In fact, from the point of view of many Eastern Christian traditions, the division between the major vocations is monastic/nonmonastic, not cleric/lay as in the West. At one time, it was not so alien to the Western tradition, either.
Not in this day and age. The new responsibilities of a Pope, coupled with the vastness of his responsibility, would make it really really bad for a layman to be elected.