Inside The Conclave

Secrecy oaths, like rules in general, seem mean something different to Europeans than to Americans.

Take, f’rinstance the secrecy oaths taken by cardinals and others involved in the recent conclave.

Every time there’s a conclave, details invariably leak out afterwards. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the authentic from the bogus in the stories that are told, but this time I think we’re getting a pretty clear picture of what happened.

Time Magazine has a startlingly detailed account that appears to have multiple sources.

EXCERPTS:

[T]he second balloting saw Ratzinger reach 60 votes. By the third, he was just shy of the 77 required for the papacy. By the fourth, he had won 95 out of 115.

In the Sistine Chapel, as the tally went over the required two-thirds, "there was a gasp all around," Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor of Britain recalled in a press conference. Ratzinger, he said, "had his head down. He must have been saying a prayer." When Jorge Cardinal Arturo Medina Estevez—who would announce the election to the world from the balcony of St. Peter’s—asked Ratzinger what name he would assume, the Pontiff-elect did not hesitate. "In the past, there’s been a wait while the new Pope pondered the question for 10 minutes or so," says an informed source. "Not so this time. Ratzinger replied right away, ‘Benedict XVI.’ He was prepared."

GET THE STORY.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

12 thoughts on “Inside The Conclave”

  1. The details about the conclave in the article are intriguing and may very well be true, although I suspect that it would be difficult to confirm them.
    The interpretation of the details (i.e., from an almost solely political perspective) leaves much to be desired.

  2. I noticed in the photo that Cardinal George of Chicago is on the far right hand side furthest away from the door. Will this mean he will have a greater role in the vatican? Is he “conservative” and friends with Pope Benedict XVI?

  3. I could care less about ‘how’ the Holy Father was elected (knowing that the Holy Spirit had His way is all I care about), but I do care that there is a possible betrayal via the breach of an oath…Kind of makes me wonder…if Cardinals (I said ‘if’)can breach the ‘rules’ under threat of possible excommunication (am I right about that, I don’t know?)…how safe are my confessions…boy, they’re going to be howling in the presbytry come Saturday afternoon if they follow suit!
    God Bless

  4. If I were that guy’s editor, I’d give him a $5000 bonus for his reportage and for having great sources. Then I’d fine him $5000 for confusing a news article with an editorial….

  5. Concerning the statement that the Pope must have been prepared to be elected because he had his name already picked out, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Malachy’s prophecies (www.newadvent.org). It has long been supposed in some parts of the Church that the Pope who filled this spot would be called Benedict because of the “olive” reference and that he would be a peacemaker.

  6. “says an informed source.”?
    There are only two people in the college who had ever been at one of these conclaves before. So either one of these talked (bad, bad) or the reporter’s “informed source” wasn’t so informed.

  7. Although Jorge Cdl. Medina Estevez announced the pope and was charged with installing him in office, I read elsewhere that it was Angelo Cdl. Sodano who asked Cdl. Ratzinger if he accepted the election and what his new name would be. This is because the job would have been Ratzinger’s as dean of the college if someone else had been elected and passed to Sodano as the next ranking cardinal.

  8. I thought the oath of secrecy applied only during the conclave. After the conclave, the cardinals are no longer subject to the oath.

  9. Andrew – there’s also the possibility that he had had plenty of time throughout the balloting that day to see which way the wind was blowing and had been able to think it over :).
    And I absolutely refuse to believe it took JPII ten minutes to pick his name, considering the circumstances.

  10. I thought the oath of secrecy applied only during the conclave. After the conclave, the cardinals are no longer subject to the oath.

    I believe not. Unless the new pope releases the cardinals from their oaths, the obligation of silence is perpetual.

  11. 95 votes out of 115? Whether or not it was leaked out or true, I hope the libs think it is. In US elections, that would be a mandate.

Comments are closed.