A reader wites:
In the document of the Conclave of Cardinals, it states that any cardinal who bribes or commits simony is exommunicated by that act itself. It also says that thie does NOT change the votes at all.
True. Universi Dominici Gregis states:
78. If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.
The reader continues:
We (those at our High School Religion class) assume that this is to promote Church unity and such.
True again. JPII specifically set that aside so that "the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challaneged."
And people can only be de-excommunicated by the pope.
A quibble: Excommunications can be lifted by folks other than the pope, but this excommunication, even though the pontiff doesn’t say so, would almost certainly be reserved to the Holy See under normal circumstances.
So what’s to stop a cardinal from bribing 2/3 of the people, getting in office, and un-excommunicating them? Are we to merely assume that no cardinal would ever do such a thing? In view of actions in the Middle Ages? And the increasing moral corruption of our day and age?
Hypothetically speaking, the possibility you mention could happen, which is why John Paul II provided that a simoniacal election would still be valid.
Practically speaking, it strikes me as quite unlikely for several reasons:
-
The Holy Spirit’s action to the contrary.
-
These days you don’t generally rise to being papabile if you are tempted by sins as blatant as committing simony to gain the papacy. Your temptations are likely to be much more subtle.
-
It’s not possible to bribe 2/3rds of the cardinal electors. That’s almost eighty folks. What are you going to offer them? Money? Most don’t want it and papabile usually aren’t rich. Power? There are only so many high-level positions to go around, and these guys are already occupying most of them. They’re cardinals: They already have the top slots.
-
While it might be possible to bribe a few electors (e.g., enough to swing things in a close election), is that something you really want to do? If you can trust them to keep the bribe a secret, they’re likely already your friends or think highly enough of you that they’re voting for you anyway.
-
Further, if you can’t trust them to keep the secret then you’d better not try bribing them, because there is no faster way to lose a papal election than for it to be publicly known that you tried to bribe somebody. That’s the one thing that’s certain to unify your opponents and alienate your supporters! The anti-simony ethic of the college of cardinals thus itself serves as a barrier to this happening.
I can thus think of five factors (off the top of my head) that make a simoniacal election unlikely: the action of the Holy Spirit, the usual character of papabile, the lack of resources for making effective bribes, the lack of good candidates for accepting bribes, and the reaction the college would have if attempted bribery became known.
Back centuries ago, when matters were very different, it may have been possible to obtain the papacy by simony, thus simulaneously becoming the successor of Simon Peter and Simon Magus, but it seems very unlikely to me to happen today.
Thank you very much. So it’s possible, but very, very immprobable. Thanks!