Roberto de MatteiCorrispondenza RomanaApril 30, 2025
The funeral of Pope Francis on the parvis of St. Peter's Basilica and the translation of the coffin to St. Mary Major, in the grandiose setting of ancient, Baroque, and 19th-century Rome, represented a historic moment charged with symbolism. Sovereigns, heads of state and government, public men of all ranks, gathered from all over the world in Rome did not pay homage to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but to the institution he represented, as had happened on April 8, 2005 for the funeral of John Paul II. Although many of these personalities belong to other religions or profess atheism, all were aware of what the Roman Church, caput mundi, the center of universal Christianity, still means. The image of Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky face to face on two simple chairs, between the aisles of St. Peter's Basilica, seemed to express their smallness, under the vault of a basilica that holds the destinies of the world. And the 170 leaders gathered in the Eternal City, by their presence also seemed to question the future of the world, on the eve of the conclave that will open on May 7.
The conclave that will elect Francis' successor is, like all conclaves, an extraordinary moment in the life in the Church. In no other place as in a conclave, in fact, do Heaven and earth seem to meet for the election of the Vicar of Christ. The cardinals, who constitute the Senate of the Church, must choose the one who is destined to lead and govern it. The moment is so important that Christ himself has promised the Church to assist her in the choice, through the influence of the Holy Spirit. Like all manners of grace, however, that due to the special intervention of the Holy Spirit presupposes the acceptance of men who, in this case, are the cardinals gathered in the Sistine Chapel. Divine assistance does not, in fact, take away from them their human freedom. The Holy Spirit assists them, but does not determine their choice. The assistance of the Holy Spirit does not mean that the best candidate is necessarily chosen in the conclave. Divine Providence, however, always draws from the worst evil -- such as the election of a bad pope -- the greatest possible good; because it is God, and not the devil, who always triumphs in history. That is why throughout history saintly popes have been elected, but also weak, unworthy popes, inadequate to their high mission, without in any way detracting from the greatness of the Papacy.
Like every conclave in history, the next conclave will be subjected to attempts at interference. In the conclave of 1769, Clement XIV was elected after 185 ballots and more than three months of negotiations, after pledging to the Bourbon courts to suppress the Society of Jesus. Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, in the 1903 conclave that elected St. Pius X, vetoed the election of Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro. But the conclave that elected Pius XII, and especially the one that followed his death, also came under political pressure. In 1958, the most intrusive diplomatic action was led by General De Gaulle's France, which prescribed that its ambassador to the Holy See, Roland de Margerie, do everything to prevent the election of Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini, who were considered “reactionaries.” Instead, the “French party,” which was headed by the Dean, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, supported Patriarch Giuseppe Roncalli of Venice, who was elected as John XXIII. In more recent times, the maneuvers of the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia” in the conclaves of 2005 and 2013 to prevent the election of Benedict XVI and then to secure that of Pope Francis are well known. The first maneuver failed, but the second succeeded
These pressures do not, however, determine the invalidity of an election. John Paul II, in the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, of Feb. 22, 1996, while not prohibiting that during the Sede Vacante there may be exchanges of ideas about the election, stipulates that the cardinal electors are to refrain “from any form of pacts, agreements, promises, or other commitments of any sort, which might compel them to give or withhold their vote to one or some. If this in fact were done, even if under oath,” it decrees ‘that such a commitment is null and void and that no one is bound to observe it’ and commits ‘excommunication latae sententiae to violators of this prohibition’ (nos. 81-82). The constitution defines the agreements as invalid, but not the election that followed them. The election remains valid even if illicit pacts were made, unless a very serious substantial defect emerges that compromises the freedom of the conclave.
Universi Dominici Gregis had established the election of the pontiff by a qualified majority of two-thirds, but in the event that the conclave lasted longer than 30 ballots in 10 days, it provided that the cardinals could elect the new pope by a simple absolute majority of the suffrages (nos. 74-75). This was not an insignificant change, for an absolute majority makes the hypothesis of a contested pope more likely, the invalidity of one ballot being enough to render null and void the election of a pope elected by a majority vote. Perhaps this is why, in his June 11, 2007 Apostolic Letter, De aliquibus mutationibus in normis de electione Romani Pontificis, Benedict XVI restored the traditional norm that a two-thirds majority vote of the cardinal electors present is always required for election as Supreme Pontiff. The two-thirds requirement makes the position of a blocking minority stronger and means that the conclave can also be prolonged in time. This has happened many times in the modern age. It suffices to recall that the conclave that elected Barnaba Chiaramonti as Pius VII (1800-1823) lasted more than three months, from November 30, 1799, to March 14, 1800, while the conclave that elected Gregory XVI (1831-1846) lasted about 50 days, from December 14, 1830, to February 2, 1831. The elected Pope was Bartolomeo Alberto Cappellari, a Camaldolese monk, prefect of the congregation of Propaganda Fide, who was not even a bishop at the time of his election. After being elected pope, he was first ordained a bishop and then crowned.
Pope Francis' funeral was a moment of apparent unity. Will the next conclave, reflecting the true situation of the Church, instead be the site of division, forcing the cardinals to assume their responsibility for the good of the Church? The red, which symbolizes the blood of martyrs, reminds the cardinals that they must be ready to fight and shed their blood in defense of the faith, and the conclave is always a theater of struggle involving the noblest portion of the Mystical Body of Christ. In St. Peter's Square on April 26, the Church received the unwitting honors of a world that fights it. In the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals, or at least a minority of them, will have to fight for the honor of the Church, today humiliated by its opponents, especially the ones on the inside. A long and contested conclave opens for this reason, greater horizons of hope than a short conclave, in which, from the very beginning, a compromise candidate is chosen.
The best pope will not be the “politically correct” pope suggested by the mass media, nor the political pope who, presenting himself as a “peacemaker,” will obtain the pontificate through guarantees and promises that he will be able to keep.
The Church and the faithful people need a Pope who is integral in doctrine and morals, and who does not present as concessions what in faith, morals, liturgy, and spiritual life is their irrevocable right; they need an authentic Vicar of Christ, who will render to the Chair of Peter his role as the light of truth and justice. Otherwise, if this light is missing from the world, the Church will be left with nothing but the merits of suffering and the resources of prayer. (Roberto de Mattei)
