Cardinals violating their vows: a ho-hum story?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 25, 2019

America magazine is running a story about the conclave of 2013. The story—excerpted from the forthcoming The Election of Pope Francis, by Gerard O’Connell—includes a precise account of the voting on the cardinals’ first ballot.

Do you have any doubt that O’Connell’s account is accurate? I don’t. A conclave is supposed to be confidential, and every cardinal vows to keep the proceedings secret. Yet within a few weeks after every conclave, journalists have at least a rough idea of how the votes were cast. O’Connell’s story is remarkable only for its details.

How is this possible? During a conclave the only people present—the cardinals and a very few other officials—are sworn to secrecy. The oath that they take, set forth by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, is both clear and solemn:

I, N.N., promise and swear that, unless I should receive a special faculty given expressly by the newly-elected Pontiff or by his successors, I will observe absolute and perpetual secrecy with all who are not part of the College of Cardinal electors concerning all matters directly or indirectly related to the ballots cast and their scrutiny for the election of the Supreme Pontiff…

I declare that I take this oath fully aware that an infraction thereof will make me subject to the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, which is reserved to the Apostolic See.

If O’Connell’s information is correct—and again, I don’t doubt it—several alarming conclusions are unavoidable:

• At least one cardinal violated his oath.
• That cardinal or cardinals has/have incurred the penalty of excommunication.
• The excommunicated cardinal(s) knows that he is excommunicated, since he was “fully aware” of the penalty.
• The other cardinals know that there was someone in their midst who has violated his oath and is now excommunicated—and is therefore, for at least two reasons, in danger of damnation. But we have not heard cries of dismay or calls for repentance.

This is a scandal. And it doesn’t help that the same scandal arose after previous conclaves. If some cardinals violate their sacred oaths, and other cardinals accept the violation quietly, as if it were (since in fact it is) a matter of routine, how can they expect to regain the confidence of the faithful?