Questions about Universi Dominici Gregis

The upcoming conclave and its results

Saint Peter’s Square taken from the cupola of Saint Peter’s Basilica. Photo credit: Author’s personal photo taken April 2013 (cropped)

Subsequent to the original posting of this article Robert Prevost was elected on 8 May by a conclave. After studying the issue more carefully and meditating on the matter for more than a month it seemed to me that I had been far too restrained in this present article and far too hopeful that the Cardinals and/or the man they elected would end up doing the right thing.

I was wrong. They didn’t. Therefore I was forced to conclude that due to its violation of No. 33 of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis by the Cardinals’ insistence on there being 133 electors in the Conclave when in fact a maximum of 120 are allowed by law the entire conclave of 7-8 May was a sham and its election of Robert Prevost was null and void. I outline my reasons for that conclusion here and leave this article here in the form I originally wrote it as a historical reference

II Kalendas Maii (30 April) Anno Incarnationis MMXXV

The Feast of Saint Catherine of Siena

So last night I stumbled across a Substack note by the priest Fr. Pablo Ormazabal Albistur concerning a little hiccup that might confront the upcoming conclave due to start in a weeks time on 7 May. Because you see there are 135¹ Cardinal electors set to vote.

Which is all fine and everything, except the only slight problem which might confront both the electors and the man they end up electing is that in 1996 Pope John Paul II issued the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis to set forth the law which governs the election of the Roman Pontiff (and is still very much in effect) which states quite clearly that the number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty.

Now I make absolutely no claim to be an expert in canon law. I am not. And I am perfectly willing to accept any valid and well founded criticism or correction of anything that appears in this article by anyone who is. But I can count and do basic arithmetic…

That said this problem of the Cardinal electors and their number opens up some rather interesting questions which may become quite a bit more interesting down the line if they are not addressed forthwith. And unfortunately at present I have heard no real discussion of this one would think rather significant issue, at least since the death of Francis, in what might be called the ‘mainstream’ or at least widely viewed Catholic media.

Paragraph 33

So let’s begin with the relevant paragraph, paragraph 33, in Universi Dominici Gregis:

The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty. The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded.²

“Must not exceed one hundred and twenty” and “the right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary… is absolutely excluded” are both incredibly definitive statements. And it is difficult to imagine that ‘any other ecclesiastical dignitary’ does not also include members of the cardinalate beyond the prescribed number one hundred and twenty which must not be exceeded.

So what happens then if 135 cardinals end up voting instead of the 120?

Enter The Pillar

Very weirdly The Pillar of all places gave a rather strange answer to this question four and a half months before Francis died the substance of which you may begin to hear again more widely repeated by those who will undoubtedly claim that none of this matters if and by the grace of God when the question of Universi Dominici Gregis ever begins to gain traction.

The following is from their article dated 4 November of last year (2024) and it reads as follows:

Following the December consistory, the total number of cardinals who could vote in a conclave will rise to 141. Universi Dominici Gregis, the apostolic constitution governing papal elections, sets the maximum number of voting cardinals at 120. However, as that document is merely ecclesiastical law (as opposed to divine law), popes are free to dispense from its norms at will, meaning the total number of voting age cardinals, and the schedule on which they are created, is practically a matter of personal papal discretion.

Customarily, popes treat the 120 voting cardinal limit as a minimum rather than maximum number, dispensing from the upper limit and appointing cardinals in batches in advance to replace a cohort about to age out.³

There are a couple of rather jawdropping claims made here. The first is that, apparently, Ecclesiastical law doesn’t matter.

So why do we have it then? I mean seriously… why did John Paul II even bother with any⁴ of this?

The second: ‘popes treat the 120 voting cardinal limit as a minimum rather than maximum number…’ Really? Do they now?

Well we have the record of two conclaves since Universi Dominici Gregis was promulgated on 22 February 1996: that of 2005 which elected Benedict XVI and that of 2013 which gave us Francis. And from all of the records I can find there were only 117 Cardinal electors eligible to vote at each of those conclaves. So the claim that ‘popes’ (whoever they are) ‘customarily’ treat the 120 limit as a minimum is both completely ahistorical and absolutely ludicrous.

Now what?

So what does all this mean? Universi Dominici Gregis is the standing law of the Church. Nothing in it appears to contradict long standing⁵ Catholic tradition. It has never been overturned and only one amendment⁶ to it has ever been made which did nothing to change the ‘120 as maximum’ law. Nor did Francis⁷ during his pontificate ever make any move to alter its provisions or replace it with his own law which would have been his right and duty if he thought it ill.

So if these 135 cardinals, or any number exceeding 120, end up voting would that nullify the result of the upcoming conclave? It would be difficult to argue against that claim if it were ever made since them doing this would be a blatant violation of extremely explicit black letter law. At the very least it would put whatever man were to be elected in a highly vulnerable position.

Because even if everybody looks the other way⁸ for now, as the Pillar and those of that ilk would have us do, don’t think that they will do it forever. Don’t think for a second that the first time whoever is elected does something some interest group in the Church really doesn’t like that paragraph 33 of Universi Dominici Gregis cannot get itself suddenly remembered just as quickly as it is being forgotten right now.

And it would also be an excellent way to blackmail the man who is elected to keep him in line.

So hopefully over the next week the issue of Universi Dominici Gregis will receive the attention it deserves and maybe, just maybe, fifteen cardinals will suddenly discover that they have a scheduling conflict or an earache or something and cannot attend the upcoming conclave. If not I would advise no man (not that any have asked or will ask my opinion about any of this) to accept election if more than 120 Cardinals are voting. He will do neither himself nor the Church any good if he does so.

Because if you think sedevacantism was bad under Francis…

(Just to clarify on the above statement regarding not accepting election since it was pointed out to me that it could be easily misunderstood. What I was referring to was that the man elected as pope by more than 120 voting Cardinals should not accept election under those conditions not that laymen should automatically not accept him.)

1. Article found here. I haven’t found a single article in either secular or Catholic that mentions this rather large issue with Universi Dominici Gregis.

2. Official English translation of Universi Dominici Gregis as amended by Benedict XVI on 22 February 2013 (it’s final amendment) can be found here. Paragraph 33 is the relative paragraph although John Paul II does also make the following statement in the prologue as well:

In the present historical circumstances, the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the College of one hundred and twenty electors, made up of Cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures. I therefore confirm that this is to be the maximum number of Cardinal electors

3. Article can be found here

4. So if that’s are standard why don’t we just drop the ban on 80 year olds voting too since Paul VI invented that out of whole cloth I think in 1970’s Ingravescentem Aetatem. I mean really what difference does the law make anyways?

5. One could make an argument that the complete exclusion of lay involvement in the election of the Roman Pontiff is anti-tradition but unfortunately this has been the continual progression of events since the reign of Gregory VII 950 years ago and the complete exclusion of the laity from the process was finally codified by Pius X in 1904.

On the whole I don’t find any of this a healthy development for the Church but at the present moment since all of the Christian monarchies have now been long since overthrown it is hard to say who would represent the laity anyway. Though I’m sure we could find somebody if we looked hard enough.

6. The Motu Proprio Normas Nonnullas issued 22 February 2013 between the announcement of Benedict’s resignation and the date of its taking effect (28 February) was the last amendment made to Universi Dominici Gregis where it is both confirmed as the governing document concerning the process of election of the Roman Pontiff and changes absolutely nothing about 120 being the maximum number of cardinals allowed to vote.

7. What Francis was doing here when he added twenty extra Cardinals of voting age last October/December is unknown. It could have been that he had a motu proprio in mind to fix the problem but the rapid decline in his health intervened. It could have been that he, like most people, thought that he had more time. Or, since he was Francis, he could have just been haciendo un lío.

Curiously one prospective Cardinal, Paskalis Bruno Syukur O.F.M., bishop of Bogor, Indonesia, declined without making public his reason.

8. We Catholics have become experts at looking the other way in recent times and it is time to stop.