The debate over age limits for electors Notes on the 1922 "Canonists' Conclave" Cardinal Piffl (Vienna) kept private records during the papal conclave that elected Achille Ratti as Pius XI. These were discovered after Piffl's death in 1932, and published in The Tablet on 5 Oct. 1963, at 1060. They are also available in J. Noonan, Power to Dissolve (1972), at 407. According to Piffl, 15 candidates received at least one vote in the course of 14 ballots held during the four-day conclave. Below, candidates names (canon lawyers in bold) are listed by greatest number of votes attained in one or more ballots: Ratti 42 Gasparri 24 La Fontaine 23 Merry de Val 17 Maffi 10 Belmonte 8 Laurenti 5 Bisleti 4 Van Rossum 4 De Lai 2 Pompilj 2 Giorgi 1 Lega 1 Mercier 1 Sbaretti 1 These records suggest what I think might well be called "The Canonists' Conclave of 1922." PS: Retaining personal notes such as Piffl did is now forbidden by papal law (UDG 71).

What do Canon Lawyers think is funny? At one point during the post-Conciliar process of reforming canon law, a "Plenaria" was held in Rome to discuss various difficult legal issues. One such controversy concerned a rule established by Pope Paul VI whereby cardinals, upon reaching age 80, lost the right to vote in papal conclaves. The discussion of this point is recorded in Congregatio Plenaria diebus 20-29 octobris 1981 habita (pp. 374-375). Cardinal Pericles Felici, a very influential Roman canonist, chaired the meeting. What follows is my very free translation from the Latin of an exchange during that meeting: Cdl. Felici * * * OFFICIAL: Question Four, octogenarian cardinals lose the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. There are eleven Fathers asking for discussion of this point [all names are listed, led by Cdl. Seper's]. FELICI: We move next to Question Four, which refers to draft canon 290, whereby octogenarian cardinals lose the right to vote for the Supreme Pontiff. Now, before this question is discussed and the one who first brought it up explains his reasons, it is my duty to tell you that I have already spoken about this matter with the pope while going over various topics to be looked at in this session, and I asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to include this question among the six to be reviewed. And the Supreme Pontiff told me he was not pleased. True, he did not revoke permission to discuss the topic, but he would prefer that it not be included among the topics, basically because this issue concerns the Supreme Pontiff, but for all that, he did not forbid debate if the Fathers still want to talk about it. That said, it's time for someone who has asked for this discussion to explain his reasons. ... Anyone? ... Come on, there are eleven signatures on this sheet! ... Card. Seper. SEPER: I may say, there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this now. [Seper briefly explained that he was not opposed to the rule itself, but that he wanted it treated outside of the new Code.] FELICI: Okay, is there anyone else who wants to say something on this? ............ Nobody? .......... Well, let's vote. OFFICIAL: How many are left to vote on Question Four? FELICI: Not many. Most of them have left to attend an audience with the Pope. Fine. * * * Postscript: By special secret ballot, 41 of the 53 cardinals who stayed for the vote asked that the disqualification not be included in the 1983 Code, and in fact the rule does not appear in the new Code. But it is still contained in the special law governing papal elections, and thus is still in force. Anyway, I thought the little exchange above was funny. Maybe one had to be there.