Is the key premise of ‘Conclave’ movie canonically possible?

In the Sistine Chapel, a conclave is imminent, and all the cardinal electors are gathered in full assembly. Really all of them? That's without counting on a surprise from fate. A South American missionary bishop in Afghanistan introduces himself and announces that he’s a cardinal.

No one has ever heard of him, and his name has never been mentioned during the consistories for the creation of new cardinals. He carries a letter from the deceased pope, attesting that he is a “cardinal in pectore.” This causes astonishment among the ranks of red hats. His case is studied, and he’s finally admitted to the very restricted circle of the handful of men who can vote for the future head of the Catholic Church…

This totally fictitious scenario – the incredible nature of which will only increase as the story goes on – opens the movie Conclave, which won the Oscar for best screenplay this year. In the real world, is such a plot conceivable?

While there is such a thing as cardinals named in pectore, the movie representation is false.

“It's absolutely impossible,” affirms Pierre Chaffard-Luçon, a doctor of canon law. Canonically, he explains, it’s not plausible “that a cardinal would appear in the middle of the general congregations by magic, pulling a letter out of his hat.” A hidden letter from the pope is not enough.

“A legal act needs promulgation,” says the professor. The pontiff must formally publish the name of the cardinal that he had previously kept in pectore – “in his heart.”

The Code of Canon Law specifies that, prior to such a publication, a cardinal named in pectore “is not bound in the meantime by any of the duties of cardinals nor does he possess any of their rights” (can. 351).

Thus, it is only when the name is revealed that the prelate obtains his cardinalate in the full sense of the term and could therefore be an elector in the event of a conclave.

According to Pierre Chaffard-Luçon, the reason for naming a cardinal in pectore is diplomatic and political. When the reigning pontiff announces in his list a cardinal whose identity he keeps secret, “all the countries that are at odds with the Holy See can check the list of their bishops who are potentially cardinals.”

This was the case with China under the pontificate of John Paul II. The Polish pontiff created a cardinal in pectore during his first consistory on June 30, 1979, and revealed the name of this Chinese prelate, Ignatius Gong Pin-mei, 12 years later, during the consistory of June 28, 1991.

Over the years, John Paul II created three other in pectore cardinals. He later revealed the names of two of them: Marian Jaworski, of Ukraine, Archbishop of Lviv of the Latins; and Janis Pujats, Archbishop of Riga in Latvia.

The last of the three, whose creation he announced at the consistory of October 21, 2003, was never revealed or discovered.

As with every announcement of this kind, the press speculated wildly about the identity of the secret appointee. The names of Bishop Joseph Zen of Hong Kong and Archbishop Tadeuz Kondrusiewicz, Catholic archbishop of Moscow, were circulated, but the mystery was never solved.

It should also be noted that if a pope dies having created a cardinal without revealing his name, his successor is not obliged to take this into account.

Today, the premise of the movie Conclave seems even more unlikely to become a real situation, given that neither Francis nor Benedict XVI created cardinals in pectore. No newcomer can come and claim a red biretta. It’s not possible for a pope to create a cardinal in pectore without saying so.

On the other hand, the pope, an absolute sovereign, can always change the rules of the game. “He could promulgate a new norm in the coming days; legally, it is possible,” says Pierre Chaffard-Luçon. “But we have no indication that he will,” he concludes.