Papal Conclave, 2005

#REDIRECT Papal conclave, 2005

Papal conclave, 2005

{| align=right border=1 cellspacing=0 width=250 cellpadding=2 class=toccolours style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; border-collapse:collapse; border: 1px #aaa solid; font-size: 95%" |+ PAPAL CONCLAVE, APRIL 2005 |- | align=center colspan=2 | |- | Dates | April 18–April 19, 2005 |- | Location | Sistine Chapel, Apostolic Palace, Vatican City |- | Dean | Pope Benedict XVI (Germany) |- | Vice Dean | Angelo Cardinal Sodano (Italy) |- | Camerlengo | Eduardo Cardinal Mart�nez Somalo (Spain) |- | Senior Deacon | Jorge Cardinal Medina (Chile) |- | Ballots | Pope elected after 4 ballots |- | Elected Pope | Pope Benedict XVI
(now Pope Benedict XVI) |} The Papal conclave of 2005 began on April 18, 2005 and ended the next day after four ballots. Eligible members of the College of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church (those who were less than 80 years of age at the time of the death of the late Pope John Paul II) met and elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as the next pontiff. Cardinal Ratzinger, after accepting his nomination, took the name Pope Benedict XVI. Proceedings on April 18 consisted of a morning Mass (liturgy) "for the Election of the Roman Pontiff" (Latin: "''Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice''"), followed by the assembling of the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican City's Apostolic Palace in the afternoon for one round of balloting. Balloting was to continue until a new Pope was elected, on a schedule of two ballots each morning and two each afternoon. Ballots were to be burned at noon and 7 pm Rome time (10:00 and 17:00 Coordinated Universal Time) each day. The first ballot, on the evening of April 18, produced black smoke from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, meaning no pope had been elected. More black smoke followed the two morning ballots of April 19. White smoke emerged in the afternoon but the initial absence of bells caused some confusion about what this meant. However, the bells of St. Peter's Basilica began pealing shortly after 6 pm Rome time, confirming that the Cardinal (Catholicism) had elected a new pope. ==Papal election process for 2005== :''Main article: Papal election'' :''For an example of the speculation in the lead up to, and during the 2005 conclave, see Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005'' Leading the conclave was the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI. Following the election of Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, the Senior Deacon of the College of Cardinals, Jorge Cardinal Medina, announced to the world, in Latin, ''Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum! Habemus Papam!'' ("I announce to you a great joy! We have a Pope!"). This was the first Papal election governed under canon law reforms made by John Paul II in his Apostolic Constitution ''Universi Dominici Gregis'', promulgated on February 22, 1996. According to tradition and declaration of Camerlengo Eduardo Cardinal Mart�nez Somalo, Benedict XVI is the 265th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite (another accounting of papal history that includes the uncrowned and uninstalled Pope Stephen II reckons him the 266th pope). In a break with tradition, ''Universi Dominici Gregis'' provided that the cardinals were not be locked in the Sistine Chapel throughout this conclave; however, while lodged in the Vatican's Domus Sanctae Marthae when not in session, they did not have access to television, radio, the Internet, or telephones during the election process. On April 24, 5 days after Benedict XVI's election, he was ceremonially installed. Since Pope John Paul I, the historical Papal Coronation has been replaced by a simple consecration and Papal Inauguration. Some of the dignitaries that attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II also attended the mass. One of them was German Chancellor Gerhard Schr�der. === The Cardinal Electors === {| border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="350px" align="right" style="border-collapse: collapse;" style="float" |+ Papal Conclave of 2005 |- !colspan="1" style="background:#ffffff;"|ELECTORS !colspan="1" |117 total |- !style="background:#cccccc;"|Absent |align="center" style="background:#cccccc;" |2
(Jaime Cardinal Sin, Adolfo Antonio Cardinal Su�rez Rivera) |- !style="background:#cccccc;"|Present |align="center" style="background:#cccccc;" |115 |- !style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Papal conclave, 2005#Africa |style="background:#f0f0f0;" align="center"|11 |- !style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Papal conclave, 2005#Asia/Middle East |style="background:#f0f0f0;" align="center"|11 |- !style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Papal conclave, 2005#Europe |style="background:#f0f0f0;" align="center"|58 |- !style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Papal conclave, 2005#Oceania |style="background:#f0f0f0;" align="center"|2 |- !style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Papal conclave, 2005#North America |style="background:#f0f0f0;" align="center"|22 |- !style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Papal conclave, 2005#South America |style="background:#f0f0f0;" align="center"|13 |- !style="background:#8888aa;"|DECEASED POPE |style="background:#cccccc;" align="center"|Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) |- !style="background:#8888aa;"|NEW POPE |style="background:#cccccc;" align="center"|Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) |} [[Image:Generalcongregationofcardinals2005.jpg|thumb|275px|The General Congregation of the College of Cardinals meets to plan the conclave.]] :''For a full list, see Cardinal electors in Papal conclave, 2005.'' Although there were 183 cardinals in all, cardinals over the age of 80 at the time the papacy fell vacant were ineligible to vote in the conclave according to rules enacted by Pope Paul VI in 1971 and modified slightly in 1996 by John Paul II. Pope Paul also limited the number of cardinal electors to a maximum of 120, though John Paul often disregarded this limit when elevating cardinals. At the time of John Paul's death, there were 117 cardinals under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote in the conclave. All but three of the electors were appointed by Pope John Paul II. The late pope appointed another cardinal secretly (''in pectore'') in 2003, but his identity was never made public; since John Paul never revealed the name of this cardinal before he died, the ''in pectore'' cardinalate expired on April 2. The cardinal electors came from slightly over fifty nations (up slightly from the 49 represented in 1978) around the world, about 30 of which have only a single representative. The Italian electors are the most numerous at 20, followed by the United States contingent with 11. The Vatican announced on April 9 that two of the 117 cardinal electors, Jaime Cardinal Sin of the Philippines and Adolfo Antonio Cardinal Su�rez Rivera of Mexico, would not be attending the conclave due to poor health, though some reports had said Cardinal Sin had hoped for medical clearance to travel. Even two short of the full number, with 115 cardinals attending, this conclave saw the largest number of cardinals ever to elect a pope; both conclaves in 1978 had 111 electors present. Groupings of countries by number of electors: * 20 electors: Italy * 11 electors: United States * 6 electors: Germany, Spain * 5 electors: France * 4 electors: Brazil, Mexico * 3 electors: Canada, Colombia, India, Poland * 2 electors: Chile, Hungary, Japan, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, Ukraine, United Kingdom * 1 elector: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cameroon, Congo, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Vietnam The supporting votes of two-thirds of the cardinals attending a conclave are needed to elect a new pope: in this case, 77 votes. ==Course of balloting== ===Pre-balloting activities=== On Saturday, April 9, in Rome, 130 cardinals meeting in the "General Congregation" (including some non-voting cardinals) voted not to talk to the press until after the conclave. The cardinal electors listened to two exhortations to the conclave cardinals before passing on to the first election on the afternoon of April 18. The first of these exhortations on the state of the Church was delivered on the morning of Thursday, April 14, in one of the daily general congregations. The preacher was Raniero Cantalamessa, a Capuchin friar and scholar in Church history, who has for several years preached the lenten sermons to the pope and his curial staff. The text of Cantalamessa's lecture was apparently leaked to the Italian press, who quoted him as having told the cardinals they "must guard against transforming Pentecost into a Babel, as happens when one looks for personal affirmation … They ought to only search for the glory of God and the realisation of his reign." The second exhortation was delivered by Tomas Cardinal Spidlik in the Sistine Chapel after the ''extra omnes'' on the afternoon of Monday, April 18, and the closing off of the conclave area to outsiders. ===First day=== *On 18 April, after concelebrated mass in St. Peters, the cardinals processed to the Sistine Chapel while the Litany of Saints was chanted. After taking their places the Veni Creator Spiritus (Hymn to the Holy Spirit) was sung. At first conclave since their restoration, Michelangelo's Last Judgement and ceiling appeared in their full glory. The occasion was very solemn. *The Cardinal Dean of the Sacred College, Pope Benedict XVI, read the oath: ::''We, the cardinal electors present in this election of the Supreme Pontiff promise, pledge and swear, as individuals and as a group, to observe faithfully and scrupulously the prescriptions contained in the Apostolic Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, published on 22 February 1996. We likewise promise, pledge and swear that whichever of us by divine disposition is elected Roman Pontiff will commit himself faithfully to carrying out the munus Petrinum of Pastor of the Universal Church and will not fail to affirm and defend strenuously the spiritual and temporal rights and the liberty of the Holy See. In a particular way, we promise and swear to observe with the greatest fidelity and with all persons, clerical or lay, secrecy regarding everything that in any way relates to the election of the Roman Pontiff and regarding what occurs in the place of the election, directly or indirectly related to the results of the voting; we promise and swear not to break this secret in any way, either during or after the election of the new Pontiff, unless explicit authorization is granted by the same Pontiff; and never to lend support or favor to any interference, opposition or any other form of intervention, whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree or any group of people or individuals might wish to intervene in the election of the Roman Pontiff.'' :Each cardinal elector affirmed the oath by placing his hands on the book of the Gospels saying aloud: ::''And I, (name), do so promise, pledge and swear. So help me God and these Holy Gospels which I touch with my hand.'' :Cardinal Ratzinger, as Dean of the Sacred College, was first to go forward. He was followed by the Vice Dean, Angelo Sodano, and all the other cardinals in turn. It was the first conclave for all the cardinals save Cardinals William Cardinal Baum and Ratzinger. Two cardinals were striking by their different attire in the sea of red and white: cardinals Ignace Cardinal Daoud of the Syrian Catholic Church and Lubomyr Cardinal Husar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. After Archbishop Marini (the Papal Master of Ceremonies) intoned the words ''extra omnes'' (Latin, "everybody out!"), the members of the choir, security guards, and others left the chapel and the doors of the Sistine Chapel were closed, leaving the cardinals in conclave. *For this first ballot, according to the Italian daily ''Il Messagero'', Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini obtained 40 votes, Pope Benedict XVI obtained 38 votes, and Camillo Cardinal Ruini a substantial number of votes, the rest of the votes being dispersed. *Black Smoke (''fumata nera'') emerged from the top of the Sistine Chapel at around 20:00 Rome time. This signaled that the first ballot had been held and that no new pope had been elected. (Actually, in the first few seconds the smoke was light grayish so most people believed that a new pope had been elected, but it soon became darker, and it wasn't accompanied by the sound of bells, so they realized they had been mistaken.) ===Second day=== Pope_Benedict_XVI.">Image:Pope Benedict XVI elected.jpg|300px|right|thumb|The new pope Pope Benedict XVI. The morning session of the second day ended with the Sistine Chapel chimney emitting black smoke once again (even this time it was much lighter in the first few seconds; experts say this was due to the fact that the stove was new and too clean), meaning that no new pope had been elected. According to the Italian newspapers Pope Benedict XVI indeed reached or even obtained more than the required 77 votes during the third ballot, but he asked for a vote of confirmation in the afternoon. If he had that it would be consistent with the actions of Pope John Paul I who is said to have made the same request. The cardinals left for lunch before returning for the afternoon session of balloting. Tens of thousands of people, waiting in St Peter's Square for the result, were quiet at the result and the reaction was very different from the first day. At 15:50 UTC, white smoke rose above the Sistine Chapel followed by the pealing of bells ten minutes later. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) had been elected after four ballots. The Italian press indicates that he obtained between 95 and 107 votes for this fourth and last ballot. Things weren't glitch free as the votes and notes were lit after that ballot. "All of a sudden, the whole Sistine Chapel was filled with smoke," Adrianus Cardinal Simonis was quoted as saying by La Stampa and La Repubblica. "Fortunately, there were no art historians," joked Christoph Cardinal Sch�nborn, in a reference to the priceless paintings and other treasures in the building. Pope John Paul II had also called for the ringing of the bells but they were silent for some 10 minutes before ringing. To date, no one has explained the glitch, but there is speculation that the Vatican had to disable the normal system for ringing the hours (it was coming up on 1800), delaying the clamouring bells ==External links== ===Procedures and news=== *[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html ''Universi Dominici Gregis'' – the rules governing the election] *[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/pope/choosing/html/default.stm How a pope is elected] (BBC) *[http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/ The Pope] (The Guardian) *[http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/features/papal_elections.htm How the pope is elected – ReligionFacts.com] *[http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/papacy/how.html Conclave procedures] ''(Time (magazine))'' *[http://thepopeblog.blogspot.com/ The Pope Blog: Conclave Edition, a blog covering the 2005 conclave] *[http://www.geocities.com/hashanayobel/papalinfo.htm Papal Conclaves – News about Conclaves and Papal Events] *[http://www.americancatholic.org/features/johnpaulii/transition/ American Catholic – Choosing a New Pope, Papal Conclave] ''(Updated Daily)'' *[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/04/hacking_the_pap.html Hacking the Papal Election], about the security of the election process *[http://conclaaf.blogspot.com/ A collection of useful newspaper articles in various languages about the Conclave] (warning -- very long page) ===Punditry and predictions=== *[http://slate.msn.com/id/2089815/ Article concerning Candidates for succession] (Slate.com) *[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1178910.stm Candidates as of February 2001] (BBC) *[http://www.the-tidings.com/2005/0304/papacies.htm Four candidates as of February 2005] ([http://www.the-tidings.com/ the-tidings.com)] *[http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050401-033437-4653r.htm Analysis: Ratzinger in the ascendance] ''(Washington Times)'' *[http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5b02c77a-a431-11d9-9778-00000e2511c8.html Numbers favour Latin American] ''(Financial Times)'' *[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050404/ap_on_re_af/african_pope_2 Time Right for African Pope?] (Associated Press) *[http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2005/04/whos_the_new_po.html Choosing a Pope in the Internet Age] ''([http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com 3 Quarks Daily])'' 2005 Papal conclave Pope John Paul II Pope Benedict XVI

Papal conclave, 2005

''Note:''The articles discuss the selection of the Pope and acknowledge Wikipedia but do not cite a specific Wikipedia page. It is inferred the newspapers aim to credit this page. */archive 1 */archive 2 */archive 3 */archive 4 == Trimming down this article == Three things: 1. I agree with use 68.100.250.35's suggestion that revisions should by this point be going in the directin of trimming the glut of information. However, I think the bit that was deleted naming the cardinals most often cited in the press as papabili (Arinze, Bergoglio, Hummes, Ratzinger, Rodriguez Maradiaga, Scola, and Tettamanzi) is relevant, particularly since we have such a large list of papabili. Perhaps this could be included in the "Early Speculations" section? Once the conclave is over it will be important that the record show which cardinals were perceived, rightly or wrongly, as frontrunners. 2. The section "Past Voting Records" seems to me to be the weakest part of the article right now - there is just way more historical analysis than is necessary to support the straightforward point that "The newly elected pope often contrasts dramatically with his predecessor." 3. The chart on nationalities of the electors in "Papal election process": wouldn't it be more appropriately situated at the end of the article, immediately before or after the list of electors?--User:Transf1o 22:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) : re ''2.''' The section "Past Voting Records" seems to me to be the weakest part of the article right now - there is just way more historical analysis than is necessary to support the straightforward point that "The newly elected pope often contrasts dramatically with his predecessor." - I could not disagree more. * Millions of words are being written worldwide about the election, yet few journalists actually know what they are talking about (to put it bluntly). If they read that section they might know a lot more about the actual process. * Most of the article is speculation, as indeed it has to be right now. That section is one of the few bits of ''hard facts'' we can produce in the article, so it would be completely illogical to remove from the article its principal factual bit. * This is an encyclopaedia so by definition it is supposed to contain factual detail, not a few glib, unsubstantiated statements. The conclusions of that section reflect the content of the section. Take out or severely edit that information and you contradict the requirement on wikipedia to ''cite your sources'', reducing the section from factual analysis to something that would seem simply to be like unsourced, unevidenced POV. Fear''�IREANN''">User:Jtdirl 00:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::The point of my suggestion is that this is an article about the 2005 papal conclave and it seems difficult to justify a sprawling section about previous papal conclaves in the middle of an article that is already too long. The section isn't an example of conformity to the "cite your sources" requirement at all--it cites no sources whatsoever! I don't dispute the accuracy of this section, and I concede it has value as evidence, but the length is out of all proportion. The information is no doubt useful and perhaps belongs in another article (maybe Papal Election) which this section could reference. It could all be summed up as follows: "The newly elected pope often contrasts dramatically with his predecessor; every pope of the twentieth century was in important respects very different from the man he succeeded. (See [other article])" or something to that effect. Perhaps a compromise would be to mention one striking example--say Leo XIIII and Pius X--and then simply state "Every other twentieth century pope also contrasted with his predecessor in some important respect. (See [other article])" I will wait for feedback from you and the other editors before doing anything about this, though.--User:Transf1o 01:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::But the only way to understand ''how'' conclaves work ''is'' to see the context. I think the claim about it being "difficult to justify a sprawling section" as ludicrous. It is ''vital'' if you want to know ''how'' a conclave works to know the background, and that section does it. That context isn't appearing in the media - who rely on simplistic clearly wrong claims from a brief reading of some cuttings files - "how the church regularly elects seventy-year olds to have short reigns" - wrong. It has elected one seventy-something in 250 years, etc. I would regard your suggestion of burying the facts that can offer a guide to what is likely to happen in a side article to make more room for more inevidenced speculation like the ridiculous long lists we have now as unencyclopaediac and utterly the wrong approach. ''That'' section should be central to enable readers to contextualise this conclave, not shunted to one side. If anything should go it is the list of cardinals - listing them isn't evidence of anything but that they exist. That ''can'' and ''should'' be linked. But not the relevant analysis of context. I am ''completely opposed'' to your suggestion and think you are focusing on the strongest part of the article to make cuts when it is the weaker unfocused speculation bits that are actually skirting POV and can and should be edited. Fear''�IREANN''">User:Jtdirl 01:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Fear�IREANN, I reiterate that this article is about the 2005 conclave and its purpose is to give information about the 2005 conclave. The point of the article is not to explain how conclaves work; that is a more general topic suited, perhaps, to the article Papal Election. See Wikipedia:Stay on topic. The list of cardinal electors is not at all irrelevant and it should not be linked: it is eminently on topic (what could be more on topic in an article on the 2005 conclave than the names of the cardinals who are participating in it?) Moreover, just because something helps the reader to contextualize the 2005 conclave, doesn't mean it belongs here at all costs. This article can't do everything; it would be useful for a reader to know, for instance, what the role of the papacy is in the church, but that information doesn't belong in the article. Nor is the purpose of the article to counteract mistaken ideas circulating in the media. Speculation is normally out of place in an encyclopedia article, but one interesting feature of conclaves--a ''fact'' about conclaves that the article must talk about--is the speculation that does occur around them. The article itself, as it stands now, does not indulge in glib speculation but merely documents what the vaticanisti and the media, rightly or wrongly, are saying. A week or so from now when a new Pope is elected, an important part of the article will be what names were bandied about as ''papabili'' . The "past voting records" section, however, will be completely irrelevant to this particular article and there will be no argument then over whether it should go. I say if it will be irrelevant in a week, it's irrelevant now, so let's lose it in the interests of staying on topic and keeping this article to a reasonable length.--User:Transf1o 03:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Again 100% wrong. This is an enclopaedia, which means that its articles are supposed to be factual, relevant, informative and neutral. The section you are opposed to is all of those. The list of cardinals is factual in the same way as listing every voter in the British general election would be factual, Suggesting that 'x' is more electable than 'y' is pure POV. The vast majority of cardinals have no chance whatsoever of being elected, and would die of fright if they so much as got a single vote. Elections revolve around a handful of powerbrokers and candidates. Listing ''everyone'' is 100% irrelevant and pure glib speculation A classic example is the ridiculous claims in the media that Ratzinger is a serious candidate. He has as much chance of becoming pope as I. He is too old. He is too controversial. He is too associated with the last papacy (and as the analysis section you have a bee in your bonnet about shows, cardinals for nearly 200 years have deliberately not chosen the same persuasion of pope twice) and he has made enemies throughout the church. So he is a non-starter, but you'd never guess that from the crap written in the media about the conclave from journalists who are suddenly presuming to be experts on a topic until recently they could hardly spell . What ''is'' relevant is ''how'' the electoral body decides, and that is how shown by past evidence. If you want to stay on topic, ditch POV lists and stick with factual analysis of context, which is what an encyclopaedia is all about. If you simply want to repeat unsound speculation and lists of from 'here's today's gossip in the newsroom', read a tabloid. This is an encyclopaedia and enclopaedias include context and background information. Newspapers don't. They make lists. This isn't a newspaper. Fear''�IREANN''">User:Jtdirl 18:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Oh my. I'm not really interested in getting into an edit war but it looks like one is brewing here. Let's remember that 1. we're talking about whether a lengthy digression on "Past Voting Records" belongs in an article about the 2005 conclave. All I am saying is that it is Wikipedia:Stay on topic. I made an effort to retain as much of the section as was reasonable. 2. I don't dispute that the "Past Voting Records" section is factual, relevant, informative, neutral, encyclopedic, etc. Even if it is all of these things, it is still ''not about the 2005 conclave.'' 3. this is a completely separate issue from whether some other parts of the article are POV. If you think they are POV or non-encyclopedic, propose their deletion or reworking. What does that have to do with whether this long analysis of voting patterns in previous conclaves belongs in an article on the 2005 conclave?--User:Transf1o 18:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Now that the Conclave has happened,the ''trimming down'' needs to take on a new phase...removing everything that looks forward to potentialities that didn't happen,and replacing where appropriate with references that look back at what was thought.(So since Ratzinger ''HAS'' been elected Pope,shall we expect Jtdirl/Fear to set himself up as Antipope since he just said above that Ratzinger was no more likely than he was?).--Louis E./le@put.com/le@put.com == Bad formatting == Can we try to fix some of the formatting here? I'm seeing Wiki-code all over the place and it kinda ruins the article. --User:Saint-Paddy 15:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Voting Table == Should we have a table outlining the # of the vote, the time and day, and the color of the smoke? I think it would be much easier for people who have come here to see how the voting has gone so far. ex.

1st Vote: 18:00 UTC April 18th

Black Smoke - No Pope Elected

--User:207.65.99.223 18:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :WP:BB Add it. --User:OldakQuill User_talk:OldakQuill 21:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I don't think it's a good idea where it is (in the place properly reserved for the total number of ballots).Better to just keep updating the day-by-day section.--Louis E./User:12.144.5.2 23:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Isn't there a problem with such a table as illusatred above tho., considering the fact that it's always going to be black smoke until the very last one... ? -- User:KTC 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Differences in this conclave== There are a couple of differences between this conclave and previos ones that I think are worthy of a mention, but I can't see where to insert them into the current structure: * the thing about cardinals at previous conclaves sleeping on humble cots, and the 6'6" Basil Cardinal Hume complaining bitterly he couldn't sleep in a teeny bed, and now sleeping in the nice rooms JP2 built for the purpose. And I believe they get shipped from there back to the chapel in a bus. * the thing about the Sistine Chapel being fitted with cellphone jamming equipment [http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/16/sistine-upgrade.reut/ (CNN)]. -- User:John Fader (User talk:John Fader | Special:Contributions/John Fader) 21:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Sistine Chapel== "For the first time in centuries during a conclave Michelangelo's Last Judgement and ceiling appeared in their full glory." This is an ''opinion'', not shared by the many people who think the ceiling has been vandalised by its so-called restoration and now looks like a Disney cartoon. I won't remove the sentence but someone might like to have another go at it. User:Adam Carr 23:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Pretty hard to argue with since this is how it looked to M-angelo from the start, no? User:JDG 03:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) That is also an opinion. No-one knows how it looked when it was first painted. There are plenty of people who say that the colours were intended to be muted. User:Adam Carr 10:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) == First day account == Considering that the cardinals are sequestered and can have no communication with the outside world under penalty of excommunication (hence the ''fumata'' business), it is rather odd that the account of the first day is written as if anyone outside the conclave knew for certain what happened and in what order, as opposed to what the official program (made available by whom to whom?) says should happen. I don't know what the source is, or I'd do it myself, but someone should add something to the effect that ''according to the plans previously made public by the Vatican [link to source]...'' — User:Miguel 15:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) == Number of ballots == The article states 4 as the number of ballots so far, which is the minimum (1 last night, 2 this morning, one this afternoon) - but could it not be up to 6 (2 last night, 2 this morning, and 2 this afternoon). Keep in mind, the smoke was released very late last night, indicating 2 is very possible. Further, if there were two this afternoon there is only one smoke giving, thus no indication of an initial failure. --User:OldakQuill User_talk:OldakQuill 16:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Maybe I misunderstood the rules — I thought there would be one ballot, rather than 2, on the first day. User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 16:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Can we wait maybe half an hour until it is clear how many ballots were held before the successful election, rather than reverting one another over this issue? Thanks. User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 16:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) All the Italian sources [http://repubblica.it] and [http://www.corriere.it] say it is the fourth ballot. --User:Panairjdde 16:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :No body knows how many ballots there have been - they are burnt either one at a time or two at a time (if two in afternoon or morning). Remember, the conclave is entirely secret. If the new pope deems such, the results may never be known. --User:OldakQuill User_talk:OldakQuill 16:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::You are wrong, since Navarro Vals said there would have been one or zero ballots yesterday (monday 18) and then 2+2 ballots the other days.--User:Panairjdde 16:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) BBC and other news sources say four ballots full stop. For us to speculate that they are wrong is original research. Let's say it was four ballots (or if people insist, say various media say four ballots) and then correct it later if it proves to be wrong but for us to contradict published reports that all agree with each other is original research and must be avoided. User:AndyL 16:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) A translation from [http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/04_Aprile/19/fumate.shtml Corriere della Sera]: :The conclave's first ballot took place yesterday afternoon, while this morning there were two more. This afternoon, the cardinals met at 16:00 (Rome time) to vote: since the white smoke started at 17:50, they have had time for a single ballot. :Four ballots. User:Alarm 16:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I would say two hours is sufficient for a double ballot. Then, we do not know how long it would hav taken. --User:OldakQuill User_talk:OldakQuill 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :"I would say..." ::Unfortunately we cannot cite you as a source. Unless any media express doubt on how many ballots there were or unless there are conflicting published reports we have to stay with four ballots. User:AndyL The media report of 4 ballots is based on the schedule that was published by the Vatican. -- User:KTC 23:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Can you cite one source that says there may have been four ballots? IE one source published since the election, not something that you have used to make your own conclusions. If you can't cite a source that says "there may have been more than four ballots" or "there were five ballots" then you're engaging in original research. User:AndyL 01:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Erm, read my statement? When did I say "there may have been more than four ballots" or "there were five ballots"??? All I said was what I heard on BBC News 24 that ''"4 ballots is based on the schedule that was published by the Vatican."'' -- User:KTC 02:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- Did you see how none of the electors came from countries starting with R? User:NazismIsntCool, being a Romanian expatriate, would have wanted there to be a Romanian pope. User:210.54.197.68 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) === Votes Cast === There was a news commentator at the vatican who said he was given an indicative range of the votes by someone (assume it is either one of the cardinals who voted or someone close to them). Apparently this was done by them guessing a number and the person waving them to go up higher. Anyway it was much more than 77. Then now I read an aritcle where either the reporter is making it up or someone broke their oath. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1582550_1,00.html It says "In the first vote on Monday, Ratzinger received about 40 votes, while Carlo Maria Martini, an Italian, got more than 30. Others including Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, Claudio Hummes of Brazil, and Dionigi Tettamanzi, another Italian, each received a handful." "Both Ratzinger and Bergoglio�s share of the vote increased in the two ballots held the next morning. Ratzinger reportedly won more than 50, with Bergoglio on 40." "In the ballot on Tuesday afternoon, however, Ratzinger obtained far more than the required two-thirds majority of 77 � although �under 100 votes�, according to another cardinal who broke his vow of silence over the conclave." Doesn't solve the problem of how many ballots there were but wonder if something published on the times online is sufficient to be added to the wiki page. :Very interesting, but statements like these would need all sorts of verification to even be mentioned responsibly in the article. The Times Online piece just rolls this stuff out, not even commenting on requests for anonymity or offering other witnesses to any of these statements. It's too purely hearsay at the moment for our article, unless you want to put it into a section called "Unsubstantiated Hearsay". User:JDG 22:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) I am not going to start such a section as I am relatively new to wikipedia. I did further digging and found more articles talking about the vote. One even claims that Ratzinger received 95 votes which was lower than his predecessor's 99 votes. Unfortunately it is hard to work out who the sources are. With respectable publications like The Times (UK) and TIME magazine. While I realise they have been known to sometimes be wrong about certain things, they tend to be a bit more careful about checking on facts before publishing. Some of the articles will disappear as they tend to go to an archive where you need to pay for access to it. Hence it is worth reading them now while it is still there. I guess the problem I have is how much of it is real fact or something woven by one or two of the press and spread within the press. After all those covering the conclave will no doubt be socialising together. "The biblical scholar managed a good showing in the first round of balloting, but Ratzinger was already solidly ahead. The rest of the votes were spread among several Italians and, according to one voting Cardinal, several ballots were left blank. By evening, it was clear that no one was going to be able to step in for Martini. Not even Ratzinger's younger conservative rivals could put up a fight. Tettamanzi, bested in eloquence on his home turf, reportedly managed only two votes. " "By Tuesday, Martini, who does not dislike Ratzinger personally, withdrew his candidacy and might have even thrown his support to him." "But the second balloting saw Ratzinger reach 60 votes. By the third, he was just shy of the 77 required for the papacy. By the fourth, he had won 95 out of 115." http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050502/socampaign.html "On the first conclave vote, Ratzinger reportedly got 40 votes and Martini got about the same. Argentina's Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, as well as Camilo Cardinal Ruini, the vicar of Rome, each got about a dozen. On the second ballot, Ruini's votes went for Ratzinger and his momentum started building. On the fourth ballot, he received 95 of the 115 votes." http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/45274.htm "In the next ballot, on Tuesday morning, votes ran more heavily to Ratzinger, but he didn't get the 77 needed for the required two-thirds majority, according to several sources, including one cardinal. Ratzinger's support continued to grow in the second ballot that day, by some accounts reaching the margin of victory. But another source said he asked his brethren to come back after lunch for a fourth ballot because he wanted a more solid affirmation, something closer to the record 99 votes won by Karol Wojtyla, the future John Paul II, in October 1978." http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050422/REPOSITORY/504220344/1013/NEWS03 Other articles: http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wopope224228038apr22,0,7341318.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines User:Linnah 18:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Nice work, Linnah. Your links show that this info wasn't just cooked up by the Times Online alone. It could still be a case of jump journalism, but I think you have enough to incorporate it into the article, with appropriate qualifiers. User:JDG 03:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Reaction? == "Tens of thousands of people, waiting in St Peter's Square for the result, were quiet at the result and the reaction was very different from the first day." What was the reaction the first day? Doesn't seem to be present in the article. - User:DefunktUser talk:Defunkt 23:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :When it first came out, it wasn't very dark so people thought there was a Pope elected already and started rejoicing. Same goes for the morning of the second day, except this time actually made worse by the fact that the bell rang for noon I think. -- User:KTC 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::As per eyewitness account of a priest interviewed on PBS, the first bells to ring after the smoke signal in question were the standard time-of-day bells, which are not the same as the "big bells" that did eventually ring to signify election. This happened (the ringing of the big bells, that is) no earlier than ten minutes after the smoke, even though officials had promised these signals would be "almost simultaneous". It's pretty safe to say the Vatican will be looking to further refine its performance next time...As for Defunkt's question above, the crowd in the Square was basically murmuring during the smoke, due to uncertainty. You would be wrong to attribute this to any sort of popular coolness to Ratzinger because 1) they didn't know at that point that Ratzinger was the choice, and 2) the crowd response when the new pope did appear at the balcony was quite deafening. User:JDG 05:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) It appears that the delay with the bells was due to a mix-up. Someone was seen miming frantically the pulling of a bell rope from a window near the Sistine Chapel, according to one live broadcast I heard, but whomever was supposed to be watching for the signal wasn't paying attention for a couple of minutes. By the time the bells were finally rung, the guy miming the ringing to pass on the message had practically collapsed from exhaustion. Every heard of using mobile phones, or walkie-talkies, guys? :-) Fear''�IREANN''">User:Jtdirl 04:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Dat's pretty funny. They should consider starting a Swiss Mime and Mime Response adjunct to the Swiss Knights. You have Italians doing these things and this is what you get. Guy was probably checking out babes with binoculars in the Square. User:JDG 14:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Table== Would it be possible to throw in a table with all the conclave stats like I've seen in the other conclave articles? :::This comment was made by User:199.46.198.231 - User:KTC

Papal conclave, 2005

{| width="95%" align="center" class="toccolours" |- | style="background-color: #ccccff;" align="center" | ''Papal conclave, 2005'' | width="60" | |- | align="center" | Cardinal electors in Papal conclave, 2005 | Cardinals over 80 in Papal conclave, 2005 | List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave | Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005
Pope John Paul II | Pope Benedict XVI | Prophecy of the Popes |}

Papal conclave, 2005

Please stop changing the shape of this template. Templates are all in this form and are laid out using 95% not 50%. Everytime you do that, Neutrality, you make this template the odd one out from all the rest, looking almost square. ''All'' the templates should be the same shape and size, long and narrow rectangular. Fear''�IREANN''">User:Jtdirl 00:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I tidied up the HTML and Wiki markup in the template which changed the appearance of the corner image but otherwise left the shape alone. User:IceKarma 22:34, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

P

PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |

Words begining with Papal_conclave,_2005:

Papal_Conclave,_2005
Papal_conclave,_2005
Papal_conclave,_2005
Papal_conclave,_2005
Papal_conclave,_2005
Papal_conclave,_2005/archive_1
Papal_conclave,_2005/archive_2
Papal_conclave,_2005/archive_3
Papal_conclave,_2005/archive_4