Talk:Cardinal electors in the 2013 papal conclave

Cardinals reaching the age of 80 before this Conclave starts
(Material in 1st paragraph below was corrected regarding cardinals who are under 80 when the papacy becomes vacant but turn 80 before or during the conclave.)

Cardinals who are already 80 when the conclave starts are not entitled to participate. This means that, depending on when the conclave starts, there are some cardinals who will be barred because the become 80 between the official resignation of Benedict XVI on February 28 and the starting point: So this would mean that Lubomyr Cardinal Husar (b. 26 February 1933) and Walter Cardinal Kasper (b. 5 March 1933) are out. So I'll remove them from the list. As Severino Cardinal Poletto was born on 18 March 1933, depending on the exact starting date, he could be out as well but probably makes the cut. Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez was born on 28 March 1933 so he'll most likely beat the cut off date and be able to participate. -- fdewaele, 13 February 2013.
 * I have restored Walter Cardinal Kasper. Per section 33 of Universi Dominici Gregis, the rule is "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", not when the conclave start. -- KTC (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, but that still excludes Cardinal Husar as he will become 80 two days before Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. A case of bad luck for Husar. -- fdewaele, 13 February 2013.

The "80 plus" restriction was instituted in 1971, and the conclaves between then and now were the two in 1978 and the one in 2005. I don't think they had a case where a cardinal was under 80 when the papacy became vacant and then turned 80 before or during the conclave.
 * Well, as I pointed out, this time there will be several cardinals who will be in this situation. -- fdewaele, 15 February 2013.

Arithmetic
The numbers in the table "Location of Cardinal Electors" does not add up correctly.  Listed are 37 countries having 1 elector each (pray Bosnia and Herzegovina are not counted as 2); the electors of the other 13 countries total 79 yielding a total Number of Electors of 116 rather than the 117 given.

Please explain, and/or correct. TMMundy (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Armagh
At the risk of nitpicking, how do we describe the location of Sean Brady, Archbishop of Armagh? He is implicitly counted as being in Ireland, with the Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh as the one United Kingdom cardinal. However his see is in the UK, although to complicate matters further he originally comes from south of the border. Should we divide this by Ireland and Great Britain? Also, is Hong Kong a separate location or do we just count it as part of China? PatGallacher (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Armagh is a difficult case: the geographical remit of the province straddles both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland. The remit covers parts of the former administrative counties of Armagh, Londonderry and Tyrone. In the Republic of Ireland, the remit covers parts of the local government area of Louth and most of Meath. Regarding the archdiocese (in gold) you can clearly see it straddles the border: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Province_of_Armagh_(blank).png This would mean that he should belong to both the UK and Ireland, but as Brady was born in Drumcalpin and holds has the Irish nationality, in my opinion he should be counted as Irish.-- fdewaele, 17 February 2013.
 * True, but this raises the question of whether we should list cardinals by nationality, place of origin, current location, states, or what? PatGallacher (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In such tables they are often listed/divided by continent and nationality, not by their exact office, although sometimes they do make a distinction whether they're curia cardinals or diocesan. I would leave them grouped by nationality though... -- fdewaele, 18 February 2013.
 * This is generally confusing, but generally Ireland is counted as one in Church matters (incl. Protestant matters fwiw).--77.4.61.243 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article currently lists his location simply as Ireland, which is to say the island, without mentioning either of the sovereign nations. This seems the right choice.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However, 'Ireland' appears in the column marked 'country', which seems to mean that it is referring to the country rather than the island. I suggest adding a footnote along the lines of 'Cardinal Brady was born in the Republic of Ireland and holds Irish nationality.  His archdiocese covers parts of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.  His residence and his cathedral are in the city of Armagh, which is in the United Kingdom'. Alekksandr (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another possibility would be to change the entry in the 'country' column to 'Ireland (island)'. Alekksandr (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed the footnote. Firstly Sean Brady was born in 1937, the Republic of Ireland came into existence in 1948. Secondly the Catholic Church is organised on an All-Ireland basis (he is the Primate of All-Ireland) with no reference to modern political entities. Also, see List of living cardinals for how this is dealt with. Snappy (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For completeness, his article says that he was born in 1939, not 1937. This article refers to Cardinal Keith O'Brien's country as 'United Kingdom', despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is not organised on an all-UK basis.  Thanks for the link to List of living cardinals.  On the basis of how this is dealt with there, I suggest setting it out as follows


 * Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No?
What does the "No" column mean? —Tamfang (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "No." is a traditional abbreviation of "number". Specifically, it allows you to go back to sorting by order of precedence (the default) after sorting by something else. -Rrius (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what the OP is asking is for an explanation of how those numbers came to be in the first place. I was confused about this myself. I've added a one-sentence explanation at the top of the table. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Conclave 2005?
Which of these were already electors for the 2005 conclave? 62.226.240.86 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cardinals Re and Bertone (cardinal-bishops); Cardinals Danneels, Meisner, López Rodríguez, Mahony, Ortega y Alamino, Turcotte, Puljić, Sandoval Íñiguez, Rouco Varela, Tettamanzi, Pengo, Schönborn, Rivera Carrera, George, Grocholewski, Sepe, Kasper, Dias, Agnelo, Bačkis, Errázuriz Ossa, Sandoval, Napier, Rodríguez Maradiaga, Thorne, Hummes, Bergoglio, Policarpo, Poletto, Lehmann, Scola, Okogie, Wako, Vallejo, Rigali, O'Brien, Antonelli, Turkson, Toppo, Pell, Bozanić, Phạm Minh Mẫn, Barbarin, Erdő and Ouellet (cardinal-priests); Cardinals Tauran and Nicora (cardinal-deacons) -- fdewaele, 4 March 2013.
 * Thanks, this should be added to the article in some way. Your list is missing Julius Darmaatmadja (non-attending elector) and includes Keith O'Brien (non-attending elector). All in all there are 50 electors that have been created by Pope John Paul II, of which 48 are attending. Nobody has survived from the 1978 conclaves. 93.220.8.48 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? The information isn't really relevant to this article. -- KTC (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge Proposal with List of Papabili
I am proposing merging List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave into this page. The list of papabili has been proposed for deletion as speculative. This is fair, but I think there is some value in documenting which cardinals have attracted particular media attention prior to the conclave. So, since al of the cardinal electors are plausible candidates, I think it would make sense to merge these two tables by adding a column to the list of cardinal electors with references to papabili media discussion. — Mgruhn (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you know about the deletion proposal, you should know your proposal is a waste of time; the decision will be made at Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave, not here. -Rrius (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Close - The AfD discussion is where the decision will be made and, as a wide attended discussion, will take precedent over a talk page merge request. Any future talk page merge requests would have to overcome the reasons listed in the AfD to take an action different from the outcome of that AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge if not deleted. It is not reasonable to assume that the mas of "keep" votes considered other than merging.  Anyway, as a stand alone article this clearly violated rules that Wikipedia is not news.  As a part of a larger article it less clearly violates such rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave was deleted, is there any way to access it so as to add another column to the graph "Considered Papabile by..." which would be relatively simple if we have access to the deleted page. I'm just not experienced enough. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Circular graph
The circular graph in Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013 (seen in old version) is very difficult to read with the shades of red coloring. I was WP:BOLD and replaced it with one from Papal_conclave,_2013 which uses not only different colors but geographic shapes, making it easier to interpret. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 01:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927203342/http://news.catholicate.net/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsType=News&ID=221 to http://news.catholicate.net/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsType=News&ID=221

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfamiliar terms
The beauty of a Wiki is that we routinely link unfamiliar terms so that readers may learn what they mean by following the link. This is preferable to alternatives such as imprecisely dumbing down the language, or wasting space by explaining everything inline. 2600:8800:1880:90F:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; this is also generally what's done in this article. Your use of the term "ordinary" might not be the most suitable in this context, partly because being a bishop in charge of dioceses might not also make one an ordinary (e.g. in the case of Cardinal Gregorio Rosa Chávez, auxiliary bishop of San Salvador).  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I did not check all of their assignments, so that exception also falsifies the statement "bishops of local dioceses". An auxiliary bishop is a titular bishop, no ordinary power, and so would not be considered, colloquially, a "bishop of [his local] diocese". Titular bishops are, by definition, bishops of remote dioceses. 2600:8800:1880:90F:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that being "bishops of local dioceses" necessarily implies that they lead the diocese and precludes being auxiliary bishops – they are, after all, still assigned pastoral duties relating to their particular dioceses, despite not being ordinaries. Moreover, apostolic vicars (e.g. Cardinal Mangkhanekhoun), who would certainly be considered "bishops of local dioceses", are still assigned titular dioceses, while also possessing ordinary power. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase this meaning than the one at present.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 23:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would apostolic vicars be considered thus? Vicariates are proto-diocesan. Canonically there is no diocese erected. Considered by whom? Wikipedia readers? The Church? Editors? 2600:8800:1880:90F:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The intended meaning of the phrase "bishops of local dioceses" is to denote the cardinals who held pastoral roles in dioceses around the world, in contrast to those who worked directly for the Holy See or in Rome (e.g. curial officials, diplomats, archpriests, vicar generals). In fact, this was once phrased as "pastoral appointments", but was replaced by TonyBallioni. I would agree to change the wording to something more precise than the current one.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 05:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with whatever so long as it isn’t written in the weird quasi-English that only people who care about modern church politics speak. That’s why I changed it. “Pastoral appointments” means nothing unless you’ve worked for the Catholic Church, volunteer for it more than I volunteer on Wikipedia, or are familiar with the academic study of it. I.e. a small crowd. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Local ordinaries” could work as it’s a formal term that can be linked to either on en.wp or wiktionary. That and it’s technical and has been used for centuries in religious and secular literature. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except for the outliers, auxiliary bishops who are not ordinaries... 2600:8800:1880:90F:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not link "pastoral appointments" to its corresponding article? 2600:8800:1880:90F:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I've come up with "in charge of pastoral duties outside of Rome", with "pastoral duties" linked to the Pastoral care article. What do you think?  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 01:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I support this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done as suggested.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 00:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal Kasper's age
Cardinal Walter Kasper was already 80-years old when the cardinals entered the Sistine Chapel for the conclave, on March 12. He was born on March 5, 1933. He was able to participate because, as we know, the Apostolic Constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" provides that those under 80 years of age "on the day the vacancy of the Apostolic See begins", that is, the day when the Pope dies or resign, are cardinals electors. Benedict XVI resigned on February 28, 2013, BEFORE Kasper's 80th birthday.I think it would be useful to mention in the voter table that Kasper was already 80 years old (age 80, in parentheses), but include a footnote with this explanation. 2804:D84:2280:2400:6F91:F3D:19FB:6CA0 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)