+ + +

Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Back in March of this year, Ed Condon wrote an article (Click Above) about the rule of 120 Cardinal Electors in the Papal Law for the Election of the Roman Pontiff in a Conclave, Universi Dominici Gregis. I did not mention this article simply because I do not follow Condon or The Pillar per se. But as the readers of FromRome.info know, I attempt to Chronicle here at FromRome.Info all the important issues about the Catholic Church and the Vatican, so I bring it to your attention now for serious reasons.

And if you have been a long time reader of FromRome.Info, you know how many times I have pointed out The Pillar and Ed Condon for getting it wrong. It seems to be their habit. — For past reports about Condon and The Pillar, see HERE.

But now I have been informed by a very influential Catholic Layman, that a group of journalists are looking for Canon Lawyers to debunk claims that more than 120 Cardinal Electors voting at the same time in a Conclave, cause a Conclave to have no juridically valid result. — I need not say who they are attempting to refute, as that is obvious.

But one of the Scholars who is aware of this work of journalists recently asked me to comment on Ed Condon’s article, because the latter holds a doctorate in Canon Law. — Asked in a comment, about this, I replied already, but I think the reply deserves its own article, since in coming weeks we are apt to see the same erroneous arguments proposed to “refute” the Catholic position, cited as authoritative, along with a fair amount of ad hominem attacks at any who would question Condon’s approach.

Condon’s argument, in my judgement, is an inauthentic reading of the law. And since the number of ways of reading the law badly are infinite, but the right way, one, I do not think it is worthwhile addressing his errors in the Save Rome Project, but I will here at FromRome.Info.  — I think this reply will be useful to all Catholics, to share on social media, whenever and wherever they hear the claim that “Ed Condon has refuted Br. Alexis Bugnolo about the rule of 120”.

A CRITIQUE OF CONDON’S ARGUMENT THAT 120+ HAS NO JURIDICAL EFFECT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE OUTCOME OF A CONCLAVE

Question: Br. Bugnolo, what do you think about Ed Condon’s Article from March of this Year?

Answer: When n. 33 of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, says, “Let the maximum number of Cardinal electors not exceed 120”, I do not have to think, I only have to read to know the answer.

But, as the Cardinals on April 30, 2025, claimed to have received a dispensation to allow 133 Cardinal Electors to participate in the Conclave, they also disagree with Condon’s claim that 120+ cardinal electors is not at all problematic. — Readers can read my refutation of the Cardinals’ self-serving claim, which involves different reasoning and a patent canonical error, here.

As for Ed Condon, who does not cite the canons upon which he bases his claims, what can I say, because he seems to be arguing from a bad memory of the canons, when he implies that the creation of a Cardinal concedes by them the right to vote in a Conclave, in the very act of being created a cardinal?

The Code of Canon Law does not say that, since in Canon 351 §2, it only speaks of the moment in which a man, being created a Cardinal, enjoys the right and privileges of being a member of the College.

But the actual right to vote in a Conclave is acquired by a confluence of the prescriptions of papal law on conclaves and historical conditions, namely, being under 80 years of age on the day before the Death or resignation of the Pope, and being present in a Conclave, whereupon n. 36 of UDG concedes the right to vote to those who qualify but always under the restriction of n. 33, as n. 36 itself says.

Since the argument turns about UDG n. 33 and n. 36, I will now cite them in Latin and give their English translation:

33. Ius eligendi Romanum Pontificem ad Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales exclusive pertinet, iis exceptis qui ante diem mortis Summi Pontificis vel ante diem quo Sedes Apostolica vacavit octogesimum aetatis annum iam confecerunt. Maximus autem Cardinalium electorum numerus centum viginti ne excedat. Prorsus ergo excluditur quodlibet electionis activae ius cuiuspiam alterius ecclesiasticae dignitatis aut laicae potestatis cuiusvis gradus et ordinis interventus.

36. Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalis, dummodo creatus renuntiatusque in Consistorio sit, hac ipsa de causa ius eligendi Pontificis possidet secundum huius Constitutionis praescriptum in n. 33, etiamsi nondum ipsi pileus est impositus neque anulus creditus neque ius iurandum is pronuntiavit. Non tamen hoc iure fruuntur Cardinales canonice depositi aut qui, consentiente Romano Pontifice, dignitati cardinalitiae renuntiaverunt. Praeterea non licet Cardinalium Collegio, Sede vacante, eos restituere.

My own English translation:

33. The right of electing (ius eligendi) the Roman Pontiff pertains exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, except those who have already completed the 80th year of age before the day of the of the death of the Supreme Pontiff and/or before the day on which he vacates the Apostolic See.  Moreover, let the maximum number of Cardinal Electors not exceed 120.  Therefore, there is thoroughly excluded whatever right of active voice (electionis activae) of whatsoever other ecclesiastical dignity or the intervention of lay authority of whatever grade and order.

34. A Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, so long as he be created and announced in Consistory, possesses from this very cause the right of electing the Pontiff according to (secundum) the prescription (praesecriptum) of this Constitution in n. 33, even if (etiamsi) there has not yet been imposed upon him the red biretta or ring or (even if) he has (not yet) promised the oath.  However, the Cardinals canonically deposed do not enjoy this right nor those, who with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, have renounced the dignity of the Cardinalate.  Moreover, it is not licit that they be restored (to this dignity), during a Sedevacante by the College of Cardinals.

And for clarity sake, when I speak of the “right to vote”, I am speaking of the faculty to vote in a Conclave, during a conclave. I am not speaking of the juridical causes of having that faculty, which are multiple: nomination as a Cardinal  and meeting the requirements of UDG n. 33. And I believe this is the same sense of “right to elect” (ius eligendi), which the the papal law speaks of in UDG nn. 33 and 36.

It is significant that UDG n. 36 does NOT speak of ALL cardinals, but of a cardinal, and thus is descriptive rather than prescriptive, a thing evident by its grammatical structure wherein its affirmation is followed by ‘etiamsi”, to clarify that this right to vote is not determined by the lesser rituals of receiving the ring or biretta, in a ceremony, but has its causes in juridical acts. So n. 36 is obviously directed at defending the right of one of these 120 if it were to be challenged on the basis of an elector who was not present at such a ceremony (e.g. the pope dies after publishing the nomination, and announcing it in consistory, but the nominated Cardinal because of sickness or problems of travel from countries were the govt. did not grant permission, was not present for the ceremony).

And indeed UDG n. 36 says that the right to vote is conceded by UDG, “secundum” to the prescription of UDG n. 33, subordinating thus its description to the prescription of n. 33, which limits their number to 120. Moreover, since Cardinals who are older than 80 years of age when they are nominated are clearly not intended to be granted the right to vote according to the terms of UDG n. 36, it is clear that the context of n. 36 presumes all the conditions already established by UDG in paragraphs prior to n. 36, and thus is not speaking of all cardinals, but the 120 electors mentioned in n. 33. — Nor can it be claimed that “praescriptum” in UDG n. 36, refers only to the first sentence of UDG n. 33, since Latin would require a different term or a combination of terms to signify that, such as “according to the prescription about this matter in UDG n. 33) (secundum … praescriptum de hac re in n 33). Indeed, in English we are a loss to express the generic sense of the Latin word “praescriptum”, since we must preface “prescription” with a definitive article, “the”, which the Latin language does not have. So in English it appears to refer to a particular single thing, but the Latin refers to a generic whole thing, that is the entire prescriptive norm: which regards age of Cardinals, number of Cardinals, and legal status of their dignity as a Cardinal, all of which govern what is said, thus, in this phrase of UDG. n. 36.

Also the custom of jurisprudence holds that every term in a law is restricted by definitions or restrictions which precede it in the same law. Thus you cannot argue from UDG 36 to a violation of UDG 33.

And indeed, if you could, the Cardinals in UDG n. 5 have the right to interpret UDG 36, but they did NOT use that right, thus conceding that such an argument of interpretation cannot be made. Even the rules of Latin show this to be the case since everything which is “secundum” is said to follow that which it is according to.

So Condon’s argument is simply based on ignorance and sloppy reading of the law, because UDG n. 33 does not restrict the Pope’s power to create cardinals, only how many can vote at any one time in a Conclave.

And indeed, the historical record of creating more Cardinals, which he attempts to use to justify more than 120 voting, does not serve him in his argument, since a pope creates Cardinals for many reasons, and not only to vote for his successor, since not having knowledge of the future, he cannot know in the act of creating a man a cardinal, if that man will ever vote in a Conclave: thus he makes provision for the Conclave, whereupon prudence, which is the virtue which governs provision, inclines him to make more than the number needed or prescribed. If a Pope intended something more, he would have to also derogate UDG 4 and grant a dispensation from UDG n. 33, or derogate n. 33, and such a derogation would have had to be published in the Acta Apostolica Sedes. Thus, Condon seems to be confounding one of the juridical causes of the right to vote (jus in causa), with the faculty to exercise that right in a Conclave (ius reale).

As for Condon trying to use a historical circumstance to create a basis for his interpretation, what can I say, other than that in UDG n.1, the papal law removes from the jurisdiction of the College of Cardinals the right to interpret anything regarding the juridical acts of the deceased Roman Pontiff, but Ed thinks that he can, even though he is not superior to the Cardinals.

Condon seems also have forgotten how to read Latin. Because he wants by his argument that the restriction in n. 33 be read descriptively and not prescriptively, such as if it read, “It is convenient that there be no more than 120”, or “It is good that the number of Cardinal Electors be no more than 120”. But John Paul II used prescriptive language, which is legally binding and makes more than 120 cardinals something which is juridically CONTRARY to the prescription, when he used the hortatory subjunctive with an exclusive term “Let the MAXIMUM .. NOT … EXCEED “, thus placing the violation of n. 33 under the censure of the penultimate paragraph of UDG for all things contrary to the Constitution by persons of whatsoever dignity.

As for Condon’s conclusion that “no one has the power” to exclude a Cardinal from the Conclave, what can I say, but that he forgot that n. 33 was written by the Vicar of Christ, to whom Our Lord said, “Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven …”

Finally, one observation: it appears that Condon is failing to recognize that the Papal Law, UDG, is not operative except during a sedevacante. So when it speaks of anything in the prior pontificate, it does so to explain what it means by its own prescriptions. Thus, when it says that the 120 Cardinal electors have the right to vote from when then are nominated Cardinals, not when they receive the biretta or ring, it is explaining the reckoning it is using during a sedevacante to determine who those 120 are. Not being operative before the sedevacante, it is inaccurate to claim that Cardinals during the life of the Roman Pontiff are granted the right to vote by that law. This is also the problem of the Cardinals’ declaration of April 30. And in fact. n. 36 when read in this context seems to be indicating the criterion by which if there are more than 120 cardinals, it can be determined who of them is among the 120 by the precedence of their nominations.

As for Ed Condon’s approach, in its global entirety: I hold that if you read ecclesiastical laws or canons in such a way, with the purpose to argue that they do not mean what they say, that you have not only taken a position which is inimical to the law, and highly probable to lead to an inauthentic interpretation, but that your manner of argumentation will make you appear to be a consiglieri of some sort of organized criminal organization.

As for the Conclave of May 2025: Let’s not even mention the gross claim of the Cardinals to have a dispensation, though they have no document to prove it and only made the claim 6 months later, when it served them to claim it.

For more on this, see https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/25/a-canonical-analysis-of-why-the-conclave-of-may-2025-had-no-valid-result/

Note to Canon Lawyers or Journalists who read this article: If you have any questions about these matters leave a comment below or at the About Page, here at FromRome.Info, and I will give you a reply if your question regards Canon Law or the Papal Law or this problem of 120+ Cardinals.

NOTE TO READERS: If you have any questions about Condon’s argument, which regard topics I have not covered, ask me below, so I can make my reply more complete, since, in the above, I have only responded to the erroneous principles by which he advances his opinion.

As to those who say, “Why should I accept that Condon who has a doctorate in Canon Law is wrong, and Br. Bugnolo, who holds no degree in Canon Law is right?” — I respond: if you cannot infer that from the above, either you do not have eyes to see what all with eyes can see, or you do not permit yourself to think anything which is not in harmony with the ruling elites, or simply you are of that species of mankind which cares so little for truth, that the use of human language is superfluous. — And thus, you have wasted your time reading the above article.