Talk:Papabile

comments

Oops. That'll teach me to write so late at night/early in the morning. I'm mixing up my JPs! (Though considering I read 370 pages today on JPI I'm surprised I didn't get him right! )FearÉIREANN 06:01, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Would Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger still be considered papabile? I would think his age (nearly 78) would work against him here. I know that John XXIII was over 75 when he was elected, but would the Cardinals do that again? I also haven't really heard of Ratzinger being papabile before reading this article. - JesseG 06:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I seems to keep reading his name in different sources citing him as a possible next pope so yes. Also, it is generally accpeted that after a long papacy, the next one elected tends to be an older one so that probably do him a favour rather then the opposite. Personally however, I don't think he'll get elected for various other reason but he definitly qualifies as a papabile. - KTC 14:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Besides age, Ratzinger's health is not in his prime. I read he suffers of diabetes and even had a brain hemorrhage in the early 1990's, and his responsabilities and duties have been softened since then. Still, certainly papabile for various reasons, both political and religious, and if they apply the 'fat pope lean pope' tactic. But maybe also risky... just imagine (in the wake of Terri Schiavo), what if he has further brain and vascular problems? What would happen if he becomes brain-dead and needs life-support? The bioethical issues would be tremendous, and the new pope is expected to maybe solve such issues, not to actually become one (although it would force stronger discussion of the issue by the Church, but it would be too ironic to let it happen and maybe I'd seem too cynic to present the question). Cardinal Ratzinger is also becoming prominent in the media as a king-maker, one who will not be elected pope but who will influence election greatly. I just read about the Nigerian papabile, Francis Cardinal Arinze, and really liked what I read about him, he has become a sentimental favorite for me (although I dislike his conservatism in 'family' issues), and he's relatively old (72), thus perhaps filling the lean pope profile, but I also think that maybe the next pope is not among the papabile and maybe he will be a surprise (although a Black, African, and Ibo pope such as Arinze would be revolutionary). Everyone around here (Venezuela) would like a Latin American pope. Again, a German (a compromise between not electing traditionally a Italian and not electing revolutionarily an African, Asian or Latin American pope) like Ratzinger becomes a surprise posibility among current papabili because almost everybody would like a Dark Horse - Dalegrett, 0:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) (Pardon my English)

Oh well, I'll eat my hat. :D -- KTC 23:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe, seems I nailed it. I'm quite relieved Cardinal Ratzinger was elected for various reasons... If I may further speculate, JPII's "prediction" (see below) may still be right... after Benedict XVI transitional reign (I won't speculate about how long or how short it will be) the new Pope will be a much younger Cardinal, most probably the recently made by JPII or maybe one who is still to be made Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI! I didn't think a Latin American Pope (they are so dogmatically conservative, so economically left-leaning) would be right choice for 2005 (and the "Holy Ghost" seems to agree!), but I'd bet (although I'd never bet) that Benedict XVI WILL be followed by a quite pastoral Cardinal from the Third World and we won't be seeing Italian popes for a while... Since we all think Benedict XVI seems to be a lean pope, the discussion about papabili is going to be somewhat active. BTW, I hope nothing I speculated above about Benedict's possible future health problems comes true... but I suspect he holds lots of "surprises". We should not understimate his role as current pope, as the press seems to want to put him down... Daniel User:Dalegrett, April 20, 03:20 UTC

• Isn't it delightful to look back on old discussions? --BDD (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we believe in some kind of prediction?

Reading what this article says about John Paul II, and if we were to think as believers in some kind of papal mysterious ways: It is said that John Paul I predicted that John Paul II (who wasn't even seen as John Paul I's candidate by others)... Has John Paul II actually predicted that he would be succeeded by a recently made Cardinal? Those betting about the new pope could take a mystical hint... User:Dalegrett

Have absolute no recollection of where I read it, but I read somewhere that JPII once said in a response jokingly or otherwise, that his sucessor haven't been made a Cardinal yet. If that comment was made after 2001 but before 2003, then maybe one can bet on a Cardinal made in 2003... -- KTC 23:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taking in consideration your dates, papabili made Cardinals in 2003 (according to the Wiki article linked below) would include 3 Italians, 1 Canadian, & 1 Ghanan! If the statement was made somewhat earlier, then 2001 AND 2003 Cardinals would be accounted for the origin of the new pope. Odds favor this. Most papabili were made Cardinals in 2001 according to the article Papal conclave, 2005. Maybe John Paul II actually predicted it and you'd guess easily where to place your bets... But again, if you believe in such things ;-) User:Dalegrett

Ah, found an article that refer to that statement. [1] - Several months ago, the pope was reported to have said, "My successor is not even a cardinal yet." That was in 2003, so I guess some people bet may be on 1 of those from 2003 consistory.

One name that have been mention by bookmaker although not favourite but appearing higher than a lot of the names listed in our article is Scotland's Keith Michael Patrick Cardinal O'Brien. However, we are talking about an Irish bookmaker about an Irish born Cardinal, so they may be just a little bit bias there ;-D Again, if you bets and believe in that sort of things... ;-D -- KTC 16:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal O'Brien would be a Dark Horse indeed! From the 2003 consistory I'd see Angelo Cardinal Scola as the stronger candidate among new cardinals. His interests fill the profile of an intellectual successor to JPII and he also has dealt with Islam, which is a hot topic nowadays. He's also the Patriarch of Venice... and three recent popes were Patriarchs of Venice (including John Paul I)... But it would mean another Italian pope, and I'd see this as somewhat backwards (I'd think it seems urgent to the Church to show they're meant to be Universal), and also that the 'fat pope, lean pope' probably is not applied, meaning that the College of Cardinals would surely like such new pope to guide the Church for the 1st quarter of century: Cardinal Scola is relatively young, he is 63 years old (older than JPII --who was elected at 58, but younger than the average 65). All matters considered: bet & gamble at your own risk!!! :D (The only thing I see as actually becoming true is that my father-in-law ---a non-Catholic theologian--- said conclaves are quite exciting) -User:Dalegrett

Since Pope John Paul 1 died suddenly and unexpectedly, it seems ridiculous to suggest that he would have been grooming or promoting a successor.Eregli bob (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Benedict's Successor

I added the bit about Paddy Power starting to take bets on who would succeed Benedict to the article. I figure it's worth mentioning, it's probably the same with every Pope regardless of age. Even though Benedict is getting up towards 80 years old, there's no telling how long he'll be in.
JesseG 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims about vote counts

Apart from the final result, all aspects of the vote counts are secret. So what is the basis for the claims about the numbers of votes for various candidates? For example:

• Giovanni Benelli ... was defeated in both (narrowly the second time); and
• Francis Arinze ... did not gain a substantial amount of votes in the 2005 papal conclave.

-- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They've only been 'forever secret' in the 19th-20th centuries (JP II). And not even then. When a Cardinal dies, he may leave behind a private diary or secret memoirs, which get published without violating their life-long oath (Domenico Tardini). Cardinals gossip, just like everybody else, and, however discreet and indirect they may be, people can put things together. Some conclavists don't care about the threatened excommunication, and leak information anyway. Cardinal Svampa kept his tally sheet from the last ballot at the 1903 election, and it is obtainable by Googling it. Masters of ceremonies keep official diaries, which are part of their archives; if a person has access, a person can find the information. Paris de Grassis' diary for the 1523 conclave has been published; it lists all the ballots and all the individual votes. Before 1878, when officially accredited Orators (Ambassadors) of the various European states were Custodians of the Conclave, they had 'inside people' who fed them information on a daily basis at the gates of the Conclave. See Marino Sanuto's diaries from 1480 to 1533 for many many examples. And then there are the KGB, CIA, Mossad, and a number of other security organizations who want to know, and don't care about ecclesiastical censures. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oddly worded

"In some cases the Cardinals will choose a papabile candidate." Wouldn't it be better to say that sometimes the Vaticanologists fail to pick papabili. Nurg (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Papabili elected pope?

No source for Papabili elected pope? Please provide it. Pgarret (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Papabili not elected pope - unwarranted section

Papabili are cardinals short-listed as possible popes; there are always going to be many more papabili than elected popes. A section "Papabili not elected pope" is not warranted, there will always be several at each papal election. Suggest deleting the whole section. "Papabili elected pope" is also dubious - it's like "horseraces won by horses expected to do well". Pol098 (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I second the motion. These are non-facts. They are gossip, rumor, and baseless speculation. The sources are usually journalists, who are engaged in filling space in their columns and time until a pope is elected. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Vicedomino (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation

A literal English translation is "able to be pope"; "one who might become pope" is not literal. Italian suffix "-abile" is very close to English "-able". Examples Pol098 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Veto ?

So how does a papal election get "vetoed" ? Does the person who kept writing this even know what the word means? Eregli bob (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't exist anymore, but back in history... Have a look at papal conclave. -- KTC (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it exists. All you have to do is get together one-third of the cardinals (plus one), and convince them that Cardinal X would make a terrible pope. Cardinal X will never be Pope because he will never get the two-thirds that he needs. It's called a 'virtual veto'. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio

There are at least two websites (Business Insider and The Guardian) that viewed Cardinal Bergoglio who eventually got elected as Pope Francis as papabile. Also, Cardinal Bergoglio was papabile at the 2005 conclave and he was still considered a papabile at the 2013 conclave (that's why he is listed at the List_of_papabili_in_the_2013_papal_conclave). Why is he listed as a non-papabile when actually he was considered a papabile? Who decides what the "major" sources are? And if he was papabile at the 2005 conclave but got elected later does that not make him still a papabile who eventually got elected?

--Harvzsf (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The very first page for Cardinal Bergoglio on Wikipedia back in 2005 already mentioned that he was papible. Of course that was relating to the previous election, and time has passed, but the definition at the top of this article says "likely or possible". He was definitely considered as a possible candidate, if not likely.

I was actually about to add him to the list of Papabili elected popes, but then saw him in the other list. I guess it feels wrong to put him in the first list because he was certainly not among the most likely candidates, according to most sources. But it's not like he came out of nowhere. Sygmoral (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't fit neatly into either the papabile or non-papabile category. He may not have been a front runner in this conclave like say Cardinal Montini in 1963 or Cardinal Pacelli in 1939 but he wasn't a totally unexpected choice either like the other ones in the non-papabile list since he was considered papabile in the 2005 conclave and was still considered a plausible choice in the 2013 conclave. (Even Business Insider which said that "his moment appears to be over" still listed him as a papabile). --Harvzsf (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect I would like to suggest that Bergoglio was a shock. Although he made it to some lists, these were extensive lists including about twenty or more people, with Bergoglio not expected to actually become pope because of his age and Jesuit status. He was not only not a frontrunner but was in nobody's top 5.

I therefore think that this article should be changed with Bergoglio considered not to be a papabile for the 2013 conclave (the fact that he was papabile in 2005 is of no consequence) - Annonymous (16th March) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.30.214 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Bergoglio was a papabile in 2005 still makes him a papabile--it is of consequence. Just because some were "shocked" because he was actually elected does not make him a non-papabile anymore than the fact that some persons did not think Joseph Ratzinger would be elected back in 2005 and were shocked because he was actually elected made him a non-papabile. And no one gets to decide which sources should determine whether a person is papabile or not. Bergoglio was a papabile at both 2005 and 2013 conclaves. --Harvzsf (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, however even John Allen has called Bergoglio a "long-shot" and the Italian Vaticanists Tornielli and Magister didn't even mention him. Lets put this simply: Wojtyla and Roncalli are on the list of non-papabili. Roncalli made many short lists in the run-up to the 1958 conclave, according to Allen, and "The weekly Blanco y Negro in Barcelona published an analysis by well-known Vatican analyst José Luis Martin Descalzo just before the conclave. He quoted Cardinal Antonio Samorè predicting the election of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla of Krakow" also according to Allen. So if they, for the purposes of this article, are non-papabile then why is Bergoglio a papabile? Clearly the definition that is being made here - that of making no short-lists or not being mentioned at all - is being used arbitrarily. In fact one could argue that there has never been an "outsider" under that definition who became pope, since most have been mentioned somewhere. Cardinal Franz König of Vienna once said: "If a name never appears in the papers or on TV or radio, then he may be a good bishop, a good cardinal, but he is probably nothing special," he said. "But when you feel, look here, his name turns up -- why? Why is he being mentioned?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.30.139 (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be better not to mention Bergoglio in this article at all than to designate him as a "papabile", which in the popular mindset in this conclave is associated in particular with the triad Scola, Scherer and Ouellet and in a wider sense with the likes of Sandri et al. Not Bergoglio, 76 years old with one lung. Everyone expected an energetic pope, under 70 as the cardinals themselves indicated before the conclave and even going into the conclave cardinals admitted that they didn't even consider Bergoglio possible as becoming pope. In fact Bergogglio himself said that he didn't think he would become pope. Therefore I am simply uncomfortable with the papabile status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.30.139 (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also uncomfortable with calling Bergoglio as a "non-papabile since there were short-lists which listed him as a papabile both as a front runner for the 2005 conclave and as an alternative candidate at the 2013 conclave. And one difference is that unlike Roncalli and Wojtyla, Bergoglio was among the frontrunner papabili at the last conclave (2005) prior to the one where he was actually elected (Roncalli was not papabile at the 1939 conclave the last one prior to 1958 the year he was elected and Wojtyla was not a frontrunner at the August 1978 conclave which was only about less than two months prior to his own election in October 1978). If Bergoglio is not listed as a papabile he shouldn't be listed as a "non-papabile" either since it's not like he came out of nowhere (like say, Achille Ratti or Albino Luciani or even Giuseppe Sarto who emerged as an alternative after the veto of Mariano Rampolla). --Harvzsf (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is a contradiction. Francis is listed both as a non papabile (in the lede), and as a papabile (in the list). Surely something has to be done about it and consensus reached on the talk page. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Bergolio was without a doubt #1 papabile in 2013 conclave. Not only he was second most successful candidate 8 years prior, but there also wasn't anyone else who could have realistically compete with him. After Ratzinger election, the conservative faction did not manage to recover with as clear and strong figurehead before 2013, leaving liberal faction and Bergolio essentially unopposed. 83.145.180.207 (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally it doesn't matter to me which he is considered. It does matter to me that there is an equivocating article on wikipedia. Let there be edit wars on the issue if that is needed, but we can't have an article saying one thing from one corner of its mouth and another from the other one. The article needs to have a single voice, even if it might turn into a battleground. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple References to a statement

The Wikipedia article, "Wikipedia:Bombardment", contains the following advice:

What is and is not bombardment[edit]

Adding additional references is good when each source has a lot of information of its own. Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing. However, adding a reference to already verified material merely to get the reference into the article is not a good practice. Such material is better placed in a "Further reading" section.

Use of the same source to verify different information in different parts of an article may be necessary. But when this occurs, it is still a single source. Such citations can all be made to point to the same reference in the references list by using the named references system. This avoids the reader being bombarded with a long list of references that are all really the same source.

When the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant, on the other hand, this can be seen as bombardment. News agencies like the Associated Press share their stories with many other news organizations. Many news sites then present the exact story, word-for-word. The only difference is the URL used to access the same information. Instead of "multiple, reliable sources," these are merely a single source.

This advice could well be applied to the strings of references following each Papabile. Some, at least, of those references are overkill. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Huffington Post Dead Link

The Huffington Post 2013 article on Papabili (note 23) appears to be a dead link. If so, it will have to be removed from numerous places. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Papabile. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130302034551/http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/02/world/pope-contenders/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2 to http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/02/world/pope-contenders/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Papabili in future conclave - The Next Pope (2020)

19 are mentioned but 20 are listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.4.52 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)