Should the four accusers of the Cardinal be excommunicated for interfering in the Conclave?
The canon lawyer stressed the legal necessity of precise rules in order to "avoid uncertainty and also dangers that have occurred in 2000 years of history". The Cardinals, Archbishop Arrieta said are in obedience obliged to accept the invitation to the General Congregation, and then to take part in the conclave. Who should keep trying, to preventthem attending, to hinder a regular proceeding of the conclave according to the electoral rules, to intervene in the election, or to attempting to influence the election, runs according to canon law, the excommunication latae sententiae. The excommunication must be ascertained in each case specifically. The person responsible will automatically be judged by his action. The severe exclusion from the ecclesial community therefore also applies to anyone who tries to stop any of the 117 voting cardinals from participating in the conclave.
Source
.jpeg)
Comments
There is a big difference between past cases where secular rulers and others have attempted to physically prevent cardinals from voting, or attempted to make them vote a particular way, and suggesting that the men involved consider the state of their souls and stay away.
The problem is that those guilty or accused of serious crimes may be incapable of exercizing a free vote for fear of what a candidate for the papacy might do to them if elected. Or that they may be in such a state of mortal sin as to be unable to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking, and thus choose the best candidate.
I've set out the arguments more fully here: http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/the-duty-of-cardinals-to-vote.html