The rules of the Conclave are solely within the competence of the Pope to change, as they constitute Church law. The methods for electing a Pope have evolved throughout history. In the first millennium, the Pope was chosen by both the laity and the clergy of the Diocese of Rome. However, due to abuses stemming from lay influence, the election was later restricted to a college of priests within the Roman clergy, known as cardinals cardinal deacons, priests, or bishops. From the 11th century onward, papal law formally established that only cardinals could elect the Pope. This rule has been upheld for almost a millennium, a tradition in the Church that spans a thousand years.
In theory, a Pope has the authority to modify this rule. However, any change must be formally promulgated to be valid for the election of a Pope. The question then arises as to whether such a change should be made. I am skeptical about involving laypeople in the election of a Pope, considering the historical experience of the Church. In the first millennium, lay participation often caused significant harm during elections because laypeople were more susceptible to being influenced by worldly concerns than clergy. While clergy can also be influenced by worldly interests including some cardinals who may align with secular desires when selecting a Pope history has shown this to be a risk.
Even today, unfortunately, there are cardinals who do not promote the Catholic faith yet remain electors. Despite these considerations, I believe that changing the current rule would likely cause confusion among those unfamiliar with the Church's historical norms. In conclusion, while it is theoretically possible, it may not be prudent for a Pope to extend voting rights to laypeople in the Conclave.
Dear visitors of Gloria Dei and all who have already written or who will write a personal message to me. I am grateful for your attention, your kindness, for your spiritual support and especially for your sacrifices and prayers for me. God may reward you!
