Second Papal Conclave of 1978

The Second Papal Conclave of 1978 serves in the novel as a historical precedent for electoral uncertainty: Karol Wojtyła began with only a scattering of votes and won on the eighth ballot. Its recollection challenges the assumption that a weak first result rules out a candidate, while the remembered election’s eventual outcome offers a contrast to the later conclave’s unstable alliances and troubled institutional inheritance.

Historical precedent and remembered outcome

During a discussion of the first ballot, Archbishop Dell’Acqua invokes Wojtyła’s election in the second conclave of 1978. Though Wojtyła received only a scattering of votes in the first round, he was elected on the eighth ballot. The example directly rebuts the claim that a candidate with little initial support cannot become a serious contender. Giulio Sabbadin dismisses it as an exceptional occurrence, but the comparison leaves open the possibility that a candidate’s prospects can change substantially over successive rounds.

The precedent is part of a longer sequence of remembered conclaves. Lomeli recalls that the late Pope was elected on the fifth ballot, while Joseph Ratzinger and John Paul I won on the fourth. He also associates the fifth-ballot pattern with the 1963 conclave, when Giovanni Battista Montini prevailed over Lercaro. Against these familiar rhythms, Wojtyła’s eighth-ballot victory stands out as evidence that an election can take longer than customary expectations suggest.

The precedent in the first-ballot debate

The comparison arises when Sabbadin argues that Lomeli’s five first-ballot votes do not make him a plausible contender. Dell’Acqua points to Wojtyła’s experience in 1978 to challenge that conclusion. Sabbadin concedes that such a reversal has happened, but treats it as too rare to guide the present election and questions whether Lomeli has the ambition associated with Wojtyła.

Lomeli responds not by claiming the precedent for himself but by declaring his position an embarrassment. He says that if he identifies his supporters, he will urge them to vote for someone else, and that he will tell them he intends to vote for Aldo Bellini. Thus, the historical example does not simply encourage his own candidacy: it sharpens the conflict between the possibility of an unforeseen electoral rise and his stated effort to redirect support toward an ally.

A contrast with the later conclave

The later conclave’s first ballot demonstrates why the precedent matters. Thirty-four cardinals receive at least one vote, and the leading candidates remain close; Lomeli records five votes for himself and notes that no candidate is near the seventy-nine needed for election. The tally unsettles expectations, but does not determine the eventual result. The memory of Wojtyła’s path to election gives this uncertainty a concrete historical shape rather than leaving it as mere speculation.

Lomeli’s recollection also places the 1978 election within a contrast between established patterns and exceptional outcomes. He hopes for a conventional five-ballot election, which he imagines as a measured discernment rather than a schism or coronation, but senses that the current conclave may not follow that course. The eighth ballot that elected Wojtyła is therefore both an exception in the historical record and a warning against treating customary timing as a guarantee.

Narrative significance

The Second Papal Conclave of 1978 functions as a precedent invoked in argument, not as a separately dramatized episode. Its importance lies in how different participants interpret it: Dell’Acqua uses it to keep open the possibility of a late-emerging candidate, while Sabbadin minimizes its relevance as a once-in-a-century exception. The disagreement exposes the limits of reading a conclave’s outcome from early numbers alone.

By returning to Wojtyła’s eighth-ballot victory while the present election’s support shifts from round to round, the novel connects institutional memory to immediate political judgment. The precedent offers no prediction of who will win; instead, it unsettles confident predictions and helps frame the conclave as a process whose result cannot be inferred from its opening tally.