Is it theoretically possible that anyone at all could be elected pope?
I remember reading that when casting ballots, there is a ceremonial pause to ‘allow the inspiration of God’ or something similar. So the Cardinals could theoretically find themselves inspired to select a ‘write-in candidate’.
If not Catholic, that person would be requested to convert, then elevated to the status of Bishop, etc. If not male, then the rules would have to change, presumably… 
Now we get fabulous.
Not anyone. Must be an already baptized Catholic male. Then, if missing the prerequisite ordinations, ordained deacon, priest, and bishop (at the same time making him Bishop of Rome).
In ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, Pope John Paul II declared:
Overturning a teaching that a Pope has declared to be a fundamental tenet of the faith is not something that can be done on an ad hoc basis. You would need a Pope to do it. And you would need to lay a lot of groundwork explaining why the Church wasn’t really changing its teaching but was really just reaffirming an ancient teaching and why the previous Pope didn’t really say what it sounded like he said.
JP II went to extremes to make it hard to change the no-girls-allowed rule. Don’t look forward to it happening in your lifetime or the lifetime of any child you will ever live to meet.
Well, yes, I realize that.
But what if God reached down and inspired the mind of each Cardinal towards something outside the existing rules? If the decision of the Cardinals was outside the rules, for whatever reason, are they supreme? Can the Conclave [del]go against[/del] revise existing doctrine?
So basically
What if they elect a <GASP> married male? Then what happens?
It is interesting, though, that JP2’s statement specifically calls out priestly ordination, which does still leave the door open (at least potentially) for deaconesses (which are actually mentioned in the Bible, though the argument is that the term refers to something different from our current understanding of the office of deacon).
EDIT: The prohibition against married priests is not nearly as strong as the prohibition against female priests, and in fact there are already a handful of exceptions. I’d be shocked if we actually saw a married pope, but it’s at least theoretically possible, by the currently-understood rules of the Church.
Renovations in the Papal quarters.
We already had a married Pope, his name was Peter.
And the Catholic Church has married priests in its Eastern branches and has married Protestant clergy that became Catholic and allowed to be ordained in the RCC.
If the Cardinals are moved to elect a married man, then he becomes a married Pope. Since church law doesn’t forbid the choice of a married man, they can choose a married man.
Highly unlikely. But it would be ‘legal.’
Nitpick: Exceptions in the Latin Rite. In the Eastern Rite it is the norm. And the Eastern Catholics are as Catholic as the Latin Catholics. So, the RCC does indeed have married priests as the norm, albeit, the norm for a particular rite. And that’s not considered exceptional.
Of the 22 distinct rites in the Catholic church, 21 routinely ordain married men. It’s just that the one that doesn’t, the Latin rite, happens to be vastly bigger than all the others put together.
But, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Rome is a Latin rite diocese. It’s unlikely that a married man would be elected as Bishop of Rome, and it isn’t really made any more likely if he happens to be a priest in one of the Eastern rites.
While unlikely that a non-Latin-Rite man would be elected Pope… it shouldn’t be… theoretically. The Pope is the Pope for the Universal Church, not just the Latin Rite.
Maybe saying we can’t have an Eastern Rite Pope is like saying we can’t have a non-Italian Pope. Or a Pope who voluntarily retires.
And even if they elect an Eastern Rite Cardinal (there are two), he wouldn’t be married, since they aren’t. Though, he’d certainly be amenable to changing the discipline for the Latin Rite.
The patriarch of the Armenian Catholic Church was supposedly a serious contender in 1958 and 1963.
I vaguely recall that for the Orthodox church, priests could be married, but bishops were not. Is that true for the Eastern Rite Catholics? If so, is it a theological issue or just a matter of practice which wouldn’t bar someone from becoming Pope?
It is true for the Eastern Rite Catholics that they always had married priests, though usually, the bishop is celibate.
Latin Rite Catholics who argue to keep the celibacy discipline in the Latin Rite conveniently forget about that fact and make outrageous statements like, “The Church hasn’t had married priests for 1,200 years!” without clarifying “…in the West.”
The fact is that the Catholic Church has always had married priests because the Eastern Rite branches has always had married priests. The Latin Rite has had enforced celibacy for a little over a millennium and even then, has made exceptions.
And the reason for enforced celibacy was as much as for practical reasons of inheritance (the pastor owned the church property) as it was for theological reasons (to be celibate like Christ). And practical reasons continue to this day: many parishes exist financially because they don’t have to provide the income to the priest at a level to support a family. Catholics give a much smaller percentage of their wages to their church than Protestants. That would have to change with a married priesthood. So, if you’re Catholic and you say, “I think priests should get married,” great, put more in the basket, then. 
There was a bit of a kerfuffle in western Canada about 1990 over married priests. The church and the Soviets had come to an arrnagement that they would have a limited number of Eastern rite priests ordained (and who were possibly married) and such ordinations would be carried out by the bishop of the Ukrain exclusively. Apparently someone (who was or claimed to be a bishop) began ordaining Eastern rite married priests in Canada. The reaction to this by the Roman heirachy seemed to be the sort of thing you’d expect from someone who thought the rules of their exclusive club were being broken… declare the ordinations null and void, tell the guy to stop it, etc.
(I suppose the Soviets had an interest in their side of the deal because they didn’t want a flood of foreign-born priests coming into the Ukraine.
Haven’t heard much about it since then.
Parish clergy can be (and usually are) married. You get married before you are ordained a priest, because you can’t get married afterwards.
Monatic clergy, by contrast, are never married. They take a vow of celibacy. The whole “living in common” thing doesn’t really sit well with marriage.
Bishops, by well-entrenched tradition, are appointed from among the monastic clergy. So bishops are always unmarried, and vowed celibates.
But, while that’s a long-established rule, it’s not a theological issue; bishops don’t have to be appointed from amongh the monastic clergy, so a married priest could become a bishop. And, historically, there are examples. But no recent examples, that I know of.
This is the way it is both in the Orthodox churches and in the Eastern rite Catholic churches.
Not quite. The pastor didn’t personally own the church property, and couldn’t bequeath it to his children (or to anyone else).
The concern was in fact church offices; that married clergy would have children who in due course would grow up, and if by then Daddy was quite senior he would use his position to set his kids up in life by appointing them to church positions. And the more wealthy and well-established the church became the more attractive church appointments were, and so the greater this problem became.
Nice summary. One minor nitpick: In the Eastern Orthodox Churches (the ones that accept the Council of Chalcedon and are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople), the longstanding tradition has been that the parish priests who marry are generally pastoral figures, and the potential theologians, teachers, and administrators from whom the bishops are nearly always chosen are encouraged to enter monastic orders (and maintain celibacy). But from time to time a bishop is selected from among the parish clergy, generally a widower or an older married man with adult children. It’s not ruled out; it’s just a rare exception to the common practice. In the Oriental Orthodox Churches (which reject Chalcedon and are in communion with the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria), bishops are celibate – no ifs, ands, or buts. I believe this is also true for Eastern Rite Catholicism.
In any case the rule mandating priestly and episcopal celibacy in Latin Rite churches is quite simply a Law of the Church, which can be changed by fiat of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, just as the Friday/Lenten fasting requirements were changed 40 years ago.
Even that isn’t accurate – it’s more like 400-600 years.
Priests weren’t forbidden to marry in the Latin rite until about the 1300’s or so.