Pope Francis creates five new cardinals during a consistory in St. Peter’s Basilica on June 28, 2017. / L’Osservatore Romano.
Vatican City, May 27, 2022 / 11:10 am (CNA).
Pope Francis could soon convene a consistory for the creation of new cardinals, taking the number of cardinals eligible to take part in a future conclave over the 120 limit established by Paul VI.
Rumors of a new consistory have multiplied in recent weeks because the new Vatican constitution Praedicate evangelium will come into force on June 5, the feast of Pentecost. Several new Vatican dicasteries will come into being that day and there is an expectation that their leaders will be named cardinals, though the constitution emphasizes that laypeople can lead certain departments.
Pope Francis has two options. He can wait until the end of the year, when the number of cardinal electors will drop to 110 and he will therefore have 10 slots available. Or he can convene a consistory on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. A consistory that day would, in all likelihood, take the number of cardinal electors over 120. But then their number is expected to drop in the following months.
The College of Cardinals currently has 117 cardinal electors. Of these, 12 were created by John Paul II, 38 by Benedict XVI, and 67 by Pope Francis. Cardinals created by Pope Francis account for 57% of the cardinal electors.
The last consistory creating new cardinals was on Nov. 28, 2020. Up to that point, Pope Francis had convened a consistory every year since 2014. But 2021 passed without the creation of new cardinals.
So far this year, four cardinal electors have already turned 80, and another six will do so before 2022 ends. The last will be Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga on Dec. 29.
Of these 10 cardinals, only four were created by Pope Francis. Therefore, if Pope Francis decided to name 10 new cardinal electors and return to the maximum limit of 120 electors established by Paul VI and confirmed by John Paul II, there would be 76 cardinals created by him in a possible conclave. That is to say, only four fewer than the 80 cardinals who represent the two-thirds of votes needed to elect a new pope.
Pope Francis has generally chosen candidates who are little known in the wider Church, with more pastoral than theological profiles, and with great attention to local churches that are considered marginalized, such as those in Tonga, Cape Verde, and the Central African Republic.
Any discussion of conclaves is, of course, speculative. It is not known who the cardinals will vote for. When they enter the Sistine Chapel, they are isolated, without the possibility of contact with the outside world. There, they ponder the choice of the next pontiff based more on pragmatic considerations than geopolitical ones.
But studying the composition of the College of Cardinals is still worthwhile. If nothing else, it allows us to understand what direction Pope Francis wants to give to the Church and bishops around the world.
Reviewing Pope Francis’ seven consistories creating new cardinals, three fundamental criteria can be distinguished.
The first is unpredictability. The second is a desire to expand the representation of the Church to the most remote and least Christian regions. The third is that at least one new cardinal should represent a connection to the past.
On the first point, Pope Francis has shown that he can choose anyone as a cardinal. But there are some figures who are more likely to receive red hats due to their positions at the Vatican. They include Archbishop Lazarus You Heung-sik, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Archbishop Arthur Roche, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and Archbishop Fernando Vérgez Alzaga, president of the Governatorate of Vatican City State.
Then there are the less obvious possibilities. The number of Italian cardinals has consistently decreased under Pope Francis. Traditionally cardinalatial sees such as Naples, Palermo, Venice, Milan, and Turin are currently without a red hat. But the pope may opt for Archbishop Marco Tasca of Genoa, even though his predecessor, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, is still among the cardinal electors.
He might also reward Archbishop Gintaras Grušas of Vilnius, Lithuania, the president of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences (CCEE).
Among the surprises, there could also be another Italian: Monsignor Pierangelo Sequeri, president of the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences. Sequeri is 77 years old and would therefore be a cardinal elector.
With the red hat, would Pope Francis somehow wish to bless the new direction of the institute named after the Polish pope but profoundly reshaped in recent years?
It is a hypothesis, as is a red hat for Archbishop Piero Marini, Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations from 1987 to 2007 and, until this year, president of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses.
Both Sequeri and Marini would arguably fit into the category of cardinals who represent a connection with the past. One would underline the new theological course under Pope Francis and the other the new liturgical line expressed most recently through the motu proprio Traditionis custodes.
A red hat for Marini, who was known for his progressive liturgical ideas during the pontificate of John Paul II, would say more than a thousand words about the direction that Pope Francis wants to give to the Church.
France could also gain a red hat. Apart from Cardinal Dominique Mamberti, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Pope Francis has not placed a red hat on a French head since his election in 2013. With former Paris archbishop Cardinal André Vingt-Trois turning 80 on Nov. 7, and losing his right to vote in a conclave, there is a possible opening.
Spain currently has four cardinals: the archbishops of Madrid, Valencia, Barcelona, and Valladolid. Archbishop Francisco Cherro Chaves of Toledo, the Primate of Spain, is not a cardinal. But insiders think that is unlikely to change.
Looking at Europe, the absence of red hats in influential archdioceses such as Kraków, Poland, and Armagh, Northern Ireland, is striking.
Neither the United States nor Canada seems a likely destination for a new red hat. The U.S. already has six resident cardinal electors: Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston, and Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark. There are three others in Rome: Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, and Cardinal James Harvey.
Canada, meanwhile, has two residential archbishops — Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto and Cardinal Gérald Lacroix of Quebec — and two curial cardinals, Cardinal Michael Czerny and Cardinal Marc Ouellet.
In Latin America, the pope is thought to be able to give the red hat to Archbishop Carlos Mattasoglio of Lima, Peru, and Archbishop Walmor Oliveira de Azevedo of Belo Horizonte, the president of Brazil’s bishops’ conference.
Africa is currently under-represented in the College of Cardinals (as well as among the heads of Vatican dicasteries) and three African cardinals turned 80 in 2021. Pope Francis could look to South Sudan, where he intends to visit in July. A possible candidate would be Archbishop Stephen Ameyu Martin Mulla of Juba.
But the pope might also gravitate toward Archbishop Benjamin Ndiaye of Dakar, Senegal, or Archbishop Siegfried Mandla Jwara of Durban, South Africa.
Australia does not currently have a cardinal elector, and the two most prominent names would be Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney and Archbishop Peter Comensoli of Melbourne. But the possibility of a red hat for Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane should not be underestimated. Coleridge was until recently the president of the Australian bishops’ conference and was seemingly highly esteemed by Pope Francis during the 2015 family synod.
Oceania could also be rewarded with a cardinal, perhaps from Papua New Guinea, where the pope has indicated that he wants to travel.
Asia now has 15 cardinal electors and is probably unlikely to gain many more at a new consistory.
Yet geographical considerations could become irrelevant if Pope Francis decided to expand the number of cardinal electors. There is a precedent: With the consistory of Nov. 28, 2020, he exceeded the threshold of 120, reaching 128 cardinal electors.
When choosing new cardinals, the pope has tended to opt for candidates whom he trusts. But he has also sent signals about the direction of his governance. It is notable that since the beginning of his pontificate, the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops has been a cardinal (first Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri and now Cardinal Mario Grech.) This is a sign of how important the pope considers the Synod of Bishops to be.
When Czerny received the red hat, he was under-secretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development and responsible for Vatican policy on migrants and refugees. The gesture was a clear indication of the pope’s strong interest in the themes promoted by the dicastery.
And when it comes to Pope Francis’ choices, no signal should be underestimated.
[…]
A return to normal operations by CDF as La Suprema? How absurd when still another clarification of Pope Bergoglio’s flood of theological ambiguities and errors is required and that for his accustomed mode “reinterpretation,” in this case of “neo-Pelagianism” and “neo-Gnosticism”. What in fact is more Pelagian than his own “authentic Magisterium” of conscience as the creator and ultimate arbiter of all moral norms? And what in fact is more Gnostic than his own “God of surprises” that commands through a papal Oracle of Rome that the greater number of sacramental Marriages are null and void but that free unions of fornicators and adulterers are “real marriages”?
If I understood it correctly, this might be read to mean that people who thought Pope Francis was yelling at them when he called people “Neo Pelagians” were incorrect. People thought by Neo Pelagians, he was in general yelling at traditional Catholics. This letter would make it seem that he was not.
He was.
It is possible that he originally intended to, but now is backtracking. If he is backtracking, that is significant. It is very hard to know exactly who he is talking about, because of the total obscurity of his language.
I just heard learned that F’s Lenten retreat was given by “Rev.” Mendonça, a “poet-priest” from Portugal who promotes “queering” the Church, in tandem with a “nun” who handles the networking – I guess by making sure schools get infiltrated with LGBTQ etc ideology.
So NO THANK YOU – I am now 1000% convinced of the diabolical influence being cultivated by the pontiff formerly known as Cardinal Bergoglio. I distrust every word he says, and every act he does, and every person in his entourage.
And I just saw (after the suggestion of a commenter) the video of Pope F’s appallingly abusive gesture of prying apart the praying hands of an altar boy at the Vatican (Nov 2013).
When he first came out on the balcony in 2013, I had no idea who he was (that in itself I now realize was a very bad omen), but to my great surprise, without any knowledge of him whatsoever, when I saw him appear, I was instinctively repulsed, and blurted out “uh-oh” in front of my wife and kids.
I have since learned that there were many things I didn’t know then, chief among them that the “Cardinal” standing with him was the sex abuse coverup Cardinal Danneels.
So this is the situation – this pontiff is the hand-picked candidate of the cabal of Cardinals and bishops who were willing to torture children and ensured that the Church got smashed from 2002 until 2013, all to sate their aberro-sexual and power obsessions…and now these criminals are running the Church from Rome.
OH PLEASE – CLEAR AND SUCCINCT?
What is salvation – a happy feeling of contentment, satisfaction? Is not most of what they say just sanctifying grace?
What difference does it make who’s a gnostic or who’s whatever if hell is empty?
Is anything the Vatican publishes these days worth the paper it’s printed on?
Cardinal Ladaria is acting as Prefect unlike his predecessor who only now is addressing the errors inherent in Amoris Laeititia. A sound reading with knowledge of precisely what Gnosticism and Pelagianism is finds myriad indication in Amoris. And anyone with perspicacity [forgive me now I’m being arrogant] knows “neo-Pelagianism and neo-Gnosticism” references the Pontiff’s thought. And of course Ladaria must “veil” his language and be obscure when questioned by an eager Press with exactly what and who this document is about. My guess is the Pontiff will not dismiss the Cardinal at this time since his policy of silence deflects responsibility for his “neo-Pelagianism and neo-Gnosticism” leaving most confused. Confusion is the sickness he wishes upon us to further his agenda.
If you think that Ladaria is suddenly reprimanding the Pope, I think you are sadly mistaken. The implicit criticism of Mueller is equally unwarranted.
Insightful Fr. Peter. Thank you.
Chris an excerpt from a LifeSite article by Diane Montagna explains my point well, “In an address on Christian Humanism delivered in Florence’s famous cathedral, Pope Francis said that Pelagianism ‘prompts the Church not to be humble, selfless and blessed. And it does so with the appearance of being a good. In facing ills or the problems of the Church it is useless to look for solutions in conservatism and fundamentalism, in the restoration of practices and outdated forms that even culturally aren’t able to be meaningful.’ But is this what neo-Pelagianism really means, according to the Vatican? In a letter released today, targeting neo-Pelagianism and neo-Gnosticism as two contemporary errors that can be obstacles to salvation, the Vatican’s doctrinal office made no connection between these erroneous ‘tendencies’ and Catholics who adhere to the Church’s tradition. It also doesn’t mention rigidity or anything about neo-Pelagianism meaning those who ‘observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past'”.
As for Pelagianism, its ringleader Pelagius and his acolytes Celestius and Julian of Eclanum held that God has given man free will and therefore he has the capacity of exercising and achieving salvation and that in any case, Jesus was no more than a good example. St. Augustine, who knew perfectly well the overriding importance of the free gift of grace and who was also very familiar with St. Paul’s doctrine on grace, rejected this. Strange to say, AL seems to hold that grace is not sufficient for those in so-called “irregular” situations. Besides, AL has not even one quote or reference from St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace. Pelagianism failed to grasp the essential nature of grace for salvation. Doesn’t AL fall into the same trap?
Gnosticism is such an enormously complex and varied phenomenon which affected the Church especially in the second and third centuries, that the impression I get is that PF is using the oft-repeated “raising a strawman” fallacy in this case, because what he calls “neo-Gnosticism” seems to have no connection to the real Gnosticism of those early Christian centuries. Rather, his use of the terms “neo-Gnosticism” and “neo Pelagianism” seems to be a way of attacking his detractors whom he constantly denigrates as “rigid”, “Pharisees” and other nasty names. Would St. Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and the rest of the Fathers who combatted Gnosticism recognize as some variety of it what PF calls “neo-Gnosticism”. The same question can be asked regarding whether St. Augustine would consider what PF as attacks “neo-Pelagianism”. I doubt it very much.
Very well stated Juan Caballero.
Father Peter:
Yes, I must read the article…thank you.
I have recognized F’s resort to “re-defining” pre-existing terms in order to attack what he disdains: the truth and goodness and beauty of Catholic traditions.
By so re-defining words he accomplishes 2 bad aims simultaneously: he steals the truth from other people by erasing the memory of the genuine evil signified by those words; and he simultaneously steals the proper response of revulsion against what is genuinely evil, and manipulates “the pueblo” into feeling revulsion against what is good.
In my view it is a mark of the diabolical, showing someone long under the influence of “unholy spirits.”
I consider him deliberate and well-practiced in the low arts of agitprop, double-speak and disinformation. I assume it is a manifestation of the “neo-Jesuitical” brain-washing that has replaced Catholic formation in the Jesuit seminaries. Something that does not produce a man imitating Christ, like Fr. Hardon or Fr. Schall or Fr. Fessio, nor a man like Edmund Campion.
Chris, “In my view it is a mark of the diabolical, showing someone long under the influence of “unholy spirits'” parallel’s my deepest concerns. As a hypothetical most expect the Antichrist clearly diabolic, whereas if God were to permit a final trial before Judgment based on religious deception what is occurring seems feasible. My invariable measure in this is revision of Christ’s Gospel.