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.
[…]
After Theodosius had ordered the slaughter of 7,000 innocents in Thessalonica, St. Ambrose locked the emperor out of the cathedral until he sincerely and publicly repented. It was one of the first Church-state differentiations that is still with us today.
Or is it? How will it turn out, Pope Francis with anti-pope Biden and this matter of 66,000,000 missing pairs of innocent eyes?
Ambrose counseled Theodosius to follow David, who had repented at having Uriah killed so that he might make of with his wife, Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). David actually “got it” and truly repented, and regained coherent access to the Church, the cathedral, and the Eucharist.
And so, today???
Kudos to EWTN correspondent, Owen Jensen, for his regular questioning of the Biden administration’s efforts on abortion.
Oops. Like David, Theodosius repented…etc.
Material matters will be discussed. Moral matters appear not to matter.
Bergoglio may “speak differently” than Biden but his actions are the same as Biden’s. Witness only this week Bergoglio’s appoint of globalist pro-abortionist Jeffrey Saks to a Vatican dicastery after repeatedly headlining him at Vatican conferences and symposia. We have had 9 years of Bergoglio’s charade and it is long past time to call both Bergoglio and Biden what they are: pseudo-Catholic hypocrites whose focus is solely on this world and the power and fame it offers.
Jesus also chose sinners to follow Him. What other choice did He have?
Sinners who repented their sins, converted and changed their lives radically to follow Him. He did not confirm sinners in their sins. To imply otherwise is not only false but blasphemous.
Wrong, Donna.
Judas wasn’t the only apostolate Jesus taught and showed.
His Apostle “pool” may have been limited in that manner, but surely he did expect more of them than one gets from a Joe Biden or a Nancy Pelosi. I think just maybe he wanted them–and us–to be better than they/we were when he found us. Being within his orbit should facilitate that, but then we do have to cooperate.
Francis called the morally depraved President Higgens, who enshrined abortion in Ireland, a great and wise man and he thanked God that Ireland had such a great leader. In every prior opportunity to date upon meeting a morally depraved head of state, he acted in a similar fashion, until he met Trump, the man who saved more innocent lives than any man in history, whom Francis treated as though he were Satan. So now we’re supposed to believe Francis will do anything but yuk it up with Biden?
The President may be “morally depraved” as you put it, but this odes not mean that writer, poet and teacher is not a very knowledgeable person. I know some very intelligent people, who have numerous degrees, but harbor hatred which is also morally wrong.
The Pontiff Francis is delighted to have the American-abortion-champion Biden in photo-opportunity with himself, in the same way the Pontiff was delighted to award the papal medallion to Frau Ploumen, the Belgian-abortion-champion.
Because in “the movement,” there are “no enemies on the left.” Just ask General Secretary Xi…
Biden’s faith must indeed be “very important” to him, since he so regularly uses it as a campaign pitch to Catholic voters. It seems to work, doesn’t it?
“Let the children come to Me.”
Since Pelosi’s meeting with Pope Francis was private, we can expect that Biden’s meeting will also be private. Whatever was discussed with Pelosi and whatever will be discussed with Biden will not be public. We don’t know if the pope spoke to Pelosi, pastorally of course, about her support for killing the unborn. We won’t know if the pope will speak to Biden about his support for killing the unborn. The pope certainly won’t make private discussions public, and if he corrected Pelosi or will correct Biden, they certainly won’t make that public. We, as Catholics, trust that the pope has and will continue to correct these self-professed “devout Catholics” in a pastoral way, explaining that they are endangering their immortal souls by promoting immoral murders of unborn humans. We don’t need to know, they do.
Yes, we do, because when Biden and Pelosi come out of their “private” meeting with Bergoglio that is photographed and sent online all over the world, they will loudly proclaim their absolute pro-abortion public position which they declare they will enact in legislation that applies to every American. What is at issue is not their internal, subjective state of soul but their external, objective acts that are mortally sinful.
The Pope has a duty to admonish them publicly. The faithful who are scandalized by politicians who support legalized abortion while flagrantly passing themselves off as “faithful” Catholics have a right to expect that he do so. These people have been promoting this crime for decades. We are well past the point where “private discussions” are adequate.
No. The Pope does not have a duty to admonish them publicly. His duty is to proclaim the Lord’s and the Church’s teachings – which he has done very emphatically – but what you suggest is not proper. Jesus. taught his followers and even said woe to some groups but never did he condemn anyone. Not even the adultness! Not even the sinners with whom he hate and drank. Why? Because he made it clear that he did not come to judge but to save. Publicly shaming people is our human way of doing things, but it is not our Lord’s way.
Hmmm… then what was “you are like white washed sepulchers filled with dead men’s bones?”
As I said, Jesus did condemn attitudes and actions of people or groups, but never did he condemn any particular person.
“if he corrected Pelosi or will correct Biden” – let’s be plain about what that means – “unless you repent and stop supporting the killing of the most innocent, I will excommunicate you”.
Of course those two (and many others) have already excommunicated themselves by their actions, but it would help if the Pope (finally) made it official.
Which he won’t.
God is our Creator, we are His creatures. A woman has no more right to kill her son or daughter than a man has to kill his son or daughter. I pray every day for 9 months to name and save an unborn baby and I pray every day for all Planned Parenthood facilities to close permanently. It takes humility to accept the Kingship of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is the narrow gate and the road less traveled that we are called to. May God have mercy on their souls who deny God’s commantments.
Just an hour ago, secular publication “The Hill” announced that the Vatican ‘abruptly’
canceled a previously publicized live broadcast of Biden meeting Pope Francis.
Such secret “transparency” reveals more than what Nancy and Francis showed last week. What hides behind shall be revealed, but until then I’m voting it’s nothing more than smoke, levers, gears, and mirrors–toys of the devil’s playmates.
|
I think you should have used that skeleton photo the “In the Defense of Trick or Treating” for this article.
Funny! Other ideas: Olive Oyl with Popeye or Laurel and Hardy.
Or, how about one which shows village idiots throwing stones at them.
I guess in this case one could then argue that words do indeed kill.
Biden “speaks differently than Pope Francis on abortion.” Some day Biden will “hear” from the tens of millions whose right to governmental protection was thwarted by this slaughter of the innocents. They will have opportunity to voice their “differences” with Biden (and others.). It will not be a “warm” meeting—quite heated one would imagine.
Once tredeau gets to Rome that would be the ideal time to drop a Bomb on these abortion loving ,family destroying , lavender loving Catholics !!!!
The earlier comment is correct, Jesus DID NOT embrace sinners and tell them “its ok, just keep sinning and follow me.” THEY repented. Calling them “good catholics” is reinforcing their sinfullness and there by putting their souls at risk. Thats what excommunication is all about Mal and Donna. It is supposed to put people on notice to repent from their sins for their own sake.
I have finally come to the belief, many of our catholic clerics are really not opposed to abortion, just secular progressives posing as ministers of the Gospel.