Vatican City, Jun 28, 2017 / 08:05 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On Wednesday, Pope Francis created five new cardinals, encouraging them to walk with Jesus, keeping their eyes fixed securely on the cross and on the realities of the world, not becoming distracted by prestige or honor.
“I speak above all to you, dear new Cardinals. Jesus ‘is walking ahead of you,’ and he asks you to follow him resolutely on his way. He calls you to look at reality, not to let yourselves be distracted by other interests or prospects,” the Pope said June 28.
“He has not called you to become ‘princes’ of the Church, to ‘sit at his right or at his left.’ He calls you to serve like him and with him.”
“To serve the Father and your brothers and sisters. He calls you to face as he did the sin of the world and its effects on today’s humanity. Follow him, and walk ahead of the holy people of God, with your gaze fixed on the Lord’s cross and resurrection.”
Pope Francis addressed the five bishops he chose to receive a red hat last month, and others present, during an ordinary consistory for the creation of new cardinals in St. Peter’s Basilica.
He had announced his intention to create the new cardinals during a Regina Coeli address on May 21st.
Immediately following a reading from the Gospel of Matthew and his short reflection, the Pope made the proclamation creating the new cardinals. Afterward they received their red biretta and cardinal’s ring. At this time they were also assigned a titular church, tying them to Rome.
In his choice of cardinals, Pope Francis has remained true to his vision of a broader, more universal representation of the Church, forged during his last consistory, Nov. 19, 2016, where he created 17 new cardinals from 11 different nations and five different continents.
Among this consistory’s picks are Bishop Anders Arborelius of Stockholm, Sweden, and Bishop Louis-Marie Ling Mangkhanekhoun, Apostolic Vicar of Pakse, Laos and Apostolic Administrator of Vientiane, and Archbishop Jean Zerbo of Bamako, Mali.
All three are the first cardinals from their respective countries.
Also noteworthy is his appointment of San Salvador’s auxiliary bishop, José Gregorio Rosa Chávez, marking the first time the Pope has tapped an auxiliary as cardinal.
Bishop Chávez was chosen over his archbishop, Jose Luis Escobar Alas, for the red hat, showing that Francis, as seen in his previous appointments, is willing to skip over “cardinal sees.”
In contrast to the other four is Archbishop Juan José Omella of Barcelona, Spain. His red hat is not a dramatic departure from tradition, as Barcelona is traditionally a see with a cardinal and Archbishop Omella’s predecessor, Cardinal Lluis Martinez Sistach, turned 80 on April 29.
All of the new cardinals are under 80, and therefore eligible to vote in the next conclave.
In his homily, Francis reflected on the Gospel heard during the ceremony, which came from Matthew 10:32-45. In the passage, Jesus and the disciples are walking toward Jerusalem. This is when the third prediction of the Passion of Christ happens, which is nearing.
“‘Jesus was walking ahead of them.’ This is the picture that the Gospel we have just read presents to us. It serves as a backdrop to the act now taking place: this Consistory for the creation of new Cardinals,” he said.
Jesus walks ahead of them with full knowledge of what is going to take place in Jerusalem, but at this moment there is a divide, a distance, between his heart and the hearts of his disciples, which only the Holy Spirit can bridge, Francis said.
He knows this and is patient with them. “Above all, he goes before them. He walks ahead of them.”
Along the way, though, the disciples become distracted by things which have nothing to do with what Jesus is preparing to do, or with the will of the Father.
“They are not facing reality! They think they see, but they don’t. They think they know, but they don’t. They think they understand better than the others, but they don’t…” the Pope exclaimed.
“For the reality is completely different. It is what Jesus sees and what directs his steps. The reality is the cross.”
This reality, Francis continued, is the sin of the world, which the Lord came to take upon himself and to “uproot from the world of men and women.”
The reality of sin is manifest in the world in the innocent who suffer and die as victims of war and terrorism, in the many forms of human slavery that exist, he said. It’s found also in refugee camps, which are more like hell than purgatory, and it’s in the discarding of people and things that society doesn’t find useful.
“This,” he said, “is what Jesus sees as he walks towards Jerusalem.”
“During his public ministry he made known the Father’s tender love by healing all who were oppressed by the evil one (cf. Acts 10:38). Now he realizes that the moment has come to press on to the very end, to eliminate evil at its root. And so, he walks resolutely towards the cross.”
“We too, dear brothers and sisters, are journeying with Jesus along this path,” he said.
“And now,” he concluded, “with faith and through the intercession of the Virgin Mother, let us ask the Holy Spirit to bridge every gap between our hearts and the heart of Christ, so that our lives may be completely at the service of God and all our brothers and sisters.”
After the consistory, Pope Francis and the new cardinals will stop by the Vatican’s Mater Ecclesiae Monastery to pay a visit to Benedict XVI, who was not present at the ceremony.
As is customary, the cardinals will then proceed to the atrium of the Pope Paul VI hall where they are formally greeted and congratulated.
The new cardinals will also concelebrate Mass with Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Square on June 29, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, the patrons of Rome. At the Mass the Pope will also bestow the pallia on the new metropolitan archbishops appointed during the last year.
The consistory was the fourth of Pope Francis’ pontificate. With the 5 new cardinals included, the number of voting cardinals comes to 121, and the number of non-voters to 104, for a grand total of 225.
[…]
A welcome report. Next is the mascot.
Time for a clean sweep. Get the jackhammer. Pedestrian derivitive imagery without the genesis of authentic faith need be wiped from our shrines and churches.
Then, consequences for the perpetrator.
Can a child conceived in sin become a saint?
Br. Jacques,
The question of scandal is one additional to the quality of the art. I don’t believe in censoring art or music solely because of the sins of the artist/composer, but certainly when the alleged abuse is this disturbing & recent & when the art is so poor & cartoonish, I believe there’s good enough reason to.
I’m not so certain that censoring art for any reason is a good idea. That said, if I were the owner of any of Rupnick’s art (which the Church in various locales is), then it is fully within my purview to do with it whatever I please – including destroy it – for any reason of my choosing.
I’ve concluded that Rupnick is incapable of feeling shame.
Then is he not human? No possibly of repentance?
Shame and repentance are different phenomena. Shame can lead to repentance but it need not. He has brought dire consequences to his victims and scandal upon the Church of Christ. Given his public persona a public acknowledgement of his guilt by him is required.
Br. Jaques, you have an erroneous notion about the nature of shame. I am not talking about guilt for sin. You should read up on the psychological meaning of shame. You seem very quick to pounce.
Diogenes: my apologies, I was wrong I, lacked knowledge of the clinical meaning of shame. I did not mean to “pounce” , however just the opposite. I meant that we should withhold judgment of the man assuming that we don’t really know his inner makeup. We do know that he has caused much pain and it seems that public acknowledgement of this is certainly in order; but we don’t know why he did what he did. We can’t really walk in another man’s shoes.
I hear you, Br. Jaques. But as members of a Christian community we are expected to take note of a brother or sister’s observable behavior and when we feel it is warranted to provide counsel. How can we ever correct a brother if we don’t take notice of what they’re doing? That is not to say that we can ever judge the state of another’s soul. That alone belongs to God. In the case of Rupnick, his acts have caused a rupture in the Christian community and the rupture in most people is cause for their feeling (a)shamed. There have been no reports to my knowledge that he acknowledged publicly what he’s done. He seems to just move along as if nothing has happened.
Has he repented recently? Has he demonstrated any sense of guilt or shame to date? Has he offered to make restitution to those he harmed? If not, why not?
Welcome news that the artwork was removed but the question is now “removed to where” and for “for what purpose?”
But what is the relationship between art and the one who created it? Is artwork good (intrinsically beautiful, inspiring etc.) as long as the creator is in good standing in society? Most people
agree that Michelangelo‘s Sistine chapel is beautiful and inspiring But what would happen if art historians suddenly found that he was the most reprobate character in history? Would we then paint them over and smash up all of his beautiful sculptures? Or would we refrain from doing so because those harmed were long gone and forgotten? I’m not saying that Rupnik’s art was either beautiful or inspiring ( quite the contrary : the little that I saw of it looked ugly to me). But prior to the public knowledge of his behavior, many Catholics liked and valued his work and placed them in Churches etc. What if Rupnik were the equivalent of a modern Michelangelo? Would we still be calling for the destruction of his work? But you may counter that his work was not as good as Michelangelo‘s, but that’s a matter of opinion and not easily proved. Now we get down to the character of the artist and the question is – can a bad man create good art? Can a non Christian create good Christian art? If Hitler, for instance, really was talented (he painted post cards) would we put his work in our Churches? If he did paint a beautiful painting and it was in a Church for years, much loved and valued and reproduced and insured for millions and we suddenly discovered that he was the artist what would we do?
I do not mean to make judgments here I just asking some questions. Why do we want to destroy the art simply because it was created by a sinful person? Would this art become more acceptable over time? If so why? Can evil create good ?
James, some good points and I partially agree with you, however I don’t think there are answers to your questions.
James Connor, my position is that whoever is the owner of the art has the right to do with it whatever he or she pleases. If I own the Mona Lisa and decide to set it afire, that is my prerogative. To do so would be stupid and an offense against cultural sensibilities but it’s still my prerogative.
Here’s the solution for Rupnik art:
Bury some samples of it inside the tomb of his papal benefactor the Pontiff Francis.
Then jackhammer the rest, and distribute the rubble to the Jesuits.
Now THAT’S a plan!
Thank you.😉