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.
[…]
TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE VATICAN: This is what happens when you open your borders and allow free-access to “migrants.” Pope Leo ought to just consider this miscreant a “migrant.”
Why drag migrants into this?
Simply because this person illegally trespassed upon sacred ground. Please note that the Vatican police FORCIBLY removed him from the premises. However, according to Leonine Doctrine, this intruder should have been welcomed as Christ and permitted to do whatever he wanted to do since he “migrated” to that area of the sanctuary. Why didnt Leo treat him as a guest like he counsels our government to do? Please, dear Br. Jaques, let us know what the Vatican authorities did with this individual. Did they throw him in jail? Will they prosecute him? Maybe just give him a cupful of leftover ice and send him on his way? He’s a migrant simply because he went where he was not supposed to be (that is, unless Leo tells us otherwise).
It would seem the far greater desecration made than these mindless crazies was the Jubilee Celebration parade into St Peter’s Basilica homosexuals flaunting their ‘life choices’ [Pope Leo’s terminology] insulting Catholic doctrine with an expletive, and receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Leo XIV had to be informed beforehand to permit Fr James Martin SJ to arrange this depravity spectacle. Since his elevation to the papacy Leo XIV has made it consistently clear where he stands. Who would have conceived this occurring during Benedict’s or John Paul’s pontificates? This is a time for reparation and strengthening of faith in Christ.
I was thinking the same thing, Fr. Morello. It seems as if something very evil is at work over there and this last episode is just one more outward or blatant instance of it. It makes one cry. Francis of Assisi, pray for the Church that once you rebuilt; Anthony of Padua, pray for the Church that you so well helped once.
Oscar, you allude to what may well be the marker for “something very evil is at work over there”. I’ve referred to it elsewhere as the cultic Pachamama idolatry ceremonies that occurred at the Vatican under Francis I. Since that time there’ve been a chain of controversial events, allegedly contrary to Apostolic tradition.
In remarks regarding these altar desecrations Bishop Athanasius Schneider believes they are not as serious as those Pachamama worship ceremonies, which were violations of the first commandment. Sins of idolatry are more egregious than what followed. My opinion is that the Pachamama idolatry was the source of what has followed.
It doesn’t appear that there was a exorcism ritual [the formal blessing of a house is an exorcism ritual] to correct that idolatry due to the involvement and respect given to Pope Francis.
Fr Peter you are right that from a point of view of dates – Pachamama Ceremony was October 4 2019 – all the evil flows from that date onwards. The subsequent dessecrations are all also post Traditionis Custodes 16.07.2021. So, two major dates.
The sanctification of daily TLM on the side altars of “the panting heart of Rome” – as the priests loudly beat their chests – was axed by application of Traditionis Custodes brutally ending those daily masses which were calling down graces to the heart of the Church’s tresury.
Dessecration is the consequence of the dessacrilisation of St Peter’s: the application of Traditionis Custodes by Churchmen. It is an unprecedented punishment. The message is clearly a call back to faith of the fathers, as the Church continues to persecute thriving faithful parishes for the crime of TLM.
Holy father, hear the cry from the formerly panting heart of Rome: Bergoglioism is not the Faith of our Fathers.
Just when you think humans can’t possibly do anything more disgusting, along comes a story like this.
I am hopeful this guy will do a VERY long stint in jail. And personally, I am tired of hearing “by reason of insanity” used as a way to get people exempted from the punishment they so richly deserve. Jail for a bunch of years, and then throw him into a mental hospital when the prison term expires.
The steward who was forgiven?
As all catholics know, forgiveness does not mean you are exempt from punishment for your sins when you are judged. Why should you be exempt in this world? Further, is there a point in offering forgiveness when there has been no sign of repentance?
I am a little more than tired of what I call the “tyranny of nice”. That is, the way in which too much of secular society views sin, violence and and immorality. Which means everything is all ok, no matter what heinous crime you commit. Because no one wants anyone to “feel bad” by speaking the truth about what someone has done. Apparently, thats worse than the crime itself in some circles. Sorry, but I think the fact that we do not hold people accountable for bad behavior is part of the reason civil society is on the brink of dissolving.
Mill stone around the neck?? Jesus advised forgiveness. He never said the sins didnt matter.
LJ, you get my nomination for Pope. You get it!
“This is what happens when you open your borders and allow free-access to “migrants.”
No, this is what happens when the Church fails to repent for abuse. It also happens when the Church herself allows/invites “the abomination of desolation” into her buildings and her heart, and becomes a whore instead of a bride. One needs only to refer to the Old Testament to see that.
In a sense, a man urinated on the altar of St Peter’s gave a physical expression of a rapidly escalating spiritual abuse which has been dealt to Our Lord and to His Bride, the Church, by the hands of her hierarchy. Recently we saw “f*ck the rules” and other phenomena (invited in by the Vatican) exactly in the same place; St Peter’s was desecrated already.
Attention not deserved. As much as possible, do not broadcast. Do the purification without broadcast.
Clergy, abandon the adolescent mentality fixation with media.
One could also argue that loving and accepting ALL of God’s children as Pope Leo is doing is in line with reparation and strengthening faith in Christ.
It was reported elsewhere that a penitential rite was performed. My question: Was a penitential rite done after Bergoglio desecrated the Basilica with the worship of the Pachamama demon within its sacred walls?
The man is clearly not well. What happened is awful, but if he’s mentally ill he’s not responsible for his actions. He should get help, we should pray for that man, the altar should be cleaned and re-consecrated and we should move on. We shouldn’t make more out of this than needed.
Unless these people are crazy enough to think a person is a tree, they know what they are doing. This “mentally ill” plea is just a convenient way for those on the left to excuse uncivil behavior. Its said that many of those who are jailed have some level of emotional problem. That doesnt make them innocent. That does nothing to negate the crime they have committed or help heal their victims. “Mentally ill” gets the criminal off the hook and free to commit violence again. I am doubtful you or anyone else would think its ok to “move on” if your spouse were killed by a DWI driver, or some other violent crime was committed against a loved one. People like this seldom commit one crime. As long as they are not incarcerated, the record shows they commit crimes over and over again. Often violent crimes. Much like the young Ukrainian woman who was stabbed to death on the train recently in an unprovoked attack. She could have been any one of us. Being a Christian does not require you to cheerfully be a victim.
Psychosis is a whole different thing from an emotional trouble.
I have no idea what the man in this situation suffers from but I agree that the seriously mentally ill need better care and that can include commitment in psychiatric facilities.
Years ago an unbalanced man tried to burn down our cathedral. It wasn’t his first attempt at destroying a church.
Psychiatric hospitals have a place.
💯 percent. I say this as a therapist. Mental illness is an overused excuse for criminal behavior. It’s a ploy used to excuse even the most heinous crimes and puts repeat offenders back on the streets. If the insanity plea is used the criminal should be committed to a mental institution indefinitely and held there until they no longer pose a threat to the public according to stringent standards.
As to the Gospel of Nice? It has not saved one single soul.