Today the names of the new Cardinals were announced. They will be given their red hats in a consistory on 14 February.
The one that interests me is His Excellency Most Reverend Luigi De Magistris, Major Pro-Penitentiary Emeritus. Alas, he is over 80. He is exactly the sort of man I would want to vote in a conclave.
I have described him sometimes as “the last Roman priest”, even though he is Sardinian. Arcbp. De Magistris has had a remarkable career and it was my great privilege to get to know him and to work with him a bit when he was a member of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. I would often run into him during his daily walks, and we would walk and talk and I could pick his brains. Also, he often walked by my ground level window facing into the courtyard of the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio. He would stop and, through the window (almost as if visiting a prisoner), share anecdotes, witticisms, proverbs, bits of advice. Meeting him in the highways and byways, he was the consummate gentleman priest, humble and at the same time perfectly aware of his office once he was consecrated.
I learned a great deal about the inner and even hidden workings of things from him.
He should have been made Cardinal many years ago.
Congratulations Luigi Cardinal De Magistris
Loading ...
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Patriarch of Venice, Francesco Moraglia, passed over for a second time by the Pope. There are just three such patriarchs in the Latin Church. Had Benedict not resigned, I believe Moraglia was expected to be raised to Cardinal at last year’s consistory. As the patriarch, he’s already allowed to wear red. He was ordained by Cardinal Siri and he received his episcopal ordination from Cardinal Bagnasco with Cardinal Piacenza as a co-consecrator.
I see that a certain archbishop who authored a certain and infamous paragraph in the last synod was not made a cardinal.
Providence includes, of course, those things that could happen but do not.
I’m sure I am not the only one who was surprised that Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia was not selected.
With the death of Cardinal Angelini on November 22, there are currently no members of the College of Cardinals who were born in Rome. This upcoming consistory does not look like it will alter the fact that we have no “Roman” Cardinals, for the first time in at least two centuries.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who is appointed Cardinal. [Noooooooo… it matters a lot.]
No Cardinal, or Synod, or Pope for that matter can change the Teaching of the Church.
Nevertheless, there will be strenuous efforts by the liberal/Relativist elements at the second Session of the Synod on the Family to do so.
The motivation will vary. Pandering to local pressure groups, enormous financial incentives for the German Bishops to give ground on the issues of Holy Communion being permitted to those in mortal sin such as the divorced and remarried, and active homosexuals, and of course a surprisingly large number of bishops and Cardinals in the Church who are genuinely Relativist in their conviction and seek to diminish or eliminate the very idea of Sin.
Therefore, between now and the second Synod it is up to all orthodox Catholics and true to watch every move these people make, and to constantly emphasis and promote orthodoxy in these matters.
This can be done in blogs, blog comment, and in writing to bishops, Cardinals and the Vatican and of course the Press, catholic and secular.
Rauber (Germany) was on very bad terms with Benedict and reproached him for his conservatism; Dew (NZ) advocated divorced and remarried receive communion in 2005 at the Bishops’ Synod on the Eucharist. Further scrutiny of many of the others will undoubtedly reveal a predictable pattern of appointments.
Your combination, Father, of the terms consummate + gentleman is mightily significant. In all my 50 years, I have only used those two words together to describe one man. And since you do not post idly, I understand it to be high praise indeed. If Cardinal De Magistris had a hand in forming you who in turn affect so many via this great blog, may God be praised wholeheartedly for thus blessing us and His Church! We thank God for the gift of Cardinal De Magistris’ priesthood and for all his good service. May we see blessings increased exponentially through his new office of cardinal.
After reading the Working Documents for the Italian Working Group A from the Extraordinary Synod, I am happy to see that Msgr. Edward MENICHELLI was selected…
Of course that assumes he wasn’t reigning in what they wrote….. I am not as familiar with him as I would like.
A gentleman priest….I know a few and Fr. Z is one.
Seminaries, after St. Anselm, use to train the men in how to be gentlemen. Would that this were the case today.
I do not really speak Italian, I merely get the drift of what is being said, but I have just received the latest from Sandro Magister which is solely in Italian and the drift that I have just gathered is that the new list of Cardinals is just exactly what Pope Francis himself has chosen. That is sending a shiver down my spine.
Congratulations to Cardinal-designate De Magistris!
As for the others, it seems quite apparent that Pope Francis is “stacking the deck” in an attempt to find men that are sympathetic with his vision. That’s not terribly surprising.
However, I still believe that there are enough active and retired Curial veterans out there that will unite to prevent the ultimate dismantling of the Curia. I still predict a backlash, for there are many bishops out there who are very concerned about the current state of affairs in the Church, especially the agendas of Cardinal Kasper and friends.
It’s disappointing that Archbishop Chaput was not included on this occasion. He is one of my heroes and would be an excellent addition to the College of Cardinals.
Sandro Magister reported that two of the new Cardinal designates have lined up in support of communion for divorced and remarried and the recognition of homosexual unions:
Archbishop John Atcherley Dew of Wellington (New Zealand)
Archbishop Edoardo Menichelli of Ancona-Osimo (Italy)
John Allen also reported today that Archbishop Dew “argued for allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion at a 2005 Vatican synod of bishops”.
[Happily, there are names missing from the list which is a matter of consolation.]
“At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who is appointed Cardinal.”
Oh good. For awhile there, I was thinking that decisions made on this earth (like, say, who will be voting in the next conclave) actually mattered, at least in some small degree. Glad to know we’re all living in the Eschaton already. I must have missed the memo.
With the new Cardinals just announced, the Pope has now appointed 31 under the age of 80 in just 21 months. By contrast, I believe Benedict appointed around 60 in his eight years. So that begs the question. Does the progressive/liberal wing of the College now have a working majority if another Conclave occurs in the not too distant future? German Vatican writer Giuseppe Nardi suggested the large number of announcements since last year may be about just that.
Definitely lacing progressives in control and if Francis appoints enough Cardinals and bishops I think we will see a major transformation in the church,
Gay marriage or unions are inevitable now IMO given some of those selected strongly support that redefinition of the nature of marriage. It will take time but big changes on core doctrine seem to be on the way.
From personal experience, I can say that Cardinal-elect John A. Dew is a nice enough chap and, generally, approachable. I congratulate him and wish him all the very best in his appointment. However, it must be said that he is not what one would call a paragon of orthodoxy… more’s the pity of it. (The Catholic Church in New Zealand is wedded to “inculturalisation” and far too accommodating of feminist-inspired “theologies”/practices – although it has to be admitted this state of affairs largely pre-dates John Dew’s installation as bishop and archbishop.) In all events, I will be praying the Holy Ghost showers him with wisdom, courage, and right discernment in matters pertaining to the essentials of our Holy Faith (… and that cometh the next session of the Synod on the Family, he (Card.-elect Dew) will prefer to model himself – his thinking and his engagements – on the praiseworthy example of Cardinal Burke!!). Prayer is indeed a powerful tool and hope springs eternal!!
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who is appointed Cardinal.
At this “hour of the day,” it matters mightily to the salvation of souls. So does the response of faithful Catholics: may ours be rooted in prayer, penance and the works of mercy.
Sandro Magister has some other interesting tidbits about Archbishop De Magistris: he opposed the beatification of José Maria Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei; he objected to the introduction by Msgr. Piero Marini of “le danze esotiche” in the Masses celebrated by Pope John Paul II; and he so annoyed “l’establishment woityliano” that he was not given the cardinal’s hat when he served as major penitentiary, the only time that has happened in the history of that dicastery. God bless him.
Magister points out that several of the new appointments passed over the elected presidents of national conferences in favor of younger men and that the percentage of curial cardinals will now drop from 30 to 27. http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2015/01/04/i-nuovi-cardinali-tutto-come-francesco-comanda-lui-solo/
The Pope is pushing his agenda and playing for the long game.
It’s going to be a long wait for Abp Chaput or Abp Gomez. And in fact, a long wait for any American, since the US Church is regarded as very conservative (I know, I find it hard to believe too). I think Abp Cupich will probably be appointed as soon as George is no longer of voting age, however.
The thing about these appointments is that they are virtually all mediocrities. They’re people who go along to get along, have professed their undying faith in Vatican II, and will do whatever they’re told by their betters.
Some of them have made very dubious statements in the past (which another poster mentioned above) and I have read that even the Ethiopian is in favor of gay recognition, which would make him one of the few in Africa. However, I haven’t seen his actual words, so perhaps more research is in order.
As for the minor sees being promoted to prominence, I think this was an easy way out. Blazquez of Valladolid (not a major see, but he’s the president of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference) is theologically orthodox and has defended true marriage and several other important issues, but he was not very effective in his prior diocese (Bilbao, infested with leftist Basque nationalist clergy) . He isn’t the top of the line, but a worse pick could have been made in the Spanish clergy, and you never know how people may rise to the challenge.
That said, the problem is not with the Curia. Both people here and on “progressive” sites have been cheering its destruction, but at least you knew who was in it and what they represented. The real power in the Vatican now lies with the powers behind the throne, unelected and unappointed and secretive, who “advise” the Pope. These would be Kasper, Forte and the unpleasant Fernandez. But since they’ve neither been appointed within the process nor have they been formally acknowledged, they can do whatever they want. It’s sort of like Obama bouncing over his official Cabinet to receive the wisdom of the kitchen cabinet, composed of people like Al Sharpton…
One more disappointed supporter that Archbishop Chaput was not among those selected.
It is rather annoying that they wait until this good man of God turns 80 and no longer a voting member of the conclave. If they indeed waited this long for his appointment to simultaneously both appease and satisfy their “political” goals then it is the same kind of annoying thing I’ve seen democrats pull, like suppressing votes in certain weathervane counties, in order to influence election results.
Traductora,
The Archbishop of Addis Ababa in Ethiopia actually advocated in 2008 for a law that would have constitutionalized a ban on homosexual acts.
I doubt that in just seven years the man is now a supporter of same-sex unions.
As with any consistory, there are names that cause frustration and some that are encouraging. But arguing that the Pope is stacking the deck with iconoclastic heretics is simply false. The appointment of cardinals is an important event in the life of the Church, yes, but it is also one in which we have no control. You’re much better off making reparations on behalf of bishops and cardinals and making sure that you are growing your apostolate.
@ Mike,
” may ours be rooted in prayer, penance and the works of mercy.”
And action! To ensure that the liberal/Modernists in the Church, those who wish to adapt the Church to the Secular World instead of changing the Secular world to the Church, don’t get away with it, as they will undoubtedly try to do at the second session of the Synod on the Family.
We need prayer, but we also need the sword.
Matthew 10: 32, 38.
How could His Holiness forget a shepherd such as Fabian Bruskewitz, who manifestly smelled like the sheep?
What about Athanasius Schneider?
Would anyone join me if I proposed a rosary crusade between now and October?
Chris Garton-Zavesky says: “Would anyone join me if I proposed a rosary crusade between now and October?”
I would!
What do you think of the other cardinals, Father Z?
Apparently the new cardinal-elect from Mexico, Archbishop Alberto Suárez Inda, Abp. of Morelia, has celebrated the EF mass! That’s one promising thing anyway.
Extremely disappointed Arch. Chaput was not chosen, especially in light of his hosting the upcoming World Meeting of Families.
Yes to the Rosary Crusade!
Three minute interview with Cardinal-designate John Drew of New Zealand.
http://youtu.be/onuj68a5Xn0
Pray, hope, don’t worry. The rosary is a powerful weapon against the work of the evil one. The Name of Jesus is our salvation. The Mother of God is our protector.
John Sonnen of Orbis Catholicus Secundus has a picture up of De Magistris and Cardinal Ottaviani. Apparently he was Ottaviani’s personal secretary. I find that fascinating…I’d wager he could tell some very interesting stories…
While I can certainly think of a few very worthy Americans (USA Americans), the USA does wield a considerable voting bloc already in the College. Suffice it to say that I can tolerate the more deserving Archbishops in the United States being passed over as long as some of the… less-deserving… ones are also.
I also cannot complain about the Holy Father’s decision to raise third-world sees to the dignity of cardinal. Politically speaking, this is smart and expresses the Church’s gratitude in parts of the world where the faith is growing (I don’t think I saw any Germans on the list…).
I have a few reservations about a few of the names on the list, but, for the most part, this looks like a decent diversification of the College.
It could have been worse but it is nonetheless right out of Pope Francis’s playbook, which includes the following principles:
1. Praise orthodoxy while appointing and elevating the heterodox.
2. Further laud orthodoxy while promoting practices that are inconsistent with orthodoxy.
3. Praise Pope Benedict while demoting and isolating all Ratzingeriani.
Rob22, you make the same comment everytime you post on this blog. “DOCTRINE IS CHANGING, IT’S GOING TO HAPPEN NOW.”
Marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and there can never be anything else. So you are wrong, doctrine on this will never change.
Msgr. Stuart Swetland mentioned on Relevant Radio once that the norm is for an Archbishop to NOT be elevated to the Cardinalate while another Cardinal is already in the same See. +Chaput is in Philadelphia, +Rigali is Archbishop Emeritus…Chaput has to wait (or be moved). This also explains +Gomez in LA.
The data don’t fit New York, where +Dolan got elevated but +Egan is alive and kicking. Again, this is secondhand info from the radio, I’m not sure if there are actual governing canons on this.
Lyons, traditionally, once the Emeritus bishop turns 80 and can no longer vote in a conclave, a new cardinal is named. This prevents two voting cardinals from the same diocese. Rigali turns 80 in April of 2015.
Cardinal Mahony, Emeritus AB of LA, will turn 80 in 2016.
RobbRobbie said
Robbie said
“With the new Cardinals just announced, the Pope has now appointed 31 under the age of 80 in just 21 months. By contrast, I believe Benedict appointed around 60 in his eight years.”
Yeah, but Pope Benedict’s pace at the end of his pontificate was more similar to Pope Francis’s now; about 24 of Pope Benedict’s cardinal electors were appointed in 2012 alone, and another 20 or so in 2010. Pope Francis is just keeping the number of voting aridnals around 120, as his predecessor did. I guess the reason that Benedict didn’t appoint more voting cardinals in earlier years is simply that many of Pope John Paul II’s appointees hadn’t aged out of voting status. If Pope Francis really wanted to pack the College, he presumably would gone over the 120-voter “limit” by more than 2, as JPII often did.
It seems to me this Pope likes those who clearly speak their mind, and are not afraid of the establishment, even if HH doesn’t exactly agree with what is said. His Beatitude Berhane-Yesus Demerew [Cardinal](Souraphiel) – while not heading the largest See in the world or part of the inner workings of the Latin Church – has not been afraid to uphold the relevance of Eastern practices, sometimes in the face of open hostility. He was part of the group of Patriarchs, Catholicoi, and Major Archbishops that openly asked the Holy See to end restrictions on Eastern married men being ordained to deacon and priest worldwide. That restriction was recently removed with what was seemingly a quasi-apology attached.
Interesting, of the new cardinals with a vote in the conclave, only one country got more than one, in fact, it got three: Italy. Some things never seem to change . . .
A hopeful thing! http://www.lisagraas.com/?p=307
The name of the archbishop of Manila, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, and his writings and teachings and positions, should begin to be of deep interest to all of us, especially after this Consistory. I personally know too little of him, expect that he has enjoyed the highest esteem of two Popes now and is wildly popular inside and outside of the Philippines…
“Does the progressive/liberal wing of the College now have a working majority if another Conclave occurs in the not too distant future? ”
I’m not sure you can really predict a conclave by its Cardinals. Every voting Cardinal in the last conclave was elevated by either JPII or BXVI, and yet we got Francis. Two Popes, both unapologetic doctrinal Conservatives (and the latter also an unapologetic liturgical traditionalist), ended up being followed by a man who was neither – despite having complete control over the electoral body.
Why? Because by the time BXVI stepped aside, the issue of Curial reform was viewed to be the most pressing. Not liturgy, not theology, not diplomacy. So they went just about as far from the established order as they could. If you want to try and guess who will have the upper hand in the next conclave, try and figure out what issue will be viewed as the most pressing.
What’s really interesting in this round of cardinal-designates is that 2 bishops, not archbishops, were selected. Also, the Ethiopian cardinal-designate is of the Ethiopian Rite, one of the Eastern Catholic Rites. I don’t think the USA will see any new cardinals until at least 2018, when the archbishop emeriti age out of the voting electorate.
Cardinal Justin Rigali will be 80 very soon and his successor, Archbishop Chaput, will host the Holy Father God willing in September, and already enjoys his favor… something not easily done with someone like this Pope. Chaput would be a rock-solid orthodox voice in any future Synod and Conclave. I was disappointed that Chaput did not make the cut this time, but I am similarly disappointed that the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon did not get its first red biretta. Talk about a Shepherd who smells of his sheep, and who has his work cut out for him there.
ChrisRawlings, Abp Demerew Souraphiel said those words in 2008 in response to the proposal to pass a law, but since then has apparently been urging some kind of “acceptance” (although not marriage) for homosexuals. That said, I can’t find his exact words, and that’s why I qualified my statement. Sometimes people get overexcited and are so afraid that they misinterpret things.
That said, the pro-homosexual line seems to be a constant in these appointments. Very strange. The Uruguayan bishop has some really bad statements on record. The only truly good appointments, in my mind, were a couple of the non-voting, elderly archbishops, and the orthodox Mexican bishop of Morelia and the Spaniard (who is theologically orthodox but not very forceful, alas).
What the Pope did by picking these obscure sees was to ensure that there would be no dissent. And as for dissent, during the Arian controversies, laypeople battled in the streets. This is not necessarily a good thing, and I’m sure there are better ways of resolving the problem… But even the ordinary person was involved because they realized how important it was, and because this was happening in their town or country.
As the Church centralized more and more things in Rome, the laity became more remote from the fray simply because Rome was far away and few people, unless they were members of invading armies, knew what was going on there. However, the advent of the internet has made us all citizens of Rome and it is important for the laypeople to take this seriously. Yes, do works of piety and be holy, but also remember that there are evil people out to destroy the Church and now that we have the knowledge, we have the responsibility to fight back.
One of the ways the truly horrible things of Vatican II suddenly became the norm is that they were imposed from Rome via the local ordinaries, and because both the ordinaries and the laypeople were simply accustomed to following orders and didn’t have a lot of contact with or knowledge of what was going on, other than what “Xavier Rynne” reported, they accepted it even though they hated it. If they had opposed it, the supposed Spirit of Vatican II would have dissipated into the ether and we might have gotten some good, reasonable reforms. I think the only reason Francis’ picks were not truly hair-raising is that he knew there would be serious problems with some of them. But that’s only because people now know what’s going on and realize that now it has fallen to the even humblest sinner to defend the Faith.
“It’s going to be a long wait for Abp Chaput or Abp Gomez. And in fact, a long wait for any American, since the US Church is regarded as very conservative (I know, I find it hard to believe too). I think Abp Cupich will probably be appointed as soon as George is no longer of voting age, however. ”
Knowing not all my prayers are answered, I think Cupich will be made cardinal before the 85th anniversary of Cardinal George’s birth. Abp. Gomez has “gotten with the program” and now is one the loudest voices in the country for Obama Amnesty.
As for Chaput, my ultraliberal neighbor told me “you know, Chaput was sitting fat and happy in Denver, a financially sound and growing archdiocese. He gave that up to take on Philadelphia which meant closing parishes and schools, dealing with one of the worst child abuse scandals, managing a diocese in near bankruptcy, and raising money for the World Family celebration at the same time. Given he was already in the pipeline before Francis was elected, even I don’t have a problem making him cardinal give the s*** job he took on.”
Katherine, I think immigration and people’s attitudes to it are an entirely different thing from Church doctrine. You can agree or disagree with Gomez on immigration, but it doesn’t affect your immortal soul. Doctrinal unorthodoxy does.
Ed Peters is at it again, implying that the pope is antinominalist and has set another bad example of ignoring the law: “Francis has appointed five more papal electors than Church law authorizes” (https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/addressing-antinomianism-requires-recognizing-it/)
Before pope bashing, it is important to understand the law. Universi Domini Gregis certainly limits cardinal electors to 120, but a cardinal only becomes an elector when the See of Rome is vacant. Francis is merely making the judgement that he will live longer than five of the cardinals under 80 at the moment.
It is understandable that the average journalist and others generally ignorant of the law might make this mistake, but anyone wishing to reform the Church of contempt for the law should understand the law first, before recklessly implying that the supreme legislator is antinominalist.
In fact, UDG states: ” the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the College of one hundred and twenty electors, made up of Cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures.” Surely Pope Francis deserves acknowledgement for his diligence and wisdom in upholding UDG instead of criticism based on a basic misunderstanding of when a cardinal becomes an elector according to UDG.
Daniel W says:
Ed Peters is at it again, implying that the pope is antinominalist and has set another bad example of ignoring the law: “Francis has appointed five more papal electors than Church law authorizes”
1. It’s antinominanism rather than antinominalism.
2. Historically, antinominianism refers to Natural (and thus Moral) Law, not Positive Law (here, UDG).
Thanks robtb
My main point is that Ed Peters is incorrect about the law in UDG. It limits the number of cardinal electors, which is an office that only exists while the See of Rome is vacant. Therefore, Ed Peters is incorrect and Pope Francis doing a superb job in upholding UDG, as long as he does not vacate the See while there are more than 120 POTENTIAL cardinal electors.
Ed Peters is also incorrect that “it does not make a fig’s worth of difference whether 120 or 125 cardinals vote in the next papal conclave”. Unless the law is modified before the See becomes vacant, 125 votes would invalidate the election, precisely because of the limit Peters misunderstands.
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error, (you also get it wrong, omitting an “i” first time round). Historically antinomianism refers to Natural law among Christian writers, but its broader sense refers to law in general, so I will not join you in critiquing Peters for applying it to positive law. However, in that he is a professional canon lawyer publicly criticising JPII and Francis as supreme legislators, and yet he doesn’t understand the basic meaning of the law in UDG, he gives ammunition to the antinominianist disregard for the law as an ass.
If anyone is, for some reason, concerned that 125 eligible electors voting in a conclave would render it invalid, I would invite them to look at Canon 10. As for the rest of my many alleged errors, consultate approbatos auctores.
Dear Dr Ed,
I can’t think of a better approved authority to go to than St JPII. I don’t understand why you don’t defer to his “approved authority” in this matter. Why bother consulting a lessor authority?
A cardinal elector has the right to elect the successor to the See of Rome. Are you really asserting that Cardinals have the right to vote for a pope while there is still a pope? If not, it doesn’t make sense to accuse Pope Francis of exceeding the limit in UDG, because that limit is clearly defined in terms of a vacant See. Basically, as long as Francis can reasonably assume he will enjoy good health and not vacate the See until the POTENTIAL electors drops to 120 he seems to be within his rights. He could if necessary get potential electors who don’t plan to show, like O’Brian or those with ill health, to consider renouncing being a cardinal if he wishes to retire prematurely.
I really appreciate your expertise (when you are not undermining the auctoritate of the pope) and defer to your authority regarding canon 10 – I stand corrected regarding invalidity. I guess the election would be just illegal (which does matter for us anti-antinomians!). A finer point I would like to consult an approved expert on: Since an election with 125 electors seems merely illegal and not invalid, how can the pope-elect take up office when c. 332 defines this in terms of accepting a “legitimate” election?