Thank you for this informative article. When Pope Francis appoints Europeans to lead African or Asian sees and then names then cardinals (e.g., Cardinal López Romero, Cardinals-designate Mathieu and Vesco), do you classify them as European cardinals, or as African or Asian cardinals?
Since in this piece I'm primarily talking about what sees are represented by a cardinal, in a situation such as the bishop of Tehran being a priest born in Belgium, I'm counting the see as being in the Middle East/Asia/Pacific rather than looking at the cardinal's birthplace.
Good piece. Question I've always had: When does a cardinal turn 80? Is it midnight in Rome on the day of? Or is it midnight in the cardinal's locale? In other words, does a cardinal in Australia get a few extra hours to be eligible for a conclave than a cardinal in San Diego?
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer, though I'm of course always in favor of the cardinal from San Diego being eligible for a little less time ;-)
Cardinal John Njue, from Kenya, is an interesting case. Apparently, his exact date of birth is unknown. It used to be said that he was born in 1944, but more recently the Vatican has been saying he was born in 1946. So when exactly does he stop being able to vote in a Conclave?
It’s too bad more weight isn’t given to countries where mass attendance and vocations are high. We would have a lot more African Cardinals . As far as I’m concerned , they should have more representation. Maybe 20%
I appreciated this article. This helped me to understand better the make up of the College of Cardinals today. Thank you for all the hard work.
I have seen many observers note the geographic diversity and that this new diversity will change future conclaves. I am somewhat surprised by how many commentators seem to assume that Pope Francis's picking of cardinals is intended to simply make a mess or will make a future conclave surprising in its results. I disagree as I think there is a masterful intent behind the Pope’s way of selecting cardinals will give him more influence over his successor than may be readily apparent. I think you can see how Francis is attempting to influence a future conclave in three different ways.
First, as noted in this article the practice of selecting cardinals from numerous sees that are considered non-cardinalate leads to confusion about hierarchy and who answers to who within the global Church. Yet, I think that in naming some cardinals that are in cardinalate sees and many cardinals who have “lower” sees leads to there being a sort of hierarchy among the cardinals themselves. While there has always been the case with certain sees having more influence than others. In having a handful of cardinals that hold traditionally, cardinalate sees and others who hold “lower” offices could have an Orwellian effect of “Some cardinals are more equal than others” within the College as a whole. Not only limiting the number of cardinals that would be seen as papabile but limit the voices that would be seen as truly influential in a conclave. So Francis can select cardinals who do not offend conservatives without them being likely ever to become the Successor of Peter. So, while in principle, the College of Cardinals is more diverse, it seems to have given an even smaller group of cardinals a hand up in becoming the next pope.
Second, to buttress my point above if you look at notable snubs among that leading a cardinalate sees. One can see that beyond those who are open about their opposition to the Pope, even those who are moderates and align with Pope’s ideals in many ways. Such as Gomez in LA (a more moderate conservative that is outspoken on immigration and is from Central America) and Delpini in Milan (a man of the people who travels around Milan on a bike). Both men would be well suited to help Francis build a bridge to a part of the Church that feels beleaguered and excluded by the current Pontiff. But I think both are excluded to ensure that the Pontiff’s program for the Church’s renewal is continued after His death or resignation as both could be considered papabile if they were but cardinals.
Third, a similar strategy is at work in the notable snubs among those leading non-cardinalate sees like Álvarez in Nicaragua (Someone who has shown strong opposition to the Ortega regime. Which one would think the politically minded Pope would want to support. I don’t know his theology, but he has overseen a vocation boom in his diocese, and Francis seems to dislike bishops who inspire men to be priests in large numbers.) and Shevchuk in Ukraine (a staunch defender of his people in a conflict that Francis has taken a special interest in). Both shepherds would seem to represent the peripheries well but both men’s profiles could allow them to have influence with their peers in a conclave. I know some would say it is unlikely that an Eastern Catholic prelate be considered papabile. Still two bishops of higher profile in a conclave could give voice to differing program for the Church’s renewal that contradicts the current regime and undermine the well-laid plans for the Church’s future.
This shows that Pope Francis is a masterful reformer than many give him credit for, leading me to respect him even more. Even if I disagree with some apparent aspects of that reform. But even with all this said, a conclave is still hard to control, and despite the machinations of men, I would still expect unexpected things from a future conclave.
Thank you for this informative article. When Pope Francis appoints Europeans to lead African or Asian sees and then names then cardinals (e.g., Cardinal López Romero, Cardinals-designate Mathieu and Vesco), do you classify them as European cardinals, or as African or Asian cardinals?
Since in this piece I'm primarily talking about what sees are represented by a cardinal, in a situation such as the bishop of Tehran being a priest born in Belgium, I'm counting the see as being in the Middle East/Asia/Pacific rather than looking at the cardinal's birthplace.
Thank you!
Great question. I was also looking for data points on whether the cardinals are laden or unladen? One must know these things when one is pope.
What does it mean?
Haha!
May it not be any time soon, but the next conclave may be one for the books
Baselios Thottunkal is the head of the Syro-Malankara Church, not Syro-Malabar. Just fyi.
Good piece. Question I've always had: When does a cardinal turn 80? Is it midnight in Rome on the day of? Or is it midnight in the cardinal's locale? In other words, does a cardinal in Australia get a few extra hours to be eligible for a conclave than a cardinal in San Diego?
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer, though I'm of course always in favor of the cardinal from San Diego being eligible for a little less time ;-)
Cardinal John Njue, from Kenya, is an interesting case. Apparently, his exact date of birth is unknown. It used to be said that he was born in 1944, but more recently the Vatican has been saying he was born in 1946. So when exactly does he stop being able to vote in a Conclave?
The Vatican clarified that he will be eligible until January 1, 2026.
https://english.katholisch.de/artikel/52904-cardinal-gets-younger-and-remains-eligible-to-be-elected-pope
Cardinals from the peripheries trend conservative as do younger priests…
Agree except when they are a European cardinal sitting in the peripheries . But I am hoping for the best
I'm not so sure that is true.
It’s too bad more weight isn’t given to countries where mass attendance and vocations are high. We would have a lot more African Cardinals . As far as I’m concerned , they should have more representation. Maybe 20%
I appreciated this article. This helped me to understand better the make up of the College of Cardinals today. Thank you for all the hard work.
I have seen many observers note the geographic diversity and that this new diversity will change future conclaves. I am somewhat surprised by how many commentators seem to assume that Pope Francis's picking of cardinals is intended to simply make a mess or will make a future conclave surprising in its results. I disagree as I think there is a masterful intent behind the Pope’s way of selecting cardinals will give him more influence over his successor than may be readily apparent. I think you can see how Francis is attempting to influence a future conclave in three different ways.
First, as noted in this article the practice of selecting cardinals from numerous sees that are considered non-cardinalate leads to confusion about hierarchy and who answers to who within the global Church. Yet, I think that in naming some cardinals that are in cardinalate sees and many cardinals who have “lower” sees leads to there being a sort of hierarchy among the cardinals themselves. While there has always been the case with certain sees having more influence than others. In having a handful of cardinals that hold traditionally, cardinalate sees and others who hold “lower” offices could have an Orwellian effect of “Some cardinals are more equal than others” within the College as a whole. Not only limiting the number of cardinals that would be seen as papabile but limit the voices that would be seen as truly influential in a conclave. So Francis can select cardinals who do not offend conservatives without them being likely ever to become the Successor of Peter. So, while in principle, the College of Cardinals is more diverse, it seems to have given an even smaller group of cardinals a hand up in becoming the next pope.
Second, to buttress my point above if you look at notable snubs among that leading a cardinalate sees. One can see that beyond those who are open about their opposition to the Pope, even those who are moderates and align with Pope’s ideals in many ways. Such as Gomez in LA (a more moderate conservative that is outspoken on immigration and is from Central America) and Delpini in Milan (a man of the people who travels around Milan on a bike). Both men would be well suited to help Francis build a bridge to a part of the Church that feels beleaguered and excluded by the current Pontiff. But I think both are excluded to ensure that the Pontiff’s program for the Church’s renewal is continued after His death or resignation as both could be considered papabile if they were but cardinals.
Third, a similar strategy is at work in the notable snubs among those leading non-cardinalate sees like Álvarez in Nicaragua (Someone who has shown strong opposition to the Ortega regime. Which one would think the politically minded Pope would want to support. I don’t know his theology, but he has overseen a vocation boom in his diocese, and Francis seems to dislike bishops who inspire men to be priests in large numbers.) and Shevchuk in Ukraine (a staunch defender of his people in a conflict that Francis has taken a special interest in). Both shepherds would seem to represent the peripheries well but both men’s profiles could allow them to have influence with their peers in a conclave. I know some would say it is unlikely that an Eastern Catholic prelate be considered papabile. Still two bishops of higher profile in a conclave could give voice to differing program for the Church’s renewal that contradicts the current regime and undermine the well-laid plans for the Church’s future.
This shows that Pope Francis is a masterful reformer than many give him credit for, leading me to respect him even more. Even if I disagree with some apparent aspects of that reform. But even with all this said, a conclave is still hard to control, and despite the machinations of men, I would still expect unexpected things from a future conclave.