In a book recently published, which, like a number of earlier publications, takes the form of a conversation with a (not necessarily) religious philosopher, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard comments on his thoughts at never being made a cardinal. In the past he has stated that it was no concern to him, not least as Pope Francis preferred to create cardinals from the peripheries of world and Church. Now that he has made Archbishop’s Léonard’s successor, Archbishop Jozef De Kesel, a cardinal, the comments can be seen in a new light.
Titled Un évêque dans le siècle, the new book is a conversation with liberal philosopher Drieu Godefridi, and was written before the news that Archbishop De Kesel would be made a cardinal. On Mr. Godefridi’s question if not being made a cardinal ever hurt for Msgr. Léonard, the latter responds:
“Hurt is too big a word. But it did surprise me since it is a tradition of two centuries. In the past there have been many archbishops of Mechelen who were never cardinals, but since two centuries it has become a sort of tradition. Should that remain so? When I thought about it, I told myself it didn’t. It is clear that the current Pope wants to appoint cardinals from countries which never had cardinals, to underline their importance, to not have a College of Cardinals which is too Euro- or Americanocentric. I think that is a good thing.”
Later in the conversation, he speaks some more about his personal feelings.
“It was clear, to return to my case, and despite everything a little surprising. It is a delicate thing to say about myself, but many have said so in my place: pastorally, intellectually, I have done work which few archbishops have managed. In the intellectual field that was Dechamps in Mechelen, who was a very good philosopher, an apologist too. As far as I am concerned, I have completed my task in a rather original way. One of my auxiliary bishops, by the way, has dared to write that I was the first archbishop of Mechelen to visit the entire archdiocese. He also lauds my work in the intellectual field. In short, [not receiving a cardinals’ hat] surprised me, disappointed me a little, but I got over it easily.”
Following the appointment of future Cardinal De Kesel, it is clear that Archbishop Léonard’s assumption that Pope Francis does not want to create cardinals simply because it goes with the see they’re in is not correct. That said, it is equally clear that Pope Francis chooses cardinals who fit a certain pastoral mold, and if these happen to be in traditionally cardinalatial sees, so be it. De Kesel in Mechelen-Brussels is one example, Osoro Sierra in Madrid and Cupich in Chicago are others.
While Archbishop Léonard would never express any doubts or questions he may have at the choice of Archbishop De Kesel for the red hat, others have. In more than a few places, it has been seen as a slighting of Archbishop Léonard, who is now the first archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels since 1832 to not be made a cardinal. While a cardinal’s hat should not be seen as a reward (except in those cases where it given to a retired priest or bishop well in his 80s or 90s), the question remains why Archbishop Léonard never received one. It is not because Mechelen-Brussels no longer has the status in the Church it has (although that status has obviously changed as the heartland of the Church shifts way from Europe). It is also not because, as some have said, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Archbishop Léonard’s predecessor, had not yet reached the age of 80. Danneels turned 80 in 2013, more than two years before the retirement of Archbishop Léonard.
Is it then because Archbishop Léonard did not meet the criteria of Pope Francis for the red hat? In a recent piece on Cardinal-designate John Ribat of Port Moresby, John Allen Jr. outlines the three criteria that the Pope seems to follow for making cardinals: being from the periphery, supporting a cause near to the Pope’s heart, and being his kind of guy. Archbishop Léonard does not tick the first box, but then again, neither does Archbishop De Kesel. If a cause can be attributed to Archbishop Léonard, it is evangelisation. Hard to go wrong there, although the ways of achieving it are varied, and Archbishop Léonard’s way of evangelisation through catechesis may not be that of Pope Francis, who has a more hands-on approach. And as for being the Pope’s kind of guy, that is hard to estimate. Archbishop Léonard was certainly not afraid to be among the people. From the very start of his time in Brussels, he went out to visit the deaneries of his archdioceses in cycles that he would simply repeat once completed. The smell of the sheep was not alien to him.
Still, discussing why one man is made a cardinal and the other is not is, to a large extent, a guessing game, and there will probably always be more suitable men than there are red hats to give out. That said, it is my opinion that Archbishop Léonard would have been a fine choice for cardinal. Whether Archbishop De Kesel will be, that remains to be seen. In his short time in Brussels he has said and done both positive and negative things (his defense of a hospital’s freedom to deny euthanasia comes to mind, but so does his strange decision to disband the Fraternity of the Holy Apostles).
It’s another Franciscan selection for the next consistory: Pope Francis has picked 17 new cardinals, 6 of whom come from countries which have never had a cardinal before. Unlike previous consistories, the majority of the new cardinals are metropolitan archbishops. There are still three bishops, one priest, one head of a curia dicastery and – for the first time since 1998- a serving Nuncio among the new batch. Only five of the new cardinals serve in Europa in North America. The rest are spread out over Africa, Asia, South America, Oceania and the Middle East. Although he apparently still felt obliged to fill some cardinalatial sees (Madrid, Chicago, Mechelen-Brussels), this is Francis making sure the College of Cardinals increasingly reflects the worldwide Church.
In the west, then, the chosen cardinals are seen in a far more political light. What are their positions on various topics within and outside the Church? And what does that say about the positions of Pope Francis on these same issues? Some of the new cardinals, such as Archbishop Cupich, De Kesel (at right) and Tobin are considered liberal on certain inter-ecclesiastic topics, and at the same time politically inclined in the same direction as the Holy Father, especially when it comes to the question of refugees in both Europe and North America, as well as gun control in the US. In general, their appointments are befitting of this Holy Year of Mercy.
Pope Francis also tends to choose more religious to become cardinals. Of the seventeen new cardinals, six belong to a religous order or congregation: Archbishop Nzalapainga and Bishop Piat are Spiritans, Archbishop D’Rozario (at left) is a Holy Cross Father, Archbishop Ribat is a Sacred Heart Missionary, Archbishop Tobin is a Redemptorist and Bishop Khoarai is an Oblate of Mary Immaculate. Pope St. John Paul II sometimes appointed more religious as cardinals, but that was in his mega-consistories of 2001 and 2003 of 42 and 30 cardinals respectively.
On the feast of the two foster fathers of the Church, Saints Peter and Paul, it’s also Pallium day. The new metropolitan archbishops come to Rome to receive the sign of their union with the Holy Father and take it back home to their provinces. But this time around we’ll see the introduction of the new form of the ceremony. While the archbishops still receive their pallia from the Pope, the official act of imposition will take place in their respective cathedrals, and it will be the Apostolic Nuncio, the official representative of the Pope, who will do the honours. This to emphasise the home churches over Rome, although most archbishops still travel to Rome to concelebrate today’s Mass with the Holy Father.
Archbishop Eamon Martin, Armagh, Northern Ireland (pictured at right before the tomb of St. John Paul II today).
There is one more archbishop who should receive the pallium, but who can’t because of the political situation in his country. He is Archbishop Paul Xiao Ze-Jiang, of Guiyang in China. While the Holy See recognises him as the archbishop of Guiyang, the Chinese government says he is merely the bishop of Guizhou, which is a circumscription they have created in 1999 out of Guiyang, Nanlong (the only suffragan diocese of Guiyang, without a bishop since 1952) and Shiqian (an apostolic prefecture without a prefect since 2011). It is unknown if and when Archbishop Xiao will receive his pallium.
The Holy See today announced that Pope Francis will create his second group of cardinals in a consistory on 14 February. As his first consistory included plenty of surprising choices, it can be safely assumed that the second will be no different. But perhaps we may make some guesses at who will be among the new princes of the Church.
In what could be called the most significant shakeup of the Curia since his pontificate began, Pope Francis today appointed Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera as the new archbishop of his native Valencia. This leaves the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments – which the cardinal headed since late 2008 – vacant, which is unusual in itself. Curial congregations usually only fall vacant when a sitting prefect dies. Reassignments are usually carefully planned so that when a prefect goes, his successor is already waiting in the wings.
As for his successor, the name of Archbishop Piero Marini continues being named. The erstwhile master of ceremonies under Pope Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI from 1987 to 2007 today heads the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses. As MC he was responsible for organising (and making significant stylistic choices for) the liturgical celebrations of the Pope, a task now performed by Msgr. Guido Marini, who is not related to the archbishop. Many have expressed serious concerns about the possibility that Archbishop Marini may succeed Cardinal Cañizares Llovera. Whereas the latter is known as the ‘little Ratzinger’ (shown above with ‘big’ Ratzinger), sharing the Pope emeritus’ focus on the Second Vatican Council as being in continuity with the past, Marini advocates it as a radical break with the past. And this shows in his liturgical choices.
In Caelo et in Terra 