For round three, Pope Francis goes even further out

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.

After the consistory on 19 November, the number of electiors who can participate in a conclave will be 121. There are 111 cardinal electors now, but Cardinals Ortega y Alamino, López Rodríguez and Antonelli will turn 80 before the 19th. Following the 80th birthday of Cardinal Sarr on 28 November the number of cardinal electors will be at the ‘official’ maximum of 120 again.

A brief overview of the new cardinals:

• Archbishop Mario Zenari, Titular Archbishop of Zuglio and Apostolic Nuncio to Syria.
• Archbishop Dieudonné Nzapalainga, Metropolitan Archbishop of Bangui, Central African Republic.
• Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra, Metropolitan Archbishop of Madrid, Spain.
• Archbishop Sérgio Da Rocha, Metropolitan Archbishop of Brasília, Brazil.
• Archbishop Blase Joseph Cupich, Metropolitan Archbishop of Chicago, United States of America
• Archbishop Patrick D’Rozario, Metropolitan Archbishop of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
• Archbishop Baltazar Enrique Porras Cardozo, Metropolitan Archbishop of Mérida, Venezuela
• Archbishop Josef De Kesel, Metropolitan Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussel, Belgium.
• Bishop Maurice Piat, Bishop of Port-Louis, Mauritius.
• Bishop Kevin Joseph Farrell, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life.
• Archbishop Carlos Aguiar Retes, Metropolitan Archbishop of Tlalnepantla, Mexico.
• Archbishop John Ribat, Metropolitan Archbishop of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
• Archbishop Joseph William Tobin, Metropolitan Archbishop of Indianapolis, Unites States of America.
• Archbishop Anthony Soter Fernandez, Metropolitan Archbishop emeritus of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
• Bishop Renato Corti, Bishop emeritus of Novara, Italy.
• Bishop Sebastian Koto Khoarai, Bishop emeritus of Mohale’s Hoek, Lesotho.
• Father Ernest Simoni, priest of the Archdiocese of Shkodrë-Pult, Albania.

Some of these choices have come about through personal encounters the Holy Father has had or the circumstances in which the cardinals-to-be have to work, circumstances which are close to Pope Francis’ heart. Archbishop Zenari remains in Syria despite the horrors of war, Archbishop Nzapalainga hosted Pope Francis during his visit to the war-torn Central African Republic, and Father Simoni moved the Pope to tears with his lifestory of imprisonment, torture and hard labour under Albania’s communist regime.

^Seen here visiting an Internally Displaced Persons camp, Cardinal-elect Dieudonné Nzalapainga is an example of “a shepherd who smells like his sheep”.

The preference for the peripheries that Pope Francis has displayed time and again should also be clear from the list of new cardinals: The Central African Republic, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and Lesotho are not exactly major players in the Catholic world, but the selection of cardinals from these countries should perhaps not be seen as reflecting the role of the specific countries, but the parts of the world they are in, combined with the individual merits of the chosen prelates. Here we see a shift in the balance from Europe and North America to Africa, South America, southeast Asia and Oceania, parts of the world where the Church is growing or significantly stronger than in the secularised west. Parts of the world where the Church can have a hands-on role to play in the various social situations and circumstances people find themselves in: from war and terrorism to environmental challenges and increasing development and industralisation. Major change seems to be a deciding factor in the appointment of new cardinals.

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 has proven to not be too bothered with giving red hats to traditionally cardinalatial sees. In Europe, they get them in due time (with some exceptions, especially in Italy: Turin and Venice remain decidedly without cardinals at the helm), but the story is different across the pond. Despite their large Catholic populations, sees like Los Angeles and Philadelphia remain with a cardinal, despite having had them in the past.

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.

Of the seventeen new cardinals, fourteen will be Cardinal-Priests due to their being bishops outside of Rome, and the remaining three will be  Cardinal-Deacons (as they do not lead a diocese somewhere). All Cardinal-Priests receive a title church, and the Cardinal-Deacons a deaconry; a church in Rome of which they are the theoretical shepherd, thus making them a part of the clergy of Rome working with the bishop of that city. In practice, they have no influence in the running of their title church or deaconry, although their coat of arms is displayed there, and they take official possession of it some time after creation as cardinal.

While no Pope is obliged to use any of the available vacant titles and deaconries, and he is free to create new ones as he sees fit, some of these churches do stay in the family, so to speak. There are currently fourteen title churches vacant, so there is no pressing need to create new ones. Pope Francis has in the past shown to sometimes favour continuity in the granting of these titles (for example, he gave the title church he had as a cardinal, San Roberto Bellarmino, to Cardinal Mario Poli, who had succeeded him as archbishop of Buenos Aires). By that logic, we could guess that the church of San Bartolomeo all’Isola could be given to Archbishop Cupich, since it was the title church of his predecessor in Chicago, Cardinal Francis George. The other American cardinals could receive Santa Croce in Via Flaminia or Santi Giovanni e Paolo, as they were previously held by Amerian cardinals (Baum and Egan) as well.

For the three Cardinal-Deacons there is a choice of 10 vacant deaconries, so any guess is as good as the next, really.

Photo credit: [2] Catholic Herald, [3] BELGA, [4] Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Bangladesh

Advertisement

From the front row – new interview with Archbishop Gänswein

An interesting interview in Christ & Welt, a weekly supplement to Die Zeit in Germany, with Archbishop Georg Gänswein yesterday. It sheds some interesting lights on recent developments in the Vatican, such as Pope Francis’ Christmas talk to the Curia, the Pope’s relationship with the media, the Synod and also retired Pope Benedict XVI and some personal touches. Worth a read:

C&W: At Christmas Pope Francis caused some furore with his talk about fifteen diseases of the Roman Curia. You were seated directly next to the Pope. At what point did you stop counting?

Georg Gänswein: As Prefect of the Papal Household I sat, as ever on such occasions, at the Pope’s right. And as ever I had a copy of the talk in my briefcase, but I hadn’t had the time to read it beforehand. When the list of diseases began I thought to myself, “Now it’s going to be interesting”, and it became ever more interesting. I counted until the ninth disease…

What went through your head?

Normally the Pope uses the Christmas reception for the Curia to look back on the past year and look ahead to the coming one. It was different this time. Pope Francis preferred to hold up a mirror of conscience to the cardinals and bishops, among them a few who were retired…

Did you feel like it appealed to you?

Of course I asked myself, “Who does this concern? What disease affects you? What needs to be corrected?” At one point I had to think of my many moving boxes.

Do you mean the anecdote about the moving of a Jesuit with countless possessions? Francis had said that moving was a sign of the “disease of hoarding”.

Exactly. Since leaving the Apostolic Palace after the retirement of Pope Benedict in February of 2013 more than a few of my things are still in boxes in a storeroom. But I can’t see a sign of disease in that.

What did Pope Francis intend with this act of flagellation? It could be demotivating.

That is a question that many of my colleagues also asked. Pope Francis has been in office for almost two years now and knows the Curia pretty well. He obviously thought it necessary to speak clearly and to cause an examination of conscience.

What were the reactions?

It was a treat for the media, of course. During the talk I could already see the headlines: Pope castigates Curia prelates; Pope reads his coworkers the law! Sadly, outwardly it gave the impression that there was a rift between the Pope and the Curia. That impression is deceiving, and does not coincide with reality. But the address drowned that out.

Was the talk criticised internally?

The reactions ranged from surprise to shock and incomprehension.

Perhaps with Francis, the Curia needs to adjust to permanent spiritual exercises?

It has long been adjusted to that. Pope Francis makes no secret of his religious formation. He is a Jesuit, shaped through and through by the spirituality of the founder of his order, Saint Ignatius of Loyola.

What are your thoughts about Francis, two years after his election?

Pope Francis is a man who has made it clear from the outset that he deals differently with things that he sees differently. That is true for his choice of living, the car he drives, the entire process of audiences in general and especially for protocol. One could think that he was getting used to things in the beginning and wanted a significant degree of flexibility. By now it has become standard. The Holy Father is a man of extraordinary creativity and Latin American zest.

Many still ask where we are going?

If you listen attentively to the words of the Pope, you will hear a clear message in them. Nevertheless, the question continuously arises of where Francis wants to lead the Church, what is his goal?

One year ago you said, “We are still waiting for substantial standards.” Can these now be seen?

Yes, much more clearly than a year ago. Consider the Apostolic Letter  Evangelii gaudium. In it he has presented a compass for his pontificate. In addition he has published important documents and given major addresses over the course of the year, such as in Strasbourg for the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. Contours have become clearly visible and clear priorities were set.

Such as?

The most important priority is mission, evangelisation. This aspect is like a red thread. No internal navelgazing, no self-reference, but sharing the Gospel with the world. That is the motto.

Do you understand Francis George, the retired archbishop of Chicago, who criticised the fact that the words of the Pope are often ambivalent?

There have indeed been cases in which the Vatican spokesman had to clarify matters after specific publications. Corrections are necessary when certain statements lead to misunderstandings which can be collected from certain sites.

Does Francis have a better grip of the media than his predecessor Benedict?

Francis deals with the media offensively. He used them intensively and directly.

Also more skilful?

Yes, he uses them very skilfully.

Who are actually his closest advisors?

This questions always and consistently goes around. I don’t know.

With the Synods on the pastoral care for families this past and the coming autumn, Francis created a focal point. Especially the question of allowing divorced and remarried faithful access to the sacraments causes much disagreement. Some also have the impression that Francis is more concerned with pastoral care than with doctrine…

I do not share that impression. It creates an artificial opposition which does not exist. The Pope is the first guarantor and keeper of the doctrine of the Church and at the same the first shepherd, the first pastor. Doctrine and pastoral care are not in opposition, they are like twins.

Do the current and the retired Pope take opposite views in the debate about divorced and remarried Catholics?

I know of no doctrinal statements from Pope Francis which are contrary to the statements of his predecessor. That would be absurd too. It is one thing to emphasise the pastoral efforts more clearly because the situation requires it. It is something else entirely to make a change in teaching. I can only act pastorally sensitive, consistent and conscientious when I do so on the basis of full Catholic teaching. The substance of the sacraments is not left to the discretion of pastors, but has been given to the Church by the Lord. That is also and especially true for the sacrament of marriage.

Was there a visit of some cardinals to Benedict during the Synod, with the request that he intervene to rescue the dogma?

There has not been such a visit to Pope Benedict. A supposed intervention by the Pope emeritus is pure invention.

How does Benedict respond to the attempts by traditionalist circles to recognise him as an antipope?

It was not traditionalist circles who attempted that, but representatives of the theological profession and some journalists. Speaking of an antipope is simply stupid, and also irresponsible.  That goes in the direction of theological arson.

Recently there was excitement surrounding a contribution in the recently published fourth volume of the Collected Works of Joseph Ratzinger. The author changed some conclusions to the topic of the divorced and remarried in a stricter sense. Does Benedict want to involve himself with this in the Synod debate?

Not at all. The revision of said article from 1972 was completed and sent to the publisher long before the Synod. It must be remembered that every author has the right to make changes in his writings. Every informed person knows that Pope Benedict has not shared the conclusions of said contribution since 1981, which is more than 30 years! As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he has expressed this clearly in various comments.

The timing of the publication of the new edition to coincide with the Synod was then anything but happy…

The fourth volume of the Collected Works, in which the article is printed, was supposed to be published in 2013. The publication was delayed for various reasons and happened only in 2014. That a Synod on the topic of the family would take place at that time, was absolutely unforeseen when the planning of the publication of the separate volumes was made.

Upon his retirement, Benedict XVI said that he would be living “hidden from the world”. He continues to make appearances, however. Why?

When he is present at important Church events, it is because he is personally invited by Pope Francis, for example when he took part in the consistory of last February, the canonisation of John Paul II and John XXIII in April and also the beatification of Paul VI in October. He has also written a greeting for the inauguration of the Auditorium Maximum of the Pontifical Urbaniana University in Rome, which was named after him. Pope Benedict was invited for that, but did not accept that invitation.

In the greeting, which you read out on his behalf at the time, he however makes clear theological statements. “The elimination of truth is lethal for the faith,” he wrote.

The greeting was an impressive contribution to the topic of “Truth and Mission”. You could hear a pin drop, it was so quiet during the reading in the crowded auditorium. Content-wise, it was a theological classic. Pope Francis, who had received the text from Benedict beforehand, was much impressed and had thanked him for it.

Does Benedict sometimes speak about his retirement? Is he relieved?

He is at peace with himself and convinced that the decision was right and necessary. It was a decision of conscience that was well prayed and suffered over, and in that man stands alone before God.

You struggled with Benedict’s historical retirement in February of 2013. How do you look back on this step now?

It is true that the decision was difficult for me. It was not easy to accept it internally. I struggled to cope. The fight is now long since over.

You swore to be loyal to Benedict to the death. Does that also mean that you’ll remain at his side, and also in the Vatican?

On the day of his election as Pope I promised to help him in vita et in morte. Of course I did not take a retirement into account at that time. But the promise is still true and remains valid.

Bishops should be shepherds. As archbishop in the Roman Curia, do you sometimes feel like a shepherd without a flock?

Yes, sometimes. But I am getting more and more invitations for confirmations, anniversary Masses and other celebrations. Initially I responded somewhat defensive to those and accepted only a few. But that has changed lately. Direct contact with the faithful is very important. That is why I accept pastoral duties whenever it is possible and compatible with my other obligations. That is both good and necessary. And it is also the best medication against one of the diseases of the Curia mentioned by Pope Francis: the danger of becoming a bureaucrat.

Enter the electors

Today, all the cardinals of the Church received the official letter summoning them to Rome. Cardinal Sodano, as dean of the College of Cardinals, signed the letter. Cardinal Simonis, emeritus archbishop of Utrecht, was one of the cardinals who received the summons, although, like many others, he is already in Rome. The image below shows the letter in the hands of the cardinal, who won’t  be able to vote in the conclave, as he is over the age of 80. But all cardinals, elector or not, are expected to take their responsibilities in managing the goods and needs of the Church and the faithful during the sede vacante, as well as preparing for the conclave.Cardinal Sodano’s letter invites the cardinals to the first two General Congregations on Monday. A date for the conclave may be decided upon then, but that is by no means certain. All indications are that the cardinals want time to talk and think.

The electors number 117, although two of them have chosen to remain at home. So here they are, the 115 cardinal electors who will soon be entering the conclave, which they will not be leaving until they have elected a new Supreme Pontiff. As Emeritus Pope Benedict (how odd it is to write that!) said yesterday morning, the new Pope is among them.

A short primer on who’s who among the electors, ordered by precedence (and from left to right and top to bottom, starting at top left and ending at bottom right, in the collage above):

• Giovanni Cardinal Re, Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Bishops
• Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State and Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church
• Antonios Cardinal Naguib, Patriarch emeritus of Alexandria of the Copts
• Béchara Cardinal Raï, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites
• Godfried Cardinal Danneels, Archbishop emeritus of Mechelen-Brussels
• Joachim Cardinal Meisner, Archbishop of Köln
• Nicolás Cardinal López Rodríguez, Archbishop of Santo Domingo
• Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles
• Jaime Cardinal Ortega y Alamino, Archbishop of Havana
• Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Archbishop emeritus of Montréal
• Vinko Cardinal Puljic, Archbishop of Vrhbosna
• Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez, Archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara
• Antonio Cardinal Rouco Varela, Archbishop of Madrid
• Dionigi Cardinal Tettamanzi, Archbishop emeritus of Milan
• Polycarp Cardinal Pengo, Archbishop of Dar-es-Salaam
• Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna
• Norberto Cardinal Rivera Carrera, Archbishop of Mexico
• Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago
• Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, President of the Congregation for Catholic Education
• Crescenzio Cardinal Sepe, Archbishop of Naples
• Walter Cardinal Kasper, President emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
• Ivan Cardinal Dias, Prefect emeritus of the Congregation fo the Evangelisation of Peoples
• Geraldo Cardinal Agnelo, Archbishop emritus of São Salvador da Bahia
• Audrys Cardinal Backis, Archbishop of Vilnius
• Francisco Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa, Archbishop emritus of Santiago
• Julio Cardinal Terrazas Sandoval, Archbishop of Santa Cruz de la Sierra
• Wilfrid Cardinal Napier, Archbishop of Durban
• Oscar Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, Archbishop of Tegucigalpa
• Juan Cardinal Cipriani Thorne, Archbishop of Lima
• Cláudio Cardinal Hummes, Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Clergy
• Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires
• José Cardinal Policarpo, Patriarch of Lisbon
• Severino Cardinal Poletto, Archbishop of Turin
• Karl Cardinal Lehmann, Bishop of Mainz
• Angelo Cardinal Scola, Archbishop of Milan
• Anthony Cardinal Okogie, Archbishop emeritus of Lagos
• Gabriel Cardinal Zubeir Wako, Archbishop of Khartoum
• Carlos Cardinal Amigo Vallejo, Archbishop emeritus of Sevilla
• Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia
• Ennio Cardinal Antonelli, President emeritus of the Pontifical Council for the Family
• Peter Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
• Telesphore Cardinal Toppo, Archbishop of Ranchi
• George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
• Josip Cardinal Bozanic, Archbishop of Zagreb
• Jean-Baptiste Cardinal Pham Minh Man, Archbishop of Ho Chi Minh City
• Philippe Cardinal Barbarin, Archbishop of Lyon
• Péter Cardinal Erdö, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest
• Marc Cardinal Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
• Agostino Cardinal Vallini, Archpriest of St. John Lateran
• Jorge Cardinal Urosa Savino, Archbishop of Caracas
• Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard, Archbishop of Bordeaux
• Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
• Seán Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston
• Stanislaw Cardinal Dziwisz, Archbishop of Kraków
• Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna
• Seán Cardinal Brady, Archbishop of Armagh
• Lluís Cardinal Martínez Sistach, Archbishop of Barcelona
• André Cardinal Vingt-Trois, Archbishop of Paris
• Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco, Archbishop of Genoa
• Théodore-Adrien Cardinal Sarr, Archbishop of Dakar
• Oswald Cardinal Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay
• Francisco Cardinal Robles Ortega, Archbishop of Guadalajara
• Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston
• Odilo Cardinal Scherer, Archbishop of São Paulo
• John Cardinal Njue, Archbishop of Nairobi
• Raúl Cardinal Vela Chiriboga, Archbishop emeritus of Quito
• Laurent Cardinal Monsengwo Pasinya, Archbishop of Kinshasa
• Paolo Cardinal Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo
• Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington
• Raymundo Cardinal Assis, Archbishop of Aparecida
• Kazimierz Cardinal Nycz, Archbishop of Warsaw
• Albert Cardinal Patabendige Don, Archbishop of Colombo
• Reinhard Cardinal Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising
• George Cardinal Alencherry, Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly of the Syro-Malabars
• Thomas Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto
• Dominik Cardinal Duka, Archbishop of Prague
• Willem Cardinal Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht
• Giuseppe Cardinal Betori, Archbishop of Florence
• Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York
• Rainer Cardinal Woelki, Archbishop of Berlin
• John Cardinal Tong Hon, Bishop of Hong Kong
• Baselios Cardinal Thottunkal, Major Archbishop of Trivandrum of the Syro-Malankars
• John Cardinal Onaiyekan, Archbishop of Abuja
• Jesús Cardinal Salazar Gómez, Archbishop of Bogotá
• Luis Cardinal Tagle, Archbishop of Manila
• Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue
• Attilio Cardinal Nicora, President of the Financial Information Authority
• William Cardinal Levada, Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
• Franc Cardinal Rode,  Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
• Leonardo Cardinal Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches
• Giovanni Cardinal Lajolo, President emeritus of the Governorate of the Vatican City State
• Paul Cardinal Cordes, President emeritus of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”
• Angelo Cardinal Comastri, Archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica
• Stanislaw Cardinal Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity
• Raffaele Cardinal Farina, Librarian emeritus of the Vatican Apostolic Library
• Angelo Cardinal Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints
• Robert Cardinal Sarah, President of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”
• Francesco Cardinal Monterisi, Archpriest emeritus of St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls
• Raymond Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
• Kurt Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
• Paolo Cardinal Sardi, Partron of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta
• Mauro Cardinal Piacenza, Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy
• Velasio Cardinal De Paolis, Pontifical Delegate for the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ
• Gianfranco Cardinal Ravasi, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture
• Fernando Cardinal Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples
• Manuel Cardinal Monteiro de Castro, Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary
• Santos Cardinal Abril y Castelló, Archpriest of St. Mary Major
• Antonio Cardinal Vegliò, President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People
• Giuseppe Cardinal Bertello, President of the Governorate of the Vatican City State
• Francesco Cardinal Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
• João Cardinal Bráz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
• Edwin Cardinal O’Brien, Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem
• Domenico Cardinal Calcagno, President of the Adminstration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See
• Giuseppe Cardinal Versaldi, President of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See
• James Cardinal Harvey, Archpriest of St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls

Who we will see in white on the balcony of St. Peter’s sometime later this month remains anyone’s guess. Only Our Lord knows and, as Cardinal Pell said, it is up to the electors to find out.

Photo credit: [1] RKK.nl, [2] collage my own.

How bishops can use social media

The American bishops have collectively given a prime example of how prelates can use social media  such as Twitter to inform and involve their audience and flock (which is not always the same thing). They have been meeting to elect, among others, a new chairman to succeed Francis Cardinal George, and as the voting progressed, the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) has been using its Twitter account to immediately share the results. It brings the goings-on to live in a way that very few Church organs have managed to do. Blogging priests and bishops (few as they are) do it, but the impulse of an official organisation active in social media is not to be dismissed out of hand.

The Church in the United States is important in that it has a relatively strong media presence, both on the Internet and outside it. In the west especially, its bishops will be the standard bearers of a Church and a faith that continues to be marginalised, by the actions of others or itself. Who gets to lead this flock of prelates is therefore fairly influential, and it is good to see that popular, sensible and orthodox Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York won the vote for president. His election is radical in that the vote usually goes to the sitting vice-president. That would have been, in this case, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, who has been criticised in orthodox blogs for both his perceived liberal thoughts and his handling of the case of a priest who ended up abusing a number of boys.