It is interesting he did name a few non-Bishops as cardinals, though all three are over 80, so that was probably somewhat symbolic. I am still waiting for a modern Pope to have the gumption to name a Cardinal Deacon. (It has been done in the past.)
Amen, Archer. There is ample historical precedent for it.
I also agree that the three names at the end of the list are particularly striking and intriguing. However, there is also precedent for the naming of non-bishops to the College of Cardinals. Not least, there was John Henry Newman+, made a cardinal near the end of his long life by Leo XIII, and the more recent example of American theologian Avery Dulles+ being made a cardinal by John Paul II, despite the fact that he was a Jesuit, and historically, popes have been reluctant to make Jesuits cardinals (because of their special fourth vow, of absolute obedience to the pope).
Now I’m going to have to do some research and find out why those three men were deemed so wise and important as to deserve a cardinal’s hat.
Naturally, a big question now is, how do these appointments alter the balance of power within the total college when it comes time to elect a new pope? What trends do they show in terms of the overall makeup of the whole group? I was surprised at how few non-Europeans there are in this list of 22. Not least, notice how few Africans there are.
Namely, no Africans at all. Yet there are no less than six Italians.
Perhaps the most significant appointment, internationally speaking, is the Chinese man, the archbishop of Hong Kong. The struggle over who gets to control the Chinese Catholic Church continues…
I was struck that there were no Africans either, and only a few Germans. Given the Pope is actually German, that surprised me a bit as well. I was not surprised by the number of Italians…that’s pretty typical and has been for quite some time. I was interested in the Indian from the Syro-Malabar church, who is relatively young to be a Cardinal (66).
Of the ones of which I am familiar, they seem to be pretty much of the same theological cloth as Pope Benedict. The Dutch Archbishop is extremely conservative, much to the chagrin of the secularist press in Holland.
Becker is certainly German and pretty conservative as well, as he was a consultor on the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, particularly in dealing with the Society of Pius X. For the SSPX people to even talk to him was says something about his theology and views.
Archbishop Edwin O’Brien used to be the Archbishop of Military Chaplaincies. I knew someone when he was a priest in Vietnam. They thought highly of him. He had no problem parachuting out of planes to take Communion to soldiers on the ground. I can’t speak to where he is on issues, but he’s certainly a good guy from what I’ve heard. He was certainly no Vatican II Peace Out Tree Hugging Hippie Cleric.
Duka of Prague was basically forced to work in a Communist factory/gulag until Czechoslovakia got out from under the Soviet thumb. He was certainly of the John Paul II Anti-communist variety. He’s worked hard to get the Catholic church property back from what was stolen by the Communist state.
I don’t know much about the other ones, but they seem to be of the same cut of cloth as Pope Benedict himself.
[blockquote] “It is interesting he did name a few non-Bishops as cardinals, though all three are over 80, so that was probably somewhat symbolic. I am still waiting for a modern Pope to have the gumption to name a Cardinal Deacon. (It has been done in the past.) ”
“By that, I mean a vocational deacon that has never been an actual priest and never will be.” [/blockquote]
Archer of the Forest, I know I’m a scurvy protestant and all, but I believe the term you are looking for is a “Lay Cardinal”. This meant anyone who was not a priest or bishop when they were made a Cardinal. The practice of appointing deacons as Cardinals was abolished early in the 20th century, and I believe that is now in Canon Law, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
All Cardinals have to be at least priests at the time of their appointment and are usually consecrated as bishops immediately. However the Pope can grant a dispensation from this and usually does if they are over 80. Whether they are bishops or priests, they are entitled to wear pontificals.
The term “Cardinal Deacon” doesn’t mean that the relevant cardinal is a Deacon, rather it is a gradation within the college of Cardinals – the most senior are called Cardinal Bishops, the next down are called Cardinal Priests and the lowest tier are called Cardinal Deacons. But in this day and age, none were Deacons at the time of their appointment.
Yes, I understand that. That’s why I am waiting for a Pope to actually have the gumption to go back to actual church tradition on this. The abolishment of the “lay cardinal” as it is sometimes referred too erroneously is actually a misnomer because the vocational diaconate is an ordination in its own right according the canons of the Nicea.
It is interesting he did name a few non-Bishops as cardinals, though all three are over 80, so that was probably somewhat symbolic. I am still waiting for a modern Pope to have the gumption to name a Cardinal Deacon. (It has been done in the past.)
By that, I mean a vocational deacon that has never been an actual priest and never will be.
Amen, Archer. There is ample historical precedent for it.
I also agree that the three names at the end of the list are particularly striking and intriguing. However, there is also precedent for the naming of non-bishops to the College of Cardinals. Not least, there was John Henry Newman+, made a cardinal near the end of his long life by Leo XIII, and the more recent example of American theologian Avery Dulles+ being made a cardinal by John Paul II, despite the fact that he was a Jesuit, and historically, popes have been reluctant to make Jesuits cardinals (because of their special fourth vow, of absolute obedience to the pope).
Now I’m going to have to do some research and find out why those three men were deemed so wise and important as to deserve a cardinal’s hat.
Naturally, a big question now is, how do these appointments alter the balance of power within the total college when it comes time to elect a new pope? What trends do they show in terms of the overall makeup of the whole group? I was surprised at how few non-Europeans there are in this list of 22. Not least, notice how few Africans there are.
David Handy+
Namely, no Africans at all. Yet there are no less than six Italians.
Perhaps the most significant appointment, internationally speaking, is the Chinese man, the archbishop of Hong Kong. The struggle over who gets to control the Chinese Catholic Church continues…
David Handy+
I was struck that there were no Africans either, and only a few Germans. Given the Pope is actually German, that surprised me a bit as well. I was not surprised by the number of Italians…that’s pretty typical and has been for quite some time. I was interested in the Indian from the Syro-Malabar church, who is relatively young to be a Cardinal (66).
Of the ones of which I am familiar, they seem to be pretty much of the same theological cloth as Pope Benedict. The Dutch Archbishop is extremely conservative, much to the chagrin of the secularist press in Holland.
Becker is certainly German and pretty conservative as well, as he was a consultor on the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, particularly in dealing with the Society of Pius X. For the SSPX people to even talk to him was says something about his theology and views.
Archbishop Edwin O’Brien used to be the Archbishop of Military Chaplaincies. I knew someone when he was a priest in Vietnam. They thought highly of him. He had no problem parachuting out of planes to take Communion to soldiers on the ground. I can’t speak to where he is on issues, but he’s certainly a good guy from what I’ve heard. He was certainly no Vatican II Peace Out Tree Hugging Hippie Cleric.
Duka of Prague was basically forced to work in a Communist factory/gulag until Czechoslovakia got out from under the Soviet thumb. He was certainly of the John Paul II Anti-communist variety. He’s worked hard to get the Catholic church property back from what was stolen by the Communist state.
I don’t know much about the other ones, but they seem to be of the same cut of cloth as Pope Benedict himself.
It was John XIIII who decreed that all cardinals had to be bishops,although Cardinal Dulles was granted an exemption due to his age.
John Allen has a helpful analysis :
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/five-observations-new-cardinals
[blockquote] “It is interesting he did name a few non-Bishops as cardinals, though all three are over 80, so that was probably somewhat symbolic. I am still waiting for a modern Pope to have the gumption to name a Cardinal Deacon. (It has been done in the past.) ”
“By that, I mean a vocational deacon that has never been an actual priest and never will be.” [/blockquote]
Archer of the Forest, I know I’m a scurvy protestant and all, but I believe the term you are looking for is a “Lay Cardinal”. This meant anyone who was not a priest or bishop when they were made a Cardinal. The practice of appointing deacons as Cardinals was abolished early in the 20th century, and I believe that is now in Canon Law, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
All Cardinals have to be at least priests at the time of their appointment and are usually consecrated as bishops immediately. However the Pope can grant a dispensation from this and usually does if they are over 80. Whether they are bishops or priests, they are entitled to wear pontificals.
The term “Cardinal Deacon” doesn’t mean that the relevant cardinal is a Deacon, rather it is a gradation within the college of Cardinals – the most senior are called Cardinal Bishops, the next down are called Cardinal Priests and the lowest tier are called Cardinal Deacons. But in this day and age, none were Deacons at the time of their appointment.
Yes, I understand that. That’s why I am waiting for a Pope to actually have the gumption to go back to actual church tradition on this. The abolishment of the “lay cardinal” as it is sometimes referred too erroneously is actually a misnomer because the vocational diaconate is an ordination in its own right according the canons of the Nicea.