“Preach always, and, when necessary, use words,” is a line frequently
(though likely apocryphally) attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.
The
papal version of the same idea might be formulated as, “Govern always,
and, when necessary, issue decrees.”
That is to say, pretty much everything a pope does exercises
leadership and shapes culture in the Church, whether or not it comes
wrapped in a binding magisterial declaration.
Today is an excellent
illustration of the point, as Pope Francis created 17 new cardinals in
an event called a “consistory,” 13 of whom will be eligible to elect his
successor.
Francis delivered a talk this morning, which was notable for its plea
to avoid in-fighting at a time when public crossfires involving bishops
seem increasingly common. In reality, however, the most important
statement of the day was made well in advance, in the form of his picks
for new Princes of the Church.
Here then are three take-aways from today’s consistory, which is the
third of Francis’s papacy and the first in which he’s awarded new red
hats to cardinals from the United States.
(As a footnote, the appropriate ecclesiastical verb for what’s
happening today is “create,” as in, the pope is “creating” 17 new
cardinals. That phraseology leads to the cynical old Roman joke that
only God and the pope can create something out of nothing!)
Consistory as Global Village
Francis is famously a pope of the peripheries, and nowhere is that
drive to lift up previously ignored or marginalized places more clear
than in how this pontiff awards red hats.
This time around, there are new cardinals from Papua New Guinea, the
Central African Republic, Bangladesh and Mauritius.
The last two,
Bangladesh and Mauritius, have a combined Catholic population that
doesn’t quite get to 700,000, making them essentially large parishes by
the standards of many other places.
Today’s consistory builds on the previous two held by Pope Francis,
in 2014 and 2015, in which he created cardinals from Nicaragua, Ivory
Coast, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Capo Verde, and the
Pacific island of Tonga.
(By the time Francis is done, it seems
plausible there won’t be an island nation left on earth without its own
cardinal.)
While the internationalization of the College of Cardinals dates back
at least to the era of Pope Paul VI in the late 1960s and 1970s,
eroding the traditional Italian stranglehold on the institution, what’s
striking under Francis is that his cardinals don’t just come from the
other usual centers of global Catholic power, but literally from all
over the map.
All this is calculated, of course, to ensure that the College of
Cardinals is better reflective of the entire 1.2-billion strong Catholic
Church around the world, especially places long accustomed to not
really having a voice.
Seen through a political lens, there’s another implication worth
considering: These appointments also make the next conclave, meaning the
next time cardinals gather to elect a pope, far more difficult to
handicap. Many of these cardinals represent cultures where the usual
taxonomy of left v. right simply don’t apply, and they’re not part of
the traditional networks of ecclesiastical influence and patronage.
As a result, they’re likely to bring fresh perspectives to the task
of picking a pope, one more difficult to anticipate and, therefore, even
more fascinating to watch unfold.
Shifting the balance of power in the U.S.
For the first time, Francis is creating new American cardinals: Blase
Cupich in Chicago, Joseph Tobin in Newark (formerly of Indianapolis),
and Kevin Farrell, head of his new department for family, laity and life
(formerly of Dallas.)
All three would be seen as center-left figures in some ways
reflecting the spirit of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago,
an approach to church life that appeared to recede in influence during
the years of St. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Just in the days around today’s consistory, Tobin was issuing
warnings about the church facing difficult years ahead fighting the
Trump administration over immigration and refugees, and Farrell was
chastising Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia over the
restrictive guidelines Chaput issued to implement Francis’s document on
the family, Amoris Laetitia.
Granted, the mere fact these three figures are now cardinals - two
residential, one based in the Vatican - doesn’t automatically alter the
landscape within the U.S. bishops’ conference.
In fact, a face-value
reading of the recent elections within the conference, in which Cardinal
Daniel DiNardo was chosen president and Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los
Angeles vice-president, would be that the center-right camp is still the
governing majority.
Inevitably, however, Cupich, Tobin and Farrell will now have greater
influence in American church affairs, including grooming other bishops
who could, over time, recalibrate the outlook and priorities of the
conference.
In any event, it’s clear that Francis was making a definite
ideological and pastoral statement with his American picks, which are
destined to reverberate for some time to come.
The incredible shrinking Vatican
As of today, Pope Francis has created 44 of the cardinals who will
elect his successor, of whom only six are Vatican officials.
In this
most recent crop, Farrell is the only one with a Vatican post, assuming
one doesn’t include the pope’s ambassador in Syria, Mario Zenari, who’s
part of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps.
For those keeping score, that means that only 13 percent of Francis’s
picks so far have gone to Vatican officials, whereas traditionally
Vatican prelates have counted for over a quarter of the College of
Cardinals, a share that was boosted under emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.
Obviously, the net effect of these selections over time will be to
reduce the influence of Vatican officials, not merely in the governance
of the Church but also in the selection of the next pope.
The argument for such a transition, of course, is that the Vatican is
supposed to be of service to the Church, not the other way around, and
ensuring that the whole Church is better reflected in making decisions
is a healthy thing.
On the other hand, Vatican officials often represent the
institutional memory of the Church and provide a firebreak against the
Church being swept away by the shifting tides of a given era’s fashions.
As a generalization, they often represent a sort of “continuity vote”
that can balance impulses for quick change.
A somewhat diminished “continuity vote” is thus another factor making
the future more uncertain, more difficult to forecast, and thus a more
compelling drama to watch.