There’s much talk of a papal consistory this November and, as Rocco Palmo points out, the name of Archbishop Vincent Nichols figures prominently on the lists of possible new cardinals that have been published simultaneously by Il Foglio’s Paolo Rodari, La Stampa’s Giacomo Galeazzi and Il Giornale’s Andrea Tornielli. The Archbishop of Westminster finds himself in the same odd position as his opposite number in New York, Timothy Dolan – tipped for a red hat while his predecessor is still alive and of voting age.
There’s no precedent for this in either See.
Another point Palmo makes: lots of cardinals are due to retire in the next couple of years, giving Pope Benedict XVI the opportunity to elevate men who have already passed the “enhanced quality-control checks Papa Ratzinger applies to his appointments”.
That’s nicely put. I can think of living cardinals who woudn’t have passed those tests, can’t you?
It all bodes well for what we should all pray is an extremely distant conclave.
Anyway, I personally hope that Archbishop Nichols does receive the honour, though I suspect that some English Catholics will not be so keen. And no, I’m not talking about a certain resident of west London who’s currently spending a lot of time in Rome trying to ensure the elevation of wet clergy.
Lots of the faithful are disappointed by +Vincent’s continued indulgence of the Catholic Education Service – and that’s not me stirring up trouble, that’s a simple fact of which he ought to be aware.
Yet in other respects he’s a strong leader, and I like the way he’s frozen out members of the old guard and superannuated Tabletistas who’ve tried to perpetuate +Cormac’s ancien regime.
He doesn’t listen to traddies, either, but then he never did.
Nor does he go out of his way to charm toffs or former prime ministers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: TCUK