A Consistory for Inconsistent Cardinals (1)

He broadens his point: “The impression that the average of the new cardinals is not of a particularly high standard can be extended to the entire electoral body of the College of Cardinals. This is a criticism levelled at the pontificate by many, and concerns both the Roman Curia (Dicasteries, Offices, and related Institutions) and episcopal appointments. [...]

“An analysis of the 163 cardinals created by Francis during these almost 12 years of his pontificate (therefore including the most recent 21 to be created on December 8), focusing on their biographies, shows that there is a lack of great figures, with a light of their own—pastors, of course, but also powerful intellectuals, with a convincing and recognized philosophical, theological, and canonical formation.”

Luis Badilla points out the danger of such a characterless college of cardinals in a conclave charged with electing the next Pope. For while many of them are mediocre, a few are skillful and know how to influence the hesitant.

These are the so-called “kingmaker” cardinals, whose role can be decisive, “for quite a few cardinal electors, in the end, when the road narrows and confusion increases, rely on the advice of another; they vote for a candidate because they ‘were asked by a famous and well-known cardinal brother, in whom they trust.’ [...]

“This scheme, in a possible Conclave with many minor figures, as is the case today, could take control of the situation. So a great risk opens up: that in the end, in the Sistine Chapel, there will be three or four 'kingmaker' cardinals who decide, by playing the final outcome, especially with the undecided, the perplexed, and the conflicted.”

“Copy and paste” Cardinals

This threat is very real when you consider how the Pope chooses his cardinals. Luis Badilla reveals: “Pope Bergoglio, gradually but firmly, has changed the profile of the cardinals in recent years, because he has changed the criteria for their selection.

In reality, these 'new' criteria are unknown, with the exception of two terms that have become media mantras: the internationalization of the College of Cardinals [...] and the peripheries, a word so arbitrarily misused that it now communicates little or nothing.”

Here, the Vaticanist castigates “that sort of ‘pride’ that some in the Church display when, for example, a cardinal is created for a diocese whose percentage of the faithful is close to zero, while at the same time denying the purple to one of the largest dioceses in the world.” In reality, he denounces, this practice is “an error that greatly damages the Church and has nothing to do with the very right choice to bring the papacy closer to the peripheries.”

He goes on to note the result of this deliberately “peripheral” recruitment policy: “To date, almost all of the cardinals created by Pope Francis (163 as of December 8) are people who behave like clones of the Pontiff, or rather, as has been written in recent days, ‘they are copy and paste cardinals.’ [...]

“[T]he Pontiff's behavior [...] reduces the choice to the criteria of loyalty and discards those of competence. Such conduct also has other consequences that extend over time. For example, healthy, creative dissent is stifled, and parrhesia [frankness] (“necessary for the Pope himself,” Joseph Ratzinger said) is inhibited.

“Instead, by doing so, opening one's mouth, honesty, and coherence of thought are discouraged; hypocrisy and personal convenience are authorized and fed; in short, we end up excusing and legitimizing papolatry, a sin that in the history of the Church has caused gigantic and irreparable damage forever.”

Always well-informed, Luis Badilla repeats what he wrote in his letter of the end of last June: “This time the list of new cardinals will be subjected to merciless investigations and, in view of a Conclave, a certain press will carry out what it has been preparing for some years: unveiling the public and private details of each of the cardinal electors, especially the ‘papabili.’ The maneuvering over the dossiers has been in the works for a long time.”

— He could not have been more right; three months before the publication (October 6) of the list of future cardinals: one of the candidates has already renounced the purple...

Resigning Before Being Made Cardinal

On the Messa in Latino blog of October 29, Luis Badilla reports on the case of former future Indonesian cardinal, Bishop Paskalis Bruno Syukur. Officially, the Vatican has reported: “Pope Francis has accepted the request of His Excellency Bishop Paskalis Bruno Syukur of Bogor, Indonesia, not to be created Cardinal in the upcoming Consistory.

“His Excellency's request is motivated by his wish to grow further in priestly life, in his service of the Church and the people of God.” In reality, the journalist writes: “It is clear that Bishop Syukur wanted to become a cardinal, and how! From October 6 to 22, he took part in numerous festivities, celebrations, receptions, and tributes for his appointment as cardinal by Pope Francis [...]

“In recent weeks, the former cardinal-elect has given numerous interviews of all kinds to get up to speed with Pope Bergoglio's themes, his language, and the media charisma necessary for a cardinal of Pope Francis. For 16 days, the then cardinal-elect publicly behaved publicly just as he was elected to receive the purple.”

But several newspapers then highlighted two unfortunate points. Luis Badilla details: “Firstly, the real reasons why Bishop Paskalis Bruno Syukur renounced the title of cardinal, according to the local press (‘Tempo’ / AFP), are unfortunately to be associated with the usual drama of pedophilia that the Church is unable to rid itself of.

Jakarta's Tempo weekly ‘Tempo,’ described as ‘independent,’ has gathered credible accusations from residents of a Catholic orphanage that would implicate the prelate in situations of concealment of the sexual abuse of boys. The diocese of the capital said: ‘This is surprising news for us, but there must be strong reasons that we respect.’

“The second question had already been circulating since October 6 in Indonesia, where everyone is familiar with the life of the small local Church: how is it that the Pope is creating a cardinal prelate (62 years old) with whom he has had no relevant close acquaintanceship, even though he was appointed Bishop of Bogor on November 21, 2013? One would think, and reasonably so, that those chosen for the cardinalate are well-known to the Pontiff.

“All the more so, in this case, since Francis, in appointing this Indonesian prelate as diocesan Ordinary of Bogor eleven years ago, will have studied the presbyter candidate's personal file drawn up by the Nuncio and the Dicastery for Bishops. It would seem that at the time of Fr. Syukur's episcopal appointment, the matter was raised but considered to be mere gossip.”

And Luis Badilla notes, “Pope Francis' relative, weak, or superficial knowledge of several ecclesiastics chosen to be cardinals is a known reality, visible even in previous consistories.”