Vatican City, Jun 28, 2017 / 08:05 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On Wednesday, Pope Francis created five new cardinals, encouraging them to walk with Jesus, keeping their eyes fixed securely on the cross and on the realities of the world, not becoming distracted by prestige or honor.
“I speak above all to you, dear new Cardinals. Jesus ‘is walking ahead of you,’ and he asks you to follow him resolutely on his way. He calls you to look at reality, not to let yourselves be distracted by other interests or prospects,” the Pope said June 28.
“He has not called you to become ‘princes’ of the Church, to ‘sit at his right or at his left.’ He calls you to serve like him and with him.”
“To serve the Father and your brothers and sisters. He calls you to face as he did the sin of the world and its effects on today’s humanity. Follow him, and walk ahead of the holy people of God, with your gaze fixed on the Lord’s cross and resurrection.”
Pope Francis addressed the five bishops he chose to receive a red hat last month, and others present, during an ordinary consistory for the creation of new cardinals in St. Peter’s Basilica.
He had announced his intention to create the new cardinals during a Regina Coeli address on May 21st.
Immediately following a reading from the Gospel of Matthew and his short reflection, the Pope made the proclamation creating the new cardinals. Afterward they received their red biretta and cardinal’s ring. At this time they were also assigned a titular church, tying them to Rome.
In his choice of cardinals, Pope Francis has remained true to his vision of a broader, more universal representation of the Church, forged during his last consistory, Nov. 19, 2016, where he created 17 new cardinals from 11 different nations and five different continents.
Among this consistory’s picks are Bishop Anders Arborelius of Stockholm, Sweden, and Bishop Louis-Marie Ling Mangkhanekhoun, Apostolic Vicar of Pakse, Laos and Apostolic Administrator of Vientiane, and Archbishop Jean Zerbo of Bamako, Mali.
All three are the first cardinals from their respective countries.
Also noteworthy is his appointment of San Salvador’s auxiliary bishop, José Gregorio Rosa Chávez, marking the first time the Pope has tapped an auxiliary as cardinal.
Bishop Chávez was chosen over his archbishop, Jose Luis Escobar Alas, for the red hat, showing that Francis, as seen in his previous appointments, is willing to skip over “cardinal sees.”
In contrast to the other four is Archbishop Juan José Omella of Barcelona, Spain. His red hat is not a dramatic departure from tradition, as Barcelona is traditionally a see with a cardinal and Archbishop Omella’s predecessor, Cardinal Lluis Martinez Sistach, turned 80 on April 29.
All of the new cardinals are under 80, and therefore eligible to vote in the next conclave.
In his homily, Francis reflected on the Gospel heard during the ceremony, which came from Matthew 10:32-45. In the passage, Jesus and the disciples are walking toward Jerusalem. This is when the third prediction of the Passion of Christ happens, which is nearing.
“‘Jesus was walking ahead of them.’ This is the picture that the Gospel we have just read presents to us. It serves as a backdrop to the act now taking place: this Consistory for the creation of new Cardinals,” he said.
Jesus walks ahead of them with full knowledge of what is going to take place in Jerusalem, but at this moment there is a divide, a distance, between his heart and the hearts of his disciples, which only the Holy Spirit can bridge, Francis said.
He knows this and is patient with them. “Above all, he goes before them. He walks ahead of them.”
Along the way, though, the disciples become distracted by things which have nothing to do with what Jesus is preparing to do, or with the will of the Father.
“They are not facing reality! They think they see, but they don’t. They think they know, but they don’t. They think they understand better than the others, but they don’t…” the Pope exclaimed.
“For the reality is completely different. It is what Jesus sees and what directs his steps. The reality is the cross.”
This reality, Francis continued, is the sin of the world, which the Lord came to take upon himself and to “uproot from the world of men and women.”
The reality of sin is manifest in the world in the innocent who suffer and die as victims of war and terrorism, in the many forms of human slavery that exist, he said. It’s found also in refugee camps, which are more like hell than purgatory, and it’s in the discarding of people and things that society doesn’t find useful.
“This,” he said, “is what Jesus sees as he walks towards Jerusalem.”
“During his public ministry he made known the Father’s tender love by healing all who were oppressed by the evil one (cf. Acts 10:38). Now he realizes that the moment has come to press on to the very end, to eliminate evil at its root. And so, he walks resolutely towards the cross.”
“We too, dear brothers and sisters, are journeying with Jesus along this path,” he said.
“And now,” he concluded, “with faith and through the intercession of the Virgin Mother, let us ask the Holy Spirit to bridge every gap between our hearts and the heart of Christ, so that our lives may be completely at the service of God and all our brothers and sisters.”
After the consistory, Pope Francis and the new cardinals will stop by the Vatican’s Mater Ecclesiae Monastery to pay a visit to Benedict XVI, who was not present at the ceremony.
As is customary, the cardinals will then proceed to the atrium of the Pope Paul VI hall where they are formally greeted and congratulated.
The new cardinals will also concelebrate Mass with Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Square on June 29, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, the patrons of Rome. At the Mass the Pope will also bestow the pallia on the new metropolitan archbishops appointed during the last year.
The consistory was the fourth of Pope Francis’ pontificate. With the 5 new cardinals included, the number of voting cardinals comes to 121, and the number of non-voters to 104, for a grand total of 225.
[…]
What’s the point?
Bergoglio regularly issues high-handed edicts that reshape the Church and her teachings.
As far as he’s concerned, it’s synod schnynod. He’s going to do what he wants, regardless.
It’s a shame but I trust nothing that comes out if the Vatican during these dark days in Rome.
The Pontiff Francis and his fellow-ideologues are subverted and subversive people, who live as parasites feeding on The Body of Christ.
They are fit to be prayed for and opposed…because they are enemies of Our Lord.
As coda, I pray for the intercession of St. Charles Lwanga against the “Synod-of-the-Subverted.”
God’s will be done.
Ah, witness the real Synodaling…
Admittedly, I am a bit miffed to be excluded. Closed door theology – it’s as if they are trying to hide from the Holy Spirit!
And I remain astounded that no invitation has arrived for the all-inclusive Roman boondoggle called the Synod on Synodaling II. Who wants to bet that bad boy Bishop Stowe gets a golden ticket? It’s not fair…
About the “secret” meeting of the “expert” study groups, recalling the ten themes disclosed earlier, now from the back bleachers: what about these not-so “rigid, bigoted, and fixistic” questions:
1.About the East, how to restore credibility with the now estranged Eastern Orthodox Churches, kicked out of bed (so to speak) by Fiducia Supplicans—like all of the Church in Africa et al as just another culturally defective “special case”?
2. About the “cry of the poor,” how to excluding those who are impoverished spiritually and culturally (Centesimus Annus, n. 57)? “The Church’s Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful [italics] to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 113).
3. About the digital environment, how to preserve analogue reality—like the Reality of the incarnate Jesus Christ—over a Nominalist digital cosmos and even amoral/immoral AI (the looming threat of lab-guided human evolution)?
4. About a “missionary perspective,” how to not displace the received/missionary Deposit of Faith with plebiscite sociology?
5. About “ministerial forms,” how to respect the “hierarchical communion” (Lumen Gentium) and not split apart sacramental ordination (as already signaled by ministerial/informal half-blessings under Fiducia Supplicans)? Teeing up the ball for non-ordained female diaconate as a stepping stone toward an Anglican-style (c)hurch—just as civil unions were really a stepping stone toward the oxymoron “gay marriage”…
6. About “ecclesial organizations,” how to not dilute the institutional and personal accountability (both) of each Successor of the Apostles, within/versus multilevel townhall meetings—diocesan, national, continental, and expertly synodal!—a relationship already clarified in Apostolos Suos (May 21, 1998)?
7. On the selection, judicial role and meaning of ad limina visits for bishops, how to transcend zeitgeist intrusions into the particular Churches—not lapsing into an elitist and polyhedral Church devoid of its catholic unity and center?
8. On papal representatives in a missionary synodal perspective, how to conform a missionary “style” (now a “perspective”?) of “listening” to the inborn natural law about which the Church is neither the “author” nor the “arbiter,” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 95)? And specifically, how to avoid a domineering class structure of papal representatives as under Cupich, McElroy, Tobin, Gregory, et al?
9. About theological criteria (etc.), how to outlive the obvious criterion (!) of self-anointed theologians, themselves, apparently intent on severing an actively deadly (c)hurch from the living Magisterium?
10.About the ecumenical journey/ecclesial practices, how to not undefine/mutilate the Mystical Body of Christ, or the “hierarchical communion” gifted in the Holy Spirit (Lumen Gentium)?
SUMMARY, if the “backwardists” turned the lights on, would they discover a “forwardist” cult with a secret handshake? …or real Dialogue?
Okay, let us look at how the popes use commissions (1) to give people hope that meaningful changes will be made to end the church’s behindedness, and (2) to maintain the church’s behindedness.
It is well known that popes stack study commissions in order to obtain a result they desire. A famous example happened with Pope Paul VI and the birth control commission (not its official name). Well along in the commission’s work, commission members were overwhelmingly in favor of removing the church’s prohibition on artificial contraception. At one point, the nineteen theologians on the commission took a separate vote and were 12 to 7 in favor of changing the church’s stance. That caused Paul VI to demote the members of the commission to “advisors,” and he brought in sixteen bishops who would then constitute the commission and issue a final report.
Before the final vote of the new bishops, a decision was made to only issue one report, i.e., to not send any minority report. Of the sixteen people brought in to issue the final report, they voted 9 to 3 to change the church’s stance. There were three abstentions, and one of the sixteen bishops didn’t vote. After the vote, a report which had been prepared in advance by Cardinal Ottaviani and Father Ford was sent along and misrepresented as a minority report from the Commission. However, it was NOT an official minority report; the commission sent only ONE official report. Paul VI later said he could not accept the vote of the commission because it had come to him with a minority report. (Votes on Vatican II’s decrees were not unanimous either, but he did not invalidate those.) In all, Paul VI ignored the recommendations (by their final votes) of nine of twelve bishops, fifteen of nineteen theologians, and thirty of thirty-five nonepiscopal members of the Commission. (Information from Papal Sins: Structures of Deceit, by Garry Wills)
Now, we have a sad chronology on the subject of women deacons that covers more than eight years:
• May 12, 2016 – Francis promises a Women Deacons Commission to some women religious during questioning at an audience. (https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-create-commission-study-female-deacons-catholic-church)
• August 2, 2016 – Francis appoints his first Women Deacons Commission (not its official name). It is of course headed by a male priest. Articles about it emphasize that it has six women members and six men members, suggesting, though it is a non-sequitur, that the even gender split guarantees fairness. The commission has its first meeting in November 2016. A long period of silence follows.
• June 2018 – Nearly two years after appointment and after meeting in Rome four times, the commission sends its report to the pope. No statement is made and the public is left hanging. Eventually people are told that the commission had been unable to come to a consensus and therefore could not make a recommendation. Nearly a year after receiving the report, the pope gave a portion of the report to the UISG leadership at their May 2019 assembly. The report itself still (as of Nov. 29, 2023) has not been published despite many requests for it and despite church officials’ repeated claims to desire more “openness.”
• April 8, 2020 – One year and ten months after receiving the report of the first commission, Francis appoints his second Women Deacons Commission (not its official name). It is of course headed by a male, Cardinal Giuseppe Petrocchi. It appears stacked with members who are known to oppose having women deacons (https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/several-members-new-vatican-commission-appear-opposed-women-deacons).
• November 29, 2023 – Inquiring people are being told the second Women Deacons Commission has been meeting regularly, and that a report to the pope is expected sometime in 2024. They are given the boilerplate that the commission’s work is proceeding in a spirit of openness and transparency. Yet, as of today, the second commission hasn’t issued any statements. Vatican officials tell us that the commission’s findings will be important in helping to inform the pope’s decision on whether or not to ordain women as deacons.
• Pope Francis says in a CBS interview aired on May 20, 2024, that he is opposed to ordained women deacons and that a little girl growing up Catholic today will never have the opportunity to be a deacon and participate as a clergy member in the church.
We all had been encouraged to believe that Pope Francis was open to the possibility of ordaining women as deacons. Of course, we were also told that he wants to make a decision based on a careful study of the issue. In its efforts to be thorough, as the pope desires, the second women deacons commission, and now also one of the ten commissions from the synod work, are still said to be gathering information and insights from around the world and consulting with experts in theology, church history, and canon law. Why the continued work on it? He has already announced his decision; it is “No” to ordained women deacons.
My Opinion:
I strongly doubt that Pope Francis ever serious about considering a possibility of having women deacons despite his saying otherwise multiple times. I have reasons for thinking this, chief among them being these: (1) his incredibly slow pace on the issue, and (2) his stacking of the second women deacons commission with people known or thought to oppose having women deacons.
In my opinion, here are the only two questions needing to be answered in order to correctly decide whether women should be permitted to become deacons:
1. Are men who feel called permitted to become deacons?
2. Are the men’s exclusively male parts used to perform the functions of a deacon?
I think the answers to those two questions are already well known to most folks. All of the above chronology, covering more than eight years, only to “help inform” the pope regarding a question that perhaps a hundred million Catholics, and hundreds of millions of non-Catholics who are not misogynistic, could have decided correctly, i.e., in favor of having women deacons, in about one-tenth of a second.
Two opinions and some big picture stuff:
FIRST, men do not become deacons because they feel called, but only when they are then actually called by the bishop, or not. This clarity has something to do with the apostolic succession tracing back the incarnate Second Person of the Triune One. A unique situation, and a bit of a challenge for a more-or-less democratic mindset IN the world. Clearly not OF this world.
SECOND, about artificial birth control, in Pope Paul VI’s mind and the mind of the Church, the misfit is between the opinions of consulted commissions versus the universal and inborn natural law—that is, whether the intrinsic nature of the nuptial act can be mechanically or chemically divided into its unitive purpose versus its equally obvious procreative purpose. Morally, can an anti-conceptive act be averaged-in with others remaining intact (identified as “proportionalism” in Veritatis Splendor). Natural Family Planning is not contraceptive.
The CURRENT big picture?
In terms of the Fundamental Option and “consequentialism” (both also addressed in Veritatis Splendor), some observers connect the dots and propose that a contraceptive culture is inseparable from our abortion culture, and the surge in illegitimate births and cohabitation and divorce, and the ubiquitous porn culture, and the scourge of sex trafficking of even children, and even the anti-binary indifference of “gender theory”.
The PAST big picture?
About this trendline (a seamless garment?) and the Anglican Lambeth Conference which first crossed the Rubicon, the defeated minority, as late as 1948, had this to say:
“It is, to say the least, suspicious that the age in which contraception has won its way is not one which has been conspicuously successful in managing its sexual life. Is it possible that, by claiming the right to manipulate his physical processes in this manner, man may, without knowing it, be stepping over the boundary between the world of Christian marriage and what one might call the world of Aphrodite, the world of sterile eroticism?” (Cited in Wright, “Reflections on the Third Anniversary of a Controverted Encyclical,” St. Louis: Central Bureau Press, 1971).
The FUTURE big picture?
Not sure, here, that the “non-synod” der Synodal Weg, or synodality’s Cardinal Hollerich, have this civilizational Rubicon figured out any better than any other transitory commission or whatever—by now endorsing anti-binary homosexuality, and by now proposing that sexual morality in general should be rejected—based on, what, sociological and cultural criteria!
As for Veritatis Splendor, it’s really not a Church imposition; instead, it’s the defense of our inborn and universal natural law: “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this norm” (n. 95). Perhaps we can at least agree that blessing the full range of “irregular” couples, as camouflage for blessing the LGBTQ religion one “couple” at a time, probably isn’t so bright a step in maturing the flock past the moral collapse of the past half century.
Based on what’s been produced so far, at the end of the SoS, the weakest possible tea would be the best possible outcome.
A secret meeting of 20 handpicked theologians at the Jesuit general curia almost sounds like a kids game we played on the Brooklyn streets. Suddenly the 20 rush out of the Jesuit curia shouting, Bet you can’t guess where we hid the Blessed Sacrament? Or perhaps, the deposit of faith. Only then it was a fun adventure of ingenuity. Now it’s a dreadful game of deceit.
A commentator wrote a very studied analysis of the latest Vatican outrage calmly asserting nothing to be found here as it stands, then at the end paused leaving the question of motivation open. Double entendres evoke feelings of intrigue. More Jesuitry, Fr Costa SJ is the special general secretary for the Synod. If this were the Jesuits of old one could be confident. Although I doubt that there will be any direct annulment of Catholic doctrine. Perhaps a reassurance to the faithful that Francis’ leadership is really benign. Although as has been the pattern we should expect double entendres that suggest the opposite direction and greater anguish.
Faith is now required of us, that trust in Christ that is confident of his love for us during this dark trial. I pray for him not simply because it’s my duty, rather that personally I perceive in him the qualities of what could have been most beneficial for the Body of Christ. A warm hearted, caring old man who has opened his heart to all leading us to greater compassion for the bereft. Instead his pattern has revealed someone whose voice is foreign to what we know interiorly is Christ.
Are these theologians and other experts been named?
About my #5, above, this isn’t rocket science. Let’s try a thought experiment…Synod 2024 proposes non-ordained deaconesses. Is this the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis?
Thesis: Fiducia Supplicans invents “non-ecclesial, informal, spontaneous” non-blessings of irregular “couples,” as couples.
Antithesis: a divided Church with corrective dissent from continental Africa, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary,
Kazakhstan, Peru, parts of Argentina, France, and Spain, and a distancing by other conferences of bishops.
Synthesis!: the non-blessing of “couples” is off-loaded from the ordained priesthood to non-ordained deaconesses…
…and private-meeting/photo-op Jeannine Gramick becomes de facto archdeaconess in a parallel church-within-a-Church! Ordination comes later….Maybe not yet a “polyhedral” church, but at least a transitional parallelogram! Ecclesial transgenderism.
This scenario is only hypothetical, of course. Just a non-theologian un-thought experiment, or whatever.
World-building is a meaningful challenge. Theologians are yet to do justice to their enormous potential in world-building.
Awesome page with genuinely good material for readers wanting to gain some useful insights on that topic! But if you want to learn more, check out webemail24 about Crowdfunding. Keep up the great work!