Diversity in the College of Cardinals

[Bezant]

I found this Time article this afternoon:

(time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1866786,00.html#ixzz1glNdMwwy)

It’s three years old, and I take issue with some of the authors’ assumptions. However I wanted to ask a question regarding this passage:

The College of Cardinals — once dominated by Italians — has become a much more diverse group. Still, Europeans continue to have a virtual lock in overall numbers: exactly half of the current 116 Cardinal electors (those under age 80) are from Europe, with Italy still counting 20. Latin America has 20 Cardinal electors, the United States and Canada a total of 16. Asia has 11 and Africa nine. Any Cardinal (any baptized male Catholic, in theory) can emerge from a conclave as Pope.

Why is it that Europeans, especially Italian cardinals, still dominate the College?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Why is it that Europeans, especially Italian cardinals, still dominate the College?

Because while the Church has added Cardinal Sees in various parts of the world She is yet to remove many from other parts.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Because while the Church has added Cardinal Sees in various parts of the world She is yet to remove many from other parts.

There are some sees whose bishop is often made a cardinal. For example, in England and Wales the cardinal’s hat always goes to Westminster; in Scotland it rotates between Glasgow and St Andrews & Edinburgh. However, no see is attached to the cardinalate. The Pope may freely grant the status of cardinal to any bishop.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

There are some sees whose bishop is often made a cardinal. For example, in England and Wales the cardinal’s hat always goes to Westminster; in Scotland it rotates between Glasgow and St Andrews & Edinburgh. However, no see is attached to the cardinalate. The Pope may freely grant the status of cardinal to any bishop.

Yes, I was speaking generically.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Yes, I was speaking generically.

I couldn’t know that. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding concerning cardinals.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I couldn’t know that. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding concerning cardinals.

No problem. I was just referring to the fact that many archdiocese have a tradition of their archbishop being a Cardinal and even though the diocese is not that important any more they haven’t changed that tradition.

The archbishop of Boston is traditionally a Cardinal. Boston isn’t really an important city in the USA any more nor is it a major hub of Catholicism any more. Yet the archdiocese will probably continue for the foreseeable future continue to have its archbishop named a Cardinal.

The archbishop of Houston is the first Cardinal for the archdiocese. However they didn’t stop naming Cardinals of other archdioceses that traditionally have their bishop named a Cardinal.

So while the Vatican is expanding where it considers “worthy” of naming a Cardinal, its yet to stop doing so elsewhere.