Pope’s Offer Raises Idea of Marriage for Catholic Priests

[Father_of_9]

Using that same theological assumption couldn’t we say that only those who accept God’s call to become a Catholic or a Christian are the only ones who are called? Surely there are many who are called, but do not accept. I would also venture to say that there have been many men through the centuries who were ordained as priests and were not truly called to the priesthood. We must admit the possibility that someone could enter a seminary for all the wrong reasons and slip through the discernment process. Recent history would certainly suggest that has happened many times.

 

[JReducation]

Using that same theological assumption couldn’t we say that only those who accept God’s call to become a Catholic or a Christian are the only ones who are called? Surely there are many who are called, but do not accept. I would also venture to say that there have been many men through the centuries who were ordained as priests and were not truly called to the priesthood. We must admit the possibility that someone could enter a seminary for all the wrong reasons and slip through the discernment process. Recent history would certainly suggest that has happened many times.

You have two questions wrapped into one and both are very good. Let’s take them separately.

1. Is it possible that not all are called to the faith, since many do not respond?

The answer would have to be that this is not possible. All men are called into full communion with Christ. The only way to achieve such communion is through full communion with the Church since the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. No all men are called at the same time or by the same means. This is also true. All are called.

1. Is it possible that many men are not called to the priesthood or religious life or that many enter who are not called?

The answer here is different for one reason. The priesthood and the religious life are not essential for everyone’s salvation. They are essential for the salvation of the person who is called. In other words, the person who is called has been called because this is the only way that he or she can save his soul. Therefore, it’s a very exclusive call. Whereas the call to join the Catholic Church is inclusive. No one is left out. The priesthood and religious life is only for those who need it to save their souls. Those who do not, are not called.

The reference that you make about those who are not called slipping through, is an interesting concept. Again we have to separate the sin from the sinner. Even those who have committed heinous crimes, such as sexual abuse, were called to the priesthood or religious life. The call is not contingent on their holiness. The call is precisely because they need to be priests or religious to be saved. When the bishop or the religious major superior calls them forth for ordination or for vows, it is Christ calling them. They respond. However, the fact that Christ has called them through the bishop or the religious superior does not place the responsibility for fidelity on Christ, the bishop or the religious superior. The responsibility for fidelity is on the person. In these cases, the person was called. The person responded to the call. The person made wrong choices that are inconsistent with the call. This makes these moral or immoral choices all the more serious. Everyone who is called must understand that the response is a lifelong journey, not simply the event of ordination or profession of religious vows. When people do such terrible things, they are abdicating their responsibility. The point is not that they were not called. It is worse than that. They were called and they dropped the ball.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

One thing that’s always puzzled me is why there aren’t more married men becoming permanent deacons. There are lots of good, faithful men who would be great deacons and provide much needed service to the Church.

I’ll tell you why: (1) 20 hours a week or more, often unpaid. (2) 4-6 year training programs (3) limited ministry. (4) stigma

My dad’s parish stipend is $25 per month. He does it because he loves it. (Now, he does get to keep his stipends for baptisms and weddings, and that amounts to between $0 and $300 per month.)

Some deacons are completely unpaid; others, like my dad, are paid a token salary so they are covered under the workman’s comp and employer liability insurance. Some are employed full time in lay-roles and just happen to be employed at their parish assignment. A rare few are employed as clerics.

The minimum training is 3 years of seminary, or equivalent extra-seminary training. They are unpaid during that training, unless they happen to be members of a religious community, and must either take out student loans or must work, or be otherwise retired.

The role of the Deacon in the Roman Church was widely expanded after V II, but it is essentially this: To teach the faith, to proclaim the gospel, and to be a Minister of Holy Communion (mostly to the sick and the incarcerated, they are ordinary MHC’s in the roman, and the only EMHC allowed in most EC Churches). Most Roman bishops bless them with faculties for preaching, baptizing, performing graveside services, and performing weddings; bishops of other rites don’t always routinely grant preaching faculties, and do not grant faculties for marriages nor baptisms (In the Eastern Rites, deacons don’t “hatch, match, and dispatch” as my dad so flippantly refers to it. A Byzantine deacon, typically: Is the censor-bearer, the Master of Ceremonies, leads the people in the litanies, and proclaims the gospel. Often, they are blessed with faculties to preach in the liturgy. )

There is stigma, as well, to the permanent diaconate. They are seen by many as glorified altar servers, rather than clerics. Ironically, in the Byzantine parishes, the stigma is less, even tho’ the role is less, not in part because they COULD become priests. But then, many ECC’s maintain minor orders, as well, and they are unpaid.

Prior to V II, the role of the Roman Deacon was much like that of the Eastern Deacon. In the Roman church, where they were purely transitional for most of the last 5 centuries, the idea of being stuck “halfway to priest” is fixed to the permanent diaconate. Only in the monastic and friary orders has the permanent diaconate flourished before V II.

It’s changing. The stigma is lessening, especially as priests no longer use illicit “lay preachers.” But it is still present.

 

[JReducation]

I’ll tell you why: (1) 20 hours a week or more, often unpaid. (2) 4-6 year training programs (3) limited ministry. (4) stigma

My dad’s parish stipend is $25 per month. He does it because he loves it. (Now, he does get to keep his stipends for baptisms and weddings, and that amounts to between $0 and $300 per month.)

Some deacons are completely unpaid; others, like my dad, are paid a token salary so they are covered under the workman’s comp and employer liability insurance. Some are employed full time in lay-roles and just happen to be employed at their parish assignment. A rare few are employed as clerics.

The minimum training is 3 years of seminary, or equivalent extra-seminary training. They are unpaid during that training, unless they happen to be members of a religious community, and must either take out student loans or must work, or be otherwise retired.

The role of the Deacon in the Roman Church was widely expanded after V II, but it is essentially this: To teach the faith, to proclaim the gospel, and to be a Minister of Holy Communion (mostly to the sick and the incarcerated, they are ordinary MHC’s in the roman, and the only EMHC allowed in most EC Churches). Most Roman bishops bless them with faculties for preaching, baptizing, performing graveside services, and performing weddings; bishops of other rites don’t always routinely grant preaching faculties, and do not grant faculties for marriages nor baptisms (In the Eastern Rites, deacons don’t “hatch, match, and dispatch” as my dad so flippantly refers to it. A Byzantine deacon, typically: Is the censor-bearer, the Master of Ceremonies, leads the people in the litanies, and proclaims the gospel. Often, they are blessed with faculties to preach in the liturgy. )

There is stigma, as well, to the permanent diaconate. They are seen by many as glorified altar servers, rather than clerics. Ironically, in the Byzantine parishes, the stigma is less, even tho’ the role is less, not in part because they COULD become priests. But then, many ECC’s maintain minor orders, as well, and they are unpaid.

Prior to V II, the role of the Roman Deacon was much like that of the Eastern Deacon. In the Roman church, where they were purely transitional for most of the last 5 centuries, the idea of being stuck “halfway to priest” is fixed to the permanent diaconate. Only in the monastic and friary orders has the permanent diaconate flourished before V II.

It’s changing. The stigma is lessening, especially as priests no longer use illicit “lay preachers.” But it is still present.

I realize that this straying from the topic, but it may help you and others rethink the way that we treat those who are in ministry and those in religious life. In the Latin Rite the laity still suffers from clericalism. This is not that common in the Eastern Rites. The attitude that many people have toward deacons, “a half-baked priest”, is the same attitude that many Catholic lay people have held toward religious brothers, especially in the Americas (north and south). This has made life very difficult for monastic and mendicant orders, especially the Benedictines and Franciscans. Both groups have had large numbers of monks and friars who are not priests and are very well trained to minister, but they are often rejected by the average lay person who wants “a real priest” as a spiritual director, marriage counselor, parish administrator, pastoral counselor or other.

The deacon is going through the same experience in many places. The laity and the clergy do not always understand the call of the deacon, just like they don’t understand the call of the religious brother. I think that part of it is our pragmatist social views. Human beings can have a tendency to look at others in terms of what they do, rather than what they are.

I know that in the East they combat this by something as simple as the title. Deacons are called “Father”. Recently, in the West, mendicant and monastic orders have begun to refer to all of us as Brother. It may seem something simple, but it actually helps people see their clergy and religious differently. But this is going to take a long time. Some people are very set in their ways. I feel for the deacons. There is much ministry for them in the Church. I believe that the more people are exposed to the role of the deacon, not just in liturgy, but also in ministry, the greater the acceptance and the more men who will hear a call to this state in lfie.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[E.E.N.S]

Well, he did tie the readings to his experience but usually as a tool of introduction. From that point, more often than not the subject matter in the readings weren’t recognizeable in the homily. I could go on but out of respect of the Priesthood I will not. Needless to say I was very disappointed by this priest’s protestant slant.

I used to attend St. Anne’s as well. Are you still there? I now attend the Latin Mass at St. Thomas the Apostle in Phoenix, (Mater Misericordiae Mission).

 

[Benadam]

I used to attend St. Anne’s as well. Are you still there? I now attend the Latin Mass at St. Thomas the Apostle in Phoenix, (Mater Misericordiae Mission).

I live in Chandler now. Very glad to meet you! I attend St Mary’s and sometimes Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Tempe. I am impressed that you knew who I was talking about! So I guess my opinion wasn’t too harsh?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I live in Chandler now. Very glad to meet you! I attend St Mary’s and sometimes Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Tempe. I am impressed that you knew who I was talking about! So I guess my opinion wasn’t too harsh?

Nice to meet you as well! (And no, I do not think your opinion was too harsh in the least.)

 

[jimmy]

ROME — In making it easier for traditionalist Anglicans to become Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI once again revealed the character of his papacy: to reach out to the most fervent of like-minded believers, even if they are not Catholic. Yet some observers wonder whether his move could paradoxically liberalize the church — or at least wedge it open — on a crucial issue: celibacy.
nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/22church.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

The author needs to learn about the Catholic Church and realize that there already are married Catholic priests. This won’t change anything because it is nothing new.

 

[JReducation]

When I read statements like the one that you quoted above I have to chuckle. There are more people worried about celibacy who are not affected by it, than those of us who are celibate, if you get my meaning. I understand that celibacy is a genuine question, but am I the only person who believes that the secular world has an excessive preocupaton with it?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Father_of_9]

Yes, it’s true that a lot of people in society see celibacy as a detriment and not a blessing to the priesthood and religious life. But unfortunately, some priests and religious also continue to raise the issue themselves. Why would someone accept a calling to religious life knowing that celibacy is a requirement only to question or rebel against it later? I appreciate your earlier posts concerning the nature of one’s calling to the religious life. But if we believe that God’s calling is an invitation or a gift which is not forced on a person, then a person has free will to either accept or reject the invitation. While it may sound like a conspiracy theory to some, I do believe that some men have purposely entered the seminary for deceitful purposes and have either slipped through the discernment process or were advanced by other deceitful persons in positions of authority. There is too much evidence in recent years to support that.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I’ll tell you why: (1) 20 hours a week or more, often unpaid. (2) 4-6 year training programs (3) limited ministry. (4) stigma

My dad’s parish stipend is $25 per month. He does it because he loves it. (Now, he does get to keep his stipends for baptisms and weddings, and that amounts to between $0 and $300 per month.)

Some deacons are completely unpaid; others, like my dad, are paid a token salary so they are covered under the workman’s comp and employer liability insurance. Some are employed full time in lay-roles and just happen to be employed at their parish assignment. A rare few are employed as clerics.

The minimum training is 3 years of seminary, or equivalent extra-seminary training. They are unpaid during that training, unless they happen to be members of a religious community, and must either take out student loans or must work, or be otherwise retired.

The role of the Deacon in the Roman Church was widely expanded after V II, but it is essentially this: To teach the faith, to proclaim the gospel, and to be a Minister of Holy Communion (mostly to the sick and the incarcerated, they are ordinary MHC’s in the roman, and the only EMHC allowed in most EC Churches). Most Roman bishops bless them with faculties for preaching, baptizing, performing graveside services, and performing weddings; bishops of other rites don’t always routinely grant preaching faculties, and do not grant faculties for marriages nor baptisms (In the Eastern Rites, deacons don’t “hatch, match, and dispatch” as my dad so flippantly refers to it. A Byzantine deacon, typically: Is the censor-bearer, the Master of Ceremonies, leads the people in the litanies, and proclaims the gospel. Often, they are blessed with faculties to preach in the liturgy. )

There is stigma, as well, to the permanent diaconate. They are seen by many as glorified altar servers, rather than clerics. Ironically, in the Byzantine parishes, the stigma is less, even tho’ the role is less, not in part because they COULD become priests. But then, many ECC’s maintain minor orders, as well, and they are unpaid.

Prior to V II, the role of the Roman Deacon was much like that of the Eastern Deacon. In the Roman church, where they were purely transitional for most of the last 5 centuries, the idea of being stuck “halfway to priest” is fixed to the permanent diaconate. Only in the monastic and friary orders has the permanent diaconate flourished before V II.

It’s changing. The stigma is lessening, especially as priests no longer use illicit “lay preachers.” But it is still present.

Welcome to the world of the diaconate, where most of us are not paid, but whe wages are out of this world.

 

[Layman]

JR is right. I wonder what the proportion of lay people is, to clergy and religious, who are concerned about the celibacy issue?

Low wages help enforce celibacy, I suppose. A man without much money has less sex appeal! They should let priests grow beards also, to that end Joking aside, it really puts da ladies off, I’ve read.

 

[JReducation]

JR is right. I wonder what the proportion of lay people is, to clergy and religious, who are concerned about the celibacy issue?

Low wages help enforce celibacy, I suppose. A man without much money has less sex appeal! They should let priests grow beards also, to that end Joking aside, it really puts da ladies off, I’ve read.

I have a beard and many people think that I’m cute.

Fraternally,

JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Yes, it’s true that a lot of people in society see celibacy as a detriment and not a blessing to the priesthood and religious life. But unfortunately, some priests and religious also continue to raise the issue themselves. Why would someone accept a calling to religious life knowing that celibacy is a requirement only to question or rebel against it later? I appreciate your earlier posts concerning the nature of one’s calling to the religious life. But if we believe that God’s calling is an invitation or a gift which is not forced on a person, then a person has free will to either accept or reject the invitation. While it may sound like a conspiracy theory to some, I do believe that some men have purposely entered the seminary for deceitful purposes and have either slipped through the discernment process or were advanced by other deceitful persons in positions of authority. There is too much evidence in recent years to support that.

First, celibacy for religious is not an option that the Church can dispense with. The Church does not have that authority. Religious life and marriage are mutually exclusive. When we speak of celibacy the discussion only pertains to secular deacons and priests, not to religious men or religious women.

Again, if a man is ordained, or a man or woman is allowed to make profession of vows, it is because God has called them to it. This is current faith held by the Church. There is no way around this. No one gets ordained or no one makes vows, without Christ willing it. As St. Thomas Aquinas believed, the sins of the priest or the religious do not reflect on God. God still called them and they responded. Did they sin? Yes. Does that mean that they were not called? Absolutely not. The Holy Spirit does not allow this to happen. If the ordination or the profession of vows is valid, then it is the will of God, regardless of the sin.

There are cases, when the ordination or the profession of vows is invalid. But in Church law, when such a situation comes up for consideration, the Church always holds that they are valid until proven differently. This is called the defense of the bond. The bond of Holy Orders, Marriage or Religious Profession is always upheld, until there is something proven that clearly proves that there was never a sacrament or never a religious profession.

Therefore, the Church does not accept that some people sneak in under the radar. You cannot be validly ordained, married or professed if you suck in under the radar. Everyone who is validly ordained, married or professed, entered through the right door, even if they are real losers.

If you can prove that there never was a valid ordiantion or a valid religious profession, then you can use the radar theory. If you cannot prove it, then there is no radar. The person was called by Christ and he answered, because he had to answer. There is one more thing here.

When it comes to ordination of clerics: deacons, priests and bishops, and when it comes to religious profession of religious in solemn vows (not religious in simple vows), the definition of freedom is very different. These calls are freely made by God. The person has the right to decline the call a the expense of his immortal soul. In other words, you were brought to Holy Orders or to Religious Life because this is the only way that you can save your soul. If you decline, you forfeit your soul. God only calls those whose soul would be lost in any other state.

If you ask any ordained person or religious in solemn vows, the day before we make that final step, we must write, WITH OUR OWN HANDS, no computer, a declaration that we are entering into this state: relgious or clerical, because we believe without any doubt that our soul will be lost if we do otherwise… If you do not make such a proclamation, you may not proceed. These are details that are not seen by the laity in the pews. But clerics and religious in solemn vows, must put their souls on the line before proceeding with either ordination or solemn vows. This closes off the possibility that you are not called. You must swear and sign this document before your bishop, his delegate or your major religious superior or his delegate.

I just made solemn vows in March 29, 2009 and was in formation to make this sworn statement for nine years. Had I not made this statement, compromising my soul, I would not have been allowed to make solemn vows. I would have had to remain in simple vows for the rest of my life. This is how seriously the Church of today takes this. If I’m not mistaken, the intensity and the gravity has been increased since Vatican II, compared to prior years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

When I read statements like the one that you quoted above I have to chuckle. There are more people worried about celibacy who are not affected by it, than those of us who are celibate, if you get my meaning. I understand that celibacy is a genuine question, but am I the only person who believes that the secular world has an excessive preocupaton with it?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother,

It’s not that the secular world is preoccupied with celibacy, but with sexuality and sensuality, and can’t see how a man or woman can find happiness without the physical fulfillment of sexual desires.

Now, I know some very secular celibates… one friend’s sister… she has no interest in men nor women, nor beasts. She’s happy being celibate, and it bothers people… because she is happy that way. Another finds himself attracted to everyone… and realized that way lies madness. A third, well, he’s unhappy about it, but has no prospects and lacks the social skills to attract a mate.

And I have known some in vows who were unhappy with it. (Fortunately, Friar Joe and Friar Anthony were not under solemn vows.) They didn’t realize what they were missing until they were in parish ministry as simple friars. They met the right women, and are still with them, decades later (2 and 3, respectively). Tony’s girls are now in college, and he’s held a secular job the whole time; Joe and his wife are active in parish ministries las of 2 years ago… last I heard about them.

But the men called to married ministry are quite a different breed. As you say, they are called to serve. And for some, not serving would put their souls in great peril. In lay terms, my dad’s vocation borders on pathological. He’s happy, mom accepts it, and while it was hard on me in my HS years, I do understand the need to serve. (Sadly, my wife does not.)

 

[JReducation]

Brother,

It’s not that the secular world is preoccupied with celibacy, but with sexuality and sensuality, and can’t see how a man or woman can find happiness without the physical fulfillment of sexual desires.

I believe that Aramis has hit the nail on the head. Secular society is preoccupied with

1. Everyone else’s business so that individuals don’t have to deal with their own issues.
2. The body and its satisfaction, as if it were not going to die someday.
3. Finding solutions for its problems without including God in the equation.
4. Tearing down what it cannot justify quantitatively, as if qualitative value judgments are not valid.
5. Instant gratification, as if tomorrow will never come.

Unfortunately, too many Catholics have been sold these products and they have bought into it. I was faced with such a question today. The local parish was having a flea market to raise funds for a new Church. Our brothers run the parish. There are three of us who do not work at the parish. We run Respect Life for our diocese. Not having any commitments today, I decided to go over and help at the flea market.

A woman who is very active in the parish stopped me and asked me what I thought about the Anglicans coming over. I shared my enthusiasm. She proceeded to ask me if I felt that I was cheated, because I’m celibate while the married Anglican ministers will be ordained. I tried to explain that I was not cheated, because celibacy has opened a new dimension of human existence for me. Through my vow of chastity, God has enabled me to become free of all exclusive relationships and that I find my needs for companionship, nurturing, support, guidance, correction and care are met by my brothers. I also explained to her that I could not imagine living any other way than in total intimacy with Christ, where he is one for me and I am one for him. My life of prayer and my life of love for the Church are contingent on my celibate state. I can’t imagine being anything else, but a single being in the presence of God and at the service of my brothers and sisters.

She then asked me how long I have been celibate. I explained that I was married and widowed. After nine years of formation, I made solemn vows on March 29, 2009. Technically speaking, I have been celibate since my wife died in 1993, in simple vows since 2003 and in solemn vows since March. She was stunned that I had been celibate since 1993.

I asked her why and she responded, “You were a man before you became a Franciscan.” To which I responded, “I know. You can’t be a Franciscan unless you’re human. It is the strength and weakness of our humanity that the Franciscan and any other religious brings to the altar. It is not the perfect gift. But I am consoled by the thought that when the time came for Mary’s purification, the only thing that she and Joseph could afford were two turtle doves. We give to God what he gives us and he turns it around.” She said that she had never heard it explained that way before. I thought it was very sad.

I can’t imagine a life other than a celibate life. Having been married and the father of three children, I can speak from experience. There is no comparison. Marriage is good and holy. Mine was the best. But the two are so very different that they cannot be compared. It would be a grave offense to the Holy Spirit to try and sort out the advantages of one over the other. Both are gifts from the Holy Spirit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Scottgun]

The Church has been making exceptions to the celibacy rule for centuries now in certain circumstances. For a currently active exception Read Father Longenecker and his blog here: gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/

In short, this recent move is no way a move toward married clergy, it’s just a continuation of the old ways that allows for exceptions in certain circumstances.

 

[JReducation]

The Church has been making exceptions to the celibacy rule for centuries now in certain circumstances. For a currently active exception Read Father Longenecker and his blog here: gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/

In short, this recent move is no way a move toward married clergy, it’s just a continuation of the old ways that allows for exceptions in certain circumstances.

Along with the examples that you provided and aside from the Eastern Rite, which has always had married clergy, the Church made it’s first big move on this issue in 1221 by Innocent III. At the time that our order was founded, many men and women wanted to join it. What began with twelve men and three women turned into a religious family of several thousand between 1209 and 1221. The custom of the time was that if a married man wanted to enter a religious order he would put his wife into a convent or spouses would agree to separate. Each would joint a monastic community.

A married couple approached Francis asking to be admitted to his order. They had agreed to separate. She would enter the Poor Clares and he would enter the Friars Minor. Francis believed that the Church needed families to remain together, especially at a time in history where marriages were contracts of convenience. He believed that those marriages where there was true love should not separate in order to live religious life. Because there were so few of these marriages based on love.

So Francis wrote a rule of life for the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. These were married men and women who were in holy marriages, but wanted to live the Franciscan way of life. The rule had all of the same elements as the rule of the Friars Minor: a profession, prayer, penance, silence, poverty, obedience, chastity, ministry, community life and so forth. What it did not have was mandatory celibacy. Pope Honorius approved the rule and it became known as the Rule of the Secular Franciscan Order (SFO). It was the first form of religious life approved by the Church for married people. Shortly thereafter, Dominic adapted the same for married persons who wanted to be Dominicans and later the Carmelites would do the same.

These rules of life have been around for 800 years. They are known as Secular Orders; but they are real orders with canonical status within the Church. The Franciscan, Dominican and Carmelite ways of life are real vocations open only to those who are called to live this way. They are not pious associations. Admission to them is by vocation.

The point is that we have forms of life that include people with a vocation to marriage. This is not new in the Church. The preocupation with celibacy is almost a novelty. The Church has had hundreds of years of married clergy and married religious families. The issue is that they are not very visible in the Western Church. We, Catholics, have done a poor job at exposing the average Catholic to these forms of life and ministry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

Good point, Brother JR.

I will also point out that the 3rd Orders have been influential in the discernment process of a number of clerics. Some, permanent deacons, like my Dad. Others, widowers who discerned for the priesthood. Others still, unmarried third order members who later became secular clerics.

And they are no longer all restricted to just married laymen and women. They are no easy path, either. The Dominicans require at least 5 years before perpetual vows, and many don’t make it through the novitiate.

I accidentally stumbled across a local meeting of 3rd order franciscans… and discovered faces there I’d seen active in various Catholic lay ministries throughout the area. And two clerics I know… one local (my dad), one not… but both having local impacts.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

that would be impossible

His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, which incurs being a bishop and therefore being celibate.

I didn’t say the married Cardinal would be Pope, I said as a Cardinal he’d be voting for the next Pope.