Pope Francis names 17 cardinals: 3 of them USA moderates

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis named 17 new cardinals Sunday — three of them American moderates, including Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich and Indianapolis Archbishop Joseph Tobin — in a clear signal to the conservative U.S. church hierarchy that he values pastors focused more on mercy than morals.

Tobin’s nomination also carries a political message ahead of the U.S. election next month, given that he openly opposed a request from Indiana Gov. Michael Pence, now the running mate of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, to not settle Syrian refugees in the state.

apnews.com/a56968a860d0416db7861b47237a5ab6/Pope-Francis-names-17-cardinals:-3-of-them-USA-moderates
 
With Pope’s cardinal picks, Bernardin’s ‘seamless garment’ is back

By naming Blase Cupich of Chicago, Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis and Kevin Farrell, formerly of Dallas, as cardinals, Pope Francis has moved the senior leadership of the American Catholic Church to a centrist, non-cultural warrior stance reminiscent of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s “seamless garment.”

The three Americans are Archbishops Blase Cupich of Chicago and Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis, as well as Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas, recently chosen by Francis to head his new “dicastery,” meaning a Vatican department, on Family, Laity and Life.

While none of these three figures would be seen as “liberal” by secular standards, they are perceived as belonging to the more progressive camp in the Catholic hierarchy.

Of the three, Cupich and Farrell were quasi-expected, although one never knows with the unpredictable Francis. Chicago is an archdiocese that’s long been held by a cardinal, and Farrell’s new Vatican post seemed to beckon a cardinal at the top.

Tobin, however, is more of a surprise. Indianapolis is not a traditional “red-hat” see, meaning a diocese typically led by a cardinal, and his name had not featured prominently in much of the speculation leading up to the consistory announcement.

While the choice of a relatively small American city to have a cardinal could be seen as consistent with Francis’s passion for outreach to the peripheries, taken in tandem with both Cupich and Farrell, it seems more plausible that Francis was making a statement about the direction in which he wants the American church to go.

Had Francis held more to convention in his American picks, the logical candidates beyond Cupich would have been Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles and Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, both American cities historically led by cardinals.

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/10/09/popes-cardinal-picks-bernardins-seamless-garment-back/
 
America Magazine has a good piece about the appointments, noting the shift away from the US cultural wars and more toward ‘building bridges and making the Church more welcoming.’
The picks show Francis wants the church in America to be more focused on issues like immigration, the role of women in the church and the need to bypass traditional centers of power in order to find leaders who smell of the sheep, as the pope has put it.
Click to expand...
americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/new-cardinals-signal-shift-away-us-culture-wars
 
gilliam said:
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis named 17 new cardinals Sunday — in a clear signal… that he values pastors focused more on mercy than morals.
s
Click to expand...
It’s unfortunate that the AP is arguing an opposition between mercy and morals. Perhaps they are misreading the holy father?
It might be wise to wait for the holy father to comment about the reasons for his choices.
May God bless him and our new cardinals.
Amen.
 
I would say one is a moderate and two are really progressives.
 
jeannetherese said:
It’s unfortunate that the AP is arguing an opposition between mercy and morals. .
Click to expand...
I agree that having morals or being Conservative should not be portrayed as lacking mercy.

If we do this then it implicitly bullies a group of people for a lack of mercy which is not true.
 
I am personally against Cupich’s appointment, but it was somewhat expected. I’m absolutely in awe as to why Philadelphia and Los Angeles were completely skipped over. I don’t know much about Tobin, although I’ve heard he’s alright. And I know nothing about Kevin Farrell. Can someone give me more info on him?
 
Corki said:
I would say one is a moderate and two are really progressives.
Click to expand...
I hate the word “progressive”. Does “progressive” mean we’re becoming more like our separated Episcopalian brethren? I think it does. Archbishop Cupich is cutting edge in that regard. In lieu of “progressive” I propose the use of “60’s liberal”. One can almost see the felt banners and hear the dulcet tones of “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” badly played by the “contemporary chorale”.
 
JRRTFAN said:
I hate the word “progressive”. Does “progressive” mean we’re becoming more like our separated Episcopalian brethren? I think it does. Archbishop Cupich is cutting edge in that regard. In lieu of “progressive” I propose the use of “60’s liberal”. One can almost see the felt banners and hear the dulcet tones of “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” badly played by the “contemporary chorale”.
Click to expand...
👍
 
In lieu of the press’ comments about the apparent dichotomy between mercy and morals, my favorite icon of Jesus is the “Christ Pantocrator,” which depicts Jesus’ mercy and justice in the same person. The two are not opposed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Pantocrator
 
ctb95 said:
I am personally against Cupich’s appointment, but it was somewhat expected. I’m absolutely in awe as to why Philadelphia and Los Angeles were completely skipped over. I don’t know much about Tobin, although I’ve heard he’s alright. And I know nothing about Kevin Farrell. Can someone give me more info on him?
Click to expand...
Farrell ruffled some feathers back in 2008 (during the election season) when he and the Ft. Worth Bishop published this:

prolifedallas.org/voting

Farrell presents a good blend of mercy and truth. A good choice for the position he was appointed to.
 
JRRTRFAN,

(sorry, quote doesn’t seem to be working for me)

I agree, that word is unsatisfying. But I can’t use the word “liberal” either. It’s so far from classical liberalism.
 
Corki said:
JRRTRFAN,

(sorry, quote doesn’t seem to be working for me)

I agree, that word is unsatisfying. But I can’t use the word “liberal” either. It’s so far from classical liberalism.
Click to expand...
Just smile. That works best on this forum.
 
Being in Dallas and being an active member in a Catholic group teaching morality type instruction in the area parishes I have a little experience working with this former Bishop.

I agree with the reports that he is more concerned about Mercy than Morality.
He allowed us to work with the parishes but in no way was he going to help us at all. Every meeting we requested, over the entire years he was here, was pushed down to one his assistants.

My experience working with his staff was that he was more interested in building bridges through showing Mercy and did not want to turn anyone off of the church with the Morality teaching. This goes in line with what I have seen within the church in the last 30 years. Many times it is difficult to get morality teaching from the pulpit. In general people are not being taught the truth unless they go out to seek the truth through bible studies or outside groups such as the one I am involved with.

I am disappointed that too many of the Church leadership don’t realize that there needs to be a good balance of Mercy AND Morality. The way I look at it is Morality helps us realize the right from the wrong and Mercy helps us get a new start again as well as when we fail as humans. You can’t have one without the other.
 
I’ve always thought that the media’s portrayal of progressiveness as mercy was just plain wrong. To be merciful one has to admit that wrongdoing has been done, and so often progressives aren’t being merciful so much as they’re being permissive.

As per his naming of Cardinals, it’s difficult to figure out the where Pope Francis is coming from. The easiest answer is that he’s a progressive (even if that doesn’t quite align with what Americans mean when they mean progressive) and therefore wants to elevate progressives to positions of authority. It’s possible that this is a little real realpolitik and he feels that if progressives Shepard the Church, the Church’s position in contemporary culture will improve and ultimately more people might be willing to listen to the Church and become Catholic (although the experience of mainline Protestantism suggests this isn’t the case). It’s also possible that Pope Francis ultimately agrees with conservative “culture war” positions but is reluctant but feels that other, important elements of Catholicism have been neglected and he’s trying to bring about a more holistic balance. Perhaps diversity in opinion within the Church might encourage an exploration of all virtues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top