From Vatican Insider at La Stampa:
“Someone who is able to teach and communicate well,” Cardinal DiNardo says; a man of “deep faith” who has the capacity “to touch the hearts of young people” and continue the work of the new evangelisation, the Capuchin monk, Sean O’Malley adds.
From their headquarters on the Janiculum Hill, in Rome, not far from the “Bambino Gesù” hospital, American cardinals are busy preparing for the Conclave. If the election of St. Peter’s successor was a team game and the organisation of each team counted, the American Church would definitely win hands down. Not just because their team is second only to Italy in terms of its number of Conclave members (more than a quarter of the Conclave’s members belong to the contentious Italian fleet), but because no other group has brought its Episcopal Conference’s communication team all the way to Rome to assist the platoon of cardinals called to elect the new Pope.
On Thursday evening, after less than an hour had passed since the Pope’s departure for Castel Gandolfo, before the sede vacante period had even started, three American cardinals agreed to answer journalist’s questions on the future Pope’s profile and on how cardinals prepare for the most secret election process in the world.
Apart from DiNardo, Houston and Boston’s O’Malley – a papabile who is growing in popularity – Chicago’s Francis George was also on hand to answer some questions and for once even took journalists’ side: “Unlike last time,” he said referring back to the 2005 Conclave which elected Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, this time the lists of potential Popes that are being circulated, have not just been created out of thin air. “This time we’re saying “oh yes, that’s reasonable”. So you’ve already done our work for us, thank you!”
But how does a cardinal elector prepare for a Conclave? You read up on your fellow cardinal electors a great deal, in books and on the internet, Capuchin Cardinal O’Malley said. Then cardinals ask each other questions and all this information is included in their prayers, so that one or more names can be chosen based on the information received, George added.
“I think all of us have been giving a great deal of thought to this for some time,” Chicago’s archbishop said, “but even before (Benedict XVI’s resignation, Ed.) this we saw people and knew they could be suited to the job. So I imagine each of us has a list of favourite candidates, as well as a list of other second or third favourites and so on…”. These names are repeated in the personal and private conversations that go on between cardinals ahead of the big election day: “What do you know about this candidate? – cardinals ask – How do you think he would react in such a situation? What kind of a person is he? How would he react if…?” and so on. So cardinals test the waters and look around them and it is therefore only normal that the same frontrunners start coming up again and again.
Pingback: American cardinals share their thoughts on choosing a new Pope | Catholic Canada
Not a good idea to have an American Cardinal as Pope. U.S. runs almost evereything in the wolrd. It will not be well seen everywhere. Imagine Benedict XVI elected during hitler Chancellor in Germany? The Cardinal of Boston will be a good choice, but he speaks only english…..
Really; why? The Cardinal of Boston is no friend of “traditional liturgy,” and priests in his diocese who have tried to promote kneeling for communion, communion on the tongue, and the EF Mass have found this to be so to their sorrow.
It disappointed me that he presided at the funeral for Senator Teddy Kennedy, one of the most pro-abortion politicians America had seen before President Obama, and that eulogies were allowed inside the funeral Mass (one of the many liturgical abuses at that funeral) that talked as if Kennedy was already in heaven, smacking of a heretical universalism. I have heard from other sources I respect that Cardinal O’Malley is a holy man, but the memory of the Kennedy funeral will always grate on me. Now, O’Malley was there in choir dress. He did not concelebrate but his presence meant he presided. This other news about the EF and communion on the tongue is also troubling.
Et que faites-vous de la miséricorde infinie du Père qu’est venu nous enseigner le Christ-Jésuus Madame? C’est facile de juger en humain et de précépiter le monde en enfer! Le Cardinal O’Malley est un homme de miséricore, un religieux capucin exemplaire. Ici, le forme extraordinaire de la messe n,atire personne. Quarante personnes par dimanche à Montréal. Tant qu’a la communion debout, devrais-je rappeler qu’à la sainte cène, les apôtres étaient étendus et couché comme on le faisait dans la tradition juive. Le Christ n’a pas déposé le pain sur la langue des apôtres à ce que je sache. Les prêtres que nous avons ici ne conaissent pas le latin, et le peu de fidèles qui asistent à la messe non plus. Et les prêtres de l’Ordinarait ne sont-ils pas tenus de dire ou chanter la messe en anglais la langue des anglicans? Les Lefebvristes que nous avons à côté de chez-moi disent la messe en latin en trente minutes dos au peuple, et comme en 1950, les dames disent leur chapelet. Nous ne voulons pas revenir à cette époque!
Deborah,
You wrote: It disappointed me that he presided at the funeral for Senator Teddy Kennedy….
Unfortunately, this is not accurate. Cardinal Sean O’Malley, O. F. M. (Cap.), attended the senator’s funeral mass, sitting within the sanctuary in choir dress. He did NOT vest, he did NOT preside, he did NOT preach, and he was neither the principal celebrant or a concelebrant of the mass. Rather, he took no role of liturgical ministry whatsoever other than making the responses with the congregation.
You wrote: … that eulogies were allowed inside the funeral Mass (one of the many liturgical abuses at that funeral)….
I’m not sure where the line is between norms from Rome and local diocesan guidelines, but this practice actually is normal, at least here in the States, in the funeral masses of high government officials.
You wrote: He did not concelebrate but his presence meant he presided.
No, that is not accurate. In order to preside, he would have to vest for mass and occupy the presidential chair. Rather, he simply attended the mass.
You wrote: This other news about the EF and communion on the tongue is also troubling.
The real question is whether this is the cardinal himself or the clergy under him. One of the difficulties in very large archdioceses — and the Archdiocese of Boston is one of the largest five in the United States as measured by Catholic population — is that the archbishop has to rely on many assistants who effectively run the archdiocese by controlling what the archbishop actually gets in the way of information is pretty much what those assistants decide to tell him.
Norm.
That is a wonderfull comment. Clear and thruth. Tank you Norm.
Hi Norm, I remember reading much of the commentary during the time of the funeral and there were opinions that, because Cardinal O’Malley is the Archbishop of Boston, that his presence in the sanctuary, albeit in choir dress, meant he presided, even if he did not celebrate or even concelebrate. That said, there is much, much to admire about this cardinal and from people I know who I consider holy, they find O’Malley impressive. As for Dean Fournier’s comments about the infinite mercy of God, yes, I believe in it, but just as I do not believe we should judge that someone like Teddy Kennedy is in Hell, we should not presume he skipped Purgatory to go straight to Heaven either. Sometimes people reject the infinite mercy of God. Whether in his last moments Teddy Kennedy did or did not, I don’t know, but from my understanding, limited as it is, it is a liturgical abuse to have eulogies within the context of a funeral. Save them for the reception afterwards. A homily that focuses the attention of all on the judgement to come and the readings, and maybe a word or two from the priest about the deceased, but not hagiographies.
Deborah,
You wrote: I remember reading much of the commentary during the time of the funeral and there were opinions that, because Cardinal O’Malley is the Archbishop of Boston, that his presence in the sanctuary, albeit in choir dress, meant he presided, even if he did not celebrate or even concelebrate.
Then that is gross miconception on the part of those who wrote the commentary. Senator Kennedy’s funeral was the old-fashioned “mass before the bishop” reincarnated.
You wrote: As for Dean Fournier’s comments about the infinite mercy of God, yes, I believe in it, but just as I do not believe we should judge that someone like Teddy Kennedy is in Hell, we should not presume he skipped Purgatory to go straight to Heaven either.
I concur completely. Pergatory, however, is a state of transition in which purification occurs, rather than a place, and it is beyond time in the eternal realm so one cannot speak of spending time there. In fact, this is precisely the reason why the magisterium dropped the previous attachment of times to plenary indulgences during the course of the reforms after the Second Vatican Council.
You wrote: Sometimes people reject the infinite mercy of God.
Yes, even the baptized can do so.
You wrote: Whether in his last moments Teddy Kennedy did or did not, I don’t know, but from my understanding, limited as it is, it is a liturgical abuse to have eulogies within the context of a funeral.
When my mother died (February 2004, before Cardinal O’Malley’s tenure as archbishop), the policy promulgated by the Archdiocese of Boston provided the option for one person chosen by the family to “speak in memory of the deceased” after communion during the Mass of Christian Burial. The policy went on to say that the person chosen by the family had to speak from a written text approved in advance by the pastor or the principal celebrant. I don’t know whether Cardinal O’Malley modified this policy after he took posession of the diocese or not, but, as I noted previously, it’s not uncommon to allow additional speakers during Masses of Christian Burial for prominent current or former government officials. The additional speakers are typically current or former government officials who worked with the deceased official during his tenure in office rather than members of the family. Also, note that another diocese or ordinariate might have a very different policy in this regard.
Backing up a step, one of the foremost principles of church law is that the law states the normal policy for normative cases foreseen therein, but that it does not apply to cases that it does not foresee or to situations that it is not intended to govern. Thus, church law generally is not without exception. In fact, you can see this in operation with the formation of your own ordinariate — the apostolic constitution stipulates that an ordinariate is to be within the territory of one episcopal conference, but the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter encompasses the territory of two episcopal conferences. The same is true with respect to speakers after communion during a Mass of Christian Burial: circumstances that require exceptions to the normal rule sometimes do arise.
Norm.
I’m starting to tire of all this talk about evangelizing the young, as if we didn’t have a deeper need to evangelize the unbelievers among the clergy and catechists.
bitsnbytes,
You wrote: I’m starting to tire of all this talk about evangelizing the young, as if we didn’t have a deeper need to evangelize the unbelievers among the clergy and catechists.
Indeed, one cannot evangelize either (1) the adults in the pews or (2) the young without first evangelizing the clergy and the catechists because it is the clergy and the catechists who must evangelize the adults in the pews and the young — which is precisely why that is precisely the focus of the “New Evangelism” and the current “Year of Faith.
Nevertheless, one must evangelize the young because our God does not have grandchildren in faith. He adopts only children, so that adoption must spread to the biological descendants of those who have received it.
Norm.