Elderly cardinals in revolt over voting power

ABC News ^ | October 24, 2003 | ABC News Online

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Holy Spirit works through our human natures, He doesn't supercede them. A cardinal who's out of it is going to be out of it, unless the Holy Spirit Himself takes over his body.

Good point. Rather like the difference between the definition of Chalcedon (divinity and humanity working together in harmony) and the false conceptions of Apollonarius and Eutyches (divinity operating through a human shell).

[Loyalist]

The foolish argument is yours, in assuming that attaining the age of eighty is a sensible a priori disqualification of a potential Cardinal elector.

Turning 80 does not suddenly deprive these men of their intellectual capacity, their spiritual discernment, and their wisdom to vote wisely.

True, some of them may be genuinely mentally incapacitated. They would also likely not be in a condition to travel to a conclave, nor would they be required to vote at all.

Consider this incongruity: any Cardinal over the age of eighty, who is a resident citizen of a country which holds free democratic elections, would not lose the right to vote for state offices by reason of age.

Yet for an office for which he is supremely qualified to vote, given the dignity of his office, experience and wisdom attained over decades of service to Holy Mother Church, he has been denied any voice or vote.

[american colleen]

The thing of it is, the cardinals under age 80 today may be in fact more "conservative" than the cardinals who are today over age 80... though Dulles and Stickler are two exceptions who come to mind.

But I agree with your point... in fact, if this is a concern, why wasn't it addressed for @ 1900 years? Maybe it has to do with the average lifespan being much different today than it was years ago? If Paul VI had other reasons to promulgate this discipline, JPII didn't and he continued it although he did change the amount of cardinals allowed overall.

[saradippity]

I wonder if anyone knows which Cardinals over the age of eighty were appointed by Pope Paul VI? If there are many,and if they reflect his appointments of bishops in the U.S.,then I would take one position,if they were appointed by Pope John Paul II,I would take another.

It would be interesting to find information regards what did precipitate Paul VI's action. I guess,I am just glad I don't have any input into whatever they do decide and I will just trust the the Triune God keeps the Pope informed of His desires.

[Tantumergo]

"True, some of them may be genuinely mentally incapacitated."

Don't we usually refer to them as liberals? ;)

I don't think the over 80 age cut off necessarily has anything to do with the likelihood of the Cardinal being a traditionalist however.

Taking the 3 above mentioned ones - Clancy and Cassidy are notorious liberals, whereas the much younger Pell is significantly more conservative.

[Robert Drobot]

Conservative til I die, please know I'll not defend the limitations you place upon yourself. Rather, I would ask you seek a higher ground from which you can view like realities.

It is curious, and indefensible that the JPII sees no correlation between his issuing his self-absorbed legacy building pronouncements, while insulting the intellect fifty-nine of his brothers - in part because they respect the sacred laws upon which the Church has functioned for nineteen hundred years - and allowing some who in their arrogance wear a red skull cap flaunting their distain for celibacy to vote for the next Vicar of Christ.

May the hand of God cleanse the Church, as Christ Jesus drove out the money changers in His House.

[dsc]

"I'm probably out of my league here"

I don't think so; but I think CTID must be, given his failure to understand the argument.

"BUT I took it to be a refutation of the senility over age 80 reason for eliminating men from making important decisions - in the secular or religious worlds. Nothing more and nothing less."

Yes, of course.

The mystery is why CTID would twist it around the way he did.

[american colleen]

Stuff happens.

Just thinking that giving the bishops over aged 80 a "re-redo" might give too many dioceses an extra vote... for instance O'Malley of Boston was not given a red hat because Cardinal Law is still an eligible conclave voting cardinal.

[Conservative til I die]

Conservative til I die, please know I'll not defend the limitations you place upon yourself. Rather, I would ask you seek a higher ground from which you can view like realities. It is curious, and indefensible that the JPII sees no correlation between his issuing his self-absorbed legacy building pronouncements, while insulting the intellect fifty-nine of his brothers

Bummer, huh, that John Paul II isn't the one that instituted the policy. Sounds like someone's got an axe to grind.

PS - before you jump all over me for my "limitations" I'll have you know that I have said nothing either way about the policy regarding Cardinals over 80. I simply haven't, and you can check my few posts on the topic. I've only jumped on what I thought was a ridiculous argument, that being that the rules of the United States Senate have some bearing on how the College of Cardinals is run.

IMO, that's as silly as saying that the selection process for Cardinals should follow how we elect United States Senators.

[Conservative til I die]

The foolish argument is yours, in assuming that attaining the age of eighty is a sensible a priori disqualification of a potential Cardinal elector.

You're putting words in my mouth. I've said nothing of my opinion about Cardinals voting past the age of 80, either way. I've only attacked your argument, which I still think is a pretty dumb one. I mean, come on, what does Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond voting have to do with Cardinals voting? As in, what bearing does it have? To me, that is like saying that the United States needs to base it's legal system off of Kenya's. What's the reason?

You brought up the same argument later, and again, my problem is not that your comparison is not valid, but in what legal precedent does it set? Because if we're going to start suggesting that the Vatican does things the way Congress or Parliament does, it can cut both ways.

[Conservative til I die]

That may be what loyalist was getting at, but to me it seems he was using it as some sort of legal precedent, like a lawyer before the Supreme Court would. Mostly because he brought up the word "justice." I could be wrong, could be right. No one seems to be clarifying what they meant.

[NYer]

I'll have to google around and find out why Pope Paul VI did what he did.

Zenit News Agency disclaims any such letter was ever submitted to the pope.

Date: 2003-10-24

Holy See Denies Anonymous Claim that Cardinals Requested Right to Vote in Conclave

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 24, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Vatican officials negate a recent news report claiming that older cardinals had written John Paul II requesting a right to vote in the next conclave.

News of the alleged letter, supposedly written by cardinals over 80 years of age – an impediment to voting in a conclave – was published on Thursday in Rome's newspaper "La Repubblica," quoting an anonymous source.

"No letter has been sent to the Pontiff. There is no such problem, and no uneasiness among those cardinals either," authorized Vatican sources told the press.

Vatican sources also specified that numerous cardinals older than 80 participated in the celebrations for John Paul II’s 25th anniversary, and attended the consistory for the creation of the 31 new cardinals. The atmosphere in the latter was "very good -- one of unity," the EFE agency reported.

In the Nov. 21, 1970 "motu proprio (apostolic letter establishing norms) "Ingravescentem Aetatem," Paul VI established that, when reaching the age of 80, cardinals "lose their right to elect the Roman Pontiff and, consequently, also their right to enter in the conclave."

ALSO The College of Cardinals shrank to to 134 with the 80th birthday of Cardinal Achille Silvestrini.

Date: 2003-10-26

Cardinal Silvestrini Celebrates 80th Birthday

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 26, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The number of elector cardinals decreased to 134 with the 80th birthday of Cardinal Achille Silvestrini.

Cardinal Silvestrini, prefect emeritus of the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Churches, celebrated his birthday on Saturday.

Three other cardinals will be 80 before the end of the year. Therefore, according to the norm established by Paul VI, they will not be able to take part in a possible conclave. The three are Cardinal Pio Taofinu of Samoa; Cardinal Edward Clancy of Australia, and Cardinal Paul Shan Kuo-hsi of Taiwan.

In February, three more cardinals will be 80, thus reducing the number of electors at that time to 127. On October 21, John Paul II created 30 new cardinals -- as well as one "in pectore" (in secret). Twenty-six of them are less than 80 years of age.

Including Cardinal Silvestrini, at present there are 60 cardinals who are 80 years or older.

Did anyone besides me, watch the mass last week where the pope gave the new cardinals their rings? One of the new cardinals is well past 90!

* * * * *

PLEASE WELCOME 4 new members to the forum - Pugsy, hardhead, diamond6 and Annie03.

[BlackElk]

The intent was to ban from conclave at least three raging Traditionalists in the hope of heading off any groundswell for tradition and a reversal of the damage done by bureaucrats after Vatican II: Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani (head of the Holy Office under Pius XII), Carlo Cardinal Confalonieri (Dean of the College of Cardinals having been appointed in the World War I era but ramrod straight and possessed of all his faculties) and Amleto Cardinal Cicognani who had recommended the appointments of the very Catholic generation of US Bishops and Cardinals who preceded the Jadot line who established AmChurch.

The late Fr. Malachi Martin wrote a novel, The Final Conclave which explained this a year before the last conclave. Ottaviani, Confalonieri and Cicognani went to Rome's airport when the first 1978 conclave had been called, greeted the incoming voting cardinals and gave them an earful which resulted in the election of Ottaviani's old disciple (slightly estranged only over the rights of error) Albino Cardinal Luciani as John Paul I.

Allowing the elderly cardinals to vote now would primarily reinforce any liberal remnant (i. e., the barely Catholic Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy of Australia). That will not happen.

[BlackElk]

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it.

George McGovern is thirty years older now and as much of a knucklehead as ever. Likewise many cardinals of the roaring "Modernist progressive" era of John XXIII and Paul VI who are sniffling in their beer over a perceived "unfairness" in applying to them in their old age a rule that empowered them as younger cardinals and deprived far better and wiser men (for the most part) of a direct say in the 1978 conclaves.

That generation who are whining have done their damage in spades. It is time that they should sit down and shut up, even if that deprives a good man like Stickler. The overall effect is for the good of the Church and civilization. When they are dead, the rule might be reconsidered on norms suggested by Saradippity above and extrapolations thereof.

Letting many of these guys vote, simply re-empowers those who, like Sinky, want to take the AmChurch substitute for Roman Catholicism worldwide. Let's isolate the infection and apply massive doses of antibiotics in the form of a new (young?) vigorous pope prepared to conduct a blood purge of Modernism (this is not a reference to the NO but it is a reference to ANY irreverent Mass and many abuses cited by Cardinal Arinze).

[Catholicguy]

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

[american colleen]

The late Fr. Malachi Martin wrote a novel, The Final Conclave which explained this a year before the last conclave. Ottaviani, Confalonieri and Cicognani went to Rome's airport when the first 1978 conclave had been called, greeted the incoming voting cardinals and gave them an earful which resulted in the election of Ottaviani's old disciple (slightly estranged only over the rights of error) Albino Cardinal Luciani as John Paul I.

Thank you. I haven't read "Conclave" yet, but I am reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" by Fr. Martin. I'd be grateful for your comments on the latter book when you have time. Without strong faith it is a difficult book to read - bothers me that there are really no footnotes for anything included but somehow or other I trust most of what Fr. Martin has written in other venues.

Interesting that JPI died so soon after his election given what you have written here. I don't know whether to put on my tin foil hat or open my eyes to the work of the Holy Spirit! I have the book "The Ottaviani Intervention" which was gotten from an SSPX priest who gave it to a family member and he gave to me. The family member was innocently installing carpet in this parish and the priest deluged him (an agnostic Catholic) with SSPX information which the family member gave to me and asked for my opinion (!). Cardinal Bacci is a co-writer along with "A Group of Roman Theologians" - I'm sure you've read it. I'd be grateful also for your opinion on this book.

Allowing the elderly cardinals to vote now would primarily reinforce any liberal remnant (i. e., the barely Catholic Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy of Australia). That will not happen.

Thy will be done.