It seems there’s some confusion on other blogs about why Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston was not made a cardinal. They wonder if it’s some slap at Boston because of the Scandal or a sign that O’Malley’s leaving Boston soon or that O’Malley refused out of Franciscan humility. The simple fact is that there is a precedent that you don’t have two sitting cardinals from the same city of voting age. Cardinal Law is only 72 and is thus can still vote in a papal conclave for eight more years. Yes, Cardinal Bevilacqua, now retired, and Archbishop Rigali are both of Philadelphia, but Bevilacqua is now 80 years old and can’t vote in a conclave.
A few years ago, Archbishop Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, Austria, was named a cardinal while his predecessor Cardinal Hans Groer was still under 80. Groer had resigned from his archdiocese under a cloud after credible evidence showed he has sexually abused a young man. But that still didn’t break the precedent since Pope John Paul asked Groer to resign from the College of Cardinals as well, thus depriving him of his vote.
Fixed! Thanks Amy.
That must be my most common typo. For some reason I often leave out “not” which is very upsetting considering it completely changes the meaning of whatever I’m saying. And it has caused me any number of embarassments in email. Sheesh.