There’s talk about this London Times article that speculates on a married Anglican convert could be made a cardinal in an upcoming conclave. The promotion of the married Msgr. Graham Leonard, who was the Anglican bishop of London, is being pushed by a couple of British politicians.
And therein lies the rub: Elevation to the College of Cardinals is not done on the basis of external lobbying. The Pope’s choices will be from among those who he thinks deserve the honor and that’s that.
This lobbying isn’t going to make it happen. No sense talking about it. I’m surprised these very well-connected people don’t see that.
Agreed, Dom. I was floored when I first read the piece – lobbying the Holy Father to get someone made a cardinal???
What do they think this is – the time of the Borgias…?
Sheesh – as it were.
This lobbying attempt is probably misguided, but don’t hold it against Msr. Leonard. He’s terrific.
Lobbying can work in that it can raise the profile of something who hadn’t been seriously considered.
The English hierarchy asked for an indult to celebrate the 1965 Mass after ‘70 and the Pope signed off on it to Msgr. Bugnini’s dismay after reading a petition to keep it signed by Agatha Christie!
Viva Leonard; he’s a Catholic priest in good standing even though he’s married. Why not?
Completely different circumstance.
Plus I’d rather not set a precedent of lobbying affecting selections for the college.
Elevation to the College of Cardinals in this situation would be difficult. According to the current Cannons all members of the College are required to be ordained bishops. This of course was not always the case, at certain points there were even lay Cardinals. However the current rule would require that a married man be made bishop, an impediment in the tradition of both the East and West. Of course exceptions to this rule have been granted at the request of several theologians, who were made Cardinals honoris causa after they attained the age of 80.
Name him, and lets get going on this viri probati issue also.
I don’t think Cardinal Dulles has been made a bishop yet.
One does not have to be made a bishop to be named a nonvoting, “honorary” Cardinal. Frs. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, and yes, Avery Dulles were/are not bishops, and the Pope dispensed them from the need to be ordained bishops.
If memory serves, there was a married cardinal in the early 20th Century, a reconciled “Old Catholic.” But I’m not completely sure on this one.
Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, England in the Nineteenth Century (and into the Twentieth?), was married; his wife went into a convent when he converted from Anglicanism and took RC Holy Orders. He ended up a widower at some point: perhaps before he got to be Cardinal. But if he could be ordained a priest while in a ‘marriage blanc’, I don’t know why Leonard can’t get the Big Red Hat.
Manning kept a copy of her picture on his desk and retained a deep emotional attachment to his wife until his own death.
Perhaps the title of the post was ambiguous. What I meant was, “Don’t expect this married Anglican priest to become a cardinal” because I don’t think the Vatican wants it to look like lobbying is effective.
Jeff K:
That’s one I hadn’t heard—interesting.
But the man I was thinking of was definitely OC, and from Germany. Moreover, the marital arrangements remained the same, from what I can remember—his wife attended his investiture as a cdl.
Sorry to contradict, Jeff K, but Cardinal Manning didn’t send his wife to a convent after he converted from Anglicanism and was ordained. Manning had been married, but his wife died in 1837, fourteen years before his conversion to Catholicism. When he was ordained a Catholic priest (and soon after an archbishop) Manning had long been a widower and none of these issues arose.
I was not aware of the Manning situation, but thanks to the Venerable Bede for clearing it up.
Can. 351 §1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
In correction to Dale Price’s comment:there is no such thing as a honorary Cardinal. All men chosen by the Pope, whose names where published before the Consistory of the College, are obligated to fulfill all the duties of a Cardinal.
As I said in my original comment, Dulles and DeLubac asked for and were given special dispensation from the Pope. Von Balthasar is a mute point because he never lived to be named a Cardinal. My point is that although dispensations have been given to members of the College who are beyond voting age, it would be peculiar in the case of a voting age Cardinal.
What I meant was that the red hat was given to Frs. Dulles and de Lubac as honors for theological achievement, and there would be no ability to vote in a conclave—hence “honorary.” Sloppy usage on my part.
It’s a moral certainty that HUvB would have gotten the dispensation.