Talk:Cardinals created by Francis

Seperate article in the near future

Hi, I noticed this list gives more information then the usual lists on this topic. I think that most info on the list right now is about 22 February 2014, and as soon as we have several consistories it can be moved to a seperate article like March 2006 Consistory. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Separate articles for each consistory are probably not a good idea. The one you cite seems to be the only one. There's no reason not to provide more coverage that the skimpy list of names found in other entries like Cardinals created by John Paul II. If the article gets too long in a few years, it can be dealt with. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Nationality of Kelvin Edward Felix

I replaced the flag of Dominica with that of Saint Lucia, since the Holy See Press Office counts him as an Saint Lucian cardinal (see [1]) Gugganij (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The heading on that column is "Birth Country". I'm opposed to having that column at all, whatever the heading or contents. And I'd love to see the flags removed even if the column stays. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that it's birth country. However, Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, the archbishop of Santiago de Chile, was born in Italy, and that looks really weird now. I somehow think it's not right to "count" a Chilean cardinal as Italian. Gugganij (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree! I don't think nationality is very useful here. And Felix' diocese (Castries) is international. And he's emeritus anyway. The use of flags on these WP articles only goes back to the Cardinals created by Benedict XVI entry, which lacks the far more useful title info. Note also that having both the country name and the flag is repetitive. Some of the flags few will recognize. If we have to state the country like Côte d'Ivoire, the flag icon for the country is just decor that slows download time.

I propose removing the column "Birth Country" and adding the country info where appropriate to the person's title, like making Archbishop of Cotabato read Archbishop of Cotabato, Philippines. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Gugganij (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. I'm going to take a look at College of Cardinals now, which uses flags very badly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

traditional 'cardinal sees'

It seems the custom now is not to create a cardinal where their predecessor is still eligible to vote in a conclave.

• Vincent Nichols succeeded Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as Archbishop of Westminster in 2009 but was not created cardinal until Feb 2014, after CMO's 80th birthday (Aug 2012).
• Manuel José Macário do Nascimento Clemente succeeded José Policarpo to the Patriarchate of Lisbon in 2013 but was not created cardinal until Feb 2015, following Policarpo's death (Mar 2014).

With bishops being obliged to tender their resignations at 75, and cardinals being eligible to vote at a conclave until they hit 80, more and more traditional 'cardinal sees' are likely to fall cardinal-less for a period. The text at Manuel José Macário do Nascimento Clemente#Patriarch of Lisbon highlights both the expectations and the change this custom seems to represent.

BUT, as it seems to be a custom rather than a rule, I've not been able to find a reference. Can anybody help raise this above a bit of WP:OR and make it fit to add to the article? Bazj (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a rule. it's called an "unwritten rule" here but I don't know when it dates from. It seems more relevant to the WP entry about the college of cardinals than this entry.

And there are two interrelated phenomena. One are archbishops of "traditional" cardinalate sees that have to wait, as in your examples, and others who just wait and *never* get the red hat, because Francis is to some extent disassociating the see/hat connection. That second phenomenon is very Francis and mentioned in this entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Though this discussion is more relevant to the College than to this article, I'll add another kind of exception. Though it appears an unwritten rule than no two electors "represent" a single see, there have been two electors from the Archdiocese of Mexico since Carlos Aguiar Retes, already a cardinal, was installed there in February 2018. His predecessor Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera remains an elector until he turns 80 in June 2022. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

New column

Would it be good to put in a third column in the tables that lists the title or diaconate each cardinal received? It seems appropriate given this page's context; or perhaps a column that lists if the individual is a Cardinal-Priest or Cardinal-Deacon? 202.125.25.190 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosa Chávez and auxiliary question

An IP user added this: "However, he is the second individual to be named a cardinal as an auxiliary bishop, since Pope Pius XI named Alfred-Henri-Marie Baudrillart as a cardinal in 1935 (Rosa Chávez, however, still remains an auxiliary bishop while Baudrillart did not following his elevation)."

I removed it as undocumented and unlikely. Baudrillart was a distinguished academic and man of letters, longtime rector of the Institut catholique de Paris and as early as 1918 a member of the Académie française. He still led the Institut when made cardinal in 1935. French WP and the standard sources don’t mention him as an auxiliary. Before becoming a cardinal he was a titular bishop and then a titular archbishop, and surely not still an auxiliary when he was made titular archbishop. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Footnote b should be incorporated into the text of the article

Not only does each section on a consistory mention that Pope Francis has exceeded the limit of 120, but it's in the introductory text as well.

Footnote b says:

The number of cardinal electors has been as high as 135 on two occasions, following Pope John Paul II's consistories on 21 February 2001 and 21 October 2003.

However it only appears next to the name of the last cardinal in the table listing all the cardinals added in the last consistory and is pretty easy to miss. Footnote b should be incorporated into the text of the article just as it was done for the article on Pope Benedict, which states:

With these additions, the number of cardinal electors increased from 107 to 125, a majority of them (63) named by Benedict.[14][15] Though the number of cardinal electors exceeded the limit of 120,[14] nine of them were due to turn eighty before the end of the year.[citation needed] Only Pope John Paul II's consistories in 2001 and 2003 had produced a larger number of electors, 135.

Pope Benedict exceeded the limit of 120 three times, but reached 125 only in one consistory, the second to last. That is where the reference to JP II's increase to 135 is included.

There is currently great division in the Catholic Church with Pope Francis having both fans and vocal detractors. Lay individuals also often criticize the pope. The way this Wikipedia article appears, it would be easy for someone to get the mis-impression that Pope Francis has done something unprecedented and use this as a criticism. We know people seldom read footnotes.

I strongly recommend that this be included in the text. If not, at the very least the footnote should be placed next to text in the article rather than as a footnote for the last item in a table. Ileanadu (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've made the change suggested. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Flags of the nations

Adding national flags communicates less information than the name of the country. The typical reader cannot be expected to recognize these flags nor should that reader be required to click through to learn what country is represented. Sorting flags is silly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

New high number of electors in December

I noted in a recent edit that a source noted that the count of electors will remain high for some time if the December consistory comes off as planned. But the date we now state in May 2026 is the correct day that the number of electors falls to 120. In the source, Christopher White of NCR inexplicably is concerned with when the number of electors falls below 120, which is pretty much irrelevant. He writes: "Clocking in at 140 electors, that number exceeds the limit of 120 set by Pope Paul VI in 1975 and will not drop below that number again until after July 2026." He also gets the maximum wrong. It's 141 not 140. In sum, he makes a similar point but not well. We could use a better source! Rutsq (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking around, I see there are lots of ways to get this wrong. The Guardian: "As of 28 September, there were 122 cardinal-electors; that means the new additions will bring the number to 142." Wrong! and PBS says the same, ignoring a birthday this week. Rutsq (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

140 is acceptable by the end of this year. Of the pre-2024-consistory cardinals, one will turn 80 between Dec 8 and Dec 31, right? That will be 120. And of the newly elevated cardinals 1 out of 21 has already turned 80 (and another one will turn 80 in 2025). That will be 20 there, to add up to 120.  always learning  18:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean 140 (120 of the current group plus 20 new) in your last sentence. Rutsq (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"[...] and will not drop below that number again until after July 2026." Will is a strong word here, no? Cardinals might get sick and pass away, for example, so we will not know ahead when exactly the sum will return to 120.  always learning  18:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's not hard to get that possibility into the accounting. That why our text now says "provided no elector dies". Rutsq (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)