Consistory 2024, Pope Francis’ Coup

Pope Francis will create 21 new cardinals in a consistory to be held on Dec. 8, 2024. Twenty of them are eligible to vote in a conclave, bringing the number of cardinals who would vote in a conclave to 141. The number will drop dramatically during 2025, when 13 cardinals will be over 80. However, Pope Francis’s tenth consistory provides several indications that cannot be ignored.

These indications concern:
• The composition of the College of Cardinals;
• Pope Francis’s way of governing;
• and the narrative-changing operation that has taken place in this pontificate.

With this consistory,  we find ourselves in a reversal of perspectives, a “coup d’état” that has completed its work. Until now, the Popes have always outlined their government and built the College of Cardinals by looking at the general situation and balancing visions. Their main concern was communion within the Church, which led the Popes to make some choices rather than others.

On the other hand,  Pope Francis took the perspective of a minority of the Church – though a noisy and media-backed one.  When he understood that this minority had not generally followed, he proceeded clearly in his operations, effectively cutting the majority from command positions.

Toward the next conclave

The profiles of the 21 new cardinals are revealing in this sense. No strong profile among them can take positions other than those of the pontificate. Instead, some profiles will always profess loyalty to the Pope for convenience, ideology, or simply because their profile is more pastoral than governmental.

Pope Francis has Angelo Acerbi as first on the list. He is the only one who can never vote in the conclave because he is 99. A career diplomat, he is prelate emeritus of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and can be read as a message from Pope Francis to the Order itself. He promotes profiles that maintain loyalty, and the brutal reform that he asked of the Order of Malta has brought many difficulties even to the most effective humanitarian diplomacy in the world.

Unsurprisingly, Carlos Mattasoglio, Archbishop of Lima in Peru, was created a cardinal whom the Pope called to change an archdiocese generally considered conservative. The Archbishop of Santiago, Chile, Fernando Chomali, also became a Cardinal. Pope Francis rewarded Ecuador, not looking at the capital, Quito, but at Guayaquil and giving the red hat to Archbishop Luis Gerardo Cabrera Herrera. The Archbishop of Porto Alegre, Jaime Spengler, will also receive the red hat.

What is striking, however, is the creation of Vicente Bokalic Iglic, Archbishop of Santiago del Estero, whom Pope Francis recently elevated to the primatial diocese of Argentina as a cardinal. Pope Francis’ decision to make Santiago del Estero the primatial seat of Argentina seemed to be more of an operation to change the balance of power or an operation of reparation. In fact, Santiago del Estero did not even exist as a diocese when the first diocese of Argentina was called Cordoba and Tucuman. It signifies the Pope’s desire to rewrite history and legitimize it.

Then, Pope Francis created Baldassarre Reina, until now vicegerent (deputy Vicar) of the Diocese of Rome, as a cardinal and appointed him as his vicar. However, the appointment as vicar was not made official by a bulletin; it was only verbally made by the Pope. It is the sign of a Pope who governs without even considering the institutional protocol and who creates not only the cardinals but also the appointments on the spot.

The creation of Father Fabio Baggio, undersecretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, as cardinal may be indicative of the fact that he will succeed Cardinal Michael Czerny, now 78, at the helm of the dicastery. Also, Rolandas Makrickas, coadjutor archpriest of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, will be cardinal. He worked on the financial reform of Santa Maria Maggiore with results that pleased the Pope, and who will be the next archpriest of the cathedral.

Pope Francis rewards Turin in Italy, creating Archbishop Roberto Repole as cardinal, but not Naples, Milan, Venice, or Florence. In Europe, Pope Francis created Archbishop of Belgrade Laszlo Nemet as a cardinal but did not deliver red hats to the archbishops of Brussels, Paris, or Lisbon, which remain capitals without a cardinal. As the Pope generally neglected the cardinalatial diocese, he thus decided to create the first Serbian cardinal, while attempting to bridge with the Serbian Orthodox Church at the same time.

There is no new cardinal from the United States despite the extraordinary generational change of US cardinals that will take place in the coming months. However, the Archbishop of Toronto, Frank Leo, will become a cardinal.

Asia will be represented in the sacred college by the Archbishop of Tokyo and President of Caritas Internationalis Tarcisius Kikuchi; b by Pablo Virgilio Siongco David, Bishop of Kalookan, in the Philippines; by Paskalis Bruno Syukur, Bishop of Bogor (Indonesia); and Dominique Joseph Mathieu, Archbishop of Tehran-Ispahan (Iran), who is Belgian.

Africa gets two cardinals: Ignace Bessi Dogbo, Metropolitan Archbishop of Abidjan (Ivory Coast), and Jean-Paul Vesco, Metropolitan Archbishop of Algiers (Algeria), French-born.

Australia will be represented by a Greek Catholic eparch, the eparch of Melbourne Mykola Bycock, with a choice that seems to be a slap in the face for the major archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Sviatoslav Shevchuk. In the end, Shevchuk, who is at the frontline of the war, will be perceived as out of the Pope’s shadow, which could result in a weakening of his diplomatic and personal weight in his homeland.

Two surprising choices among the new cardinals were the theologian Timothy Radcliffe, spiritual assistant to the Synod, and George Jacob Koovakad, an Indian official of the secretariat of state and organizer of papal trips. He is syro-malabaran, and strangely the recently appointed major archbishop of his Church, Archbishop Raphael Tattil, will not take the red hat. 

The Pope’s five criteria for choosing new cardinals

There will, therefore, be 141 cardinal electors as of December 8. It has been rumored that Pope Francis would broaden the Conclave’s electoral base. As always,  Pope Francis did not formally do so. He derogated from the rules, which set the maximum limit of cardinals at 120. Even John Paul II had done so in some circumstances, but they were exceptions.  Pope Francis has already done it at least a couple of times.

What are the Pope’s criteria for choosing new cardinals?

First, Pope Francis created cardinals that he considered closest to him. In the past, popes would also appoint people close to them to government positions and make them cardinals. The Pope creates them cardinals by simply leaving them in their place. This is why the so-called cardinal dioceses are often not led by cardinals, just as many influential positions are not entrusted to cardinals.

Pope Francis has increased the electoral base and national and continental representation in these ten consistories. But he has kept the Cardinals away from the center. He governs alone. For a Pope who does not want a court, one finds oneself in the paradox of having a sort of papal Versailles, a residence that is formally accessible but in which only a few have influence. Those who should and might help the Pope in governing are away.

The second criterion is that of wanting to send a message. Pope Francis has given clear geopolitical signals. He wanted a cardinal in Iran and thus showed closeness to the local population, as when he created the nuncio in Syria, Mario Zenari, as a cardinal.

Pope Francis did not create the archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church as a cardinal,but a mostly unknown Greek Catholic eparch in Australia who had few faithful and who, in the end, remained relatively invisible, thus showing a distance between the positions of Shevchuk and those of the Pope himself. The Pope wants peace, and he wants dialogue at all costs. Shevchuk and the other bishops in the territory live in a different situation and ask for peace by urging their population to resist. These are currently irreconcilable positions.

The third criterion is loyalty. Makrickas has proven himself faithful and capable in his work at Santa Maria Maggiore. Before that, he had been called to lead the administration of the Secretariat of State while the drama that would lead to the trial on the management of the Secretariat of State’s funds (the so-called Becciu trial) was unfolding.

The creation of Kovakand as cardinal, nicknamed by the Pope with irony “the Indian executioner,” remains incomprehensible if one considers that the cardinalate must be linked to a specific assignment. It is more understandable, however, if the Pope wants a cardinal to organize his trips. It is also a signal to the Secretariat of State because Kovakand comes to have more weight.

Who knows? It could be a reaction from the Pope to the trip to Belgium, which ended in controversy.  The Pope may have accused the Secretariat of State of being excessively cautious in drafting speeches.

The issue would go even further back to Pope Francis’s trip to Canada, when the Pope disavowed all his very balanced speeches, emphasizing in the press conference on the plane that he believed that what was in the residential schools in Canada was “genocide.” Now, in organizing the trips, there will be someone who will not put obstacles in the way of the Pope’s positions, even when these may be unreasonable.

The fourth criterion is the will to shuffle the cards. The appointment of Reina as vicar of the Diocese of Rome ends the process of revolution within the vicariate of Rome. Pope Francis has called bishops and auxiliaries outside the clergy of Rome; he has met with parish priests without ever listening to their indications, and he has gone so far as to promote a reform of the diocese of Rome that eliminates the sector of the historic center against everyone’s opinion. The Vicariate of Rome is no longer Rome’s but an organism connected to the Pope and his decisions and has no more ties to the history of its administration. This way, it might be easier for the Pope to carry out brutal reforms without resistance.

Finally, the fifth criterion is ideological unity. After all, the cardinals created by Pope Francis have yet to have ideologically strong positions. Those who have, however, have them so in a specific direction.

For example, no one would have expected – or at least the name had never circulated – that the Archbishop of Belgrade Laszlo Nemet would receive the red hat. Nemet is also vice-president of the Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE), which now has two cardinal vice-presidents (the other is Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich) and an archbishop president, Gintaras Grušas of Vilnius. Nemet promoted a workshop on the Synod in Linz this summer, which brought together a good part of the progressive theological intelligentsia of German brand to look to the future of the Synod.

In doing so, Nemet presents himself as a mediator between the German wing and the Synod on synodality, as Cardinal Hollerich had done before him when he also received Cardinal Grech, the secretary general of the Synod, in an attempt at mediation.

While Grech and Hollerich seek a difficult balance between the most advanced positions and the maintenance of some fundamental doctrine principles, the theological school on which Nemet relies must be more unprejudiced. This movement also has a publication in Hungarian that seeks to impact the synodal debate in traditional Hungary.

Then, there is the theologian Radcliffe, who also touched on Fiducia Supplicans’ theme in his Synod reflections. Radcliffe has brought forward an idea dear to the Pope: that one must trust Peter. This is a way of silencing the various disputes regarding regulating the blessing of so-called irregular couples: trusting Peter means not being able to raise problems. This way, however, even the synodal debate itself is limited to very little because everything must be oriented to the will of the Pope.

Therefore, Pope Francis shows that he appreciates that type of effort by creating Nemet and Radcliffe as cardinals. Then we must ask ourselves, looking at the profile of the new cardinals, what message was sent to the Church?

Pope Francis’s way of governing

Pope Francis’s decision to reward some currents to the detriment of others shows that the Pope will continue his reforms, regardless of everything. The debates at the Synod, including those of the ten working groups, have shown that most bishops have a traditional approach to the issues. There is no desire for revolutions. Indeed, in some matters, for example, the judge-bishop, the members of the commissions are aiming for a return to the previous practice on the issues of matrimonial nullity.

The same impression came from the conversations of the 2023 Synod, which radically changed the final text, even eliminating some of the most fashionable expressions. Pope Francis wants to reassure everyone. He reaffirmed the role of the bishop, lamenting the chatter that claimed the bishop had lost importance. He said that the Synod does not mean finding fashionable reforms.

The Pope, however, can give practical indications that will also subvert the doctrinal system. Pope Francis inspires trust; he loves to enter into personal conversations, but this is his way of sounding out moods and hiding. There is no certainty about how he will manage things; there is no comprehensible and linear modus operandi.

Will this also be the case with the Synod? Will the Pope overcome all the discussions with radical and final choices? The big question arises regarding how Pope Francis has managed problems so far. At a certain point, the Pope made all the decisions and used the information he was given to destroy and rebuild his way.

A coup d’état?

This is where the idea of a coup d’état was born. Pope Francis has, after all, taken and developed much of the post-conciliar debate that had sometimes remained on the margins - and there is also some Latin American resentment, so much that he often stressed that Latina American theology has to be a “source theology”.

The post-conciliar debate was characterized by a pragmatic thought that Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI had considered but was not placed at the Church village’s center.

The motivations of previous Popes are various. The first is that some of the pressures went beyond the doctrine itself and that no practical choice could have changed the teaching of the Gospel. The second is that, in any case, the Church was not going in that direction.

For example, propaganda has taught that Paul VI reaffirmed the position on contraception and sexuality in Humanae Vitae against the opinion of the majority of the commissions consulted. But historical research—even the most recent—has shown that Pope Montini moved in harmony with the Church and that what was passed off as the majority opinions were the so-called minority reports.

It is the same on many issues that are becoming central today. From the position on the role of women in the Church to those of priestly celibacy, also passing through the issues of sexuality and marital nullity,  public opinion supports a more pragmatic vision on the part of the Church and almost asks for a doctrinal change. But is this what the faithful want? Is this what the majority of bishops think?

While Pope Francis cuts off the head of the traditionalist movement and considers it an element of division in the Church, it must also be considered that there are growing traditionalist phenomena, such as the pilgrimage to Chartres. Should this traditionalist push be stifled simply because it is unliked, or should it be grown in faith? Should division or unity be created?

On some issues, the Pope proved to be a man of faith, indeed.

Pope Francis has maintained his strong position on abortion.

He has signaled this by announcing the upcoming beatification of King Baudouin in Belgium and holding him up as an example. He has responded to the theologians of Louvain by rejecting a sociological vision of women’s role.

Then, however, Pope Francis deals with his nemesis, public opinion, which is less tender than usual when the Pope takes these positions.

Pope Francis, therefore, addresses everyone, puts aside those who could be a problem, keeps away those who could govern with him, and gives strength to a solid public opinion that, until now, has been a minority in the Church. A sign is provided by the so-called “remediation cardinals” that he has always created in every consistory – like Fitzgerald, who was sent nuncio to Egypt and not promoted to the Curia, or like Rauber,  nuncio who had proposed de Kesel as archbishop of Brussels instead of Leonard (and de Kesel would take the place of archbishop of Brussels, precisely with Pope Francis, succeeding Leonard).

With the next consistory, Pope Francis makes his changes permanent. It is an imposed narrative change, symbolized by the decision to make Santiago al Estero the primatial diocese of Argentina. It is a change of narrative that aims to rewrite history, erasing the past and creating a new way of being Pope. It is a consistory that wants to make a legacy.  What will happen next is not given, though. Because once the cardinals gather in conclave, anything can happen.