Talk:List of current cardinals

ALL CAPS

The WP Manual of Style says:

Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article. For example, replace the headline or title "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today" or, if necessary, "War begins today".[c]

Following that style guideline, citations to Vatican biographies should use mixed case, Sodano not SODANO, though the Vatican uses ALL CAPS for the cardinal’s last name. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for pointing this out. (Frankly, I had literally no idea that this rule existed. Perhaps I should read the MOS more.) RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 08:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms image

I'm not sure what this means: "External ornaments of a cardinal (archbishop)'s coat of arms,..." What is the reader to understand by this "Cardinal (archbishop)"? Do we mean "a cardinal who is an archbishop"? The same image when used on the College of Cardinals entry has the caption "Coat of arms style for cardinals." (I confess I'm avoiding working my way through Ecclesiastical heraldry.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "archbishop" may be deleted; coats of arms of all Cardinals are same, regardless if the holder is archbishop, bishop or priest.

Varro (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it means a cardinal who is an archbishop (clarified in caption). There are indeed different variants of coats of arms of cardinals (e.g. with a pallium for metropolitans, single-barred cross for diocesan bishops), see commons:Category:SVG Cardinals heraldry templates. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As I suspected. Thanks for the modification. The obvious question then: why use this, one of several possible templates, to "illustrate" this WP entry. It strikes me as off-topic, even distracting. Any pic of a group of cardinals would seem more appropriate. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to find a ‘neutral’ image to illustrate the article; using a group of cardinals would, I feel, not be as representative and would require semi-regular updating. Therefore, I thought of using an attribute of cardinals instead, and felt that the use of the heraldic template was a good way to do this. Indeed, the first picture on the article about cardinals is another version of the coat of arms. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that this image is used in a certain way on another WP entry is quite beside the point. The image in place now on this WP entry is more distracting than "neutral". It is a bit of heraldry arcana. It does not apply to all living cardinals and does not apply only to those living. You have better choices. (I prefer the first and second of these.)

1. No image at all. Many list entries on WP have no image. There's no requirement.
2. Regalia of some sort, though I am no expert. Perhaps File:Vetements cardinal Gamarelli.jpg That image is used on German-language WP in many articles in the series "Cardinals created by ...." and in a number of other WP entries for Cardinal in various languages.
3. A generic image of cardinals en masse. See College of Cardinals. Even if most in that image are dead -- it's from the funeral of JPII -- it's still a generic illustration and the individuals can't be identified.
4. An image of a several living cardinals if you can find one. The fact that the image will at some point be out of date is really not a problem. Semi-regular updating? Why don't you trust the WP editors of the future to maintain this entry as needed?
5. Create a composite of images of perhaps 4 (younger, healthier) cardinals that can be updated if one dies, the kind of composite most often found on geography entries like this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pondy_Montage.jpg Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

While I still don't think that the coat of arms image is necessarily ‘distracting’, I'll remove the image; thanks for the feedback. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 05:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Precedence

Could we determine the exact precedence for Cardinals Darmaatmadja and Ortega y Alamino? Sources from 1994, such as Angelus when the Consistory was announced, and a report in AAS show Card. Ortega y Alamino first. On the other hand, documents from the 2005 Conclave, like AAS or the daily Bollettino have Card. Darmaatmadja first. I would go for the 1994 version, as the original one. Is anyone aware of any changes between 1994 and 2005?
Varro (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is certainly a good question – one that I wasn't actually aware of before. Unfortunately, I can't find any evidence to account for the change in precedence, though I agree that we should keep the original 1994 one, pending further information to clarify the situation. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Njue

It appears the birthdate of Cardinal John Njue is unknown. Vatican sources say only 1944. It’s not unreasonable to say 31 December 1944 as we do now, but it needs an explanatory note. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of Vatican sources, Njue's personal biography page notes only the year, but the statistics lists (for example, by age) qualifies his birth date as 31 December. I've added a note to explain this matter, as suggested. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Njue's personal biography page now indicates 1 January 1946. Salutmoncon (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean his official Holy See bio I suppose. I see that HERE. And that's the date used on the Holy See's list of electors HERE. Very interesting. The change seems to have gone unnoticed. The most recent archived version from 27 August 2023 still said "born in 1944". I believe we need to follow the official source on this, probably with an appropriate note. Amazing that such a change extending his term as a cardinal elector has been made without public notice.Rutsq (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Annuario Pontificio 2024 p78 gives his birthday as 1 Jan 1946. (AP 2023 p71* gave it as "nell'anno 1944"). Dcheney (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Change made. Rutsq (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of "former cardinals"?

This article used to have a paragraph in the lead about living "former cardinals". This included any living people who used to be cardinals (Popes Benedict XVI and Francis and, as a related note, up to his death, Cardinal Keith O'Brien). It was most recently removed by the user at IP 2800:370:58:7ea0:d5b3:c746:163e:e96d (talk · contribs).

It read:

There are two living former cardinals: Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who were cardinals at the time of their respective elections as Pope Benedict XVI (now Pope emeritus) on 19 April 2005 and as Pope Francis on 13 March 2013.

Personally, in the interest of completeness, I would be in favour of such a paragraph in the article, as it still represents an intersection of Category:Living people and of Category:Roman Catholic cardinals (or of one of the latter's subcategories). For example, Pope Francis is in Category:Living people and in Category:Argentine cardinals. This makes him technically a living cardinal, despite having been elevated to the papacy. In the interest of general consensus, would such a paragraph on former cardinals be a viable addition (restoration?) to this article? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it seems appropriate to me as well. Although I would disagree about them being a "living cardinal" - they are living and they were cardinals. --Dcheney (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with the inclusion Emk9 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called Keith O'Brien, now deceased, a former cardinal. He was allowed to keep his title, but we would need footnote to indicate that he gave up all his function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That was indeed what we did, yes. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispensation

Is there a source for dispensation of cardinal-designate Aquilino Bocos Merino? Some octagenarian cardinals did receive the episcopal consecation after being appointed to the College of Cardinals - Julien Ries, Prosper Grech being the latest examples. I would wait until the consistory before adding the footnote. Varro (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point, so I guess we'll remove it for the time being. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The dispensation (or consecration) typically occurs a week or two before the Cardinal ceremony. Worst case, we'll find out as the booklets for the ceremony are made public either that morning or the night before. --Dcheney (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

We now know that he was consecrated a titular archbishop on 16 Jun 2018. --Dcheney (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal Bishops

This happens for the first time in history - Pope has issued a Rescript promoting four Cardinals to the Order of Cardinals Bishops, without a suburbicarian diocese, but otherwise equal to Cardinal-Bishops who hold a suburbicarian diocese, derogating the Code of Canon Law. It enters into force on 28 June. I guess we will now have a question of their precedence - I presume they will rank after the other Latin Rite Cardinal-Bishops, and above the Eastern Rite Patriarchs. Perhaps we should take note of their seating arrangement during the Consistory on Thursday. Varro (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In the past, the Cardinal-Bishops (excluding Patriarchs) had an order based on their title. It will be interesting to see how the new ones are ranked in comparison to the existing. Cardinal-Priests and Cardinal-Deacons are ranked within those orders based on their entrance into the college of cardinals (regardless of the rank at that time). Unfortunately a number of the existing Cardinal-Bishops are quite elderly (oldest is 95, youngest is 83) so some of them may not make the event. --Dcheney (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that thay will be ranked as in the Rescript - Parolin first, the others according to seniority. If we see them in the front row, between Card. Sodano, and any other Latin rite Cardinal bishops who attend, and the Eastern Patriarchs - that would be a clear explanation. Varro (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here is their respective rankings in the college as of today: Parolin #130; Sandri #91; Ouellet #78; Filoni #192. --Dcheney (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added or modified {{efn-lr}}s in the four cardinals in the meantime, similar to those for optatio, to be recast (future tense to past tense) once the consistory arrives. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding some technical data pertaining the article, I have expanded the data-sort-value for the precedence of cardinal bishops to two digits (e.g. "0,01 / 0,<…>") in order to accommodate ten cardinals. In addition, there is a page within my userspace that functions as a full version of this article as it would look after the consistory and the co-options, etc., which can be copied over to the mainspace here after the consistory for easier updating. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well done! We'll just have to wait to see the orders assigned to them. There have been hints that mons. Ladaria might be created Cardinal-Bishop, and maybe even mons. Krajewski. And now that mons. Bocos Merino has been consecrated a bishop, there might even be a possibility that he is created Cardinal-Priest. We shall see tomorrow :) Varro (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: The Orders are exactly as you prepared (Sako to Bishops; Ladaria, Becciu, Krajewski and Bocos Merino to Deacons, others to Priests). Varro (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The word ‘’co-opt’’ is technically correct, I suppose, but the word has a number of meanings in English and I think is more often used to describe the process where members of a group select their own membership. Is there any reason we can’t use an unmistakable term like ‘’add to’’. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm just following the rescriptum here (English version), which uses the term "co-opt". If another term comes to the fore, we might very well consider switching to that instead. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The original text was written in Italian and uses "cooptare" which does translate to "co-opt". Eventually we'll have the official Latin version, but that could easily be a year or more from now. --Dcheney (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just suggesting we can do better than parrot Vatican legalese as rendered into English (either lazily or hurriedly) with an imperfect cognate. Neither cooptare nor co-opt has a single meaning. The reader shouldn’t be forced to “make sense” of what’s going on here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

An alternative could be just to use "transferred", as with other instances of cardinals changing orders within the College. Actually, the use of "transferred" is slightly problematic in its own right, despite being used in the CIC; I would tend to prefer the more accessible "elevated" instead. Thoughts? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a problem with "transferred" when the same title is retained but just being changed (temporarily) into a higher rank. --Dcheney (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that this article deals solely with orders within the College of Cardinals, not with the actual titles and deaconries to which the cardinals are assigned. (In fact, over at List of titular churches, I used "elevated" for deaconries changed to titles pro hac vice.) "Transferred" could very well end up confusing readers, while "elevated" to represent the change in cardinal rank is probably a better term overall. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I do notice "The two most senior cardinal bishops are termed the Dean and the Vice-Dean, who are elected by and from the six aforementioned cardinal bishops and approved by the pope." What is now "the six" will need to be reconsidered, given that we're adding 4 new cardinal-bishops of Roman titles, even though those 4 are having their existing titular churches co-opted to suburbicarian rank. Those 4 are being given equal rank with the 6 holders of suburbicarian see titles, although in terms of seniority they are going onto the list just behind those 6. What I am left wondering about now is what will happen LATER when vacancies occur in the suburbicarian see titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Pope is free to fill the vacancy, either to give the suburbicarian see to one of Cardinal Bishops who doesn't have a suburbicarian see, or to promote any other Cardinal to that see. Varro (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I see this note on a recent edit: Re-reading the rescript, it seems that the new cardinal bishops do get to vote for the Dean/Vice-Dean (and perhaps even be elected?)) Shouldn't we be citing quality secondary sources, not relying on [multiple readings of] the primary source? I thought the rescript was sufficiently clear about this on Day One, but to be sure I checked Rocco Palmo: "What's more, however, the change paves the way to another key aspect of succession-planning. As the cardinal-dean regardless of his electoral status leads the general congregations preceding a Conclave and, all told, effectively serves as the "administrator" of the Roman church during a papal vacancy, the new cardinal-bishops join the pool which'll elect a new dean and from which he will be chosen once the office falls vacant." I know he's self-published, but there has to be commentary somewhere. Unfortunately most of what I find focuses on the role of the senior cardinal bishop at a conclave, not the election of Dean and Vice-Dean. (BTW, La Croix reported weeks ago that Francis has Sodano's resignation in hand, so there's sure to be more commentary when the election of a new dean takes place before too long.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The text of the rescript says that it is "notwithstanding canons 350 §§ 1-2 and 352 §§ 2-3 CIC". Canons 352 §§ 2–3 are as follows:

Can. 352 §2. When the office of Dean is vacant, those Cardinals who have a suburbicarian title, and only those, under the presidency of the sub-Dean if he is present, or of the oldest member, elect one of their number to act as Dean of the College. They are to submit his name to the Roman Pontiff, to whom it belongs to approve the person elected.

§3. In the same way as set out in §2, the sub-Dean is elected, with the Dean presiding. It belongs to the Roman Pontiff to approve also the election of the sub-Dean.

They explicitly talk about the election of the Dean and of the Vice-Dean and the cardinals eligible to vote, so I believe that we can safely say that the rescript expressly allows the new cardinal bishops to participate, together with the ordinary suburbicarian cardinal bishops. My previous (incorrect) assumption was that the office of Dean/Vice-Dean is more closely linked to the suburbicarian cardinal bishops (e.g. the Dean additionally gets the title of Ostia) but, when I went over and re-checked the above canons, it seemed to be not the case at all. I suppose that we'll see more information with time. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Protodeacon / senior elector deacon

At the moment, the Protodeacon is Card. Martino, who is no longer an elector. This is a situation that never happened during a conclave - Card. Felici in 1978, Medina Estevez in 2005, and Tauran in 2013 were all electors (and before that, all Cardinals were electors, regardless of their age). Few months ago, some media published articles stating that now it belongs to Card. Sarah, as senior elector from the Order of Deacons, to announce the "Habemus Papam"[1][2]. UDG states that "the senior Cardinal Deacon announces to the waiting people that the election has taken place". As I am reading this, it would mean Cardinal-Protodeacon, regardless if he is elector or not. Would anybody be able to confirm if this is right, or provide some further information? Thanks. Varro (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the sources you cite, the second cites the first and both indicate the story originates in La Croix: Le cardinal Sarah, nouveau protodiacre en cas de conclave.

To add to your sources, Scaramuzzi made the same point when Martino became Protodeacon in June 2014: Martino diventa cardinale protodiacono (senza “Habemus Papam”). But ACI Prensa didn’t mention the elector issue: Cardenal Renato Martino es el nuevo Protodiácono, encargado de anunciar al Papa. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the use of "senior Cardinal Bishop/Priest/Deacon" in UDG consistently refers to those among the participants in the papal conclave themselves, as demonstrated in #9 and #11. UDG #74 talks about exhortations given in a conclave by the "senior Cardinal in the Order of Deacons/Priests/Bishops". In my mind, these surely have to be those among the cardinal electors, as it would seem unlikely that the conclave would be temporarily opened to a non-elector to deliver an exhortation, not having gone through the conclave process; UDG also makes no special provision for something like this. (Furthermore, the Dean/Protopriest/Protodeacon aren't guaranteed to be in Rome or able to participate during the conclave.) Other points of UDG have similar statements, often placing the "senior Cardinal Bishop" after the Dean and the Subdean. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

On listing dependent/other territories in this article

Per De wafelenbak's edit summary here.

I think that it's been fairly well-established that we don't really follow the Holy See in ascribing cardinals to certain countries (the Press Office lists Cardinal Felix under "Antilles", for example). That said, I don't think that it's necessarily undesirable to list Cardinals Zen and Tong (both of the diocese of Hong Kong) under China, of which Hong Kong is a special territory (a SAR). However, I believe that a case could be made to list such territories separate from their parent countries, with footnotes ({{efn}}s) added to point them out.

For example, the country of origin of Cardinal Aponte Martínez (San Juan) would have generally been listed as Puerto Rico, instead of the United States, even though the former is an insular area of the latter, not considered part of the country proper. The special status of the territory here should have been made apparent, as he was not "from the United States" in the same way as Cardinal Manning (Los Angeles) was. While the contrast between Hong Kong and China is somewhat less apparent, I think that there is also a practical distinction to be made between being "from Hong Kong" and being "from China" – e.g. Cardinal Zen (Hong Kong) versus Cardinal Kung (Shanghai), respectively. Furthermore, Cardinal Shan (Kaohsiung) would certainly have been more likely to be listed under "Taiwan", even though China continues to assert a territorial claim over the territory. Reductively ascribing all three cardinals under "China" would conceal the particular status of the territories from which they come; pointing these distinctions in the article would benefit readers. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The question is how to address this methodologically. Though there are disputes in other cases, Hong Kong is definitely not a country, so it should not be listed under "Country". We could then change the listing to "Country or region", but I think it would make the list more complicated than it has to be. Hong Kong and Macao are part of China, and the Vatican lists the cardinals under China. I do not see much difficulty here. Note also that the diocese of Hong Kong is simply a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Guangzhou (even though, with the current political situation, that is only theoretical).

Of course, we could also change the heading from "country" to "UN member state", thus disspelling every possible dispute.

On the question of Taiwan, this is a more complicated point. Paul Shan Kuo-hsi would probably preferred to be listed under Republic of China, which is the country he was born in when it still controlled Mainland China in 1924, and where he died in 2012 when it only controlled Taiwan. Also, the Vatican recognizes the Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of all of China, not only of Taiwan. Of course, if there would be a new cardinal from Taiwan, we can't have China next to Republic of China, it should be People's Republic of China and Republic of China.

In the end, however, the more fundamental issue is: how do we list the cardinals? Do we follow the Vatican's list? Do we list according to nationality, only looking at the Vatican list in case of doubt? Do we only refer to UN member states, or also dependent territories? Do we only list states recognized by the Vatican, or also other states? etc.

I would prefer to follow the Vatican's list, using only footnotes for some clarification. De wafelenbak (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The term "country" doesn't necessarily have a precise definition; it could very well encompass other entities than UN member states. If, as you said, Hong Kong is not a separate country, we could instead change the label to read "State", which should better capture the semantics of the matter. The diocese of Hong Kong being suffragan to Guangzhou is also not unique: other ecclesiastical provinces (e.g. Castries) do span international borders as well.

In addition, in the case of Cardinal Shan, the Vatican's website does indeed list him under "Taiwan", while Cardinals Zen and Tong are both listed under "Cina" [sic]. Also, I don't think that this article has to follow the state of Vatican diplomacy strictly; cardinals would probably be better off being attributed de facto to their respective countries/states. China and Taiwan are widely considered separate political entities, despite current diplomatic practice. Foreign relations of the Holy See don't have any bearing on the nationalities or otherwise to which cardinals identify themselves. We, on Wikipedia, are free to make use of other, more accurate means of attributing cardinals to countries/states, instead of simply relying on what the Vatican says.

Another example: say Pope Francis decides to create Archbishop Michel-Marie-Bernard Calvet of Nouméa a cardinal. While we may rightly list him as being from France, it would make more sense if we say that he is from New Caledonia, the French overseas collectivity of which Nouméa is the capital. The special case of the territory deserves to be made clear to readers. This also has the added benefit of allowing us to assign him more easily to the continent of Oceania, instead of Europe like the rest of the metropolitan French cardinals. While this case is, of course, a more extreme example than Hong Kong and China, they are both still examples of dependent territories, with distinct advantages to be gained in listing them separately from their respective parent countries. Being consistent in style would entail us treating Hong Kong separate from China, which wouldn't look too out of place in any case. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course, you can make an argument for listing it under Hong Kong (or Hong Kong, China) instead of simply China; for example, because Hong Kong is listed separately at ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. But, in my opinion, you cannot do that when using the header Country. Some regions are referred to as countries, e.g. England, but not Hong Kong (which is why we talk about One country, two systems). Most easy solution would probably be to change the header to State and then change the reference to China. A footnote could help to explain both cardinals are from Hong Kong, though I do not think that is really necessary. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Isn't 3166-1 alpha-2 for countries? 1.64.44.196 (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The diocese of Hong Kong being suffragan to Guangzhou... This isn't in practice the case for seven decades, though de jure it has arguably remained so from some perspectives. (The neighbouring diocese of Macau has never been suffragan to the Canton archdiocese. So even if this argument were valid and the case of Castries gonna be ignored, it isn't going to be applicable to the case of Macau should there be any cardinal appointed from there.) 1.64.44.196 (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There’s no international border between Hong Kong and Guangzhou. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Paul Shan Kuo-hsi would probably preferred to be listed under Republic of China, which is the country he was born in when it still controlled Mainland China in 1924, and where he died in 2012 when it only controlled Taiwan. How do we determine the "country" of a cardinal? Where he was born? Where he resides? His citizenship? Or the location of the see(s) he serves? The latter two are a lot more relevant IMO. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

However, I believe that a case could be made to list such territories separate from their parent countries, with footnotes (s) added to point them out. There are many lists (and categories, sections, and so on) on Wikipedia and in many other publications which refer to countries, including dependent territories, and the inclusion of such footnotes has not been the common practice. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Temporarily" Suspended

I don't think this change is appropriate. Nothing in the process documents suggests it is temporary in any sense. The new Pope has the option to restore the previous incumbent (and it has generally been the practice in recent years), but that is purely at the discretion of the new Pope. --Dcheney (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. Thanks for notifying. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

José Tolentino Mendonça

In the list of 5 October 2019 cardinals, José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça is alphabetized as

• Calaça de Mendonça, José Tolentino.

The Vatican announcement of 1 September gives his name as

• José Tolentino Mendonça here

and

• José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça here

while his appointment as archivist identified him as

• José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça

He used that version on his CV published by the Catholic University of Portugal, which you can see on the archived version of his CV here. Though the University now refers to him as Dom Tolentino here.

His WP entry at present treats his name inconsistently, in part I believe thanks to an inexperienced though knowledgeable editor's work.

That editor, comfortable with Portuguese sources, has objected that "In Portugal he is known as José Tolentino, José Tolentino Mendonça (see his books and present chronicles in Expresso), Father Tolentino and now Dom or D. (Bishop) Tolentino never as Mendonça." His claim is easily verified. The sources seem to drop the "Calaça de" and use Tolentino as his last name adding Mendonça on occasion. (One tosses in the "de" as in José Tolentino de Mendonça in an article that otherwise calls him José Tolentino Mendonça and Tolentino Mendonça.)

If he and his publishers and the Portuguese press never use the Calaça or Calaça de, and the Holy See is inconsistent, should we? Is Tolentino the first part of his last name as Portuguese usage seems to construe it? Thoughts? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia lists him as "Mendonça, José Tolentino Calaça de". Varro (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

His WP entry on Portuguese WP is titled "José Tolentino Mendonça" and begins with the name "José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça". The DEFAULTSORT field is vacant, as is often the case on Portuguese WP, so he appears in Category lists under"J". Where else do you see him "listed"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lista de cardeais. Varro (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted a query there. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The booklet for the Consistory ceremony lists him as José Tolentino CALAÇA DE MENDONÇA [3]. Varro (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've modified his data-sort-value in the table to sort under "Calaca de Mendonca" for now. Also, like last year, I've created a page in my userspace with what this article should look like after the consistory; someone could copy that over to here for easy updating. Just remember to unhide the categories at the very bottom. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Done; thanks. No surprises in the Orders. Varro (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI, for my site, I show his last name as Calaça de Mendonça but list him in indexes based on just Mendonça. --Dcheney (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

cardinal electors

Just a footnote, I suppose, but America notes here that the count of electors is 128, due to fall to 124 in mid-October, and adds: "Since one cardinal elector is currently in prison (George Pell of(Australia), if a conclave were to be held this year, there would be a maximum of 123 electors." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's really a question of semantics here. Pell remains eligible to vote in a conclave (though he almost certainly won't be doing so while under imprisonment); he thus remains a cardinal elector for all intents and purposes. We could probably make a note of his situation on the list of cardinal electors for the next conclave, assuming that he remains in prison at least until then. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Pell attending or not attending the conclave is a situation that will arise once there IS a conclave. Furtheron, there is a still ongoing appeal in his case. So, there are a lot of "ifs" and "whens" in this question - I don't think we need to speculate on that in the article. Btw, during the entire 2020, only four Cardinals will turn 80 years; and if there aren't other changes, at the end of 2020 there will be 120 electors (Pell included). Varro (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting an edit. Not even a footnote, though I used that word. Just something to be aware of. A mental footnote. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Separation of the table for each of the ranks and adding images

May I propose that we separate the tables for each of the ranks and to put images of Cardinals KILLERXR (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Dividing the table this way would make it impossible to sort the entire College by age or country, etc. It’s a terrible idea. Images are inessential and would make an already large table unwieldy. I’d suggest going in the opposite direction and removing the little flags of the nations. They are largely decorative. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Cardinal Deaths

With the 2 cardinal deaths (Vela Chiriboga on the 15th and Gulbinowicz on the 16th), the stats probably need to be updated in the article. Dcheney (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistory 2020

As before, I've updated this page in my userspace with how this article should appear after the November 2020 consistory (treating Grech, Semeraro, Gambetti, Tomasi, Cantalamessa and Feroci as cardinal deacons, and the remainder as cardinal priests). Feel free to copy over the source of that page to this article following the consistory; I believe that the data should be accurate, but please let me know if they aren't. Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gambetti

Gambetti was replaced as Custos on 12 November. "Last night, in the cloister of Sixtus IV of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi, Father Marco Moroni officially began his mandate as the new custodian of the Sacred Convent. The oath with the entire conventual Franciscan community took place privately, due to Covid-19, and marked the beginning of his service to the Church and to the fraternity. Father Marco Moroni, from the religious province of Sant'Antonio di Padova, 55, succeeds Father Mauro Gambetti, who, on Saturday 28 November, will be created cardinal by Pope Francis." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Cardinal Becciu

Do we have a source for the recent changes declaring that Cardinal Becciu is a "former" cardinal? Until the AP 2021 is released (very soon), I know of no source which would be suitable to justify the change.Dcheney (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Vatican website lists him among Cardinals 80 years and older (last updated few days ago). He is obviously still a Cardinal with no rights belonging to Cardinals. Varro (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well, but I'll happily defer until the AP2021 is available (I should have it within a fortnight.) Dcheney (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP user who made the changes "cited" only last September's news in one of his edit summaries: "Becciu resigned from the right and privileges of Cardinal". No reason the think s/he had new info at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the source on former Cardinal Becciu: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-cardinal-angelo-becciu-resigns-from-office-and-rights-of-cardinals-60883

He is only 72 years old, so definitely not "80 and older". He resigned from all rights and privileges, not only from participating to a conclave. He should not be considered a Cardinal any longer.

And your source says: "Becciu remains technically a cardinal". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I received the AP 2021 and can confirm that on page 38* he is still listed as a Cardinal. Dcheney (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Source for today's cardinal deacon to cardinal priest elevations

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/05/03/0267/00580.html Dcheney (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210503154853/https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/05/03/0267/00580.html Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Refs for notes

Shouldn't the statements made in the Notes be referenced? I was looking at the statement, repeated four times, that Francis co-opted a cardinal as cardinal bishops on 28 June 2018. The bios of those four cardinals say that Francis did this on 26 June and make no mention of 28 June. We could easily document the 28 June effective date with this source. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your own source indicates (towards the end): "The present Rescriptum ... entering into force on 28 June 2018...". In addition, the current Annuario Pontificio 2021 p75* in the bio for Cardinal Parolin has the date of "28 giu. 2018" as the date. Clearly the 28th is the proper date to use. Dcheney (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course the 28th is correct. I'm suggesting we add a ref to that source. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

80th birthday

As far as I understood, a cardinal loses his right to vote only the next day after his 80th birthday, so if the Holy See would become vacant today, cardinal Bassetti would have the right to participate in the Conclave, and if so, he should be marked as ineligible only tomorrow.--IgorMagic (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct. In Universi Dominici Gregis John Paul writes: "The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant." This article states the rule properly in its second paragraph. Bassetti lost elector status when no vacancy had occurred by the end of 7 April. We need to respect this rule, starting with another 80th birthday next week. Rutsq (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

While I completely agree with the above, one has to consider what the "current date" is in a world-wide project like Wiki. As I type this, it is about to turn 12noon in the Central US on Thu 7 Apr. But it is almost 3am in Australia on Fri 8 Apr. Dcheney (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we should use for this purpose CET/CEST, i.e. the time zone of Vatican City.--IgorMagic (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

And that is what editors have been using. Just a day earlier. Rutsq (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that seems reasonable. Dcheney (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Former Cardinals section removal

I see that the "Former Cardinals" section was recently removed with no discussion whatsoever. I understand it is much smaller than previously due to life events, but I think it is a good idea to retain it until there is just 1 member (namely the reigning Pope). Any thoughts? Dcheney (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be summarized in one sentence in the opening instead of being a separate section. Prospective popes have been cardinals for centuries so stating the current pope's name as a cardinal would be ok too I think. --Killuminator (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You still have the case of Theodore McCarrick, a cardinal from 2001 to 2018, but still living. Dcheney (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We have the exception McCarrick. Rutsq (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary for the removal says it all: living ex-cardinals are not part of the scope of this article. However, I agree that a brief mention in the lede is warranted to detail that not every cardinal remains one until death. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. Having a subhead in a list article for "people who don't belong on this list" always seemed odd, no matter their number or the reason. A simple mention that since a cardinal is appointed for life, the only ex-cardinal is usually the pope... and a very rare case like McCarrick or (until recently) Ratzinger. Definitely not in list form. Rutsq (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Cardinal Ranjith

Yesterday I changed the name of Cardinal Ranjith from "Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don" to "Malcolm Ranjith". The later is much clearer about what his surname is. The previous name caused confusion. For years is has been alphabetizing under P (for Patabendige) instead of under R (for Ranjith); the alphabetization was not automatic, it was purposefully set to something wrong. Ravenpuff reverted my edit on the grounds of "overall consistency". I'm re-doing the edit on the grounds of accuracy and clarity. If people want to know all of the baptismal and possible surnames associated with a cardinal, they can see this in individual biographical articles. This list is more useful when it uses the common name of a cardinal. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely supportive of your choices, views and edits. It's simply too much information in one place. Killuminator (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I too applaud your efforts. The Holy See's butchering of Ranjith's name is a great example that has long troubled me. Clearly the Holy See Press Office is not infallible. Rutsq (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Issue with 'Country' column

In principle the 'Country' column seems to be intended to record the country which the cardinal is from and in which they have led dioceses/archdioceses. In most cases this would be the same country, but how should the cases where the two are different be shown here e.g.

• Giorgio Marengo is Italian, though currently serving in, and listed here under, Mongolia.
• Eugenio Dal Corso is Italian, but served in, and is listed here under Angola.
• Kelvin Felix was born in Dominica, where he now lives in retirement, but served in and is listed here under St Lucia.

There are other cases, including some in South America and at least one among those announced for the next consistory (François-Xavier Bustillo). Should they have a double entry in the column, a footnote, or something else? 2A02:8012:227B:0:349B:5D0F:1F37:595D (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no issue and no need to crowd the countries column. Media outlets, including Vatican's, list these cardinals which lead dioceses under the country where the diocese is located. The bigger issue is treating Hong Kong as a country. Hong Kong should go into brackets, not China. Killuminator (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed about China and Hong Kong; done. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Simply asserting in a rather denigratory way that there isn't an issue doesn't mean there isn't one. I have demonstrated with examples that the current approach introduces an element of innacuracy/lack of context in certain cases. There aren't many, but failing to at least acknowledge them in some way lessens the value of the article as a whole. Crowding of columns is something to bear in mind, which is why I suggested footnotes as an alternative.

I very deliberately didn't bring up Hong Kong or the 'when is a country not a country' question. But since you raised the latter I will flag up the case of Pierbattista Pizzaballa. He is currently listed as 'Palestine' which is at the very least telescoping a whole host of complex questions and likely to provoke contentious reverts, as would putting 'Israel' on its own. Either both should be included, or just 'Italy' which is how the last Latin Patriarch to be given a red hat, Filippo Camassei, is listed at Cardinals created by Benedict XV. 2A02:8012:227B:0:A8D7:D0B3:B1AD:D97D (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Might I urge you to register for a WP account so we can follow your comments and contributions more easily? Thanks. Rutsq (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd urge them to assume good faith and civility in other people's responses as well. Killuminator (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Pizzaballa

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem has responsibility for Cyprus, Jordan, Israel and Palestine. It is based in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem in East Jerusalem, where the consensus of WP editors is "Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered a part of the West Bank and, therefore, of the Palestinian territories". I imagine one might argue that the Patriarchate is multi-national. But Jerusalem is a divided city and I see no rationale for identifying Pizzaballa with Israel. Thoughts? Rutsq (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The Holy See has decided to handle the problem by listing Jerusalem as a country in its statistics for the geography of the College of Cardinals. HERE. Rutsq (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the jurisdiction, isn't "international" or "multi-national" an acceptable label? With a footnote about the several places covered by the patriarchate, of course. Rutsq (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Should we just go with "Jerusalem" then, to follow what the Vatican has done? -- Y not? 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit for more comments. Here's a little more info in case someone wants to check. The Holy See doesn't do a good job of translating its original Italian, so its list of countries in English includes "Gerusalemme" HERE. Rutsq (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I made the change to Jerusalem with an explanatory note. More comments always welcome. Rutsq (talk)

Country of origin

I've added footnotes to those cardinals who are from different countries to those listed in the 'Country' column. I've avoided using the words'nationality' or 'citizenship' as people can have more than one of those for a whole host of reasons (and we can't know what passports an individual has unless they choose to make it public). Thus, while some of the American cardinals might have Irish passports for example, or at least be entitled to them, I've only marked Farrel as Irish, because he was born there and didn't come to the US until adulthood, though he might well have taken citizenship since then. Other than Pizzaballa, most of the other instances are Spaniards or Italians who have spent most of their ministry in South America; again they may have taken citizenship in the countries they serve in. On the other hand I have not footnoted cases of individuals born in a country that they left in childhood like Czerny, Schönborn etc. - they might have retained/acquired citizenhip of these countries, or in a broader sense identify with them, but we can't really know that one way or the other, and it doesn't seem relevant to the article in quite the same way 217.155.59.206 (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I trust you won't mind that I've added a sub-head to distinguish your comment from the more specific Pizzaballa question.

I think it's good that you've avoided the word nationality, but I'm afraid many a user will make the commonsensical assumption that the note you've added is about nationality. That's what something like "France note:Bustillo is Spanish" implies. You're setting up a contrast with an implied "but", as in "France, but Spanish". You might consider saying "born in Spain" or "a native of Spain" or "Spanish by birth". I think that sort of phrasing comes closer to what you're trying to accomplish. And why not handle Czerny and Schönborn the same way? Rutsq (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

BUT my preference would be to avoid such notations. The whole business of labeling cardinals with countries is fraught. Once you start you recognize complications of origins vs career you start down a path that requires an essay, not just a few select notations. See Prevost with his years in Peru. Or Sarah after 20 years in Rome. Rutsq (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I understand and accept what you're saying. My approach is a bit of a compromise and definately not perfect - I just felt it was important to acknowledge in some way the basic fact that e.g. Marengo is not a Mongolian person (I initially thought he would be the only example, it was only checking through that I found the others). 217.155.59.206 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Since your "compromise" gave the user little guidance, I've done the minimum and made it explicit that your notes indicate birthplace, not nationality or citizenship or anything else one might read into a label like Spanish or Italian. Rutsq (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have thought more on this, and come to believe it would be clearer to have individual notes for each cardinal born in a country other than the one listed with a neutral factual statement indicating the difference: thus 'He was born in X. He has served in Y'. That way 'but' is avoided, which another commenter pointed out could be seen as problematic. I've used 'served' rather than 'worked' as it seems more fitting in a clerical context. I've edited the list to reflect this format; I also included an approximate statement of length of service in each case just to make explicit that these are long-term associations, not short-term assignments. 217.155.59.206 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cardinal Majella titular church

The article was quickly updated with the passing of Cardinal Majella Agnelo. Could someone take the opportunity to update the article "List of titular churches"? I think the page is locked. 2804:D84:2280:2400:DCC4:6360:6981:3091 (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

SUGGESTION

In the table "Demography of the College of Cardinals", we could add a column with percentages. next to the number of total cardinals and cardinals electors, mention the percentage in relation to the whole. for example, x cardinals created by Francis, who represent y% of the total and z% of electors 2804:D41:F80B:8B00:D06D:B92:AA0E:F0D (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This used to be in there but it was removed (not by me). I do support the removal though for following reasons:

1) Took to much updating time (every time someone dies, 80 birthday, consistory,...)

2) Updating some number was sometimes not done, other people have to check everything again.

3) Looks like visual clutter.

4) Since pope Francis has created a 2/3 majority of cardinal electors it is not that interesting anymore. We give the 2/3 majority cut-off and people can see that the cardinal electors by pope Francis are more numerous.

5) If we look at the sources: they don't seem to do this, but as it falls under wp:calc, sources are not really necessary for this. Sources do tend to do this after a consistory, so in the articles "cardinals created by pope..." this can be useful info. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:2C98:387B:A549:4647 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Automatic updating - suggestion to reduce maintenance requirement

I recently made a change to wording, using wording that wouldn't date. This was reverted with a detailed summary. I have no quarrel with the reversion; if the article is kept up to date with every creation, death, or 80th birthday no harm is done (some less-well-maintained articles still have text like "in the forthcoming 2018 elections ...) One fairly small quibble is that articles that are printed or copied containing text that goes out of date such as "has been in charge since 2018" become incorrect, while "took charge in 2018" doesn't, but I won't push that.

My comment here is intended to reduce the need for manual updates. Consecrations and deaths can't be predicted, and require manual revision if wording that dates is used. But birthdays are predictable. There is a very useful template for this purpose, which displays different wording before and after a specified date: {{show by date}}; usage is "he {{show by date|2023|12|5|will be|turned}} 80 on 5 December 2023", and displays as "he will be 80 on 5 December 2023" until that date, then "he turned 80 on 5 December 2023". Using this template in the introduction as it stands, which gives the dates of the next few cardinals to turn 80, will avoid the need to update on every birthday.

An even bigger reduction in the need for maintenance may be possible (I'm not sure if it can be done): in the list of cardinals, those over 80 must have their entry colour changed to red on their 80th birthday. If there is a way to use {{show by date}}, or some other procedure, to add style="background:#fcc" on a specified date, then every cardinal's entry would use this procedure and would update automatically when appropriate.

This is just a suggestion to reduce the effort to keep the article up to date; I do not propose to do anything that might be considered objectionable.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Reigning?

In this and other articles (e.g. Papal renunciation) the pope is said to "reign", or be "reigning". Is this the right word? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I also question this language, but I don't have a single word to substitute. To consider just this article, the word appears once:

"...one of their foremost duties is the election of a new pope – invariably from among their number, although not strictly a requirement – when the Holy See is vacant (sede vacante), following the death or resignation of the reigning pontiff."

It is a good example of this article's misguided attempt to pack in as much information as possible about the College of Cardinals, rather than allowing this article be "just a list" with as much clarifying information as needed, leaving the rest to College of Cardinals, Papal conclave, and other entries. This (half)sentence has one point: the cardinals elect the pope. But we also learn that the new pope is usually a cardinal, needn't be a cardinal, a Latin phrase for an unoccupied papal seat, the two possible ways it becomes vacant, the use of "Holy See" to mean the papacy, and just to vary the prose the word "pontiff", which appears only once in this entire article and remains undefined. I would reduce the text above to:

"...and one of their foremost duties is the election of a new pope."

Similarly, I wonder what to do with the two sentences beginning:

"Cardinals may also be created in pectore..."

Since this entry isn't about conclaves, the only relevance of such a "secret" cardinal would that his name does not appear here because we don't know his name, but does it make sense to point out that the list below does not include the names of cardinals whose names are secret?

Sorry to be so long winded. Rutsq (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Cardinal Becciu again

Coverage of Cardinal Becciu's conviction and sentence that I've seen online has included mention that he is or will be banned from holding public office. Does anyone know if that would include the cardinalate? What I'm getting at, from a position of limited understanding of the detail, is that while only laicization can 'unmake' someone a priest or bishop because of the sacramental character of those states, I don't *think* the same applies to a cardinal, so the 'unmaking' procedure would be different, and *might* be covered by the ban. The McCarrick case doesn't provide a precedent, in that as far as I can see he resigned as a Cardinal and was laicized sometime afterwards. Becciu hasn't done the former (as above contributors have shown) and there's nohing to suggest the latter has happened either. To be honest I'm not even sure whether 'public office' here refers to office in the Church, the Vatican State or both. 217.155.59.206 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have also seen reliable sources restate his sentence as "barred from holding any public office in the Vatican City State", which I read as not affecting his cardinal's title, but what do I know?

I share your confusion, and an answer might be interesting, but I'm not sure that we need to concern ourselves with the possibility. If, after he has exhausted his appeals in two years or so (I read), he is banned from holding public office and the term "public office" includes his cardinal's title (Cardinal Deacon of San Lino), that will be easily documented. Rutsq (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - my thinking was merely that the likelihood of him ceasing to be a cardinal at some future point has increased. Also, to warn against reading the sources I did and using them as a basis to remove him from the list prematurely 217.155.59.206 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur, we just have to wait and see. He already resigned the "rights" of a cardinal in 2020 - so unless further action is taken, he would be excluded from the next conclave. Dcheney (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I interpret the phrase resigning rights diffeently, as a public indication that he'll not attend/participate in conclave, though he's still elligible to do so and could go back on that announcement if he wished. The chances of that are vanishingly small obviously, but the key is that it's a consequence of a voluntary decision on his part, not of any other proccess (as far as we yet know) 217.155.59.206 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)