Cardinal in pectore?

[Antonius]

Hey, does anyone know the deal on the "secret cardinal", the one the Pope named [i]in pectore[/i]? I've heard a lot on the American media, but really, what is the deal? Is this guy a cardinal or not? Will we ever find out who he is? Why would a pope name a cardinal without [i]naming[/i] him?

[argent_paladin]

First, it is not uncommon to name a cardinal in pectore. It is done to protect the identity of the Cardinal, usually because he would be subject to political oppression. It is done though because when the cardinal is revealed, he enjoys the seniority from the time he was secretly named cardinal. But it seems that this cardinal wasn't in the Pope's will, so he no longer is a cardinal. The next pope can name him a cardinal again however. It seems that the secret cardinal is from China. Check out Janis Cardinal Puljats, who was named a cardinal in pectore.

[Ash Wednesday]

Yup. I bet it's China.

[cmotherofpirl]

You can't "uncardinal" somebody.
If the media had shut up maybe he could have got to the conclave. You noticed that China sent absolutely no one, they were takiing no chances.

It also could have been somebody in another country, China isn't the only place that surpresses the Church.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/9 - Second Saturday of Easter (Seventh Day of the Novendiales)

We don't know who the cardinal [i]in pectore[/i] is because John Paul II never told anyone. The only place it could still be written down is in his secret archives, which can't be opened for decades. By the time we find out who it is, it won't make a difference anymore.

[Cam42]

[quote]You can't "uncardinal" somebody.[/quote]

Actually cmom, techincally he hasn't been named a cardinal yet. When one is reserved [i]in pectore[/i], it means that the man is close to the Pope's heart. When one is made cardinal in pectore, he is kept hidden until that time in which he can be publicly named. Until that time he has no rights or responsibilities of the cardinalate. With the passing of the Holy Father and the non-naming....he loses his rights to be named a cardinal at this time.

If the next Holy Father chooses to name him then so be it, however, there is precedence.

As recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
[quote]Creation of cardinals [i]in petto[/i] (Italian equivalent of in pectore) is therefore without effect, unless there follows publication of the names. A testamentary publication does not suffice. Pius IX announced (15 March, 1875) a creation of cardinals in petto with publication of their names in his testament, but this creation never went into effect.....The publication of the names may, in given circumstances, be made at a much later date. Only, at whatever time such publication takes place, the cardinals so created rank in seniority according to the date of their original announcement as reserved in petto, and precede all those created after that time.[/quote]

Cam

[Q the Ninja]

^ He beat me to it and did a better job of it.

[MagiDragon]

one other thing to note: the cardinal in pectore himself is not told that he is a cardinal. So when the pope dies, no realizes they've lost rank. The *ONLY* person who knows about secret cardinals is the pope himself.

[Q the Ninja]

I don't think this cardinal woulda been able to come to the conclave, seeing as he missed out on the invite.

[cmotherofpirl]

That makes no sense.

[Q the Ninja]

The Cardinal [i]in pectore[/i] doesn't know he was named a Cardinal by the Pope.

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 9 2005, 10:57 AM'] That makes no sense. [/quote]
How so?

[argent_paladin]

And that beggs another question: Can the Holy Father remove the honor of the title of Cardinal. I would say, definitely yes. If the Holy See can defrock, dispense a cleric from celibacy, interdict, excommunicate, etc, surely he can "decardinalate" someone. I mean, theoretically, if a cardinal left the Church, got married, converted to, say, Islam, surely his title could be removed (I know that he wouldn't be able to vote because all cardinals take an oath). It's not like being a cardinal involves an ontological change or indelible mark like ordination. It's not a sacrament. So, clearly, being a cardinal is conditional. But, has it ever happened in the history of the Church? And are there any written rules about it? (Cam42, I'm looking in your direction)

[Antonius]

So, in short,

The Pope can name cardinals [i]in pectore[/i] to protect their identity? In effect, the Pope is saying, "I name x, y, and z cardinals, but I also want to name one at a later date to protect his identity. If I die before I publicly name him, then he will never become a cardinal. But, if I secretly tell a few people and then they tell the Pope after me, he can name him a cardinal..."

Do I understand it? It seems confusing.

[Cam42]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Apr 9 2005, 05:45 PM'] And that beggs another question: Can the Holy Father remove the honor of the title of Cardinal. I would say, definitely yes. If the Holy See can defrock, dispense a cleric from celibacy, interdict, excommunicate, etc, surely he can "decardinalate" someone. I mean, theoretically, if a cardinal left the Church, got married, converted to, say, Islam, surely his title could be removed (I know that he wouldn't be able to vote because all cardinals take an oath). It's not like being a cardinal involves an ontological change or indelible mark like ordination. It's not a sacrament. So, clearly, being a cardinal is conditional. But, has it ever happened in the history of the Church? And are there any written rules about it? (Cam42, I'm looking in your direction) [/quote]
It is not unprecedented that a cardinal leave. Look to the Borgia's. (It seems that everything returns to them )

In 1493, Cesare Borgia is appointed Cardinal by his father Pope Alexander VI. (Rodrigo Cardinal Borgia was a lay cardinal until 1468 when he was ordained. He then entered into relations with Vanozza and had four children. And people think today's scandals are bad.....sheesh. He was elected Pope 11 August 1492.)

In 1498, Cardinal Borgia lays down the red hat to travel to France. (Cesare Borgia was a lay cardinal) The reason being that he became the head of the Papal army. He thought it to be a conflict of intrest to do both.

In 1501, Cesare becomes the Duke of Romagna

In 1503-04 Arrested and imprisoned by Pope Julius II. (The della Rovere family was the rival family with the Borgia family)

In 1507 Cesare dies.

The history of the Borgia family is an interesting, scandalous and thought provoking one. However, the idea of laying down the red hat is possible and has been done.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Apr 10 2005, 01:29 PM'] So, in short,

The Pope can name cardinals [i]in pectore[/i] to protect their identity? In effect, the Pope is saying, "I name x, y, and z cardinals, but I also want to name one at a later date to protect his identity. If I die before I publicly name him, then he will never become a cardinal. But, if I secretly tell a few people and then they tell the Pope after me, he can name him a cardinal..."

Do I understand it? It seems confusing. [/quote]
All of that is correct except the last sentence....

[quote]But, if I secretly tell a few people and then they tell the Pope after me, he can name him a cardinal...[/quote]

The Holy Father won't tell anyone. He will leave the names in his will or have them listed in secret archives. At which point upon his death, if in the will the name will be made known and the bishop will most likely be named in the next consistory....or if it is in the secret archives, the man will be revealed many years later and it goes down as a footnote in history.

However, the Holy Father will not reveal it, audibly until such a time as he deems necessary in a conclave or closest time after, when it is safe for the bishop who is [i]in pectore[/i].

Cam

[DemonSlayer]

Cardinal Ignatius Kung was a secret cardinal until he came to America after being released from imprisonment in China.