www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Iraqi Patriarch Made Cardinal

God bless & keep Patriarch Delly and his persecuted flock!

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10582&theme=2&size=A

An honour for Patriarch Delly and the persecuted Church in Iraq
by Paul Dakiki

First comments are expressed after the Patriarch of Baghdad is appointed cardinal. �It is a sign of the Pope�s paternal feelings towards the Iraqi people.�

Beirut (AsiaNews) � �The Holy Father has granted an honour to His Beatitude, Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, by appointing him cardinal. But the honour is also for the entire Church in Iraq, so tried by these days of persecution, emigration, kidnappings and insecurity,� said Mgr Michel Kassarji, Chaldean bishop of Beirut, as he spoke to AsiaNews about Benedict XVI�s announcement that the patriarch of Baghdad would be elevated to the dignity of cardinal. Patriarch Delly, who is currently in Beirut for a meeting of Middle Eastern patriarchs, will be the first cardinal from Iraq.

�It is a privilege for him and the Church. He is suffering like all of Iraq�s Christians. He has received death threats; his church has been attacked; he has been forced to stand by, looking on as his faithful leave and emigrate,� said Mgr Kassarji.

�It is a great honour,� said a Chaldean nun in Baghdad. �I think that this appointment is the Pope�s way of showing his paternal care for Iraqi Christians and the population. People are living in misery, neglect, insecurity and violence. We need witnesses and fathers who can take care of our destiny.�

Emmanuel III Delly, 80 years celebrated on October 6, comes from Tel Keppe (Telkaif), northern Iraq. In 1952 he was ordained priest in the Chaldean Church and ten years later, on December 16, 1962, he became bishop. In 1967 he was elevated to the post of archbishop even though under the preceding patriarch he was still auxiliary bishop of Baghdad.

In December 2003, he was elected Patriarch of Babylon for the Chaldeans, replacing Mgr Rophael Bidawid I, who had died in July of that year. This put to an end an impasse at the time when choosing a patriarch was a particularly delicate step given Iraq�s situation under US occupation and strong internal tensions, which resurfaced again during the synod of the Chaldean Church last June.

The Chaldean community is ancient and spread around the world, from the United States and Canada to Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria, altogether some 1.5 million members. But for thousands of years Iraq has been its heartland, home to about 800,000 Chaldeans at least until 2003, with the Patriarchate centred in Baghdad.

The vicious persecution that Christians are experiencing in Iraq has forced many families to leave. At present, unofficially only 200,000 Chaldeans are left in the country.

After a long period of silence the leader of the Chaldean Church responded in May to the appeals made by Iraq�s bishops and clergy and made his own plea, calling for an end to the �internal and external persecution� that Christians are enduring in Iraq.

He pleaded with political leaders not to just look on at what is happening, and used harsh words against US troops, telling them that �God is not pleased with what you are doing to our country.�

This was surely well intended, and there can be no doubt that the Chaldean Church in Iraq - indeed, all Christians in Iraq - need all the help they can get. But it remains the case that making a Patriarch into a Cardinal is not, objectively, an honor, let alone an elevation; it rather betokens a failure to understand what a Patriarch is.

One small indication of this is the persistent reference to "Cardinal-Patriarchs" by their surnames, which is downright insulting and offensive.

God grant all assistance and Many Years to His Beatitude Patriarch Emmanuel III of the Chaldeans, and to all of his beleagured Church.

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge:

I beg to disagree.

Based on existing norms in the Catholic Church, it is both an honor and an elevation of dignity for an Eastern Catholic Patriarch to be named a Cardinal.

Except for one or two Eastern Catholic chief hierarchs, all the others have gladly and thankfully accepted their elevation as Cardinals.

I beg to disagree--a patriarch is the chief hierarch, head, and leader of a Church. A cardinal is an Latin honorific. As for not accepting, do they really have a choice?

And honestly, if there was true collegiality, the process of choosing a new pope would be reformed to include the heads of all 21 ritual Churches in the process, so that these men would not have to live with feet in both worlds.

I agree, I have always felt that we should just have the Patriarchs and heads of Sui Iuris Churches part of the conclave. Fr. Serge is right.

I do believe, if I am not mistaken, that Melkite hierarchs have turned down the honor before? Is that right?

I am glad though that attention is being drawn to the Iraqi Church. CNN interview Patriarch Delly and the news people seemed genuinely enthralled with him. He is witness for Christ and his persecuted church.

"Equal representation" seems to be the tact that has been followed since at least the pontificate of Pope John Paul II in the elevation of senior hierarchs to the cardinalate.

Noticeably being used as guides are geography and number of faithful being represented. The five geographical boundaries are Asia, the Americas (North and South), Africa, Europe, and Oceania.

Geographically, the MiddleEast, which is included in the Asian continental region, is more than sufficiently represented in the Sacred College. All of them are Patriarchs of Eastern Catholic Churches: Maronites (Lebanon), Syrians (Syria/Lebanon), Chaldeans (Iraq), and the Copts (Egypt) whose Sees are derived from the ancient Sees of the East.

From the Eastern Catholic Churches, only chief hierarchs from the level of Patriarchates and Major Archbishoprics have been elevated to the dignity of Cardinals. Cardinal Husar of the UGCC and Cardinal Vithayathil of the Syro-Malabars are Major Archbishops. I am unsure whether chief hierarchs of the smaller Eastern Catholic Churches, notably those at the level of Metropolitanates, will soon be tapped for the cardinalate. I hope one sees the logic for not tapping into the other very small Eastern Catholic Churches.

I concur with Father Serge on this point. It is no "elevation", but it does intend to be an honor in so far the Cardinals bear the responsibility for electing the next Pontiff. It would be a far better thing IMHO if Rome would simply modify the rules of election to extend to the heads of Eastern Patriarchal and sui juris churches.

God bless,

Gordo

So far the Greek-Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East and the Catholicos of the Syro-Malankarese have refused the Cardinalate. Honor to them!

Fr. Serge

Dear Amadeus,

Anyone who wants to disagree with me is free to do so - I'm not an infallible magisterium! But the office of Patriarch is far older than the office of Cardinal, the Patriarch is honored throughout the Christian world, and it is not directly related to the Roman Church, while a Cardinal is simply an official of the Archdiocese of Rome.

Fr Serge

The current Melkite Patriarch might refuse the red hat as rumored but I don't know if the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malankars would do the same!

Is there any news/article that may be refrenced as to the reluctance of the Syro-Malankar chief hierarch?

Amado

That's why I said I beg to disagree with you, Father!

The opinion that a Cardinal is "simply an official of the Archdiocese of Rome" is, rather, anachronistic if viewed today!

The College of Caridnals has been imbued with a "universal" function in the Catholic Church: (1) as the sole elector of the next Pope in his role as, most importantly, the Supreme Pontiff of the universal Catholic Church; (2) as the Pope's adviser in important issues confronting the universal Catholic Church; and(3) as the Pope's alter ego in the day-to-day governance of the universal Catholic Church through the Roman Curia and as the only authority in the Catholic Church during the interregnum.

The cardinalate also goes back to the early days of the Church of Rome.

I have a question...I honestly don't know the answer to this...

Would I be wrong in saying the Eastern Patriarchs should not have a choice in who the western church wants as their patriarch...it seems the particular church should choose their patriarch...

Chris

Most people outside of this forum and a few other places have no idea what a Patriarch is or who such a person fits into the overall Christian global community. People do however understand the importance, prestige, and power of a Roman Catholic Cardinal. By bestowing the title of Cardinal on the Patriarch the church is probably seeking to elevate his stature both on globally and domestically.

There are probably two reasons for this. First Iraq is desperately in need of domestic peace makers. The more prestige a person has the more influence they are likely to have on inter-ethnic relations. Second, a Cardinal will have the support of the entire Catholic and arguably global Christian community for both his domestic peace efforts and rebuilding efforts of a badly damaged Christian church. The Muslim fanatics will think twice before they harm him or his people because these Iraquis are now seen as 'Catholics' as opposed to some 'ethnic sect' (which is unfortunately how most Westerners will see this ancient Christian church). Killing 'Catholics' will only fuel the 'Western resolve' to fight fanactic muslims. Killing members of an 'ethnic sect' will probably be largely unnoticed.

It's just my humble opinion.

I.F.

IF--

You make good points, especially with regard to stopping persecution of Christians in Iraq. Overall, I just don't think it's wise to make patriarchs cardinals.

It's education that's important. I grew up in a town with a Ukranian GC church 3 doors down from my church and a RO church around the corner, yet we were never told who these people were or that they were Catholic (and Orthodox), let alone brought to see the churches or attend services there. So if people don't understand what a patriarch is, then we need to look at how we're educating our children.

"People do however understand the importance, prestige, and power of a Roman Catholic Cardinal. By bestowing the title of Cardinal on the Patriarch the church is probably seeking to elevate his stature both on globally and domestically."

That makes sense. Given his age, is this honorary, is this meant to be a sign of a deeper issue at hand?