Cardinal says he's relieved not to have been elected Pope
A Catholic cardinal who was considered a leading candidate to be elected Pope has expressed relief that he was not chosen, saying anyone who actively wants the job is either 'a martyr or crazy'.
Mario Grech, from Malta, was one of a dozen or so cardinals that Vatican experts saw as a 'papabile' – literally 'Pope-able' cardinal – following the death of Pope Francis.
But he insisted he had no desire for the job and was deeply relieved to be able to leave Rome 'a free man' after the conclave, the secret election inside the Sistine Chapel that resulted in the nomination of Robert Prevost as Leo XIV, the first Pope from North America.
'Someone told me before the conclave: in order to want it [the papacy], you must either be a martyr – and I don't feel I'm one – or crazy,' Cardinal Grech said.
He said he had urged his brother cardinals not to push him forward as a candidate, telling The Times of Malta: 'Several people would tell me they're praying for me, and I would say, 'Continue praying, but according to my intention, not yours'.'
Asked whether he was relieved not to have been elected by the 133 cardinals, he said: 'Yes, definitely. On Thursday evening, I returned home a free man.
'I only realised after the conclave why the new Pope takes a new name – because his old life is not his any more. He is not his own man any more. He cannot even go out for a coffee or for a short walk. And those are just the little things.'
Cardinal Grech, 68, comes from the island of Gozo to the north of the main island of Malta. He was appointed a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2020.
He said it was wrong to think that every cardinal had a desire to become Pope, adding that the same reluctance to assume high office permeated throughout the Catholic hierarchy.
Around a quarter of priests who are chosen by the Pope to become bishops are turning down the promotion, and Cardinal Grech said: 'They don't want it, because the burdens of authority in the Church are truly immense.'
He said that as a member of the Synod of bishops, he saw the problem first hand, adding: 'When a bishopric becomes vacant anywhere around the world, we receive dossiers from the local nuncio detailing three nominees. We review these files, rank the candidates by preference, and submit them to the Pope for his final selection.
'Yet, it's increasingly common for the chosen candidate to decline – roughly 25 per cent refuse the appointment. One in every four priests chosen by the Pope to be bishops are refusing.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Campaigners join national walk against solar farms
Campaigners have taken part in a walk to protest against plans to install thousands of solar panels on prime agricultural land. The Claydons Solar Action Group organised the event near Winslow and The Claydons in Buckinghamshire as part of a national community walk day on Sunday to highlight the issue of rural solar farm development. Developers say the Rosefield Solar Farm would provide enough clean energy to power more than 57,000 homes - and would have a shelf life of 40 years. The Conservative Mid Buckinghamshire MP, Greg Smith, described the plan as "inefficient technology that trashes the countryside and damages our food security". A government spokesperson said projects were "subject to a rigorous planning process, in which the views and interests of the local community and impacts on the local environment, including any impact on amenities, landscapes and land use, are considered." The walk at Botolph Claydon was one of 25 taking place nationally against solar farm developments, with others planned in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk and Bedfordshire. Geography teacher Lorraine Campbell, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said: "The whole reason people come to live in the countryside is because they want to be able to enjoy the wildlife and the landscape. "It's being taken away from us. "This is not the place for solar panels. This is agricultural grade land, it's full of biodiversity. "Solar panels should be put on the roofs of warehouses, of distribution centres. There are hundreds of those." Local councillor Frank Mahon said the plan was a "ridiculous proposal". "North Buckinghamshire has become a dumping ground for major infrastructure, HS2, East West Rail, a mega prison, not to mention three solar farms. "Nobody is taking into consideration the beautiful countryside we have and the amount of farmers that will lose their livelihoods." MP Mr Smith said constituents were "absolutely opposed to the dearth of solar farms, battery storage, substation rebuilds that we're seeing in our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside". "Two thousand acres of solar panels to produce enough energy for 50,000 homes - a tiny tiny fraction of our energy need." A government spokesperson said: "Solar is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, and just this week the government confirmed that new build homes will have solar panels by default. "As of September last year, solar farms covered around 0.1 per cent of the total land area of the UK, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security." A consultation on the Rosefield plan took place between 18 September and 5 December 2024 and the planning process was ongoing. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Campaigners join national walk against solar farms Solar farm size reduced after public consultation Rosefield Solar Farm
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
