Bishop Paskalis Bruno Syukur, O.F.M., head of the Diocese of Bogor in Indonesia, resigned 12 years earlier than expected at age 63. The Vatican announced Pope Leo XIV accepted the resignation on January 19, 2026, without providing an official reason. Bishop Syukur cited "obedience to the Holy See" as the reason for stepping down, suggesting he was asked to resign. Syukur had previously declined the offer of a cardinal's red hat in 2024. The Diocese of Bogor described the departure as a "spiritual transition" and expressed gratitude for the bishop's service.
4 days ago
Pope Leo XIV accepted the resignation of Bishop Paskalis Bruno Syukur, O.F.M., from the Diocese of Bogor, Indonesia, on January 19, 2026.1 2
At 63 years old, Syukur stepped down 12 years early, well before the canonical retirement age of 75, with no reported health issues.1 2
In a farewell address, he quoted St. Paul from 2 Timothy 4:7, framing his departure as obedience to God's plan through the Holy See.1 2
Born in 1962 in East Nusa Tenggara, Syukur entered the Franciscan order, was ordained in 1991, and earned a licentiate in spirituality from Rome's Antonianum.1
Appointed Bishop of Bogor in 2013 at age 51, he led a diocese of about 83,000 Catholics in West Java.1
He held key roles, including second vice-president and general secretary of the Indonesian bishops' conference, and served on the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life.1
In October 2024, Pope Francis announced Syukur among 21 new cardinals, but Syukur requested withdrawal on October 22, citing a desire to grow in priestly life.1 2
The Vatican accepted, marking an unprecedented public reversal that sparked debate on cardinal nomination processes.2
Local Indonesian media viewed it as an act of Franciscan humility.1
Syukur described his resignation with "inner joy" as obedience to the Holy See, suggesting divine providence in administrative decisions.1 2
Sources indicate Rome may have prompted the move, placing the diocese in a special oversight period amid questions over his tenure.2
It aligns with other early resignations of Francis-era bishops under complex circumstances.2
The Diocese of Bogor called it a "spiritual transition," emphasizing gratitude for his service.1
Bishop Christophorus Tri Harsono of Purwokerto was appointed apostolic administrator sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis, ensuring continuity under direct Holy See discretion.1 2
This role prioritizes pastoral stability, financial oversight, and a smooth path to a new bishop.2
Does the Catholic Church permit bishops to refuse cardinal appointments?
The appointment of cardinals is a prerogative of the Roman Pontiff, who freely selects qualified men—typically those ordained at least to the presbyterate and outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence—for elevation to this dignity. These individuals, if not already bishops, must receive episcopal consecration. The creation occurs through a papal decree made public in a consistory before the College of Cardinals, at which point the new cardinal is immediately bound by the duties and rights defined by law.
The Code of Canon Law outlines a deliberate, sovereign procedure emphasizing the Pope's authority. The Pontiff announces the names of those he "intends to raise to the cardinalate" during a secret consistory, soliciting the opinion of the assembled cardinals, who signify consent by removing their caps. This is followed by the formal appointment, after which the new cardinals receive their insignia, such as the ring, and are assigned a titular church, deaconry, or suburbicarian see. For those in the episcopal order, titles include suburbicarian dioceses near Rome, where the cardinal-bishop holds true jurisdiction, often with a suffragan auxiliary managing day-to-day affairs under restrictions. Eastern patriarchs elevated to the college retain their patriarchal see as title. Transfers between titles or orders (e.g., from diaconal to presbyteral after ten years) require consistorial choice approved by the Pope.
Historical precedents, such as decrees from the Council of Basel (Session 23), reinforce the solemnity: new cardinals swear an oath of fidelity to the Church, the Pope, and their titular church upon receiving insignia, committing to defend the faith, preserve church goods, and maintain worship. Earlier consistorial practices, as described in ecclesiastical encyclopedias, similarly focus on papal initiative and public promulgation without detailing candidate input.
The provided sources do not directly address whether a bishop (or other eligible cleric) may refuse a cardinalatial appointment. The emphasis is on the Pope's free selection and the binding effect from the moment of public announcement, suggesting that once the process reaches the consistory stage, the elevation is definitive. No canon mentions a right of refusal, consultation with the appointee prior to announcement, or mechanisms for declination. Customary norms, which cannot contradict divine or canon law, are irrelevant here as no such custom on refusals is referenced. Similarly, provisions on episcopal conferences or civil laws yielding to Church law do not apply.
Older sources like St. Robert Bellarmine's Disputationes discuss papal and episcopal legislative powers but not personal elevations. Suburbicarian arrangements presuppose acceptance by outlining duties post-appointment. The Council's oath formula implies post-facto commitment without precondition of consent.
While the process underscores the cardinalate as a papal promotion rather than a negotiable offer, the sources lack explicit guidance on pre-announcement declinations or historical refusals. They prioritize the Pope's discretion and the College's formal consent, not the individual's. If a reservation in pectore occurs, duties begin only upon public revelation, but refusal is unmentioned. Without direct resolution, one cannot overreach to affirm or deny permission definitively based solely on these texts.
In summary, Catholic canon law presents cardinal appointments as an exercise of supreme pontifical authority, effective upon public decree, with no sourced provision for refusal. For nuanced cases involving ethics or canon law, consultation of a canonist or the Holy See is advisable, as these references do not fully settle the query.