The following comes from a Catholic Vote article by Thomas Peters. Full article here.
One of the memes currently circulating is that Pope Francis is in the midst of radically changing the American episcopate in a leftward, “progressive” direction.
The two examples cited are the appointments of Bishop Blaise Cupich to Chicago and now Robert W. McElroy as bishop of San Diego.
I’m going to present a different view.
Pope Benedict has had an over-sized and I predict, long-lasting, effect on the makeup of the American hierarchy, one that will take an awful long time for Pope Francis to reverse (if he even wants to, which I leave as a separate debate).
Back in 1995, my father Edward Peters published an article “The coming bishop crunch” in Homiletic & Pastoral Review where he pointed out that beginning in 2005 the pace of episcopal retirements and vacant seas would increase dramatically; in three short years (2005-07), 10 archdioceses and 35 dioceses needed new leadership.
The Holy Spirit’s answer to this problem was Pope Benedict.
Pope Benedict’s election in early 2005 was perfectly timed to effect a sea change in the American Catholic hierarchy as well as create an enduring legacy.
Beginning in May 2005 until his retirement in February 2013, Pope Benedict appointed 100 bishops to head dioceses and archdioceses in the USA. There are 195 U.S. dioceses in all, which means that almost half of the currently serving bishops in America are Pope Benedict appointees. And that is not counting the dozens of auxiliary bishops he also appointed.
Pope Francis, by comparison, has appointed roughly 33 bishops — and most of these bishops were originally made bishops by Pope Benedict (just as many of Pope Benedict’s bishops were originally made bishops under St. John Paul II).
Out of all these appointments, the media has only been able to latch onto two that fit their narrative (Bishop Cupich and Bishop McElroy) and both of them were appointed by Pope Benedict! The other 31 bishops Pope Francis has advanced apparently do not fit the narrative.
Keep this in mind the next time you see a headline from the mainstream media claiming that they can predict what the future of the Catholic hierarchy in America will look like.
CCD editors are doing a great job lately.
Unlike the assignments handed out by The Vatican, ie Cardinal Burke.
This story is baloney.
Ultimately each Pope must take full responsibility for those he approves as Diocese Bishops, not blame the previous Pope.
Pope Benedict was only Pope from April 2005 to Feb 28, 2013.
Pope Benedict appointed Cardinal Raymond Burke on the Commission to make recommendations on the appointment of Diocese Bishops.
Pope Francis REMOVED Cardinal Burke, and appointed Cardinal Donald Wuerl to make recommendations on Diocese Bishops.
There is a huge difference between Burke and Wuerl. Wuerl supports Sacrilege – giving Holy Communion to those obstinate in Mortal Sin.
Bishop Blasé Cupich and Bishop Robert McElroy (and Donald Wuerl who recommended them) support SACRILEGE against the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
They support giving Holy Communion to those who choose to be obstinate in their Mortal Sins – specifically continuing to commit Adultery – a sexual relationship with the Valid spouse of another in violation of the teaching of JESUS and the Doctrine of the Faith.
They aid and abet in the Mortal Sins of others.
“Whistling past the graveyard.”
Or rather, a Wuerl-Francis bishop bump.
Seas or Sees? In American English, it makes a difference.
Anyone can make a mistake in appointments, in fact smaller appointments can be a good test,
but Blasé Cupich and Robert McElroy were given large Diocese – Chicago and San Diego – by Pope Francis (and via recommendation of Donald Weurl).
These significant appointments were made by Pope Francis AFTER they made it known that they support Sacrilege – violation of the teachings of Jesus as well as violations of Doctrine of the Faith.
All Bishops who support Sacrilege – receiving Holy Communion for those who choose to continue in the state of Mortal Sin should be removed as soon as their positions become known.
NO EXCUSES, and no passing the buck !
“NO EXCUSES, and no passing the buck !” That is precisely correct Sandra! Cardinal McCarrick also informed the blogosphere about the influential brilliant Italian man who came to ask him for a favor. Does the Holy Spirit lobby Cardinals to undue the Great Commission in favor of so called pastoral bliss? Of course not! These are the spiritual big leagues and there are no accidents or coincidences. Can God work a God-incidence even though the “long time buddy system” is obviously in play? YES, With God ALL things are possible but spiritual naivete is a luxury only for infants and naivete can cost souls when we do not remain on guard. St. John Eudes said that one of the surest signs of God’s displeasure with mankind is to allow bad clergy. Our faithful priests are often very trusting and they cannot conceive that duplicity is taking place. Yes, God can convert even duplicitous persecutors from within. I have witnessed this and it is quite profound. Yes, we should still pray for our lead shepherds but at the same time there has to be a realistic awareness of the raging battle going on within. If a priest is holy, God will protectively guide his promptings and judgments and his conversations.
Taken from Bishop Vann’s Installation talk
During his homily, Bishop Vann thanked his predecessor Bishop Tod Brown who is retiring after serving the Diocese of Orange 14 years.
“Thank you for your friendship of all these years and for what you have done in Orange,” he said, citing the elder bishop’s work in the area of education and ecumenism. “I am honored to be your successor, and I look forward to working with you in this wonderful diocese.”
TAKEN FROM: Whispers in the Loggia: From the OC, The First Word
Dear members of the media present today, and all who are here. I am very grateful for your presence and for your welcome. I especially thank Bishop Brown and [vicar-general] Msgr. [Michael] Heher for their wonderful welcome. Bishop Brown and I have known each other for 31 years. He was a priest on the sabbatical program at the North American College in Rome, and I was a newly ordained priest studying canon law. We were in residence at the Casa Santa Maria of the North American College at the time. And, in the same residence, Msgr. Heher and I were studying together during the same time period. When we were younger (!) priests!! And, [auxiliary] Bishop Dominic [Luong] and I have known each other for several years, and he was my guest in Fort Worth last December when we dedicated the new Church of Vietnamese Martyrs in Arlington, Texas, one of the biggest Vietnamese parishes here in the United States. So it is a blessing for me to be with you all here and see familiar faces.
keep your friends CLOSE..but your enemies CLOSER
Cold comfort for those who live in San Diego or Chicago. Also, not all the Benedict appointments were good. Many were ‘company men’ who go whichever way they perceive the ecclesial winds to be blowing.
Thomas Peters is telling us, “Don’t worry. Be Happy.” According to him, we Catholics should all be happy because of the great job Pope Benedict did in selecting and appointing new Bishops. What that has to do with the horrible selections made by Pope Francis, I have no idea. Using Peters’ logic it would seem like we should be hoping that Pope Francis’ term as Pope will be very short.
Those living in “affected” diocese, i.e. Chicago and San Diego, are concerned and affected by THEIR diocese. What happenes in other diocese is only tangental
More pollyanna “analysis” from Thomas Peters. Anyone who can’t see a clear shift going on here isn’t paying attention.
Actually Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were rarely personally involved in the selection of bishops. They let others, like the nuncios and members of the Congregation of Bishops, select the bishops. That has been one of the major criticisms of their pontificates. That they rarely got involved in that aspect of administration. Because they were Popes, all appointments are credited to them.
Numerous and numerous horrible and bad bishops were appointed in their name. Someone like Cupich was made a bishop. Wuerl even got appointed Archbishop of D.C
Under Pope Benedict, the selection of bishops only got better once Cardinal Ouellet was made head of the Congregation of Bishops. For America, things turned around thanks to the influence of Cardinal Burke.
Ashbury, some of your post is incorrect information.
And the article itself gives a very WRONG impression.
There is NO REQUIREMENT for any existing Auxiliary Bishop to be appointed as new Diocese Bishop.
In fact, there is no requirement that newly recommended Bishops be from the same Country as their new Diocese.
The “Congregation For Bishops” who are appointed by the sitting Pope – make the recommendation to the Pope for all future Bishops.
Pope Francis removed Cardinal Burke, and put Cardinal Donald Wuerl in his place.
Weurl is the only person from the USA on the ‘Congregation For Bishops’.
And since the other appointees have little knowledge about any US potential candidates (who do not have to be Auxiliary Bishops),
Weurl has way too much power.
Other members have to rely on Weurl for information about each person.
Weurl’s recommendation is how the USA got stuck with the promotion of Blasé Cupich to Chicago, and now Robert McElroy for San Diego.
All 3 of these support Sacrilege – giving Holy Communion to those who choose to continue committing Mortal Sin on an ongoing basis – even though it is in HUGE VIOLATION of the Bible and the Doctrine of the Faith.
Pope Francis also gave the Commission a DIRECTIVE which is very SUBJECTIVE rather than an Objective way of picking new Bishops.
This directive can be found on the Vatican web site.
And does not necessarily conform to the Code of Canon Law, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You are right I got the Congregation’s name wrong. Wrote it quickly from bad memory, but the information is not incorrect. I said “under Benedict” Ouellet was made head, and Burke was a member. Since the election of Francis, Burke has been swapped with Wuerl. Nuncios make their recommendations to the Congregation for bishops, who then make their recommendations to the Pope, but in reality these are all selections. In the end, all there is, is the formality of the Pope’s signature. The Popes sign and rubber stamp the picks made. Benedict and John Paul were never personally involved in the selection process. They just gave their john hancock.
Cupich was a priest who was made a bishop of Rapid City by John Paul II. Made bishop of Spokane by Benedict XVI. These were horrible apoointments. The man has no business being a bishop. The point is that there was no golden age of bishops appointed under John Paul or Benedict.
“Asbury FOX” is correct, but only partly. Francis has clearly had a negative impact in his involvement (and his knowledge and approval of the suggestions and recommendations of others must be seen as involvement) with the ouster of Cardinal Burke (which many reports confirm directly involved the Pope), and the selection of Abp. Cupich.
He is clearly seeking to create a stamp of his own on bishopric selections. This is not different from all bishops, certainly. But the problem is the “Francis Outlook,” that is the Pope’s belief system and its impact on the Church. One only has to look at who Francis listens to, and admires — Cardinals Kasper, Marx, Baldisseri, Dolan, Wuerl, Archbishops Cupich McElroy, Forte (many others) — and who he rejects, to understand where the Pope wants to go with the Church.
The Pope deserves our prayers, but the man who holds that position is not to be trusted. Pope Francis, is a Latin American, Jesuit, with the boundaries of his belief system that all this entails. This does not mean that Francis lacks potential, or that the Holy Ghost fails to counsel him. It means that he needs to be prayed for, watched, and opposed if he veers off course (e.g., if Cardinal Baldisseri was correct in saying that (1) the Pope knew of and approved all of the morality-offending homosexual “gift” and “welcoming” language at the Synod, and (2) insisted that the disapproved paragraphs be included anyway in the published summary of the Synod).
People here find any appointment with an IQ larger than their shoe size to be a bad choice. I guess you find them intellectually intimidating.
No JonJ, we only ask that all Bishops and all Priests (whom Catholics support financially), adhere to and accurate teach – Sacred Scripture and the Doctrine of the Faith (CCC).
If they do not, they should resign and get themselves another job.
Fraud is not acceptable.
In other words, they delegated their responsibility to
others. Often, that risk turns out badly. But if they
allowed people to make such mistakes and to keep
doing so, they must be considered responsible for
the poor decision and all its effects. Of course they
are also responsible for good decisions. In every case,
they could have vetoed the selections.
Harry Truman had a plaque in the Oval Office that said,
“The Buck Stops Here”. He had the right idea.
It strikes me that the whole process of appointing bishops involves a whole lot more people than the pope. I surmise that there was a significant “local involvement” in the decision to consecrate Bishop McElroy. We are used to a democratic system of scrutiny over appointees, but there is none of that here, and never has been. The process of appointment here is entirely hidden from public view, with the “tip of the iceberg” being the actual formality of the Papal appointment.
HERE is the INFO regarding official appointment of NEW Bishops.
There is an official “CONGREGATION For BISHOPS” to appoint new Bishops which makes recommendations to the Pope – for the Pope’s approval.
There is only one appointee from the USA.
Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Donald Wuerl to be on that Commission, so Wuerl carries the most weight for the USA appointments within the Commission.
Here is a letter of Pope Francis’s expectation/directive to the ‘Congregation For Bishops’.
Note the lack of emphasis on “TEACHING” ability for future Bishops that is down-played in this directive.
Pope Francis’s criteria is mostly (but not completely) Subjective rather than Objective, and therefore it is easy to appoint bad Bishops who are merely ‘nice guys’.
There is little requirement for full and accurate knowledge of the Gospel and Doctrine of the Faith (CCC).
This gives a good explanation, and also a list of current members.
Other than Wuerl, the appointed members would have little or no knowledge of USA candidates.
It is easy to see why heretics who support Sacrilege – giving Holy Communion to those in Mortal Sin, could be elected
via both the Pope’s ambiguous directive, and the person he appointed from the USA who believes in this Sacrilege.
– – – – – – – – – – –
The directive of Pope Francis makes the assumption that all candidates had good Priestly formation – (at least I hope so). And we all know that this is not the case based upon their words and actions.
Pope Francis requires his appointees to have little or no knowledge of BOTH Sacred Scripture AND the Doctrine of the Faith (which is fully contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition”) .
Diocese Bishops & Priests can not accurately teach what they do not accurately know.
“…Diocese Bishops & Priests can not accurately teach what they do not accurately know,”
More to the point, MAC, they WILL not accurately teach that which they know full well, but do not believe in. Not if actions/inaction is consistent with said beliefs. Otherwise, why would these prelates go about by way of actions to teach the opposite of that which is true?
Similarly, Pope Francis seems to believe that forming a consensus to include agreement with those who openly promote sacrilege and the endemic scandal it creates as some form of *pastoral* outreach is what the Church needs. So while you may believe that lack of faith formation/knowledge of actual Faith is the criteria for appointment, I’d say it is the willingness to compromise the Truth to form the new goal of consensus (false peace). This would fall in line with the new doctrine that a sin against unity (that is unity by way of negating hard truths) is the only unity that matters, not unity with what the Church actually teaches.
So whereas Faith used to be considered a gift from the Father (which is why Our Lord at the Last Supper prayed to His Heavenly Father for unity), prelates now seem inclined to believe that perpetual compromise with truth (that is ‘the’ Truth) is ‘the’ only means.
to MAC cont:
“It was the Pope’s decision to include the points that did not receive the two-thirds majority,” Cardinal Baldisseri responded. “The Pope said: ‘These three points received an absolute majority. They were therefore not rejected with a ‘no,’ as they received more than 50 percent approval. They are therefore issues that still need to be developed.’ We as a Church want a consensus. These texts can be modified, that’s clear. Once there has been further reflection, they can be modified.”
This machination sets up the absurdity that the Spirit of God is moving the Church to embrace that which is inherently and gravely sinful. And, calling it mercy. Sorry, but the CCC 675 seems increasingly at play. Most especially when in more lucid moments, the Holy Father notes that the demonic is all too real.
Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga in his open letter says … Unfortunately in our days it is increasingly evident that the Vatican through the Secretariat of State has taken the course of political correctness. Some Nuncios becomming propagators of liberalism and modernism. They have acquired expertise in the principle “sub secreto Pontifico” by which one manipulates and silences the mouths of the bishops. And that what the Nuncio tells them appears as it would be almost certainly the wish of the Pope. With such methods one separates the bishops from one another to the effect that the bishops of a country can no longer speak with one voice in the spirit of Christ and His Church in defending the faith and morals.. …………
Instead of zealously spreading the faith, courageously preaching the doctrine of Christ, standing firm in the defense of truth and of morals, the meetings of Bishops’ Conferences often deal with issues which are foreign to the nature of the duties of the successors of the apostles.
That was part of what Archbishop Lenga had to say in regards to the great crisis in the Church.
I recommend everyone to read his “open letter”.
Cardinal Levada is still a member of the Congregation for Bishops. John Alan has written a good article on how Bishops are chosen. The Congregation is a very large body responsible for choosing 100 or so Bishops a year from around the world. They all vote on the selections, although they give a lot of deference to the members from the affected country. Yes, our two Cardinal members have a lot of influence as does the Nuncio who does the vetting. It must be interesting for member from Columbia, African countries or Asians to vote for Bishops in the U.S..
Pray that the Holy Ghost will end this nightmare soon and give us a savior in Rome. The Church has been in a death spiral ever since the Council and will continue until Rome once again has the FAITH!!!!
“Our faithful priests are often very trusting and they cannot conceive that duplicity is taking place.”
Catherine, I have to disagree with you on that, at least in California. The faithful priests are well aware of the progressive and Lavender ascendancy and have to adjust their sails accordingly to avoid getting removed or exiled. Naïve faithful priests are long gone from this state, except in priest graveyards.