Even if Casey did nothing wrong, you would think that his being rector of this place at perhaps its worst time would disqualify him from being ordained a bishop, let alone named an archbishop.
You don't know all the facts. None of us knows. Demands for answers about scandals and allegations may be just spurious curiosity. None of our business unless proven by perp admission and formal, legal or canonical pronouncement.
It seems no one knows the facts, hence why I made no accusations. It seems that if the good archbishop wanted facts to be known, he could be the one to make that happen.
Also: whether an active archbishop knew about, engaged in, facilitated, or otherwise knew about abuse of any kind is my business, actually.
// Even if Casey did nothing wrong, you would think that his being rector of this place at perhaps its worst time would disqualify him from being ordained a bishop, let alone named an archbishop. //
Ideally, there should be a friendly relationship between prelates and the laity, where information is communicated and questions are answered in a civil and meaningful manner. But every bishop should maybe twice a year be willing to endure something like Prime Ministers Question Hour from the laity.
I could see a few different reasons why Casey didn’t answer these questions.
First, given a major part of the issues with Casa Jesus were in regards to homosexuality. Casey uses language of “building bridges” so he may want to avoid appearing too friendly or too critical of active homosexuality in the priesthood.
Second, Cupich may not want this discussed and even though as of today Casey no longer answers to Cupich. Given Cupich’s reputation for vindictive behavior he may be hesitant to go against Cupich early in role as a new Archbishop. (Not justifying it just pointing it out)
Third, he could have failed in his attempted reforms of Casa Jesus or been oblivious to the behavior going on. Either way that makes him look incompetent. Contrary to other comments I do not think that a failed tenure (provided it was not a major moral failure or a failure to report the major moral failures of others) should disqualify a priest from the episcopate as such an experience could make one wise if they allow it to do so.
Agree with you on not-necessarily-disqualifying: governance is a skill and it's natural to expect even good leaders to make some errors along the way in acquiring it. "I saw A and did B, but I didn't understand the importance of C at the time, and have since learned D" goes a long way in giving me confidence in leadership.
I would love to see bishops more willing to discuss governance errors they have made - not just to rebuild confidence with their people and their priests, but as a service to their brother bishops (and the Church's future bishops). Don't make everyone else repeat your mistakes!
Given that Cupich closed it down, I don't see why he would object to having the situation discussed. If there was a problem he addressed it effectively.
That is true and I laud Cupich for that particular action. Although I disagree with the Cardinal on numerous issues, I appreciate his backbone and commitment. A quality quite rare in the episcopate.
It is not that I think Cupich has something to hide about Casa Jesus, it actually has more to do with that the questions are coming from The Pillar. I do not think he appreciates that this amazing news source does not toe his party line.
This is tangential, but still relevant. When an episcopal see comes open, fifty to a hundred people are asked to confidentially suggest 3 names for the appointment. It is almost certain that no one recommended Weisenburger for Detroit, McElroy for DC, McGovern for Omaha, or Casey for Cincinnati. When KC is soon revealed, the same pattern will hold. It is another proof that synodality is a sham. Synodality for thee but not for me.
Can you tell me where you see the robust welcome? And my knowledge comes from those who are part of the process and from priests and laity in those archdioceses.
From the clergy and people of DC, from Holy Trinity to OLPH, and from St. Gabriel's to Sacred Heart to St. Benedict the Moor. All corners of the city. And thousands for the welcoming Mass, even though in the middle of a workday.
Apparently you are not familiar with the preternatural, statistical-sampling powers of our friend. He’s yet to find a single person unhappy with the DC appointment, despite personally interviewing thousands across the diocese.
Why do you continue to spread this blatant falsehood, Kurt? We've been down this road before -- your basis for claiming a "robust welcome and enthusiasm for McElroy in DC," implying support beyond a narrow few, has rightly and repeatedly been exposed as anecdotal at best and as utterly fabricated at worst. The unrefuted fact remains that the faithful in DC and beyond are sickened and outraged by McElroy and his ilk (Tobin, Farrell, Wuerl Gregory, etc.) -- McCarrick proteges/enablers/toadies/protectors/cronies/beneficiaries/apologists all. None of them -- including McElroy -- has been held to account for his involvement in one of the greatest scandals in the history of the Church, the fallout from which continues to damage her credibility and impair her witness. Yet silence and elevation have been their reward from the powers that be. So please, unless you have evidence that at some point McElroy renounced his membership in his McCarrick protection racket, spare us the spin.
Oh please. Every commentator claiming there is dislike in DC for McElroy goes mute when the question is raised as to which parishes this is coming from. His welcoming Mass was packed even though it was in the middle of a workday. From St. Thomas More in far Anacostia to Nativity Parish on the far other side of DC, Catholics have been enthusiastic and welcoming. You got nothing, absolutely nothing to support your assertion.
Maybe the issue is that Kurt doesn’t know anyone in Md. bc a number of seminarians aren’t thrilled. From whatever parishes I don’t know I didn’t ask. But folks from MD parishes - since you’re so desperate for this bizarre name dropping cred - st James and st Jerome’s and st Francis de sales and st marks and sacred heart and ascension and st Bernadette’s and st Edward and st anslems and st Mary’s - are also not thrilled. Oh and Ukrainian catholic parish over by shrine. Many of them who homeschool are actually very concerned.
So there is your list slash proof that there is no universal joyous welcome. Plenty of people are holding their breath. Stop gaslighting us.
Now was that so hard? I appreciate at long last someone giving us some idea as to where this claimed displeasure with the new archbishop is coming from. I don't doubt you know people who are displeased with Cardinal McElroy in these parishes and yes, just as you are less familiar than I am as to the parishes in DC, I not very acquainted with Southern Maryland and some of the suburban areas and I guess it is not a surprise that what displeasure there is comes from those areas. I do know people at St. James and St. Jerome who are pleased with the Cardinal, but admittedly one is on TPS as are many others in her parish and the other participates in liturgical dance in her parish. And my Ukrainian Catholic friends are very happy with the Cardinal. As for Ascension parish, from what I know, I do not doubt that you are right about the community there.
Still, with the record breaking participation in his welcoming Mass, there clearly is a lot (I never said universal) of warmth towards him. I suspect displeasure may come later when he has to make some tough decision, but for me, it currently seem quite limited.
So glad we don’t surprise you in Maryland and can confirm “what you know” about us. Kurt your lack of charity in the comments section about ADW is frustrating in the extreme.
I find it amazing that you consider it a "lack of charity" that I don't join in making negative accusations about our brand new archbishop and I dare note that many faithful Catholics are welcoming him warmly.
Nope nothing to do with pointing out your own opinions on the new Cardinal and everything to do with first denying anyone disagrees and then accusing them of segregationist racism and concluding with “oh those people not surprised by what THEY think” snark.
Maybe you genuinely don’t hear how your posts read Kurt in which case it’s not a lack of charity but a lack of prudence. But you definitely lack one of them in these comments section any time this diocese comes up.
I'm convinced the vast majority of Catholics in ADW start off with charity and welcoming towards the new Archbishop. I've never denied every last person felt that way and still don't understand the resentment at simply trying to discern where such displeasure comes from. But yes, your hostility towards such an inquiry does lead me to think it is from certain limited circles.
The Italian expression is “si deve conoscere qualcuno”. “You have to know somebody” or be connected, or be trusted by someone who has some sway, or recommended by someone else who know someone else…
Seems like this methodology would definitely make it impossible for those selecting the people who make suggestions to ensure that only those who would make the "right" suggestions get selected...
You are right. For one, Cardinal Cupich is on the Dicastry for Bishops which determines the order of preference for the 3 candidates to submit to the Pope.
Second, the Pope can bypass that Dicastry altogether and listen to anyone he wants to in choosing a bishop. Cardinal Rai, the retired Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, stated McCarrick was not one of the 3 candidates recommended for Arrchbishop of Washington.
Cupich was himself a personal choice of Pope Francis as he could never get a majority of American bishops to vote for him for any position in the USCCB, so I highly doubt the then nuncio in the US Archbishop Vigano put Cupich on the list of 3 candidates for Chicago, and Pope Francis himself was chosen Auxiliary Bishop and later Archbishop of Buenas Aires upon the recommendation of the previous Archbishop Cardinal Quarrancino since nearly everyone else in Argentina could not stand Father Bergoglio for his dictatorial tendencies and he had been relegated to being a professor at an obscure seminary in Argentina.
Cupich is so quickly getting his men in in case Pope Francis dies that Archbishop Weisenburger in Detroit was installed before the Pope could even approve his appointment by signing the appropriate document as reported by the Pillar.
I think this is rather a strained interpretation of the Weisenburger situation. As I understood the article, the appointment had been made and announced by Pope Francis but he became seriously ill before he could undertake the formality of signing the appropriate papal bull.
That is what the Nuncio Cardinal Pierre said, but given how long some of these archdioceses in the US have had an archbishop waiting for a replacement and suddenly within 3 months Milwaukee, Washington DC, Detroit, Cincinnati, and Omaha are filled with Cupich proteges and friends makes me believe someone was in an awful hurry to get certain bishops through right around the time Pope Francis' health started deteriorating. I know Archbishop Vigneron in Detroit (I know people in that Archdiocese who would know) is in good health, so there was no reason to push Weisenburger through in a hurry except the fact that Pope Francis was almost at death's door and Cardinal Cupich nor his friend the Nuncio Cardinal Pierre may have as much influence with the next Pope as they have with this one. By the way: I wish Pope Francis many more years and for him to never make the horrible blunder of resigning.
All of these major appointments were compiled in the US months ago. They probably didn't even go through the plenary session of the Dicastery for Bishops but went right to the pope for a decision.
You may be right, but if you follow the appointment of new bishops on a website like catholic-hierarchy.org, there was a tremendous amount of activity naming bishops around the world when Pope Francis was in the hospital, which means the final steps were taken recently and in a hurry.
I don't want to imply that the process was perfect and unpolitical prior to Pope Francis and Cardinal Cupich. It certainly was! And the pope always has the right to appoint the bishops he wants. I would hate to have that policy changed.
What we are seeing now are disturbing trends: the appointment of ideologues to major appointments because of their ideology, the appointment of mediocre priests, some of whom are morally questionable, to other dioceses, and in spite of all this talk on synodal listening, to ignore the voices of those who best know the local situation.
I don't really despair, though. The ideologues are either older or mediocre, so they will struggle to overcome the younger faithful. They will also find few men under the age of 70 to carry out their visions.
I agree. The quality of the young priests in the US is so high that the liberal bishops have slim pickings to choose from in choosing like minded liberals in the future as their successors.
I hope they all pretend they are aligned with Pope Francis. Sort of like Bishop Paprocki who was a protege of the ultraliberal Cardinal Bernardin, but became an awesome orthodox bishop. I am actually hoping 56 year old Bishop Andrew Cozzens of Crookston, Minnesota, who was in charge of the National Eucharistic Congress, is advanced, but he may have to wait for the next Pope.
I am surprised that you put the Polish-born Bishop Fedek into the mix. Polish priests and bishops are good at pretending to follow the lead of Pope Francis in word, but doing what is right in deed. The poor American bishops get the most criticism from Pope Francis, yet the Polish bishops are way more conservative. They cleverly quote Pope Francis in nearly every document and homily and never openly criticize him or his policies, but completely ignore almost every directive that comes from the Vatican. I personally know at least two Polish-born priests who have high positions in dioceses where Cupich dictates things who are more conservative than Bishop Strickland, but publicly they sound like they are towing the Cupich and Pope Francis line. I pray they do become bishops and make Cardinal Cupich cringe at who got through under his nose.
"Casey emphasized that he is a pastor at heart, that he wants to be a bridge-builder in a divided culture, that the Church is a “diverse family of God,” and that the bishop should help Catholics to “reach out and dialog and listen.”
Sounds like it came right out of Fr. James Martin's play book.
I moved to Cincinnati twenty years ago and have yet to understand the place. It *feels* very parochial, inward looking, self-satisfied, closed. It may be a good place for the institutional Church to put a prelate inclined to simply serve time quietly, unquestioned. Or not. I just don't know. Good luck pressing the issue, JD.
The late Cardinal Bernardin was in Cincinnati before being moved to Chicago. Perhaps it’s Cupich’s (who is 75) wanting Casey to get some practice as an Ordinary, before bringing him back to Chicago as his hand-picked successor.
Keep banging the drum asking for transparency. I have no hope that the questions will be answered but I'm thankful someone keeps asking them.
I just pray that the Lord has sent us a saintly bishop. Pray for us in Cinci, friends.
As soon as Chicago was mentioned.....draw your own conclusions.
Our hierarchy is pathetic. What an incredible scandal to promote this man.
Even if Casey did nothing wrong, you would think that his being rector of this place at perhaps its worst time would disqualify him from being ordained a bishop, let alone named an archbishop.
You don't know all the facts. None of us knows. Demands for answers about scandals and allegations may be just spurious curiosity. None of our business unless proven by perp admission and formal, legal or canonical pronouncement.
It seems no one knows the facts, hence why I made no accusations. It seems that if the good archbishop wanted facts to be known, he could be the one to make that happen.
Also: whether an active archbishop knew about, engaged in, facilitated, or otherwise knew about abuse of any kind is my business, actually.
// Even if Casey did nothing wrong, you would think that his being rector of this place at perhaps its worst time would disqualify him from being ordained a bishop, let alone named an archbishop. //
Sadly, I would not think that.
Precisely.
Ideally, there should be a friendly relationship between prelates and the laity, where information is communicated and questions are answered in a civil and meaningful manner. But every bishop should maybe twice a year be willing to endure something like Prime Ministers Question Hour from the laity.
Hope and pray the Holy Spirit leads him to be the shepherd the Diocese and Ohio needs but a CV like that looks more like he's bound for the Curia.
I could see a few different reasons why Casey didn’t answer these questions.
First, given a major part of the issues with Casa Jesus were in regards to homosexuality. Casey uses language of “building bridges” so he may want to avoid appearing too friendly or too critical of active homosexuality in the priesthood.
Second, Cupich may not want this discussed and even though as of today Casey no longer answers to Cupich. Given Cupich’s reputation for vindictive behavior he may be hesitant to go against Cupich early in role as a new Archbishop. (Not justifying it just pointing it out)
Third, he could have failed in his attempted reforms of Casa Jesus or been oblivious to the behavior going on. Either way that makes him look incompetent. Contrary to other comments I do not think that a failed tenure (provided it was not a major moral failure or a failure to report the major moral failures of others) should disqualify a priest from the episcopate as such an experience could make one wise if they allow it to do so.
Agree with you on not-necessarily-disqualifying: governance is a skill and it's natural to expect even good leaders to make some errors along the way in acquiring it. "I saw A and did B, but I didn't understand the importance of C at the time, and have since learned D" goes a long way in giving me confidence in leadership.
I would love to see bishops more willing to discuss governance errors they have made - not just to rebuild confidence with their people and their priests, but as a service to their brother bishops (and the Church's future bishops). Don't make everyone else repeat your mistakes!
Given that Cupich closed it down, I don't see why he would object to having the situation discussed. If there was a problem he addressed it effectively.
That is true and I laud Cupich for that particular action. Although I disagree with the Cardinal on numerous issues, I appreciate his backbone and commitment. A quality quite rare in the episcopate.
It is not that I think Cupich has something to hide about Casa Jesus, it actually has more to do with that the questions are coming from The Pillar. I do not think he appreciates that this amazing news source does not toe his party line.
This is tangential, but still relevant. When an episcopal see comes open, fifty to a hundred people are asked to confidentially suggest 3 names for the appointment. It is almost certain that no one recommended Weisenburger for Detroit, McElroy for DC, McGovern for Omaha, or Casey for Cincinnati. When KC is soon revealed, the same pattern will hold. It is another proof that synodality is a sham. Synodality for thee but not for me.
How would you know that? The robust welcome and enthusiasm for McElroy in DC would suggest that is not the case.
Can you tell me where you see the robust welcome? And my knowledge comes from those who are part of the process and from priests and laity in those archdioceses.
From the clergy and people of DC, from Holy Trinity to OLPH, and from St. Gabriel's to Sacred Heart to St. Benedict the Moor. All corners of the city. And thousands for the welcoming Mass, even though in the middle of a workday.
Apparently you are not familiar with the preternatural, statistical-sampling powers of our friend. He’s yet to find a single person unhappy with the DC appointment, despite personally interviewing thousands across the diocese.
He does have amazing powers, especially when the evidence is so strongly directed to an opposing opinion.
Why do you continue to spread this blatant falsehood, Kurt? We've been down this road before -- your basis for claiming a "robust welcome and enthusiasm for McElroy in DC," implying support beyond a narrow few, has rightly and repeatedly been exposed as anecdotal at best and as utterly fabricated at worst. The unrefuted fact remains that the faithful in DC and beyond are sickened and outraged by McElroy and his ilk (Tobin, Farrell, Wuerl Gregory, etc.) -- McCarrick proteges/enablers/toadies/protectors/cronies/beneficiaries/apologists all. None of them -- including McElroy -- has been held to account for his involvement in one of the greatest scandals in the history of the Church, the fallout from which continues to damage her credibility and impair her witness. Yet silence and elevation have been their reward from the powers that be. So please, unless you have evidence that at some point McElroy renounced his membership in his McCarrick protection racket, spare us the spin.
Oh please. Every commentator claiming there is dislike in DC for McElroy goes mute when the question is raised as to which parishes this is coming from. His welcoming Mass was packed even though it was in the middle of a workday. From St. Thomas More in far Anacostia to Nativity Parish on the far other side of DC, Catholics have been enthusiastic and welcoming. You got nothing, absolutely nothing to support your assertion.
Maybe the issue is that Kurt doesn’t know anyone in Md. bc a number of seminarians aren’t thrilled. From whatever parishes I don’t know I didn’t ask. But folks from MD parishes - since you’re so desperate for this bizarre name dropping cred - st James and st Jerome’s and st Francis de sales and st marks and sacred heart and ascension and st Bernadette’s and st Edward and st anslems and st Mary’s - are also not thrilled. Oh and Ukrainian catholic parish over by shrine. Many of them who homeschool are actually very concerned.
So there is your list slash proof that there is no universal joyous welcome. Plenty of people are holding their breath. Stop gaslighting us.
Now was that so hard? I appreciate at long last someone giving us some idea as to where this claimed displeasure with the new archbishop is coming from. I don't doubt you know people who are displeased with Cardinal McElroy in these parishes and yes, just as you are less familiar than I am as to the parishes in DC, I not very acquainted with Southern Maryland and some of the suburban areas and I guess it is not a surprise that what displeasure there is comes from those areas. I do know people at St. James and St. Jerome who are pleased with the Cardinal, but admittedly one is on TPS as are many others in her parish and the other participates in liturgical dance in her parish. And my Ukrainian Catholic friends are very happy with the Cardinal. As for Ascension parish, from what I know, I do not doubt that you are right about the community there.
Still, with the record breaking participation in his welcoming Mass, there clearly is a lot (I never said universal) of warmth towards him. I suspect displeasure may come later when he has to make some tough decision, but for me, it currently seem quite limited.
So glad we don’t surprise you in Maryland and can confirm “what you know” about us. Kurt your lack of charity in the comments section about ADW is frustrating in the extreme.
I find it amazing that you consider it a "lack of charity" that I don't join in making negative accusations about our brand new archbishop and I dare note that many faithful Catholics are welcoming him warmly.
Nope nothing to do with pointing out your own opinions on the new Cardinal and everything to do with first denying anyone disagrees and then accusing them of segregationist racism and concluding with “oh those people not surprised by what THEY think” snark.
Maybe you genuinely don’t hear how your posts read Kurt in which case it’s not a lack of charity but a lack of prudence. But you definitely lack one of them in these comments section any time this diocese comes up.
I'm convinced the vast majority of Catholics in ADW start off with charity and welcoming towards the new Archbishop. I've never denied every last person felt that way and still don't understand the resentment at simply trying to discern where such displeasure comes from. But yes, your hostility towards such an inquiry does lead me to think it is from certain limited circles.
And there it is ! Another racism accusation.
Have a great day Kurt I’m very done here.
How do they select the 50-100 people to make suggestions?
The Italian expression is “si deve conoscere qualcuno”. “You have to know somebody” or be connected, or be trusted by someone who has some sway, or recommended by someone else who know someone else…
Seems like this methodology would definitely make it impossible for those selecting the people who make suggestions to ensure that only those who would make the "right" suggestions get selected...
You are right. For one, Cardinal Cupich is on the Dicastry for Bishops which determines the order of preference for the 3 candidates to submit to the Pope.
Second, the Pope can bypass that Dicastry altogether and listen to anyone he wants to in choosing a bishop. Cardinal Rai, the retired Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, stated McCarrick was not one of the 3 candidates recommended for Arrchbishop of Washington.
Cupich was himself a personal choice of Pope Francis as he could never get a majority of American bishops to vote for him for any position in the USCCB, so I highly doubt the then nuncio in the US Archbishop Vigano put Cupich on the list of 3 candidates for Chicago, and Pope Francis himself was chosen Auxiliary Bishop and later Archbishop of Buenas Aires upon the recommendation of the previous Archbishop Cardinal Quarrancino since nearly everyone else in Argentina could not stand Father Bergoglio for his dictatorial tendencies and he had been relegated to being a professor at an obscure seminary in Argentina.
Cupich is so quickly getting his men in in case Pope Francis dies that Archbishop Weisenburger in Detroit was installed before the Pope could even approve his appointment by signing the appropriate document as reported by the Pillar.
I think this is rather a strained interpretation of the Weisenburger situation. As I understood the article, the appointment had been made and announced by Pope Francis but he became seriously ill before he could undertake the formality of signing the appropriate papal bull.
That is what the Nuncio Cardinal Pierre said, but given how long some of these archdioceses in the US have had an archbishop waiting for a replacement and suddenly within 3 months Milwaukee, Washington DC, Detroit, Cincinnati, and Omaha are filled with Cupich proteges and friends makes me believe someone was in an awful hurry to get certain bishops through right around the time Pope Francis' health started deteriorating. I know Archbishop Vigneron in Detroit (I know people in that Archdiocese who would know) is in good health, so there was no reason to push Weisenburger through in a hurry except the fact that Pope Francis was almost at death's door and Cardinal Cupich nor his friend the Nuncio Cardinal Pierre may have as much influence with the next Pope as they have with this one. By the way: I wish Pope Francis many more years and for him to never make the horrible blunder of resigning.
All of these major appointments were compiled in the US months ago. They probably didn't even go through the plenary session of the Dicastery for Bishops but went right to the pope for a decision.
You may be right, but if you follow the appointment of new bishops on a website like catholic-hierarchy.org, there was a tremendous amount of activity naming bishops around the world when Pope Francis was in the hospital, which means the final steps were taken recently and in a hurry.
I don't want to imply that the process was perfect and unpolitical prior to Pope Francis and Cardinal Cupich. It certainly was! And the pope always has the right to appoint the bishops he wants. I would hate to have that policy changed.
What we are seeing now are disturbing trends: the appointment of ideologues to major appointments because of their ideology, the appointment of mediocre priests, some of whom are morally questionable, to other dioceses, and in spite of all this talk on synodal listening, to ignore the voices of those who best know the local situation.
I don't really despair, though. The ideologues are either older or mediocre, so they will struggle to overcome the younger faithful. They will also find few men under the age of 70 to carry out their visions.
I agree. The quality of the young priests in the US is so high that the liberal bishops have slim pickings to choose from in choosing like minded liberals in the future as their successors.
Just a few of the younger guys we hope to be seeing more of, who are pastorally oriented like our Holy Father:
Bishop José Arturo Cepeda Escobedo (55),
Bishop Ramon Bejarano (55)
Bishop Mario Alberto Avilés Campos, C.O. (55)
Bishop Felipe Pulido (55)
Bishop Evelio Menjivar-Ayala (54)
Bishop Anthony Cerdan Celino (52)
Bishop Juan Rafael Esposito-Garcia (51)
Bishop Artur Bubnevych (49)
Bishop Cristiano Guilherme Borro Barbosa (48)
Bishop Joseph Armando Espaillat (48)
Bishop José Maria Garcia Maldonado (46)
Bishop Robert Fedek (45)
Well . . . we'll see.
All Hispanic but the last?
I hope they all pretend they are aligned with Pope Francis. Sort of like Bishop Paprocki who was a protege of the ultraliberal Cardinal Bernardin, but became an awesome orthodox bishop. I am actually hoping 56 year old Bishop Andrew Cozzens of Crookston, Minnesota, who was in charge of the National Eucharistic Congress, is advanced, but he may have to wait for the next Pope.
I am surprised that you put the Polish-born Bishop Fedek into the mix. Polish priests and bishops are good at pretending to follow the lead of Pope Francis in word, but doing what is right in deed. The poor American bishops get the most criticism from Pope Francis, yet the Polish bishops are way more conservative. They cleverly quote Pope Francis in nearly every document and homily and never openly criticize him or his policies, but completely ignore almost every directive that comes from the Vatican. I personally know at least two Polish-born priests who have high positions in dioceses where Cupich dictates things who are more conservative than Bishop Strickland, but publicly they sound like they are towing the Cupich and Pope Francis line. I pray they do become bishops and make Cardinal Cupich cringe at who got through under his nose.
The Polish bishops have experience in these matters.
Better hope that no one gets hold of the list you put together. That will bring any ‘upward mobility’ to a grinding halt.
Prayers up for Cincinnati.
"Casey emphasized that he is a pastor at heart, that he wants to be a bridge-builder in a divided culture, that the Church is a “diverse family of God,” and that the bishop should help Catholics to “reach out and dialog and listen.”
Sounds like it came right out of Fr. James Martin's play book.
Yes. Thank God and the Holy Father for this pastoral man.
I moved to Cincinnati twenty years ago and have yet to understand the place. It *feels* very parochial, inward looking, self-satisfied, closed. It may be a good place for the institutional Church to put a prelate inclined to simply serve time quietly, unquestioned. Or not. I just don't know. Good luck pressing the issue, JD.
The late Cardinal Bernardin was in Cincinnati before being moved to Chicago. Perhaps it’s Cupich’s (who is 75) wanting Casey to get some practice as an Ordinary, before bringing him back to Chicago as his hand-picked successor.
And behold, the true purpose, it seems, of a diocese - the good of the bishop's career and that of his ideological friends.
Jn 11:35
Had to have been bad for +Cupich to shut it down. Yikes.