Excellent analysis, Ed. I wonder how the good people of the Archdiocese feel knowing their Archbishop was selected based on politics and not the needs of the local community.
Well we’re not so stupid as to not notice we aren’t a factor in the decision that’s for sure - this is has literally been the comment of many people I’ve talked to (we’re ADW sheep) in the last day - how come nobody cares about what the PEOPLE here need. This diocese isn’t the White House and capital hill. It’s a whole heck of a lot of people too 😞.
Maybe those parishes are happy about it; surely some Catholics are. However, "The people of the ADW are very happy about the selection" seems like stereotyping to me.
Honestly, I wouldn't say "The people of the ADW are very unhappy about the selection", either. I'll just speak for myself any my little family: this seems like a bad choice--but I know God will bring great good out of it anyway in the long run.
Fascinating that Pope Francis is temperamentally in sync with President-elect Trump. Both are principally motivated by grievances against criticism - both real and perceived. Both apt to take rash decisions based upon whoever has spoken last; particularly if the speaker emphasizes that his recommended course would most antagonize the pope's or the president's "enemies."
In fact, one might say that of these aged leaders one shows signs of narcissistic and despotic tendencies not worthy of his high office. The other one lives in Mar-a-largo.
Agreed on all points. I've said before that Trump and Francis are more alike than a lot of the Pope's supporters would like to admit. Obviously their worldviews are very different but personality-wise, from everything we know about them they could be brothers.
The former is a practicing Christian. Although he is POTUSA, the latter is not a practicing Christian until proven otherwise. Does that matter in this maelstrom in a mole hole?
Why say such a thing? Trump is a proven unrepentant liar, whereas you have not provided evidence to your hypothesis. Be accountable and not suggest slanderous attacks.
Massimo Faggioli once said on twitter something to the effect of: "L'America di Trump, chiave per il pontificato di Francesco." I'm not generally a huge fan of Professor F's analysis, but I think he was spot on in that statement, for better and for worse, and this is evidence for that. At its worst, that interplay becomes something primarily reactive, and this also appears to be an example of that.
I also find myself annoyed at the incoming administration for a needlessly provocative appointment that has stuck me with my last choice among new archbishops... but if I'm going to be annoyed at every needlessly provocative thing they do, it's going to be a long 4 years.
Something that hasn't come up yet in the reactions I've read: Wasn't Cardinal McElroy an active and vehement supporter of U.S. military aid to Ukraine? This would seem to be at odds with the position that Francis and Trump, weirdly enough, seem to share—favoring a rapid negotiated settlement.
Josh: In some ways, given his somewhat unique educational background as a member of the clergy, Cardinal McElroy is the prima facie safe choice in that he understands politics, international relations, and church-state issues well. But, therein lies the problem. McElroy is all too aware, all too familiar with how things work in Washington, and the temptation is going to be that he will attempt to politically engage and devote his energy and effort toward exactly the opposite of what must happen: attending to his priests and people of ADW and keeping the Church and State separate and distinct. I would hate to see him merely become the "detentore delle chiavi della politica" for Roma. Washington, DC has enough politicians already.
To elaborate: in 1972 he entered Harvard College and graduated three years later with a bachelor’s degree in American history. Bishop McElroy attended graduate school at Stanford University and in 1976 received a master’s degree in American history and in 1989 a doctorate in Political Science.
In 1979, he was granted a master’s in Divinity (M.Div) at St. Patrick Seminary, and a Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) from the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley in 1985 and a doctorate in Moral Theology (STD) from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1987.
Reentering the seminary in the fall of 1976, Bishop McElroy attended St. Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California, and was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of San Francisco on April 12, 1980.
Which leads me to the question of how much real on the ground pastoral work he actually did prior to becoming a bishop in 2010. He seems to have been in grad school for most of his first 20 years as a priest gaining his five (!) graduate degrees and then made a bishop. He did serve as pastor, but those dates seem to coincide with further graduate degrees and also his service as the viacr general of ADSF. Not criticizing getting degrees, but it is odd that he got a bunch of letters after his name apparently on diocesan payrolls and never served in the seminary as rector or in any sort of educational formational position. Some guys just go and get degrees on their own, and I wonder if this was the case for his poli sci degree from Stanford which is at the south end of the ADSF, actually in the Diocese of San Jose.
Timothy Cardinal Michael Dolan pastored exactly one parish in St. Louis, Little Flower in Richmond Heights. That parish is close to Kenrick-Glennon seminary in Shrewsbury and is a small parish, so one can ask the same question about the Cardinal in midtown. He got whisked to oversee Abo. Rembert Weakland in Milwaukee after a lot of administrative (Rector of N. American College in Rome) and a lot of textbook. Academically a genius but nobody required a lot of pastoral work out of him before he was elevated to prelate. If I’m missing part of his resume, please correct me. He’s 75 in a month so this becomes somewhat moot unless the new administration or Fox News needs him 4 more years.
My husband noted that with the McElroy pick, as with many other times in Francis’ papacy, the pope has chosen to lecture Americans instead of engaging with us. I think there’s a lot of truth in that.
How is he lecturing Americans? The bishops, are and have always been, responsible for their flocks. When they fail their ass to leave. When they retire, there’s a replacement that we pray is well suited for their see. It seems to me that we need to do a lot more praying than second-guessing actions of the Holy Spirit (unless of course you personally believe he no longer works through his church). m
To the extent that's true, everyone in Rome looks even more foolish and shortsighted than most traditionalist caricatures could have presented. That you would make major ecclesiastical choices based upon who was chosen as a symbolic diplomat nobody would listen to anyways? Does Trump really live rent free in their head?
With Cardinal Dolan turning 75 on 6 February, I’m betting he’ll live rent-free next door to Frank Pavone at Mar-a-Lago. Laicization bygones be bygones. The rest love the idea of anything rent-free but not sure about the “where’s”. Certainly +Wuerl and +Gregory can live rent free on a cool $2 million ministry account. Are any of McCarrick’s “off-site retreat” spots available rent-free? I’m staying focused on ADW finances where the faithful are exposed and can at least demand accountability. Accountability is anathema to ecclesial politics and now civil politics. We all know that.
Please don’t take this the wrong way. Regardless of anything else, Cdl McElroy is a priest in good standing and it’s disrespecting the Lord to not refer to His priests respectfully. There’s a mystery here - the real frailty of priests, with their faults all out in the open for us to notice, yet they still bring us Christ Himself in the Sacraments- to denigrate them rather than respectfully staying on topic is to stomp on sacred ground, I think. St Thomas Beckett, pray for us. St. Paul, pray for us.
His red hat was a provocation - a message. His new see is a provocation. But while poking Trump's policies, he is trying to lead a complex, bankrupt diocese, with 3 or 4 seminaries, Catholic U, a Catholic laity with a rather vocal, if not large, conservative Catholic component and he's a political rookie. This is simply a recipe for failure.
I doubt his Eminence while very smart, is capable of working THAT hard with a team of strangers as he enters his 8th decade. I further doubt his ability to develop a multifaceted & effective plan to plug the numerous holes in his See. The Nuncio did not want him nor did Gregory, nor did Francis until confronted with a fait accompli in a place the Holy Father seemingly resents and does not understand. He must KNOW he is the 3rd or so choice. This can only weigh on him. The Archdiocese is in shambles. The winter is much harsher than San Diego, politics, espacially today are bare knuckle.
And, lest we forget, he is the last of the "McCarrick men".
It seems in a certain sense, the Cardinal is a messenger, his red hat was a message as is this appointment. Probably because in the end, this is a near impossible job for an elderly man and he is the easiest to replace if (when) this collapses.
Never underestimate the arrogance of McCarrick's men. They believe they deserve such positions. It may be an impossible job to an impartial analyst, but that's only if you assume he cares much about the day-to-day functioning of the diocese and not almost exclusively about sending political messages and opening the door to changing dogma on gay marriage, women priests, etc, while keeping dark secrets of the past hidden. Once you realize how little McCarrick's men really care about spiritual things and their actual diocese, it is easier to see them not so much as "being used" in such appointments as vying for power and influence every chance they get.
Is there any particular reasoning behind the conjecture that Cardinal McElroy is one of “McCarrick’s men”? It seems like he was much more a protege of Archbishop John Quinn.
Further, is holding two diocesan synods—one on the youth, and one on marriage—indicative of not caring about one’s actual diocese?
I also find this accusation a little strained- it seems to come only from Richard Sipe having told McElroy about McCarrick in 2016, and McElroy saying that he forwarded the allegations to Rome but did nothing else as he lacked jurisdiction. A bad decision, evidence of clericalism, I think, but not enough by itself to associate him closely with McCarrick.
I think association with McCarrick has metastasized to include basically all older liberal bishops who may have heard of his activities (I'm sure they did, but they weren't the only ones who knew). And this tends to ignore complexities like McElroy coming up under Quinn, or Gregory under Cardinal Bernardin
If this article is correct, then Pope Francis has completely miscalculated how to respond to Trump. The worst thing a person can do to Trump is to ignore him and act as if he is irrelevant to one’s own plans. Trump very much wants to affect people. He would prefer to be liked, but that is secondary to having an impact. By making it clear that Trump can irritate the the Vatican so much that it affects episcopal appointments, Pope Francis has played right into his hand.
The pillar reported on it a week or so ago - we’re millions of dollars in debt slash over budget slash one of those that normal people with normal bank accounts could never. Just poke around on here and you’ll find it.
Addition to previous Pillar reporting: Now in addition to Cdl. Wuerl, you have a second retired Archbishop (Cdl. Gregory) with an ~ $2 million “ministry fund” now on the books post-McCarrick. So presumably that budget shortfall increases by $2 million unless it drops from the sky - aka out of a Catholic broligarch’s private jet. Thoughts and prayers for the ADW balance sheet and cash flow statement 🙏
Another aspect of this appointment: for "pastoral" reasons, Pope Francis consistently avoids antagonizing political leaders in countries in which the Church and its believers are under direct threat: China, Nicaragua, Venezuela, to name some. Perhaps this is the appropriate course of action: distasteful but necessary realpoltik in the best interests of the flock. Of course, Cardinal Zen, Jimmy Lai, and George Weigel (among others) would strenuously object. But when it comes to the United States, the Pope does not hesitate to provoke or make his political preferences clear ... to the point of alleging that Trump "is not Christian" in 2016. This, of course, from a Vatican all too willing to hobnob publicly with committed pro-abortionists Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi despite their laughable pretensions of conformity with Catholic teachings. Undoubtedly, the Pope would embrace a victorious Kamala Harris, who couldn't even countenance an appearance at the Al Smith dinner because of its Catholicity.
So, not only is the Pope unable to read the room with this appointment, he is unable to read the US polls as well. US Catholics broke significantly in favor of the Republican ticket in 2024. (Perhaps the dawn raids of the Biden Justice Department of pro-life Catholic families had something to do with that.) I believe those margins were even higher for Catholics who regularly attend Mass ... you know, those pesky observant Catholics. It's not just Trump that the Pope and Cardinal McElroy have decided to (further) alienate. I just hope Cardinal McElroy is able to get a share of that German church tax to shore up the finances of his new post.
Please elaborate on “dawn raids of Biden Justice Department of pro-life Catholic families” or provide a link. I’m not a Biden-Harris supporter but you lost me there.
MW: Excellent analysis. Thank you. I don't know your educational or professional background, but color me impressed. If you are not writing, you should consider it. While I do appreciate the Pope's consistent emphasis on service and presence to the poor and outcast, I wonder if he sometimes simply confuses the good guys with bad guys. I also suspect some of the old Peronista spirit still affects his political outlook, as demonstrated by his curious desire to cozy up and converse with the most liberal elements of Catholics like Biden and Pelosi and also to promote and elect the most liberal churchmen he can find to positions of high importance. Rarely has Pope Francis ever said anything positive or affirming about the Church in the US. He has become, as one bishop told me once, "The Scolding Pope." How strange that those countries (and religions) committing egregious acts of injustice and outright murder of the faithful - in the name of socialism or communism or nationalism or Islam - seem to get a hall pass, as you mention. These are the places with real threats against the fabric and body. It will be interesting to see how Cardinal McElroy will navigate these waters. Again, thanks for your insights.
Speaking of China, the Pillar has done a great job of reporting the degree to which Beijing selects bishops in China & even redraws diocesan boundaries without input from Rome.
What if, on January 21st, Donald Trump were to announce that Joseph Strickland would be the new archbishop of DC? Is there really any difference? Would the Vatican react?
The role of a bishop is to lead souls to heaven. Shame on all those who prioritised the diplomatic, “political-cultural” space and personal antagonisms above that.
When I become pope, right after yelling at all the kids to get off my papal lawn, the first change I'm going to make is to draw bishops from the local presbyterate and then leave them in office for life. Next, I'm going to move all the assistant bishops to their titular sees (Algeria gonna see a whole bunch of bishops) and break up the mega-dioceses into smaller ones.
"The archdiocese is home to sizable liturgically traditionalist communities and a number of homeschooling families — both issues to which McElroy is often seen as unsympathetic."
Unsympathetic is a bit of an understatement. I would have said he oozes contempt for those communities, but that's why Ed is a successful reporter and I sit in front of a computer all day analyzing numbers.
Yeah, "often seen as unsympathetic" is underplaying it a bit after throwing out homeschoolers from Church property on short notice in San Diego, which The Pillar has reported on.
Excellent analysis, Ed. I wonder how the good people of the Archdiocese feel knowing their Archbishop was selected based on politics and not the needs of the local community.
Very pastoral. I can feel the synodality and I don’t even live there!
Well we’re not so stupid as to not notice we aren’t a factor in the decision that’s for sure - this is has literally been the comment of many people I’ve talked to (we’re ADW sheep) in the last day - how come nobody cares about what the PEOPLE here need. This diocese isn’t the White House and capital hill. It’s a whole heck of a lot of people too 😞.
"their Archbishop was selected based on politics and not the needs of the local community." Spot on!
The people of the ADW are very happy about the selection.
As an ADW parishioner, I'm not, and I know plenty of others who are saddened also. I haven't yet met someone happy about the selection.
But God is in charge so I'm not worried.
Come to Sacred Heart in DC, or OLOA, or St. Gabriel parish, all of which may cease to exist under the new federal administration.
Maybe those parishes are happy about it; surely some Catholics are. However, "The people of the ADW are very happy about the selection" seems like stereotyping to me.
Honestly, I wouldn't say "The people of the ADW are very unhappy about the selection", either. I'll just speak for myself any my little family: this seems like a bad choice--but I know God will bring great good out of it anyway in the long run.
And just why are those parishes threatened with their very existence?
Because most of their members are on TPS or DACA.
Called it.
Fascinating that Pope Francis is temperamentally in sync with President-elect Trump. Both are principally motivated by grievances against criticism - both real and perceived. Both apt to take rash decisions based upon whoever has spoken last; particularly if the speaker emphasizes that his recommended course would most antagonize the pope's or the president's "enemies."
In fact, one might say that of these aged leaders one shows signs of narcissistic and despotic tendencies not worthy of his high office. The other one lives in Mar-a-largo.
Agreed on all points. I've said before that Trump and Francis are more alike than a lot of the Pope's supporters would like to admit. Obviously their worldviews are very different but personality-wise, from everything we know about them they could be brothers.
The former is a practicing Christian. Although he is POTUSA, the latter is not a practicing Christian until proven otherwise. Does that matter in this maelstrom in a mole hole?
And yet Trump has shown far less hostility to faithful Catholics than Francis has. I'd far rather have him as President than Francis as Pope.
Why say such a thing? Trump is a proven unrepentant liar, whereas you have not provided evidence to your hypothesis. Be accountable and not suggest slanderous attacks.
Massimo Faggioli once said on twitter something to the effect of: "L'America di Trump, chiave per il pontificato di Francesco." I'm not generally a huge fan of Professor F's analysis, but I think he was spot on in that statement, for better and for worse, and this is evidence for that. At its worst, that interplay becomes something primarily reactive, and this also appears to be an example of that.
I also find myself annoyed at the incoming administration for a needlessly provocative appointment that has stuck me with my last choice among new archbishops... but if I'm going to be annoyed at every needlessly provocative thing they do, it's going to be a long 4 years.
Something that hasn't come up yet in the reactions I've read: Wasn't Cardinal McElroy an active and vehement supporter of U.S. military aid to Ukraine? This would seem to be at odds with the position that Francis and Trump, weirdly enough, seem to share—favoring a rapid negotiated settlement.
Josh: In some ways, given his somewhat unique educational background as a member of the clergy, Cardinal McElroy is the prima facie safe choice in that he understands politics, international relations, and church-state issues well. But, therein lies the problem. McElroy is all too aware, all too familiar with how things work in Washington, and the temptation is going to be that he will attempt to politically engage and devote his energy and effort toward exactly the opposite of what must happen: attending to his priests and people of ADW and keeping the Church and State separate and distinct. I would hate to see him merely become the "detentore delle chiavi della politica" for Roma. Washington, DC has enough politicians already.
To elaborate: in 1972 he entered Harvard College and graduated three years later with a bachelor’s degree in American history. Bishop McElroy attended graduate school at Stanford University and in 1976 received a master’s degree in American history and in 1989 a doctorate in Political Science.
In 1979, he was granted a master’s in Divinity (M.Div) at St. Patrick Seminary, and a Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) from the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley in 1985 and a doctorate in Moral Theology (STD) from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1987.
Reentering the seminary in the fall of 1976, Bishop McElroy attended St. Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California, and was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of San Francisco on April 12, 1980.
https://sdcatholic.org/cardinal-mcelroy/biography/
Which leads me to the question of how much real on the ground pastoral work he actually did prior to becoming a bishop in 2010. He seems to have been in grad school for most of his first 20 years as a priest gaining his five (!) graduate degrees and then made a bishop. He did serve as pastor, but those dates seem to coincide with further graduate degrees and also his service as the viacr general of ADSF. Not criticizing getting degrees, but it is odd that he got a bunch of letters after his name apparently on diocesan payrolls and never served in the seminary as rector or in any sort of educational formational position. Some guys just go and get degrees on their own, and I wonder if this was the case for his poli sci degree from Stanford which is at the south end of the ADSF, actually in the Diocese of San Jose.
Timothy Cardinal Michael Dolan pastored exactly one parish in St. Louis, Little Flower in Richmond Heights. That parish is close to Kenrick-Glennon seminary in Shrewsbury and is a small parish, so one can ask the same question about the Cardinal in midtown. He got whisked to oversee Abo. Rembert Weakland in Milwaukee after a lot of administrative (Rector of N. American College in Rome) and a lot of textbook. Academically a genius but nobody required a lot of pastoral work out of him before he was elevated to prelate. If I’m missing part of his resume, please correct me. He’s 75 in a month so this becomes somewhat moot unless the new administration or Fox News needs him 4 more years.
My husband noted that with the McElroy pick, as with many other times in Francis’ papacy, the pope has chosen to lecture Americans instead of engaging with us. I think there’s a lot of truth in that.
How is he lecturing Americans? The bishops, are and have always been, responsible for their flocks. When they fail their ass to leave. When they retire, there’s a replacement that we pray is well suited for their see. It seems to me that we need to do a lot more praying than second-guessing actions of the Holy Spirit (unless of course you personally believe he no longer works through his church). m
Cardinal McElroy needs prayer for his conversion. A conversion to a faithful Catholic Bishop.
To the extent that's true, everyone in Rome looks even more foolish and shortsighted than most traditionalist caricatures could have presented. That you would make major ecclesiastical choices based upon who was chosen as a symbolic diplomat nobody would listen to anyways? Does Trump really live rent free in their head?
RoMe ThInKs In CeNtUrIeS!
With Cardinal Dolan turning 75 on 6 February, I’m betting he’ll live rent-free next door to Frank Pavone at Mar-a-Lago. Laicization bygones be bygones. The rest love the idea of anything rent-free but not sure about the “where’s”. Certainly +Wuerl and +Gregory can live rent free on a cool $2 million ministry account. Are any of McCarrick’s “off-site retreat” spots available rent-free? I’m staying focused on ADW finances where the faithful are exposed and can at least demand accountability. Accountability is anathema to ecclesial politics and now civil politics. We all know that.
I suppose the only winners here are the homeschoolers of San Diego.
We don’t know for sure yet.
Bob is a one of the reasons we have more horses' patooties in the US than we have horses. This ham-handed appointment will not be good for our Church.
Please don’t take this the wrong way. Regardless of anything else, Cdl McElroy is a priest in good standing and it’s disrespecting the Lord to not refer to His priests respectfully. There’s a mystery here - the real frailty of priests, with their faults all out in the open for us to notice, yet they still bring us Christ Himself in the Sacraments- to denigrate them rather than respectfully staying on topic is to stomp on sacred ground, I think. St Thomas Beckett, pray for us. St. Paul, pray for us.
His red hat was a provocation - a message. His new see is a provocation. But while poking Trump's policies, he is trying to lead a complex, bankrupt diocese, with 3 or 4 seminaries, Catholic U, a Catholic laity with a rather vocal, if not large, conservative Catholic component and he's a political rookie. This is simply a recipe for failure.
I doubt his Eminence while very smart, is capable of working THAT hard with a team of strangers as he enters his 8th decade. I further doubt his ability to develop a multifaceted & effective plan to plug the numerous holes in his See. The Nuncio did not want him nor did Gregory, nor did Francis until confronted with a fait accompli in a place the Holy Father seemingly resents and does not understand. He must KNOW he is the 3rd or so choice. This can only weigh on him. The Archdiocese is in shambles. The winter is much harsher than San Diego, politics, espacially today are bare knuckle.
And, lest we forget, he is the last of the "McCarrick men".
It seems in a certain sense, the Cardinal is a messenger, his red hat was a message as is this appointment. Probably because in the end, this is a near impossible job for an elderly man and he is the easiest to replace if (when) this collapses.
He has been used by his brothers from the start.
Never underestimate the arrogance of McCarrick's men. They believe they deserve such positions. It may be an impossible job to an impartial analyst, but that's only if you assume he cares much about the day-to-day functioning of the diocese and not almost exclusively about sending political messages and opening the door to changing dogma on gay marriage, women priests, etc, while keeping dark secrets of the past hidden. Once you realize how little McCarrick's men really care about spiritual things and their actual diocese, it is easier to see them not so much as "being used" in such appointments as vying for power and influence every chance they get.
A very relevant observation that I missed.
Is there any particular reasoning behind the conjecture that Cardinal McElroy is one of “McCarrick’s men”? It seems like he was much more a protege of Archbishop John Quinn.
Further, is holding two diocesan synods—one on the youth, and one on marriage—indicative of not caring about one’s actual diocese?
I also find this accusation a little strained- it seems to come only from Richard Sipe having told McElroy about McCarrick in 2016, and McElroy saying that he forwarded the allegations to Rome but did nothing else as he lacked jurisdiction. A bad decision, evidence of clericalism, I think, but not enough by itself to associate him closely with McCarrick.
I think association with McCarrick has metastasized to include basically all older liberal bishops who may have heard of his activities (I'm sure they did, but they weren't the only ones who knew). And this tends to ignore complexities like McElroy coming up under Quinn, or Gregory under Cardinal Bernardin
If this article is correct, then Pope Francis has completely miscalculated how to respond to Trump. The worst thing a person can do to Trump is to ignore him and act as if he is irrelevant to one’s own plans. Trump very much wants to affect people. He would prefer to be liked, but that is secondary to having an impact. By making it clear that Trump can irritate the the Vatican so much that it affects episcopal appointments, Pope Francis has played right into his hand.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is this financial mess we reportedly face in the ADW?
The pillar reported on it a week or so ago - we’re millions of dollars in debt slash over budget slash one of those that normal people with normal bank accounts could never. Just poke around on here and you’ll find it.
Thanks
Addition to previous Pillar reporting: Now in addition to Cdl. Wuerl, you have a second retired Archbishop (Cdl. Gregory) with an ~ $2 million “ministry fund” now on the books post-McCarrick. So presumably that budget shortfall increases by $2 million unless it drops from the sky - aka out of a Catholic broligarch’s private jet. Thoughts and prayers for the ADW balance sheet and cash flow statement 🙏
Another aspect of this appointment: for "pastoral" reasons, Pope Francis consistently avoids antagonizing political leaders in countries in which the Church and its believers are under direct threat: China, Nicaragua, Venezuela, to name some. Perhaps this is the appropriate course of action: distasteful but necessary realpoltik in the best interests of the flock. Of course, Cardinal Zen, Jimmy Lai, and George Weigel (among others) would strenuously object. But when it comes to the United States, the Pope does not hesitate to provoke or make his political preferences clear ... to the point of alleging that Trump "is not Christian" in 2016. This, of course, from a Vatican all too willing to hobnob publicly with committed pro-abortionists Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi despite their laughable pretensions of conformity with Catholic teachings. Undoubtedly, the Pope would embrace a victorious Kamala Harris, who couldn't even countenance an appearance at the Al Smith dinner because of its Catholicity.
So, not only is the Pope unable to read the room with this appointment, he is unable to read the US polls as well. US Catholics broke significantly in favor of the Republican ticket in 2024. (Perhaps the dawn raids of the Biden Justice Department of pro-life Catholic families had something to do with that.) I believe those margins were even higher for Catholics who regularly attend Mass ... you know, those pesky observant Catholics. It's not just Trump that the Pope and Cardinal McElroy have decided to (further) alienate. I just hope Cardinal McElroy is able to get a share of that German church tax to shore up the finances of his new post.
Please elaborate on “dawn raids of Biden Justice Department of pro-life Catholic families” or provide a link. I’m not a Biden-Harris supporter but you lost me there.
Easy to find: https://www.ncregister.com/news/legal-experts-call-out-biden-doj-s-aggressive-targeting-of-pro-life-demonstrators-following-at-home-raids
and on this site https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/starting-seven-january-31-2023
Thank you
MW: Excellent analysis. Thank you. I don't know your educational or professional background, but color me impressed. If you are not writing, you should consider it. While I do appreciate the Pope's consistent emphasis on service and presence to the poor and outcast, I wonder if he sometimes simply confuses the good guys with bad guys. I also suspect some of the old Peronista spirit still affects his political outlook, as demonstrated by his curious desire to cozy up and converse with the most liberal elements of Catholics like Biden and Pelosi and also to promote and elect the most liberal churchmen he can find to positions of high importance. Rarely has Pope Francis ever said anything positive or affirming about the Church in the US. He has become, as one bishop told me once, "The Scolding Pope." How strange that those countries (and religions) committing egregious acts of injustice and outright murder of the faithful - in the name of socialism or communism or nationalism or Islam - seem to get a hall pass, as you mention. These are the places with real threats against the fabric and body. It will be interesting to see how Cardinal McElroy will navigate these waters. Again, thanks for your insights.
Speaking of China, the Pillar has done a great job of reporting the degree to which Beijing selects bishops in China & even redraws diocesan boundaries without input from Rome.
What if, on January 21st, Donald Trump were to announce that Joseph Strickland would be the new archbishop of DC? Is there really any difference? Would the Vatican react?
The role of a bishop is to lead souls to heaven. Shame on all those who prioritised the diplomatic, “political-cultural” space and personal antagonisms above that.
When I become pope, right after yelling at all the kids to get off my papal lawn, the first change I'm going to make is to draw bishops from the local presbyterate and then leave them in office for life. Next, I'm going to move all the assistant bishops to their titular sees (Algeria gonna see a whole bunch of bishops) and break up the mega-dioceses into smaller ones.
Break up the mega-d’s first and you’ll have less need to deport assistant b’s. Saves on airfare 😀
I think we could use a huge influx of catholic bishops into land currently "in manibus infidelium"
At least some of them would survive …
Yeah, but are you gonna also fence in your Papal lawn?
No need. The Vatican already is surrounded by a wall.
"We can be frightened and give into the temptation to build fences to be safer, more secure."
The faithful of DC are largely content if not welcoming of the new Archbishop. Most particularly the large number of DC Catholics on TPS or DACA.
"The archdiocese is home to sizable liturgically traditionalist communities and a number of homeschooling families — both issues to which McElroy is often seen as unsympathetic."
Unsympathetic is a bit of an understatement. I would have said he oozes contempt for those communities, but that's why Ed is a successful reporter and I sit in front of a computer all day analyzing numbers.
Yeah, "often seen as unsympathetic" is underplaying it a bit after throwing out homeschoolers from Church property on short notice in San Diego, which The Pillar has reported on.
Laconic understatement is something Americans routinely mistake for sarcasm in writing.
It’s an important tone for journalism to avoid outrageous overstatement for clicks.