Hmmm. I'm not sure how to read this. The Dicastery sources say +McKnight hasn't been offered, but this reporting doesn't indicate anyone has gotten the phone call yet. Or should I be reading the sources as saying, "Yeah, the choice has been made and it's not +McKnight."? If it remains yet to be finalized, I'm curious what the cause of the new +McElroy speculation is. Is this just supporters/opponents expressing hope/resignation? What do they know that the Dicastery doesn't? Or is this a case in which the Dicastery sources aren't willing to spill any more beans than they already have?
DC has managed to survive three lousy archbishops in a row now so I guess it could handle a fourth. Sad for the Catholics who live there though, having to put up with this.
We who live here are fine with Gregory. Only once did one of our archbishops take an action that caused a lasting alienation of some conservative Catholics, and that was Archbishop O'Boyle in 1949.
I lived and worked in DC for a good many years and only relocated a few years ago due to work. I still have Catholic friends there and let's just say their experience and mine was different from yours, not only with respect to Gregory but with respect to Wuerl by the end of his tenure as well, and of course absolutely no one is happy about McCarrick. This is obviously a matter on which reasonable minds can differ, but if you seriously think every Catholic down there is fine with all the recent archbishops, you're ignoring a lot of people.
I didn't mean to imply everyone here was fine with leadership. But I can't find anyone as irate as the conservatives were in 1949. Subsequent woes seem mild.
If there is anything Francis loves, it is an American leftist who hates traditional Catholics and reliably covers for powerful sex abusers. McElroy fits the mold. His hatred of homeschoolers and their ilk is just gravy.
His lackluster fundraising ability due to his famous animosity towards conservatives and young Catholics will be interesting to watch.
That doesn’t pay the bills. I think most of us prefer someone who will actually care for the Archdiocese and not just see it as a place to attack Trump from for 4 years
So your point is that silence on matters of notorious adultery, porn star banging, racism, sexual abuse, violations of the 9th commandment, and the elimination of maybe a tenth of the Catholics from society is a virtue?
No, I’d like someone who is here to care for the Catholics of DC, rather than trying to go viral. McElroy can tweet all he wants but Trump will still be president, and the only difference is we will be bankrupt. But I guess we can use your smugness to fund pensions.
And silence on matters of notorious adultery, porn star banging, racism, sexual abuse, violations of the 9th commandment, and the elimination of maybe a tenth of the Catholics from society is how we care for us Catholics of DC?
The Archdiocese has a lot more important issues than the sins and evils of a non Catholic president who won’t even know who McElroy is. But it seems that the optics of politics are more important to you. What a privileged life you must live
I am a member of one of the poorest parishes of DC. My concern is not prioritization, but your suggestion of silence. You will find no greater supporter of the ADW supporting the pastoral needs of the poor than me.
Nobody suggested silence, just that fighting Trump and politics not be the top priority which is what sending McElroy here would be. Let Democrats fight Trump and the Archbishop worry about the Archdiocese. You act as if the choice is between McElroy or Burke when their are plenty of talented Bishops who could lead us through these difficult times ahead
YOU suggested silence. McElroy has made a few observations that took no time away from his pastoral duties and you freaked out over that. Yes, many men could fill the role and personally our auxiliary, Bishop Evelio Menjivar, would be an excellent choice.
@Paddy - Your non sequitir tees up how the archdiocese ignored the sins and evils of a CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP whom everyone knew. No optics of, or politics, tied to that reality.
Strawmanning your opponent's statement... not a good look!
Ms Daniels signed a statement saying she never had an affair with Trump. So it's not even clear that happened. Even if it did, I believe in forgiveness and redemption. We're all sinners and I'm sure you wouldn't want your whole life to be defined by a random moment that may or may not have happened 20 years ago.
Trump's obviously not having affairs now, and American people don't care about these smears anymore.
If you think I'm defending adultery, you really wouldn't like this guy who lived 2000 years ago and said things like, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone."
If McElroy goes to Washington he may have to suck up to the rich if he wants to amend the existing shortfall in his balance sheets while also alienating various (admittedly, less wealthy on average) portions of his flock
> Since he became a cardinal in 2022, both Church-watchers and bishops have seemed incredulous that Pope Francis would leave a cardinal in the suffragan Diocese of San Diego, despite its sizable Catholic population.
I'll bet a donut that he just stays in San Diego for the whole papacy though. We watched Guys and Dolls over the New Years holiday and the opening song is still with me (I got a horse right here, his name is, apparently, Mac El Roi, son of the king, how could he not be a winner)
Bridget: It does not make sense until you consider the troika of Francis' cardinal friends: Tobin, Cupich and McElroy. From his sunny San Diego post, Cardinal McElroy has the hat now in the Western States shop to make sure that ABs Gomez, Cordilieone, and Sample don't get any ideas.
Real people live and work in this Archdiocese. They should be consulted on what a new Archbishop needs to accomplish. The candidates should have thoughts on what they would fix or improve in the Archdiocese based on these concerns. Dioceses are not gifts to be given to whatever bishop needs a fancy new office.
Frankly, each diocesan pastoral council should personally interview the finalists (three or whatever) and their thoughts and written considerations should be part of the package sent to Rome.
That already (sort of) happens. What I want to avoid is a “dangling” of different names in front of people to see what they think. Broad consultation within the diocese on the needs of the local church is needed and is encouraged. Broad consultation within the diocese on this priest or that auxiliary bishop will just be more campaigning than there already is.
Besides, do you really think that a diocesan pastoral council will have any sway whatsoever in Rome?
I disagree. The "broad consultation" is unacceptable. Specific individuals under consideration should be put before the Pastoral Council with all of the material that Rome will have for its deliberation. And yes, with this full disclosure, it will aid (but not guarantee) an appropriate candidate in that some of the lay faithful will have the information used in the discernment.
While a broad consultation as to the virtues and priorities desirable in candidates, that is not meaningful enough. There needs to be a lay review of specific candidates who would be responsible for the protection of OUR children (not theirs) and OUR tithes (not theirs) as well as the pastoral care of the lay faithful.
To be clear, these lay pastoral councils remain advisory. But it takes away the ability of the prelates to say "oh, we didn't know/no one ever said...." The Pastoral Council's real weight is the ability to say "yes, you did know/Yes, it was said... and you went ahead and made him bishop anyway"
I don’t mean this to sound insulting (I know tone gets lost in text) but that sounds pretty pointless and not a meaningful shift from what is currently done.
I think one thing is overlooked is that a McElroy appointment will just mean the Pope has his influence in the Americas further erode, DC becomes an even less consequential bishopric in the United States, and McElroy likely loses any battle he picks with the incoming administration on immigration, just as Francis is essentially 0-100 on every immigration battle in Europe, with all of the loss of influence and helping to drive the sharp shift to the right on immigration where Rome can offer no solutions, because she willingly abandoned any pretense of trying to offer solutions when she said any enforcement of borders was anti-immigrant.
Why people expect this to be any different is beyond me. Sometimes its not a question of the theological inclinations: its do you want relevance, inside and outside the Church? McElroy to DC would seem to say the answer is no, for Francis, his allies, and McElroy himself.
This comment is totally and completely about influence and external power. You could have at least offered insights as to why tradition and conservative values draw us closer to the sacraments. Or perhaps that conservatives feel pastorally abandoned. But this is instead clearly about power and influence. It’s one of the main reasons in DC I have such a hard time accompanying people to come back to the faith. They want to feel empowered through theology that helps them understand the world. And too often, people mistake our traditions as an attempt to exert something over them.
He just doesn't strike me as someone who thinks before he speaks. Like the Eucharist thing or the homeschool thing really could have used a second pair of eyes before going out, and the "abortion is not the preeminent moral issue etc etc." thing really could have been phrased better.
In his defense that's really a chronic issue with a lot of bishops, but it's a trait that could be particularly disastrous in a see as politically charged as Washington.
Cardinal Gregory, aside from his comments on traditionalism, was pretty good about not being particularly reactive to things. I don't think Cardinal McElroy has the same temperament. Without that tact there's a lot of potential to make things worse.
I know a number of terrific priests in our nation's capitol. There are at least a half a dozen local clergy who could run the ADW with style and grace. Not sure why Washington. DC seems to be a location where Rome feels it must import the ordinary from another region. And yet, that has been the case for the ALL the archbishops since its founding in 1947 when it split from Baltimore:
O'Boyle - New York
Baum - Kansas City
Hickey - Saginaw/Grand Rapids
McCarrick - New York
Wuerl - Pitt
Gregory - Chicago/Atlanta
I say it's time for a MAWGA (Make Archdiocese of Washington Great Again) revolt. Rome should elevate a native Washingtonian priest, at least someone from VA or MD.
Elevate Fr. Paul Scalia from VA and the NAPA Institute and the Leonine Forum can own both SCOTUS AND the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. Surely some great oligarch deal maker has considered that to merge church and state?
I dislike bishops being translated from one see to another, especially if it is because of prestige. +McIlroy is the ordinary of San Diego, he shouldn’t be asked to discard it like a baseball player moving from the minor leagues to the majors.
I've only recently really become aware of the arguments against translating bishops between sees, and I find them rather compelling, though it's reasonable to look to an experienced candidate to lead a large and prominent (arch)diocese. Pope Francis' wave of major appointments had included a few priests being elevated directly to major sees (Florence being an example) but it certainly isn't common. In cases like Washington would you prefer to see an auxiliary bishop elevated? A local priest named coadjutor so he can learn the ropes?
As an ADW Catholic, I would very much welcome Aux. Bishop Evelio Menjivar-Ayala as our next Archbishop. And I believe he would be very positively received by the faithful.
There’s an enormous number of behavioral issues (many very minor, and many ideological in nature) that go unaddressed because of the reality that it is extremely difficult to discipline clergy. It shakes the faith of the congregants, but also, there are a lot of high profile and very political priests that many bishops realize they are not charismatic enough to go up against. Implications for donors and that priest’s following. Those pressures are magnified greatly when the bishop is local or has a lot of clergy friends there.
There was an archbishop on the other side of the country from me that was like, “McCarrick? No. He was my friend.” Friends often don’t discipline their friends, even after one of the parties involved has been promoted.
Bishops also tend to have one of three roles: administrators/lawyers (best wherever there is tension), theologians(thrive in areas with low diversity), or pastors (neglected areas).
Also, take note. In dioceses that are highly politically charged you typically are not given a bishop who is a theologian. Nor a canon lawyer. You end up getting someone who professionally comes from a more neutral background like psychology or polysci. [Tyler TX, Arlington VA] Maybe DC too? Their duties often become managing the tensions. Allowing the conservatives and libs to do their thing, but putting up guardrails and keeping the family together.
I wonder how viable having an Auxiliary Bishop get experience in one or two large dioceses to prep for an Archdiocese, rather than appointing the Bishop of another diocese, would be.
In the early Church such transfer was forbidden. If you were the bishop of a minor diocese, say Hippo in Africa, you couldn't then be moved to some other more important diocese, say Rome. It was how it was.
I've wondered if Pope Francis might consider Bishop Flores of Brownsville for a nationally prominent see like Washington, given that he seems capable of speaking articulately and well on sometimes contentious issues, and that Pope Francis picked him for a high level role in the Synod
You know who would be great in DC so long as they are not going to choose a local priest? Bishop Bob Barron. He would do great milling about and inspiring the people of Washington, DC: students and faculty (specfically CUA and Georgetown folks), tech and defense industry people, political Washington on both sides of the rail, the Black community, and the now sizable El Salvadoran commnunity. His Spanish is OK, not great, but enough, and he speaks some French as well due to his studies in Paris. He would be a someone the Church could proudly translate into the ADW and be sure American Catholics would never be publicly shamed or embarrased during his term. I think one would be hard pressed to find a more capable and ready bishop up to the job. He is the man for the job.
Well perhaps. But he did accept episcopate of W-N while openly acknowledging it would impact his involvement in WoF.
There may be other reasons he might decline ADW, but this almost certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Ironically, one legit criticism of +Barron is a lot of his ministry (WoF or otherwise) is unrelated to his diocese. He engages with cultural movers and shakers, wherever they are found, to use them as a catalyst in evangelization. But obviously W-N is not the hotbed of these folks. Being in ADW would actually make his personal ministry and his episcopal ministry reinforce each other more than they do now.
I am obliged to remind you, friends, of the commenting policy at The Pillar: Christian charity, toward one another, and toward the subjects of our conversation. Thank you for working to observe that policy.
I sense that we assume the Pope and his American Cardinal confers wish to meddle in politics. McElroy is the ‘stick it to you’ pick… But who would give life to the Church in DC?
Rhoades. He was the man who listened to everyone who was arguing about whether to do the three year Eucharistic focus and brought everyone to what appeared to be consensus. But he is more needed to assist America's premier Catholic university, Notee Dame.
This doesn't require too much insight. Francis rejected the advice of his nuncio and Archbishop Wilton as he is reacting to Trump's selection of Brian Burch as ambassador to the Vatican. The pope's TDS tendencies are already well documented ... all it took was a little push from Trump (undoubtedly highlighted by +Cupich, +Tobin, and +McElroy) to trigger a reactive pope to make the most provocative choice outside of Fr. J. Martin. Why not go out of your way to set up fights with the president of the United States, a country already disliked by the pope. The further brushback of the USCCB is just gravy.
McCarrick taint? Who cares? The mainstream press is uncurious about about all scandals that might sully favored factions. Rupnik? Reinstatement of Príncipi in Argentina? Chilean "calumny"? McCarrick will be memory holed like everything else.
Of course, the pastoral needs of the faithful in Washington DC is the least important consideration.
Hmmm. I'm not sure how to read this. The Dicastery sources say +McKnight hasn't been offered, but this reporting doesn't indicate anyone has gotten the phone call yet. Or should I be reading the sources as saying, "Yeah, the choice has been made and it's not +McKnight."? If it remains yet to be finalized, I'm curious what the cause of the new +McElroy speculation is. Is this just supporters/opponents expressing hope/resignation? What do they know that the Dicastery doesn't? Or is this a case in which the Dicastery sources aren't willing to spill any more beans than they already have?
I don't live in DC and I really don't care what happens up there, but I don't care for people who enable child molesters.
DC has managed to survive three lousy archbishops in a row now so I guess it could handle a fourth. Sad for the Catholics who live there though, having to put up with this.
We who live here are fine with Gregory. Only once did one of our archbishops take an action that caused a lasting alienation of some conservative Catholics, and that was Archbishop O'Boyle in 1949.
I used to live in DC. McCarrick alienated quite a few people. Not the wealthier John Carroll Society set, but plenty of others.
But let's be real. No Bp anywhere ever made everyone happy. And none anywhere was ever perfect in their management.
I agree. But I think only O'Boyle 1949 resulted in any measurable number of folks bolting the Archdiocese.
Desegregating the schools?
Yep.
I lived and worked in DC for a good many years and only relocated a few years ago due to work. I still have Catholic friends there and let's just say their experience and mine was different from yours, not only with respect to Gregory but with respect to Wuerl by the end of his tenure as well, and of course absolutely no one is happy about McCarrick. This is obviously a matter on which reasonable minds can differ, but if you seriously think every Catholic down there is fine with all the recent archbishops, you're ignoring a lot of people.
I didn't mean to imply everyone here was fine with leadership. But I can't find anyone as irate as the conservatives were in 1949. Subsequent woes seem mild.
If there is anything Francis loves, it is an American leftist who hates traditional Catholics and reliably covers for powerful sex abusers. McElroy fits the mold. His hatred of homeschoolers and their ilk is just gravy.
His lackluster fundraising ability due to his famous animosity towards conservatives and young Catholics will be interesting to watch.
As a Washingtonian, I welcome an archbishop who doesn't suck up to the rich.
That doesn’t pay the bills. I think most of us prefer someone who will actually care for the Archdiocese and not just see it as a place to attack Trump from for 4 years
So your point is that silence on matters of notorious adultery, porn star banging, racism, sexual abuse, violations of the 9th commandment, and the elimination of maybe a tenth of the Catholics from society is a virtue?
No, I’d like someone who is here to care for the Catholics of DC, rather than trying to go viral. McElroy can tweet all he wants but Trump will still be president, and the only difference is we will be bankrupt. But I guess we can use your smugness to fund pensions.
And silence on matters of notorious adultery, porn star banging, racism, sexual abuse, violations of the 9th commandment, and the elimination of maybe a tenth of the Catholics from society is how we care for us Catholics of DC?
The Archdiocese has a lot more important issues than the sins and evils of a non Catholic president who won’t even know who McElroy is. But it seems that the optics of politics are more important to you. What a privileged life you must live
I am a member of one of the poorest parishes of DC. My concern is not prioritization, but your suggestion of silence. You will find no greater supporter of the ADW supporting the pastoral needs of the poor than me.
Nobody suggested silence, just that fighting Trump and politics not be the top priority which is what sending McElroy here would be. Let Democrats fight Trump and the Archbishop worry about the Archdiocese. You act as if the choice is between McElroy or Burke when their are plenty of talented Bishops who could lead us through these difficult times ahead
YOU suggested silence. McElroy has made a few observations that took no time away from his pastoral duties and you freaked out over that. Yes, many men could fill the role and personally our auxiliary, Bishop Evelio Menjivar, would be an excellent choice.
@Paddy - Your non sequitir tees up how the archdiocese ignored the sins and evils of a CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP whom everyone knew. No optics of, or politics, tied to that reality.
It doesn't count that this will be read by the media as "The Catholic Church officially opposes Trump"?
Fake news and calumny are mortal sins! So is judging people!
The Trump Golden Age is going to be great. God obviously wants Trump to be president considering how He saved Trump from the assassin's bullet.
Christ dies for our sins and Trump lives for our sins?
Overturning Roe v Wade is the opposite of sinful
And the Stormy affair is a sacrament to you?
Strawmanning your opponent's statement... not a good look!
Ms Daniels signed a statement saying she never had an affair with Trump. So it's not even clear that happened. Even if it did, I believe in forgiveness and redemption. We're all sinners and I'm sure you wouldn't want your whole life to be defined by a random moment that may or may not have happened 20 years ago.
Trump's obviously not having affairs now, and American people don't care about these smears anymore.
Bending over backwards to defund adultery is not a good look.
If you think I'm defending adultery, you really wouldn't like this guy who lived 2000 years ago and said things like, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone."
And silence on the sexual abuse of children and seminarians is acceptable?
If McElroy goes to Washington he may have to suck up to the rich if he wants to amend the existing shortfall in his balance sheets while also alienating various (admittedly, less wealthy on average) portions of his flock
> Since he became a cardinal in 2022, both Church-watchers and bishops have seemed incredulous that Pope Francis would leave a cardinal in the suffragan Diocese of San Diego, despite its sizable Catholic population.
I'll bet a donut that he just stays in San Diego for the whole papacy though. We watched Guys and Dolls over the New Years holiday and the opening song is still with me (I got a horse right here, his name is, apparently, Mac El Roi, son of the king, how could he not be a winner)
It’s not that unusual is it? There are at least four other cardinals around the world exactly like him.
I think that is, itself, unusual.
Haha "Mac El Roi, son of the King" a trilingual pun...don't see one of those every day!
Bridget: It does not make sense until you consider the troika of Francis' cardinal friends: Tobin, Cupich and McElroy. From his sunny San Diego post, Cardinal McElroy has the hat now in the Western States shop to make sure that ABs Gomez, Cordilieone, and Sample don't get any ideas.
Real people live and work in this Archdiocese. They should be consulted on what a new Archbishop needs to accomplish. The candidates should have thoughts on what they would fix or improve in the Archdiocese based on these concerns. Dioceses are not gifts to be given to whatever bishop needs a fancy new office.
Episcopal appointments ought not require an interview process.
Just curious: why not?
I want “saying the right things to get the job” to be avoided as much as possible, insofar as it’s not already part of getting the job.
Frankly, each diocesan pastoral council should personally interview the finalists (three or whatever) and their thoughts and written considerations should be part of the package sent to Rome.
That already (sort of) happens. What I want to avoid is a “dangling” of different names in front of people to see what they think. Broad consultation within the diocese on the needs of the local church is needed and is encouraged. Broad consultation within the diocese on this priest or that auxiliary bishop will just be more campaigning than there already is.
Besides, do you really think that a diocesan pastoral council will have any sway whatsoever in Rome?
I disagree. The "broad consultation" is unacceptable. Specific individuals under consideration should be put before the Pastoral Council with all of the material that Rome will have for its deliberation. And yes, with this full disclosure, it will aid (but not guarantee) an appropriate candidate in that some of the lay faithful will have the information used in the discernment.
Why is the “broad consultation” unacceptable?
While a broad consultation as to the virtues and priorities desirable in candidates, that is not meaningful enough. There needs to be a lay review of specific candidates who would be responsible for the protection of OUR children (not theirs) and OUR tithes (not theirs) as well as the pastoral care of the lay faithful.
To be clear, these lay pastoral councils remain advisory. But it takes away the ability of the prelates to say "oh, we didn't know/no one ever said...." The Pastoral Council's real weight is the ability to say "yes, you did know/Yes, it was said... and you went ahead and made him bishop anyway"
I don’t mean this to sound insulting (I know tone gets lost in text) but that sounds pretty pointless and not a meaningful shift from what is currently done.
I understand. But my realism orients me to small steps forward.
Take this with a shaker of salt, since it’s coming from someone who believed in Santa until the 5th grade, but they’re not supposed to *want* the job.
One wishes. There seems to me to be far too much petty politics in the Church hierarchy. Tail wags dog.
I think one thing is overlooked is that a McElroy appointment will just mean the Pope has his influence in the Americas further erode, DC becomes an even less consequential bishopric in the United States, and McElroy likely loses any battle he picks with the incoming administration on immigration, just as Francis is essentially 0-100 on every immigration battle in Europe, with all of the loss of influence and helping to drive the sharp shift to the right on immigration where Rome can offer no solutions, because she willingly abandoned any pretense of trying to offer solutions when she said any enforcement of borders was anti-immigrant.
Why people expect this to be any different is beyond me. Sometimes its not a question of the theological inclinations: its do you want relevance, inside and outside the Church? McElroy to DC would seem to say the answer is no, for Francis, his allies, and McElroy himself.
This comment is totally and completely about influence and external power. You could have at least offered insights as to why tradition and conservative values draw us closer to the sacraments. Or perhaps that conservatives feel pastorally abandoned. But this is instead clearly about power and influence. It’s one of the main reasons in DC I have such a hard time accompanying people to come back to the faith. They want to feel empowered through theology that helps them understand the world. And too often, people mistake our traditions as an attempt to exert something over them.
> its do you want relevance, inside and outside the Church?
I can't imagine anything less relevant to the Empire than some broke handyman from Nazareth so why start trying to be relevant now?
He just doesn't strike me as someone who thinks before he speaks. Like the Eucharist thing or the homeschool thing really could have used a second pair of eyes before going out, and the "abortion is not the preeminent moral issue etc etc." thing really could have been phrased better.
In his defense that's really a chronic issue with a lot of bishops, but it's a trait that could be particularly disastrous in a see as politically charged as Washington.
Cardinal Gregory, aside from his comments on traditionalism, was pretty good about not being particularly reactive to things. I don't think Cardinal McElroy has the same temperament. Without that tact there's a lot of potential to make things worse.
I know a number of terrific priests in our nation's capitol. There are at least a half a dozen local clergy who could run the ADW with style and grace. Not sure why Washington. DC seems to be a location where Rome feels it must import the ordinary from another region. And yet, that has been the case for the ALL the archbishops since its founding in 1947 when it split from Baltimore:
O'Boyle - New York
Baum - Kansas City
Hickey - Saginaw/Grand Rapids
McCarrick - New York
Wuerl - Pitt
Gregory - Chicago/Atlanta
I say it's time for a MAWGA (Make Archdiocese of Washington Great Again) revolt. Rome should elevate a native Washingtonian priest, at least someone from VA or MD.
Elevate Fr. Paul Scalia from VA and the NAPA Institute and the Leonine Forum can own both SCOTUS AND the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. Surely some great oligarch deal maker has considered that to merge church and state?
Now your cookin' with gas.
Oh dear. God save us!!!
I dislike bishops being translated from one see to another, especially if it is because of prestige. +McIlroy is the ordinary of San Diego, he shouldn’t be asked to discard it like a baseball player moving from the minor leagues to the majors.
I've only recently really become aware of the arguments against translating bishops between sees, and I find them rather compelling, though it's reasonable to look to an experienced candidate to lead a large and prominent (arch)diocese. Pope Francis' wave of major appointments had included a few priests being elevated directly to major sees (Florence being an example) but it certainly isn't common. In cases like Washington would you prefer to see an auxiliary bishop elevated? A local priest named coadjutor so he can learn the ropes?
As an ADW Catholic, I would very much welcome Aux. Bishop Evelio Menjivar-Ayala as our next Archbishop. And I believe he would be very positively received by the faithful.
There’s an enormous number of behavioral issues (many very minor, and many ideological in nature) that go unaddressed because of the reality that it is extremely difficult to discipline clergy. It shakes the faith of the congregants, but also, there are a lot of high profile and very political priests that many bishops realize they are not charismatic enough to go up against. Implications for donors and that priest’s following. Those pressures are magnified greatly when the bishop is local or has a lot of clergy friends there.
There was an archbishop on the other side of the country from me that was like, “McCarrick? No. He was my friend.” Friends often don’t discipline their friends, even after one of the parties involved has been promoted.
Bishops also tend to have one of three roles: administrators/lawyers (best wherever there is tension), theologians(thrive in areas with low diversity), or pastors (neglected areas).
Also, take note. In dioceses that are highly politically charged you typically are not given a bishop who is a theologian. Nor a canon lawyer. You end up getting someone who professionally comes from a more neutral background like psychology or polysci. [Tyler TX, Arlington VA] Maybe DC too? Their duties often become managing the tensions. Allowing the conservatives and libs to do their thing, but putting up guardrails and keeping the family together.
I wonder how viable having an Auxiliary Bishop get experience in one or two large dioceses to prep for an Archdiocese, rather than appointing the Bishop of another diocese, would be.
In the early Church such transfer was forbidden. If you were the bishop of a minor diocese, say Hippo in Africa, you couldn't then be moved to some other more important diocese, say Rome. It was how it was.
I've wondered if Pope Francis might consider Bishop Flores of Brownsville for a nationally prominent see like Washington, given that he seems capable of speaking articulately and well on sometimes contentious issues, and that Pope Francis picked him for a high level role in the Synod
You know who would be great in DC so long as they are not going to choose a local priest? Bishop Bob Barron. He would do great milling about and inspiring the people of Washington, DC: students and faculty (specfically CUA and Georgetown folks), tech and defense industry people, political Washington on both sides of the rail, the Black community, and the now sizable El Salvadoran commnunity. His Spanish is OK, not great, but enough, and he speaks some French as well due to his studies in Paris. He would be a someone the Church could proudly translate into the ADW and be sure American Catholics would never be publicly shamed or embarrased during his term. I think one would be hard pressed to find a more capable and ready bishop up to the job. He is the man for the job.
But episcopal ministry might reduce his band width to sell Word on Fire products and result in a pay cut. Would he be OK with that?
Well perhaps. But he did accept episcopate of W-N while openly acknowledging it would impact his involvement in WoF.
There may be other reasons he might decline ADW, but this almost certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Ironically, one legit criticism of +Barron is a lot of his ministry (WoF or otherwise) is unrelated to his diocese. He engages with cultural movers and shakers, wherever they are found, to use them as a catalyst in evangelization. But obviously W-N is not the hotbed of these folks. Being in ADW would actually make his personal ministry and his episcopal ministry reinforce each other more than they do now.
I am obliged to remind you, friends, of the commenting policy at The Pillar: Christian charity, toward one another, and toward the subjects of our conversation. Thank you for working to observe that policy.
Pretending not to see misbehavior contributes to others not seeing it, too. "No one complains? Everyone must approve."
what?
The questions we are asking in San Diego is who will replace him.... only time will tell....
I sense that we assume the Pope and his American Cardinal confers wish to meddle in politics. McElroy is the ‘stick it to you’ pick… But who would give life to the Church in DC?
Rhoades. He was the man who listened to everyone who was arguing about whether to do the three year Eucharistic focus and brought everyone to what appeared to be consensus. But he is more needed to assist America's premier Catholic university, Notee Dame.
This doesn't require too much insight. Francis rejected the advice of his nuncio and Archbishop Wilton as he is reacting to Trump's selection of Brian Burch as ambassador to the Vatican. The pope's TDS tendencies are already well documented ... all it took was a little push from Trump (undoubtedly highlighted by +Cupich, +Tobin, and +McElroy) to trigger a reactive pope to make the most provocative choice outside of Fr. J. Martin. Why not go out of your way to set up fights with the president of the United States, a country already disliked by the pope. The further brushback of the USCCB is just gravy.
McCarrick taint? Who cares? The mainstream press is uncurious about about all scandals that might sully favored factions. Rupnik? Reinstatement of Príncipi in Argentina? Chilean "calumny"? McCarrick will be memory holed like everything else.
Of course, the pastoral needs of the faithful in Washington DC is the least important consideration.
He's pleasing the *good* Catholics, not the deplorables.