It is true that the role of bishop is much more demanding today than it was in the recent past, and many men are not up to the task, even with God's grace.
One reason, particularly in the US, but perhaps elsewhere that fails to get the attention it deserves is that under P Francis there is a very large number of priests who are blackliste…
It is true that the role of bishop is much more demanding today than it was in the recent past, and many men are not up to the task, even with God's grace.
One reason, particularly in the US, but perhaps elsewhere that fails to get the attention it deserves is that under P Francis there is a very large number of priests who are blacklisted from even being considered for the episcopacy. Any priest associated with the bishops on P Francis' enemies list will not receive a call. Any priest who has expressed favor for the EF Mass will be cut out. Any priest associated with "conservative" or "traditional" groups will not be considered. There are exceptional candidates in their late 40s and early 50s who would make a terrific impact on the Church in the US but there is no hope that they will be considered because they fail to fit the mold of Francis.
Another reason for the delays is that the limited pool of safe candidates (politically speaking) end up having some sort of scandal in their past that prevents them from being nominated, or if nominated, then accepting.
By God's grace, the seminaries have been cleaned up enough in the last decade, and improved enough to make more men up to the task, that none of those things will be a problem with the next Pope.
I think I recall an earlier Pillar article that said bishops are increasingly being appointed at older ages, and being asked to stay on past the retirement age. Given that priests are trending more orthodox, that would align with your blacklisting claim.
Ten years from now this won't be a problem. It is the vacuum of leadership that exists today. The post VII priests took over the leadership of the Church in the mid 70s and have only now begun to reliquinsh power due to their age. They also failed to nurture the next generation. What we will probably see is a few more years of bishops in their late 60s into their late 70s and then an influx of men in their mid to late 40s after that. That generation of bishops (priests now in their 30s) will have the vitality and orthodoxy to steer things in a better direction.
Bishops are typically appointed around age 52 give or take. Many of the major archdioceses around the world these days are getting someone around 55. Look at credentialing. For North America, you may notice that bishops are being appointed with fewer terminal degrees in church law, and instead trending toward terminal degrees in theology. Every country needs to balance out to meet the challenges of the times. We have started to confuse church law here with theology. (Even though the law is both necessary, important, and in service to theology)
There has always been an un-intellectual strand among US bishops, at times even an anti-intellectual strand. Today we see a lot of bishops with just M Divs.
You are undoubtedly correct. I remember in an article within the last year or two the Pillar came out with (can't remember the main subject of it, or if it was a weekly newsletter post) they mentioned that the list of criteria put forward for bishops in the U.S. was so stringent that it was getting very difficult to find candidates. I believe it was the U.S. bishops on the Congregation for Clergy that came up with the list, at the time of that article that would have meant Cupich and Tobin, so I imagine that the list was very similar to your musings here.
I would be very interested if the Pillar had more information on this list of "requirements", and if it is really a formal list, or more of an informal vetting, or whatever the case is. They've also written more recently about struggles between the Cupich/Tobin clique and Cardinal Pierre, who in theory should be the main man that bishop appointments go through, but who appears to have been largely cut out of the process, at least with regards to major appointments. The whole process just seems to hinge, like when it comes to punishments for abuse, on who you know rather than if you are actually the best candidate for the job.
It is mostly informal. For example, when Archbishop Chaput was Archbishop of Philadelphia, it was made clear that he would not get any of his priests named as bishops. Most of it comes through Cardinal Cupich. Even the nuncio has less sway then the Archbishop of Chicago. The reasons I offered in my first post are unwritten but known by the bishops.
I was talking to my Dad who lives in a Diocese with bishop over 75. He and frankly I don't either even if you have SUPER high needs to be Bishop in the model of Cardinal Cupich standard why the huge delays. These priests are out there. It seems foolish to keep men in place like DC and Boston Cardinals well after there 75th year. These are not surprises nor are any of the up coming retirements it honestly strikes me as more incompetence with mix of a desire for "certain kids of bishops."
Maybe this is using to much logic but even the fact more men are saying no to call to Bishop. Wouldn't most of these guys been vented and someone sat them down at some point saying "Just a thought but would you been open to being a bishop?"
If your never going to serve in your own diocese anyways who cares where they come from.
AND if there aren't enough of those Priests to meet the need they someone should be talking to the Pope about removing the forced retirement age of 75. That lets the current generation hold onto leadership just a bit longer
I was speaking with someone very involved in the process. He said it ios also the new prefect of the dicastery who is slowing the process down. The backlog is going to continue.
Slowing it down to clean it up, slowing it down because he has no idea what he is doing, or slowing it done because he can't find enough Cardinal Cupiches. Be interesting to get sense of why
// Another reason for the delays is that the limited pool of safe candidates (politically speaking) end up having some sort of scandal in their past that prevents them from being nominated, or if nominated, then accepting. //
And with mass communications greatly enlarging the grist for the rumor mill, just about anyone can expect himself to be found guilty in the court of public opinion for something, sooner or later.
Having done a lot of extensive work for the Holy See, I can tell you this is categorically false. You get a lot closer to reality if you were to phrase that as political or partisan priests. But even if you used that criteria you would see Pope Francis has appointed at a rate of “2 for me, 1 for them”
It is true that the role of bishop is much more demanding today than it was in the recent past, and many men are not up to the task, even with God's grace.
One reason, particularly in the US, but perhaps elsewhere that fails to get the attention it deserves is that under P Francis there is a very large number of priests who are blacklisted from even being considered for the episcopacy. Any priest associated with the bishops on P Francis' enemies list will not receive a call. Any priest who has expressed favor for the EF Mass will be cut out. Any priest associated with "conservative" or "traditional" groups will not be considered. There are exceptional candidates in their late 40s and early 50s who would make a terrific impact on the Church in the US but there is no hope that they will be considered because they fail to fit the mold of Francis.
Another reason for the delays is that the limited pool of safe candidates (politically speaking) end up having some sort of scandal in their past that prevents them from being nominated, or if nominated, then accepting.
By God's grace, the seminaries have been cleaned up enough in the last decade, and improved enough to make more men up to the task, that none of those things will be a problem with the next Pope.
I think I recall an earlier Pillar article that said bishops are increasingly being appointed at older ages, and being asked to stay on past the retirement age. Given that priests are trending more orthodox, that would align with your blacklisting claim.
Ten years from now this won't be a problem. It is the vacuum of leadership that exists today. The post VII priests took over the leadership of the Church in the mid 70s and have only now begun to reliquinsh power due to their age. They also failed to nurture the next generation. What we will probably see is a few more years of bishops in their late 60s into their late 70s and then an influx of men in their mid to late 40s after that. That generation of bishops (priests now in their 30s) will have the vitality and orthodoxy to steer things in a better direction.
Bishops are typically appointed around age 52 give or take. Many of the major archdioceses around the world these days are getting someone around 55. Look at credentialing. For North America, you may notice that bishops are being appointed with fewer terminal degrees in church law, and instead trending toward terminal degrees in theology. Every country needs to balance out to meet the challenges of the times. We have started to confuse church law here with theology. (Even though the law is both necessary, important, and in service to theology)
There has always been an un-intellectual strand among US bishops, at times even an anti-intellectual strand. Today we see a lot of bishops with just M Divs.
You are undoubtedly correct. I remember in an article within the last year or two the Pillar came out with (can't remember the main subject of it, or if it was a weekly newsletter post) they mentioned that the list of criteria put forward for bishops in the U.S. was so stringent that it was getting very difficult to find candidates. I believe it was the U.S. bishops on the Congregation for Clergy that came up with the list, at the time of that article that would have meant Cupich and Tobin, so I imagine that the list was very similar to your musings here.
I would be very interested if the Pillar had more information on this list of "requirements", and if it is really a formal list, or more of an informal vetting, or whatever the case is. They've also written more recently about struggles between the Cupich/Tobin clique and Cardinal Pierre, who in theory should be the main man that bishop appointments go through, but who appears to have been largely cut out of the process, at least with regards to major appointments. The whole process just seems to hinge, like when it comes to punishments for abuse, on who you know rather than if you are actually the best candidate for the job.
It is mostly informal. For example, when Archbishop Chaput was Archbishop of Philadelphia, it was made clear that he would not get any of his priests named as bishops. Most of it comes through Cardinal Cupich. Even the nuncio has less sway then the Archbishop of Chicago. The reasons I offered in my first post are unwritten but known by the bishops.
I was talking to my Dad who lives in a Diocese with bishop over 75. He and frankly I don't either even if you have SUPER high needs to be Bishop in the model of Cardinal Cupich standard why the huge delays. These priests are out there. It seems foolish to keep men in place like DC and Boston Cardinals well after there 75th year. These are not surprises nor are any of the up coming retirements it honestly strikes me as more incompetence with mix of a desire for "certain kids of bishops."
Maybe this is using to much logic but even the fact more men are saying no to call to Bishop. Wouldn't most of these guys been vented and someone sat them down at some point saying "Just a thought but would you been open to being a bishop?"
If your never going to serve in your own diocese anyways who cares where they come from.
AND if there aren't enough of those Priests to meet the need they someone should be talking to the Pope about removing the forced retirement age of 75. That lets the current generation hold onto leadership just a bit longer
I was speaking with someone very involved in the process. He said it ios also the new prefect of the dicastery who is slowing the process down. The backlog is going to continue.
Slowing it down to clean it up, slowing it down because he has no idea what he is doing, or slowing it done because he can't find enough Cardinal Cupiches. Be interesting to get sense of why
Because he doesn't know what is going on.
// Another reason for the delays is that the limited pool of safe candidates (politically speaking) end up having some sort of scandal in their past that prevents them from being nominated, or if nominated, then accepting. //
And with mass communications greatly enlarging the grist for the rumor mill, just about anyone can expect himself to be found guilty in the court of public opinion for something, sooner or later.
Having done a lot of extensive work for the Holy See, I can tell you this is categorically false. You get a lot closer to reality if you were to phrase that as political or partisan priests. But even if you used that criteria you would see Pope Francis has appointed at a rate of “2 for me, 1 for them”
Can you tell us what you are seeing?