As much as it might seem nasty to say it, i also think there's a potentially more sinister option: the vetting is being done, but the need for bishops is so great, its being ignored, hoping it doesn't come out, or its viewed a minor issue in light of the present difficulties. That's unbelievably absurd, but it would explain how these bishop-presumptive individuals normally have questions surrounding them beforehand.
Either way, this kind of performance over the last year probably should cause some kind of response from the Dicastery of Bishops to show people that they are, in fact, still in control of the whole process, and that there actually is a process being followed, rather than an ad hoc arrangement that seems to currently exist.
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”
“There are also requests to expand consultation with the faithful People of God, and to involve a greater number of lay people and consecrated persons in the consultation process, taking care to avoid being put under any undue pressure in the selection process."
What a novel idea! (Heavy on the sarcasm).
Consult people maybe from the actual dioceses where a priest has been nominated as bishop, even if for another See. Consult people who ministered with this priest instead of relying on letters sent to a select number of people. Oh, and by the way, who selects who gets these letters?
Would it be so awful to consult the people of a vacant diocese asking what qualities and gifts they would like to see in their new bishop?
“There are also requests to expand consultation with the faithful People of God, and to involve a greater number of lay people and consecrated persons in the consultation process, taking care to avoid being put under any undue pressure in the selection process."
A statement that could be taken seriously.
Who knows the candidate better, those who serve with him or the Nuncios?
"The one who is head of all should be elected by all" -St. Leo the Great
Maybe not go that far but give some place to the people of the local Church in who will be their new bishop.
What a far cry from the secrecy and machinations in nunciatures and in the Roman Dicasteries.
// Another factor, given that we’re living in the 21st century, may be the internet. //
Instant mass communications have led to an instant spread of gossip and anger, which has led to a rise in the level of communal conflict, confusion, and fragmentation. Bishops are apparently tasked with putting the pieces back together, which is impossible.
//"Perhaps the Church needs to reflect on whether there are ways to give priests more confidence that they are capable of taking up the crozier, perhaps by ensuring that support and encouragement are readily available at critical moments."//
A lack of support and encouragement is a universal problem in priestly ministry, it seems, no matter the rank. Priests are reporting in larger and larger numbers that they don't trust their bishops, fear being targeted by false accusations, and don't feel supported when things get hard.
The insanity of being a diocesan bishop these days (not to mention the actual weight of responsibility intrinsic to the Apostolic office) is beyond wild.
From the outside looking in, it seems that actual avenues of "support and encouragement" for both priests and bishops are limited and it seems to depend so largely on "who you know" it's not hard to imagine that some men just don't think it's worth taking on so much risk to his reputation, stability, and security.
I recognize that this isn't really the point of this particular discussion, but it seems to me that we need to get a handle on this particular aspect of the Church's life, or we're going to be 'shepherds without shepherds,' so to speak.
I feel so so deeply for our bishops-elect. There are a few realizations that must burden each diocesan bishop. 1) A lot of priests thing the sex-abuse crisis way more limited in scope than it actually is or that it has slowed down 2) You have to clean this up without discouraging the faithful from coming to Mass. 3) You have to be hard on priests for doing bad things without scaring off new recruits.
First and foremost a bishop must support and nurture his priests.
Sometimes that requires tough love, but it always requires engagement and communication.
It's hard work, much like being a parent, but priests need to know that their bishop cares about them, recognizes their increasingly difficult work and will have their back.
It is a hindrance to vocations when young men feel they will be abandoned in the "system".
With prayers for our priests and those discerning the call to the priesthood.
Certainly. We have to be realistic too about what priests are facing and dealing with in their lives. This is difficult. Our priests are dealing with the messiness of everyday life, which is far more complex than what they are generally trained for in seminary. At the same time, there has been an internal secrecy in an unhealthy way of sexuality. We have an enormous number of incredibly holy priests who are gay, and it would be better if they could confide in their fellow priests without judgement. Having seen just how regular it is for this to explode and never make it into the news, or for the parishioners to know what has taken place... this is an urgent situation. Cardinal You Heung, a South Korean who currently leads the Dicastery for Clergy, actually made this statement this morning:
"An affectivity that is repressed and lived in a closed way, not shared transparently with someone who accompanies us, risks going astray. For me the best prevention is a real life of brotherhood, among priests and with everyone. For me it has always been a gift to be able to live together with other priests, to have brothers with whom to share joys and sorrows and also the inevitable trials. Taking on celibacy should not be an obligation, but a free choice. In the Western Latin Church it has been believed for many centuries that this choice helps the process of being configured to Christ and exercising the priestly ministry in the sign of total self-giving. If a person feels he cannot make this choice and accept this discipline, then it is better for him to discern another state of life. This seems important to me. It does not mean repressing affections, but expanding them, feeling the urge to go beyond the beautiful prospect of having a wife and children, to live like Jesus, for universal brotherhood. For me this is a fascinating experience that allows me to experience the joy of brotherhood and also true fruitfulness and fatherhood every day. Of course, living like this is always also a new achievement. There are also times when it's not easy, but it's worth it."
One of my dismays, Why does the Vatican apply Vos Estis Lux Mundi only on certain bishops? One Bishop that should be investigated, (retired now) and known for covering-up has not been looked into... I think that is a crime on the part of the decastry that is incharge of these such matters.
As ever, thanks ;)
As much as it might seem nasty to say it, i also think there's a potentially more sinister option: the vetting is being done, but the need for bishops is so great, its being ignored, hoping it doesn't come out, or its viewed a minor issue in light of the present difficulties. That's unbelievably absurd, but it would explain how these bishop-presumptive individuals normally have questions surrounding them beforehand.
Either way, this kind of performance over the last year probably should cause some kind of response from the Dicastery of Bishops to show people that they are, in fact, still in control of the whole process, and that there actually is a process being followed, rather than an ad hoc arrangement that seems to currently exist.
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?
“There are also requests to expand consultation with the faithful People of God, and to involve a greater number of lay people and consecrated persons in the consultation process, taking care to avoid being put under any undue pressure in the selection process."
What a novel idea! (Heavy on the sarcasm).
Consult people maybe from the actual dioceses where a priest has been nominated as bishop, even if for another See. Consult people who ministered with this priest instead of relying on letters sent to a select number of people. Oh, and by the way, who selects who gets these letters?
Would it be so awful to consult the people of a vacant diocese asking what qualities and gifts they would like to see in their new bishop?
“There are also requests to expand consultation with the faithful People of God, and to involve a greater number of lay people and consecrated persons in the consultation process, taking care to avoid being put under any undue pressure in the selection process."
A statement that could be taken seriously.
Who knows the candidate better, those who serve with him or the Nuncios?
"The one who is head of all should be elected by all" -St. Leo the Great
Maybe not go that far but give some place to the people of the local Church in who will be their new bishop.
What a far cry from the secrecy and machinations in nunciatures and in the Roman Dicasteries.
// Another factor, given that we’re living in the 21st century, may be the internet. //
Instant mass communications have led to an instant spread of gossip and anger, which has led to a rise in the level of communal conflict, confusion, and fragmentation. Bishops are apparently tasked with putting the pieces back together, which is impossible.
//"Perhaps the Church needs to reflect on whether there are ways to give priests more confidence that they are capable of taking up the crozier, perhaps by ensuring that support and encouragement are readily available at critical moments."//
A lack of support and encouragement is a universal problem in priestly ministry, it seems, no matter the rank. Priests are reporting in larger and larger numbers that they don't trust their bishops, fear being targeted by false accusations, and don't feel supported when things get hard.
The insanity of being a diocesan bishop these days (not to mention the actual weight of responsibility intrinsic to the Apostolic office) is beyond wild.
From the outside looking in, it seems that actual avenues of "support and encouragement" for both priests and bishops are limited and it seems to depend so largely on "who you know" it's not hard to imagine that some men just don't think it's worth taking on so much risk to his reputation, stability, and security.
I recognize that this isn't really the point of this particular discussion, but it seems to me that we need to get a handle on this particular aspect of the Church's life, or we're going to be 'shepherds without shepherds,' so to speak.
I feel so so deeply for our bishops-elect. There are a few realizations that must burden each diocesan bishop. 1) A lot of priests thing the sex-abuse crisis way more limited in scope than it actually is or that it has slowed down 2) You have to clean this up without discouraging the faithful from coming to Mass. 3) You have to be hard on priests for doing bad things without scaring off new recruits.
First and foremost a bishop must support and nurture his priests.
Sometimes that requires tough love, but it always requires engagement and communication.
It's hard work, much like being a parent, but priests need to know that their bishop cares about them, recognizes their increasingly difficult work and will have their back.
It is a hindrance to vocations when young men feel they will be abandoned in the "system".
With prayers for our priests and those discerning the call to the priesthood.
Certainly. We have to be realistic too about what priests are facing and dealing with in their lives. This is difficult. Our priests are dealing with the messiness of everyday life, which is far more complex than what they are generally trained for in seminary. At the same time, there has been an internal secrecy in an unhealthy way of sexuality. We have an enormous number of incredibly holy priests who are gay, and it would be better if they could confide in their fellow priests without judgement. Having seen just how regular it is for this to explode and never make it into the news, or for the parishioners to know what has taken place... this is an urgent situation. Cardinal You Heung, a South Korean who currently leads the Dicastery for Clergy, actually made this statement this morning:
"An affectivity that is repressed and lived in a closed way, not shared transparently with someone who accompanies us, risks going astray. For me the best prevention is a real life of brotherhood, among priests and with everyone. For me it has always been a gift to be able to live together with other priests, to have brothers with whom to share joys and sorrows and also the inevitable trials. Taking on celibacy should not be an obligation, but a free choice. In the Western Latin Church it has been believed for many centuries that this choice helps the process of being configured to Christ and exercising the priestly ministry in the sign of total self-giving. If a person feels he cannot make this choice and accept this discipline, then it is better for him to discern another state of life. This seems important to me. It does not mean repressing affections, but expanding them, feeling the urge to go beyond the beautiful prospect of having a wife and children, to live like Jesus, for universal brotherhood. For me this is a fascinating experience that allows me to experience the joy of brotherhood and also true fruitfulness and fatherhood every day. Of course, living like this is always also a new achievement. There are also times when it's not easy, but it's worth it."
Maybe the problem starts at the top.
One of my dismays, Why does the Vatican apply Vos Estis Lux Mundi only on certain bishops? One Bishop that should be investigated, (retired now) and known for covering-up has not been looked into... I think that is a crime on the part of the decastry that is incharge of these such matters.
I remember saying to my wife a few years ago when there were a bunch of protests against the police, “who would want to be a cop these days?”
Well, who would want to be a bishop these days?