In general I feel the Pillar would benefit from an improved layout for their articles. Maybe use sub headlines within the text, bullet points, better constructed paragraphs and so on. ;)
The appointment (and removal) of bishops throughout the world primarily by the Pope (with the advice of his nuncio and a congregation at the Vatican) is fairly new in Church history. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the early modern era, when the Pope, and the Church generally, fought against the power of monarchs and nobles to appoint the bishops, the idea was not that the Pope would appoint the bishops. Instead, the Popes were defending the right of some local ecclesial group (e.g., the canons of the cathedral, monks of a monastery, or the like) to propose a bishop. Most bishop candidates would then have to receive the approval of the metropolitan archbishops, or perhaps a council of bishops. An archepiscopal candidate would have to receive the approval of the Pope, a process that is still reflected when the new archbishops receive their pallium from the Pope on June 29 of each year. With more involvement of the laity now, we could go back to a similar approach. In every diocese there could be a council of clergy and a council of laity, chosen by the clergy and faithful (i.e. believing and Mass going laity) who could recommend episcopal candidates, who would then get the approval of the Vatican.
A little hard to figure out what all is going on in this situation, especially since it's not entirely clear whether the charge against Larrazábal is legit, and I suppose it's possible that Mestre or his supporters are deliberately promoting a charge against Larrazábal the credibility of which they know to be questionable, or otherwise interfering with the nomination process in an inappropriate way...
But with all that said, it does sound like the Vatican's preferred scenario was "We nominate Larrazábal and no one brings up the skeletons in his closet." So I guess we've learned nothing from McCarrick.
Edgar es una de las principales razones por las que soy suscriptor de “The Pillar”. ¡Adelante hermano! Haces un excelente trabajo, Dios te guíe y la Señora interceda por tu familia.
In general I feel the Pillar would benefit from an improved layout for their articles. Maybe use sub headlines within the text, bullet points, better constructed paragraphs and so on. ;)
Oooo very interesting! Great insight.
I find this kind of articles very difficult to follow - not helped by the fact that La Plata and Mar de la Plata sound almost indistinguishable.
The layout doesn't help (me) either as the article is made of very short paragraphs, at times only a few words long.
Maybe the use of bullet points to highlight the timeline should help, along a clear differentiation of who is who, where and when.
Here's a crazy idea: maybe they should listen to the faithful people and the clergy, and factor their ideas and feelings into the situation.
If only there were some word that would capture the idea of "walking together" that might be applicable to this situation!
The appointment (and removal) of bishops throughout the world primarily by the Pope (with the advice of his nuncio and a congregation at the Vatican) is fairly new in Church history. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the early modern era, when the Pope, and the Church generally, fought against the power of monarchs and nobles to appoint the bishops, the idea was not that the Pope would appoint the bishops. Instead, the Popes were defending the right of some local ecclesial group (e.g., the canons of the cathedral, monks of a monastery, or the like) to propose a bishop. Most bishop candidates would then have to receive the approval of the metropolitan archbishops, or perhaps a council of bishops. An archepiscopal candidate would have to receive the approval of the Pope, a process that is still reflected when the new archbishops receive their pallium from the Pope on June 29 of each year. With more involvement of the laity now, we could go back to a similar approach. In every diocese there could be a council of clergy and a council of laity, chosen by the clergy and faithful (i.e. believing and Mass going laity) who could recommend episcopal candidates, who would then get the approval of the Vatican.
A little hard to figure out what all is going on in this situation, especially since it's not entirely clear whether the charge against Larrazábal is legit, and I suppose it's possible that Mestre or his supporters are deliberately promoting a charge against Larrazábal the credibility of which they know to be questionable, or otherwise interfering with the nomination process in an inappropriate way...
But with all that said, it does sound like the Vatican's preferred scenario was "We nominate Larrazábal and no one brings up the skeletons in his closet." So I guess we've learned nothing from McCarrick.
Thanks for this. None of us following this story last week had any idea what was going on, even a couple of people from that area were not sure.
Edgar es una de las principales razones por las que soy suscriptor de “The Pillar”. ¡Adelante hermano! Haces un excelente trabajo, Dios te guíe y la Señora interceda por tu familia.