The irony of being kicked out for his abrupt, aloof, authoritarian governance with seemingly an act of abrupt, aloof, authoritarian governance is not lost on me.
He's criticized as a bad bishop for welcoming weird, problematic lay communities into his diocese. Meanwhile Rupnik's weird, problematic art collective keeps its doors open in Rome while Rupnik gets himself neat consultant positions.
I'd guess we are bankrupting the Vatican by playing partisan, leftist politics with the Church's influence. Maybe Francis is counting on a Chinese bailout in exchange for his silence on their atrocities?
Considering how many communities and vocations have flocked to his diocese, I find it difficult to believe that his leadership style is overly aloof or authoritarian. If you get to choose your boss (by choosing where to apply for seminary or an order asking for sponsorship), would you really choose to submit to an authoritarian? "The proof is in the pudding," as the saying goes.
“My mission does not belong to me, I hold it from the pope, like any bishop. It was entrusted to me by him, it is taken away from me by him. I therefore sent a letter of resignation to the Holy See, by mail, on Dec. 31.”
This is not the ecclesiology of Vatican II. A bishop does not receive his authority from the Pope as if he we merely the local branch manager for a large corporation. A bishop is a successor to the apostles in his own right. Yes, Peter holds a place of primacy among the apostles, but a bishop's mission and authority are not merely derived from that of the Pope.
EDIT: I should clarify. Bishop Rey's mission does come in part from the Pope... he was called to the episcopacy by the Holy Father and receives his jurisdiction from the Supreme Pontiff as well, which was taught by the First Vatican Council. And yet as the Second Vatican Council reminds us, the office to which he has been called is established by Christ--not invented by the Pope. The Bishop is not the mere delegate of the Pope (like an apostolic nuncio), but a successor to the apostles whose office it is to guard Sacred Tradition and to faithfully hand on the Doctrine of the Faith. So even if jurisdiction and the concrete call letter comes through the Supreme Pontiff, the content of the mission comes solely from Christ and cannot be altered. What is so disturbing today is that the bishops who seem to take this mission most seriously are the very ones who are often removed from their See. Even if this is done validly, that does not necessarily make it just.
A tall order when we don't actually believe what we say we believe. For all the beauty of Lumen gentium, when the rubber hits the road, the attitude of Rome remains that of Pius IX: "I, I am tradition! I, I am the Church!" The temptation to adopt the attitude of Pius XII, towering with arms outstretched above the faith of Saint Peter's Square, is a powerful one.
"This power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."
"If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church... let him be anathema." - Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I)
A bishop does not receive his sacred power from the Pope - obviously - but canonical mission and episcopal office (i.e. responsibility for diocese etc.) do come from the Pope. Do you claim that the documents of Vatican II contradict this...?
I just posted an edit and then saw your comment. You are right. The Pope has the authority to "give and to take away" when it comes to a bishop's canonical mission and responsibility for a diocese. At the same time, the content of the mission comes from Christ and cannot be altered by the Holy Father and his office should only be taken away where there is serious cause (i.e. when the bishop is failing in the mission given by Christ).
Lumen Gentium 27: 'Bishops govern the particular churches entrusted to them as the vicars and ambassadors of Christ ... This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church'
McCarrick's friends continue to surge, the latest to DC. Rupnik, Zanchetta, Barros, Inzoli, Grassi, Ricci, Gisana, and Co are always welcome in the Vatican. Vocations and those who foster them successfully are out. Good to know the Vatican has priorities.
Under Pope Francis bishops like McElroy fail up while Rey succeeds down. Sad but utterly predictable in our current age. God deliver us from this time of trial
It is a pity that you did not interview the dozens of persons who were raped, abused physically and spiritually by his friends. This diocess is a scandal. Abusers everywhere. Awful financial situation. I expect better coverage from the pillar. I can pu you in touch with victims and canonist and give you a list of scandal if you want just give me an email adress.
Also importing vocations from other countries or northern France is not having a vocation boom !
If you want a vocation boom in France look to the diocese of Vannes. Less marketing, more local vocation, no publicity. A simple, humble, orthodox bishop who is not courting every catholic media in the country.
This article seemed too long for the actual bit of concrete news it was reporting. I’m certainly surprised by the ratio of news to comments here. I hope the Pillar can shed some light here through on the ground reporting. Is there something to what Paloma is saying? Like Kevin Tierney, I don’t want to jump to an interpretation that just confirms some of the basic patterns that I don’t like in the global church leadership.
I'm sorry but writing a long message in english is hard for me but I'll try to give some exemple also sorry for m'y English :
- mgr Rey ordained knowingly ordained as a priest a man who had left his pregnant girlfriend recently. The priest later wanted to raise his child and live with his gf.
- he accepted in his diocese a community founded by a man that the cardinal Pell had expelled from his seminary for homosexual tendency
- he chose to retreat from the private healthcare used by every diocese in France for a cheaper healthcare. This caused many problems for priests and I think people underestimate how bad it is
- the diocese is in so much debt he refuses to raise the monney given to priest while we are having terrible inflation and priest had to pay healthcare out of pocket because of the new insurance
- since he accepted vocations from everywhere, priest from the diocese discovered on ordination day people they had never seen
- he welcomed an ex Regnum Christi as a priest who then left the priest hood to marry "the incarnation of the Holy Spirit"
- many case of sexual abuse (for exemple Henri Suso, child abuser forbidden from being with child that Mgr Rey made chaplain of a juvenile detention center)
- mgr Rey promoted dubious charismatic/evangelical practice with evangelical preacher such as "at distance healing"
I can link local press about it but it will take me a lot of Time and there are paywall
I thought it was nearly impossible to remove a bishop. Has anyone done any statistics on how many bishops were removed under JPII and how many under PF for comparison?
I always am skeptical of saying anything with too much confidence, especially when a story seems taylor-made to my biases, and the idea of a pope sacking a bishop and wrecking a dicoese because it ordains traditioanalists confirms my worst suspicions Francis would rather have an empty church of 90 year olds like himself than a thriving Church populated by younger Catholics who don't live in the 1970s.
It confirms my biases so strongly I avoid it. The only thing I will say is there has been grave damage to the Church with the idea that a bishop serves as an middle manager of the Holy Father, and that there needs to be a way to respect supreme and ordinary jurisdiction without turning a bishop into an at-will employee of the Pope. This is not the way to run a Church, and when a Bishop is removed, it should be something exceptionally rare, and publicly disclosed and defended by Rome.
It'll be weird 20-30 years from now when a large faction of priests have the Nick Fuentes mindset. Not saying I'm thrilled about that; but there will be a reckoning for these unjust personnel decisions.
It is interesting that the "synodal" Pope Francis micromanages all the bishops, especially the ones who actually increase vocations, while the non-synodal Popes John Paul II and Benedictsl XVI gave bishops the freedom to make their own decisions. They almost never forced any bishop to resign, except a few who were perverts or obviously heretical, and even then after lengthy investigations where the bishops were informed of the accusations against them with time to defend themselves, even with the right to have a private audience with the Pope prior to any final decisions.
It is all show with Pope Francis for the secular media to consume--"look, I named a woman to run one of my Dicastries and my kissy Cardinal allows homosexuals to get blessed. Ain't I the most democratic Pope ever." And vocations are falling precipitously like they started falling in Argentina when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. We have a lot of JPII priests, but I have yet to read of a priest who was inspired by Pope Francis to become a priest. Quite the contrary, any priest being ordained these days does so despite Pope Francis. I salute them for their willingness to follow God's calling under such an uninspiring Pope.
Can someone do an analysis of how many bishops have been asked to resign, or forced to resign under the last several pontiffs. I don't recall ever seeing so many bishops sidelined or forced to resign early in modern history.
The irony of being kicked out for his abrupt, aloof, authoritarian governance with seemingly an act of abrupt, aloof, authoritarian governance is not lost on me.
He's criticized as a bad bishop for welcoming weird, problematic lay communities into his diocese. Meanwhile Rupnik's weird, problematic art collective keeps its doors open in Rome while Rupnik gets himself neat consultant positions.
What are we doing?
I'd guess we are bankrupting the Vatican by playing partisan, leftist politics with the Church's influence. Maybe Francis is counting on a Chinese bailout in exchange for his silence on their atrocities?
Considering how many communities and vocations have flocked to his diocese, I find it difficult to believe that his leadership style is overly aloof or authoritarian. If you get to choose your boss (by choosing where to apply for seminary or an order asking for sponsorship), would you really choose to submit to an authoritarian? "The proof is in the pudding," as the saying goes.
“My mission does not belong to me, I hold it from the pope, like any bishop. It was entrusted to me by him, it is taken away from me by him. I therefore sent a letter of resignation to the Holy See, by mail, on Dec. 31.”
This is not the ecclesiology of Vatican II. A bishop does not receive his authority from the Pope as if he we merely the local branch manager for a large corporation. A bishop is a successor to the apostles in his own right. Yes, Peter holds a place of primacy among the apostles, but a bishop's mission and authority are not merely derived from that of the Pope.
EDIT: I should clarify. Bishop Rey's mission does come in part from the Pope... he was called to the episcopacy by the Holy Father and receives his jurisdiction from the Supreme Pontiff as well, which was taught by the First Vatican Council. And yet as the Second Vatican Council reminds us, the office to which he has been called is established by Christ--not invented by the Pope. The Bishop is not the mere delegate of the Pope (like an apostolic nuncio), but a successor to the apostles whose office it is to guard Sacred Tradition and to faithfully hand on the Doctrine of the Faith. So even if jurisdiction and the concrete call letter comes through the Supreme Pontiff, the content of the mission comes solely from Christ and cannot be altered. What is so disturbing today is that the bishops who seem to take this mission most seriously are the very ones who are often removed from their See. Even if this is done validly, that does not necessarily make it just.
Yeah, that's the kind of ecclesiology we're trying to convince the Orthodox that we DON'T actually adhere to haha
A tall order when we don't actually believe what we say we believe. For all the beauty of Lumen gentium, when the rubber hits the road, the attitude of Rome remains that of Pius IX: "I, I am tradition! I, I am the Church!" The temptation to adopt the attitude of Pius XII, towering with arms outstretched above the faith of Saint Peter's Square, is a powerful one.
"This power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."
"If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church... let him be anathema." - Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I)
A bishop does not receive his sacred power from the Pope - obviously - but canonical mission and episcopal office (i.e. responsibility for diocese etc.) do come from the Pope. Do you claim that the documents of Vatican II contradict this...?
I just posted an edit and then saw your comment. You are right. The Pope has the authority to "give and to take away" when it comes to a bishop's canonical mission and responsibility for a diocese. At the same time, the content of the mission comes from Christ and cannot be altered by the Holy Father and his office should only be taken away where there is serious cause (i.e. when the bishop is failing in the mission given by Christ).
God bless all of you for not going down a collegiality rathole! 💪 🙏
I completely agree.
Lumen Gentium 27: 'Bishops govern the particular churches entrusted to them as the vicars and ambassadors of Christ ... This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church'
Amen, Father, amen.
McCarrick's friends continue to surge, the latest to DC. Rupnik, Zanchetta, Barros, Inzoli, Grassi, Ricci, Gisana, and Co are always welcome in the Vatican. Vocations and those who foster them successfully are out. Good to know the Vatican has priorities.
Meanwhile Jean-Pierre Ricard remains a cardinal despite admitting over two years ago that he had sexually abused a 14-year old girl in the 1980s.
He has received a prophet's reward.
Importing foreign vocation, covering every abuser in the country and marketing yourself as a good bishop is not being a prophet.
The reign of hirelings and brigands continues.
Vatican removes bishop for being too welcoming and ordaining too many priests.
It does have a meme vibe to it doesn’t it 🫠🫠🫠
Under Pope Francis bishops like McElroy fail up while Rey succeeds down. Sad but utterly predictable in our current age. God deliver us from this time of trial
I was glad to hear Rey resigned, for what it’s worth.
Why? Do you know something about the situation? That would be worth the comment.
It is a pity that you did not interview the dozens of persons who were raped, abused physically and spiritually by his friends. This diocess is a scandal. Abusers everywhere. Awful financial situation. I expect better coverage from the pillar. I can pu you in touch with victims and canonist and give you a list of scandal if you want just give me an email adress.
Also importing vocations from other countries or northern France is not having a vocation boom !
If you want a vocation boom in France look to the diocese of Vannes. Less marketing, more local vocation, no publicity. A simple, humble, orthodox bishop who is not courting every catholic media in the country.
Glad to hear from someone in France . Helps to correct our American lenses
I would like to read the follow-up story, if any
This article seemed too long for the actual bit of concrete news it was reporting. I’m certainly surprised by the ratio of news to comments here. I hope the Pillar can shed some light here through on the ground reporting. Is there something to what Paloma is saying? Like Kevin Tierney, I don’t want to jump to an interpretation that just confirms some of the basic patterns that I don’t like in the global church leadership.
I'm sorry but writing a long message in english is hard for me but I'll try to give some exemple also sorry for m'y English :
- mgr Rey ordained knowingly ordained as a priest a man who had left his pregnant girlfriend recently. The priest later wanted to raise his child and live with his gf.
- he accepted in his diocese a community founded by a man that the cardinal Pell had expelled from his seminary for homosexual tendency
- he chose to retreat from the private healthcare used by every diocese in France for a cheaper healthcare. This caused many problems for priests and I think people underestimate how bad it is
- the diocese is in so much debt he refuses to raise the monney given to priest while we are having terrible inflation and priest had to pay healthcare out of pocket because of the new insurance
- since he accepted vocations from everywhere, priest from the diocese discovered on ordination day people they had never seen
- he welcomed an ex Regnum Christi as a priest who then left the priest hood to marry "the incarnation of the Holy Spirit"
- many case of sexual abuse (for exemple Henri Suso, child abuser forbidden from being with child that Mgr Rey made chaplain of a juvenile detention center)
- mgr Rey promoted dubious charismatic/evangelical practice with evangelical preacher such as "at distance healing"
I can link local press about it but it will take me a lot of Time and there are paywall
I thought it was nearly impossible to remove a bishop. Has anyone done any statistics on how many bishops were removed under JPII and how many under PF for comparison?
I always am skeptical of saying anything with too much confidence, especially when a story seems taylor-made to my biases, and the idea of a pope sacking a bishop and wrecking a dicoese because it ordains traditioanalists confirms my worst suspicions Francis would rather have an empty church of 90 year olds like himself than a thriving Church populated by younger Catholics who don't live in the 1970s.
It confirms my biases so strongly I avoid it. The only thing I will say is there has been grave damage to the Church with the idea that a bishop serves as an middle manager of the Holy Father, and that there needs to be a way to respect supreme and ordinary jurisdiction without turning a bishop into an at-will employee of the Pope. This is not the way to run a Church, and when a Bishop is removed, it should be something exceptionally rare, and publicly disclosed and defended by Rome.
It'll be weird 20-30 years from now when a large faction of priests have the Nick Fuentes mindset. Not saying I'm thrilled about that; but there will be a reckoning for these unjust personnel decisions.
It is interesting that the "synodal" Pope Francis micromanages all the bishops, especially the ones who actually increase vocations, while the non-synodal Popes John Paul II and Benedictsl XVI gave bishops the freedom to make their own decisions. They almost never forced any bishop to resign, except a few who were perverts or obviously heretical, and even then after lengthy investigations where the bishops were informed of the accusations against them with time to defend themselves, even with the right to have a private audience with the Pope prior to any final decisions.
It is all show with Pope Francis for the secular media to consume--"look, I named a woman to run one of my Dicastries and my kissy Cardinal allows homosexuals to get blessed. Ain't I the most democratic Pope ever." And vocations are falling precipitously like they started falling in Argentina when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. We have a lot of JPII priests, but I have yet to read of a priest who was inspired by Pope Francis to become a priest. Quite the contrary, any priest being ordained these days does so despite Pope Francis. I salute them for their willingness to follow God's calling under such an uninspiring Pope.
Can someone do an analysis of how many bishops have been asked to resign, or forced to resign under the last several pontiffs. I don't recall ever seeing so many bishops sidelined or forced to resign early in modern history.