Edgar: Very much enjoy your research and insightful commentary. I think it is safe to say that, statistically, Pope Francis is now - in terms of Latin America - tending to position and favor the appointments of his friends and associates in South America and certain European countries like Portugal and Spain while often failing to appoint those in important Roman Catholic neighboring countries like Mexico that could probably really use both more bishops and bishops and cardinals on a more Vatican-centric stage for future advancement. Because I am so familiar with it, Mexico - the second largest Roman Catholic Country (100M) in the word behind Brazil (123M) - comes to mind. When reviewing the stats, it seems there are almost no Mexican Roman Catholic Cardinals or bishops involved in the Roman Curia and that there many dioceses have zero auxiliaries with huge Catholic populations. For example, Tijuana has one archbishop and is probably well over 3M Catholics (Catholic Heirarchy has it pegged at 2.5M Catholics, but it is hard to get a read as there are so many migrants in and out each year.) Same with Toluca, Leon, Morelia and Tulancinco and many others. Lots of people with one bishop, sometimes a bishop in his 70's. Bishops can appoint deans to do a lot of stuff, and that may be the case, but it clear to me that Pope Francis does not favor, consult, nor appreciate the Mexican Catholic Church. His only visit was back in 2016, and it did not go too well. Here is Gerard O'Connell's take: "The [Mexican] bishops applauded at the end, but in a rather muted way. It now remains to see what effect it will have on how they conduct their ministry as pastors after he has left this land." https://www.americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/pope-shakes-mexicos-bishops-challenging-speech.
Interesting insight! And it's a certainly particular case, although not uncommon in Latin America. Many large archdiocese have no auxiliary bishops. For example, my home archdiocese (Maracaibo) serves over 2 million Catholics with no auxiliaries. In fact, I think the only diocese in Venezuela with auxiliaries is Caracas, the capital. And, for example, Medellín in Colombia has a single auxiliary for almost 3 million Catholics. Cali (also in Colombia) has no auxiliaries for 2.3 million Catholics. Perú also has a couple of large archdioceses without auxiliaries. So, it seems to be a common thing throughout Latin America.
Which sort of begs the question. Why have auxiliaries at all? According to C 375, diocesan bishops ideally should NOT be auxiliaries, but should serve as pastors of their flock. With auxiliaries, the pastoral leadership function often ceases or is at least minimalized. For example, it is extremely rare for an auxiliary bishop to publish a pastoral letter, take a stand, or make any decision at all without first consulting the ordinary. C 377, §4 makes it clear that the decision to add auxiliaries rests with the local ordinary who proposes the addition to the Holy See, not the other way around. So, there is a great latitude as to why some major arch/dioceses have loads of auxiliaries, and others of equal or greater size do not have even one, with vicars forane and the VG functioning as the "auxiliaries". The old saying that "auxiliaries have about as much authority as an altar boy" is not too far from the truth. They don't have flocks per se, but more often end up acting as curial assistants who serve the interests of the local ordinary. Beyond the title, hat, and endless chicken parm dinners, it is a thankless and somewhat hidden job.
New York City has 1 Archbishop, 5 auxiliaries, and 6 bishops emeritus (of varying ages and capacities to help minister).
If NYC, LAX, and Mexico City are the "Big 3" metros for North/Central America (in terms of the cross-section of population/cultural importance/economic and political power), than I suppose you could say Buenos Aires is up their with Sao Paolo and Rio as an equivalent. So, seven makes sense, also considering that an even greater portion of those metro residents are Catholic (than NYC/LAX).
Seven doesn't seem too odd, even without this excellent curtain-peeling from Edgar.
Who is Ernesto Hermann? What did he say that was so controversial as to deserve to have his priestly faculties removed? Is he Fr. Altman radical or Cdl. Cupich radical or somewhere on the scale between them?
This is all I could find on Fr. Hermann with a quick Google search. Knowing who deserves defrocking and why (esp. in light of Rupnik and the collapse in pedo defrockings under Francis), would tell a lot about where the Francis wants to move the Church.
Thanks Edgar. I love an inside baseball story. Wouldn’t mind some more ones about the church in England :)
Edgar: Very much enjoy your research and insightful commentary. I think it is safe to say that, statistically, Pope Francis is now - in terms of Latin America - tending to position and favor the appointments of his friends and associates in South America and certain European countries like Portugal and Spain while often failing to appoint those in important Roman Catholic neighboring countries like Mexico that could probably really use both more bishops and bishops and cardinals on a more Vatican-centric stage for future advancement. Because I am so familiar with it, Mexico - the second largest Roman Catholic Country (100M) in the word behind Brazil (123M) - comes to mind. When reviewing the stats, it seems there are almost no Mexican Roman Catholic Cardinals or bishops involved in the Roman Curia and that there many dioceses have zero auxiliaries with huge Catholic populations. For example, Tijuana has one archbishop and is probably well over 3M Catholics (Catholic Heirarchy has it pegged at 2.5M Catholics, but it is hard to get a read as there are so many migrants in and out each year.) Same with Toluca, Leon, Morelia and Tulancinco and many others. Lots of people with one bishop, sometimes a bishop in his 70's. Bishops can appoint deans to do a lot of stuff, and that may be the case, but it clear to me that Pope Francis does not favor, consult, nor appreciate the Mexican Catholic Church. His only visit was back in 2016, and it did not go too well. Here is Gerard O'Connell's take: "The [Mexican] bishops applauded at the end, but in a rather muted way. It now remains to see what effect it will have on how they conduct their ministry as pastors after he has left this land." https://www.americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/pope-shakes-mexicos-bishops-challenging-speech.
Interesting insight! And it's a certainly particular case, although not uncommon in Latin America. Many large archdiocese have no auxiliary bishops. For example, my home archdiocese (Maracaibo) serves over 2 million Catholics with no auxiliaries. In fact, I think the only diocese in Venezuela with auxiliaries is Caracas, the capital. And, for example, Medellín in Colombia has a single auxiliary for almost 3 million Catholics. Cali (also in Colombia) has no auxiliaries for 2.3 million Catholics. Perú also has a couple of large archdioceses without auxiliaries. So, it seems to be a common thing throughout Latin America.
Which sort of begs the question. Why have auxiliaries at all? According to C 375, diocesan bishops ideally should NOT be auxiliaries, but should serve as pastors of their flock. With auxiliaries, the pastoral leadership function often ceases or is at least minimalized. For example, it is extremely rare for an auxiliary bishop to publish a pastoral letter, take a stand, or make any decision at all without first consulting the ordinary. C 377, §4 makes it clear that the decision to add auxiliaries rests with the local ordinary who proposes the addition to the Holy See, not the other way around. So, there is a great latitude as to why some major arch/dioceses have loads of auxiliaries, and others of equal or greater size do not have even one, with vicars forane and the VG functioning as the "auxiliaries". The old saying that "auxiliaries have about as much authority as an altar boy" is not too far from the truth. They don't have flocks per se, but more often end up acting as curial assistants who serve the interests of the local ordinary. Beyond the title, hat, and endless chicken parm dinners, it is a thankless and somewhat hidden job.
New York City has 1 Archbishop, 5 auxiliaries, and 6 bishops emeritus (of varying ages and capacities to help minister).
If NYC, LAX, and Mexico City are the "Big 3" metros for North/Central America (in terms of the cross-section of population/cultural importance/economic and political power), than I suppose you could say Buenos Aires is up their with Sao Paolo and Rio as an equivalent. So, seven makes sense, also considering that an even greater portion of those metro residents are Catholic (than NYC/LAX).
Seven doesn't seem too odd, even without this excellent curtain-peeling from Edgar.
Yet more information suggesting that Francis, rather than administering to the Church, is working to reshape it in his own image.
Who is Ernesto Hermann? What did he say that was so controversial as to deserve to have his priestly faculties removed? Is he Fr. Altman radical or Cdl. Cupich radical or somewhere on the scale between them?
This is all I could find on Fr. Hermann with a quick Google search. Knowing who deserves defrocking and why (esp. in light of Rupnik and the collapse in pedo defrockings under Francis), would tell a lot about where the Francis wants to move the Church.
https://scolopi.org/en/province-of-argentina-father-ernesto-herrmann-elected-president-of-faera/
Edgar is great + the Pillar is great