A new retirement age for bishops?

[HagiaSophia]

The current retirement age for bishops/cardinals has been discussed this week as the hierarchy met in Rome: canonist Peters comments ----

“…But the main reason we will see fewer arch/diocesan bishops retiring at 75 is practical: there is a serious shortage of good men, and a vacant see (USA / worldwide) is a bigger problem than is a see held by a man who is over 75. Doubtless, elderly bishops deserve to retire; privately, I imagine, many of them want to retire. But the Church cannot afford to let them go. The bishop crunch is in full swing, and it will be with us for quite some time. See E. Peters, “The coming bishop crunch” Homiletic & Pastoral Review (Nov. 1995) pp. 15-19…”

canonlaw.info/blog.html

 

[Brendan]

I would prefer not.

It is an excellent way of ‘weeding out’ in effective bishops. The effective ones can remain, but the ineffective and less orthodox ones can be allowed to retire, as opposed to removing them outright.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I thought that 75 was the normal retirement age. A bishop retiring at 74, for example, was basically “fired”. Unless he was ill or burned out.

 

[frommi]

Al Masetti:

I thought that 75 was the normal retirement age. A bishop retiring at 74, for example, was basically “fired”. Unless he was ill or burned out.

Not correct…

The pope could reassign a bishop to a suppressed see if he wanted to. That could be intrepreted as a ‘firing’.

But, even the worst bishop in the world, can’t be forced to resign by the vatican…canoncially he can only be retired when he reaches age 75

 

[frommi]

And btw…there is a lot of truth to the bishop crunch…look how long some sees are staying vacant.

Instead of ordaining new bishops, the vatican seems to just be moving people around

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

Not correct…

The pope could reassign a bishop to a suppressed see if he wanted to. That could be intrepreted as a ‘firing’.

But, even the worst bishop in the world, can’t be forced to resign by the vatican…canoncially he can only be retired when he reaches age 75

The Pope can fire whoever he wants to. He is above Canon Law and not restricted by it. He makes exceptions as he sees fit.

So yes, if the Pope really wanted someone removed from a See, he can do it, no if’s and’s or but’s.

But it’s often better pastorialy to let the offending bishop retire.

 

[geojack]

frommi:

And btw…there is a lot of truth to the bishop crunch…look how long some sees are staying vacant.

Instead of ordaining new bishops, the vatican seems to just be moving people around

Bishops are being appointed almost everyday according to the VIS emails. Newly ordained and young. Alot are in their 40’s.

 

[stjosephtomasi]

frommi:

Not correct…

The pope could reassign a bishop to a suppressed see if he wanted to. That could be intrepreted as a ‘firing’.

But, even the worst bishop in the world, can’t be forced to resign by the vatican…canoncially he can only be retired when he reaches age 75

I know of only one time in the last 30 years this has happened.

 

[jbuck919]

Oh, the generation gap!

Younger people, just as they don’t know pre-Vatican II, tend not to realize what a shock these age things were when they were first introduced. It was a complete innovation of Pope Paul VI, and of his own initiative, to state (a) that bishops had to offer their resignation at 75 and (b) cardinals could not vote for the next pope if they were 80 or older. It was easier than dealing with superannuated prelates on a case-by-case basis.

Like a parliamentery body exempting itself from every law it passes, Paul VI of course exempted the pope from his own rules.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Like a parliamentery body exempting itself from every law it passes, Paul VI of course exempted the pope from his own rules.

Are you saying the Pope is wrong on this account?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I would say that they ought to be allowed to die in the saddle (no one gave the Apostle’s a gold watch before they trundled off to play golf), but then I seem to recall a certain auxillary in Detroit…

Hey, Hagia! How are you?

 

[jbuck919]

ComradeAndrei:

Are you saying the Pope is wrong on this account?

I don’t think there should be any hard-and-fast rule at all. There are clearly cardinals over the age of 80 and bishops over the age of 75 who are completely competent to continue in their positions. Modern civil society has abolished mandatory retirement ages. On the other hand there might be and probably is a bishop somewhere coming down with Alzheimer’s or some other debilitating disease at the age of 60. And it might some day be the pope.

These policies were promulgated for the sake of convenience, and I do not necessarily criticize that, because with thousands of bishops in the world, the pope cannot very well consider every one on a case-by-case basis when he is busy with many other things. That, I assume, was the motivation for Paul VI. This is strictly a matter of church discipline, so I do not feel bad for raising a questioning voice as to how the matter might be reconsidered.

Personally, I intend to retire at 60 and hope God will grant me a few more years of prosperity. Working indefinitely into old age is a peculiarity of a few occupations, of which the Roman Catholic clergy is apparently one. If I were Cardinal McCarrick, I couldn’t wait to retire and start playing golf. The difference between a job and a vocation, I am sure.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

On the other hand there might be and probably is a bishop somewhere coming down with Alzheimer’s or some other debilitating disease at the age of 60. And it might some day be the pope.

This is a problem. I think any attempt to “retire” a Pope would be very detrimental to the Church. If, someday, a Pope would wish to enforce some matter and bishops want to override him, could vote him out for being “senile”.

God has done well with letting the popes die a provided death before any sort of issues came up with senility or dement so far and I don’t see why He wouldn’t continue. Because of the infallibility of the Pope, the Holy Spirit will not allow error to be taught-whether it is by heretical choice or by mental problems.

 

[LeahInancsi]

jbuck919:

On the other hand there might be and probably is a bishop somewhere coming down with Alzheimer’s or some other debilitating disease at the age of 60. And it might some day be the pope.

Do you really think this could happen? If a bishop has Alzheimer’s or some other disease that will prevent him from serving as pope effectively, the Cardinals voting for him will learn of the situation one way or another.

Pope John Paul II had a debilitationg disease, but it did not prevent him from acting as pope effectively. It would have been criminal to have forced him to retire before his death. He was still mental sharp and he provided an excellent example of the grace in suffering. He was an inspiration in his last days.

Thank God for giving us such a wonderful man.

 

[chicago]

Brendan:

The Pope can fire whoever he wants to. He is above Canon Law and not restricted by it. He makes exceptions as he sees fit.

So yes, if the Pope really wanted someone removed from a See, he can do it, no if’s and’s or but’s.

But it’s often better pastorialy to let the offending bishop retire.

Just as a pastor has canonical rights as to not being removed by his bishop and reassigned unless he agrees, would not a bishop have the same sort of rights of not being removed from his see in relation to the pope’s determinations?

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

The Pope can fire whoever he wants to. He is above Canon Law and not restricted by it. He makes exceptions as he sees fit.

So yes, if the Pope really wanted someone removed from a See, he can do it, no if’s and’s or but’s.

But it’s often better pastorialy to let the offending bishop retire.

Yes, the Pope could do so as he did with that Bishop from France several years back…however, even in doing so, because the Bishop did not ‘resign’, he had to be attached to a see, thus was given some non-existent titular see to be canonically attached to.

A bishop has to be assigned to something…either as Bishop emeritus…a member of a congregation…something…he can’t just be ‘fired Bishop X’.

Remember that Bishop is a rank of holy orders, it can’ t be scraped away because the Pope disagrees with a bishop. Canonically speaking, we have to remember that the Bishop is the head of his church and is not subservient to the Pope in the way we think of such things (that famous corporate mentality).

So, I think its overly simplistic to say that the Pope can FIRE somebody.

 

[frommi]

ComradeAndrei:

This is a problem. I think any attempt to “retire” a Pope would be very detrimental to the Church. If, someday, a Pope would wish to enforce some matter and bishops want to override him, could vote him out for being “senile”.

A Pope can resign, but canon law is clear that he is to manifest the resignation and that it is not to be ‘accepted’ by anybody.

But a Pope, even an incapcitated one, can’t be forced from office.

Heck, even a Bishop can’t be forced out…the Bishop of Gary had a stroke several years ago that left him incapacitated. An apostolic administrator was appointed…but the Bishop of Gary was still the “Bishop of Gary” even in his incapcitated state.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

Remember that Bishop is a rank of holy orders, it can’ t be scraped away because the Pope disagrees with a bishop. Canonically speaking, we have to remember that the Bishop is the head of his church and is not subservient to the Pope in the way we think of such things (that famous corporate mentality).
.

Interesting that you mentioned the word ‘scrapped’. That is exactly what happenes in a “Degrodation” of a Bishop.

A piece of glass is scraped over the bishop’s head and hands to symbolically remove him from Orders.

Here is the ritual

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21242

And in your use of ‘Canonically speaking’ you seem to forget that the Pope is above Canon Law. He can certainly remove a Bishop from a See without assigning him to another Titular See.

No one could stop him.

Read the Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus

 

[BillyT92679]

Brendan:

The Pope can fire whoever he wants to. He is above Canon Law and not restricted by it. He makes exceptions as he sees fit.

So yes, if the Pope really wanted someone removed from a See, he can do it, no if’s and’s or but’s.

But it’s often better pastorialy to let the offending bishop retire.

Be careful here… you’re treading close to an ultramontanist view of the Papacy. Bishops aren’t just designees of the Pope, his cabinet members overseeing the branch of the Diocese of Rome, but individuals who have full, supreme, and immediate jurisdiction over their own dioceses. The Pope CAN exercise his power “unhindered” but in actuality, that would never, ever happen, unless the Bishop was so bereft of duty.

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

Interesting that you mentioned the word ‘scrapped’. That is exactly what happenes in a “Degrodation” of a Bishop.

A piece of glass is scraped over the bishop’s head and hands to symbolically remove him from Orders.

Here is the ritual

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21242

And in your use of ‘Canonically speaking’ you seem to forget that the Pope is above Canon Law. He can certainly remove a Bishop from a See without assigning him to another Titular See.

No one could stop him.

Read the Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus

So you bring up an 1860s ritual that probably hasn’t ever been used? We’ve had enough bishops do enough stupid things that it could’ve been implemented…it hasn’t.

Theologically, I think you’d get a strong argument that you can’t symbolically scrape away the gift of the Holy Spirit…it’s a gift from God…not a consecrating bishop.

Now as far as Canon Law goes…Popes work within Canon Law for the most part. So, does a Pope chance a schism by going outside the law to make a point by firing a bishop?

The Pope is not the superduper Bishop…and I have a hard time picturing this happening.

As opposed to you Brendan, I think you want it to happen.