Comparing Materials on Female Cardinals

[johnnykins]

Cardinals 80 or older are too old to vote, nobody is too old to be Pope.

Interestingly, even that is wrong under current law.

“33. The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff’s death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant.”

Cardinals 80 or older may enter the conclave if the above limitation is met. If they turn 80 after the vacancy or while in conclave they remain in the conclave with voting rights.

BTW the 80 exclusion is also of relative newness dating back to rules promulgated by Paul VI.

 

[PJM]

=ClemtheCatholic;11414306]How do you reconcile this with this:

Can. 351 1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

?

Thanks, and God bless,
Clem

Even nicely packaged “stuff” is still “STUFF” [trying not to say what I’m thinking here]

At BEST this is “TRASHTALK”

This paper has been leaning VERY MUCH “LEFT” of late. I’d suggest dropping any subscriptions to it [MY OPINION!]

A Male ONLY priesthood is at least a Defined UNCHANGEABLE Doctrine of the CC; and some [me included think it was INFALLIBLY defied ny Pope JP II:
[COLOR=“Blue”]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORDIN.HTM

What they claim as a “possibility” IS FACTUALLY AN IMPOSSIBILITY:shrug:

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Elizium23]

PJM, you do know they were quoting a Vatican spokesman, who was speaking truthfully? No matter how much you hate the Fishwrap, this is not a “women’s ordination” issue. This is an issue of ecclesial governance discipline.

 

[Cojuanco]

Still, most Cardinals run a Archdiocese, still acting as a Bishop for their geographical area. Still performing the Sacraments and ordaining Priests. Would the sole jobs of these “Women” Cardinals be advising the Pope, administering the church, and electing a Pope? I think we are missing something here, by Ordination to the Episcopate a Bishop is given the charism for the Spirit of Truth to hand down the deposit of faith in Tradition. So as they are advising the Pope they are supposed to be lead by the Holy Spirit. Woman wouldn’t be given that because of the lack of being ordain to the episcopate. So I can’t see them being advisers in the same sense as a male Cardinal. What I see is a glorified secretary.

Actually, until recently, most cardinals did not have the cure of souls. They were bureaucrats, mostly, working for the Curia. Concievably all female cardinals would be of this kind. And the Curia is very powerful.

PJM, that only priests may become cardinals is actually only a matter of prudence and canon law. Obviously, for female cardinals to be appointed, the Pope would either have to change the law or dispense from it. My opinion on this? Theoretically possible, highly unlikely, given the Holy Father’s known reservations about the Curia.

 

[livingwordunity]

Since the cardinals are the pool from which the Pope is drawn

Exactly, and I believe it’s the key motivator to this. If they get their way, it will lead to the first female anti-pope.

 

[Cojuanco]

Exactly, and I believe it’s the key motivator to this. If they get their way, it will lead to the first female anti-pope.

Nope. Because candidates are required to be Catholic males. And you think the Holy Father would appoint someone who wants women priests?

 

[livingwordunity]

Exactly, and I believe it’s the key motivator to this. If they get their way, it will lead to the first female anti-pope.

Nope. Because candidates are required to be Catholic males. And you think the Holy Father would appoint someone who wants women priests?

If there were to be female cardinals they would be the ones who want a female pope since these are the only women who would want the position of being a female cardinal. Think about it. How many conservative Catholic females are saying they want female cardinals? It’s only the liberal ones who also had been arguing for female priests and for a female pope that are now putting this new spin on it. The Church has had anti-popes in the past. The anti-pope will take it by force. That’s what makes them an anti-pope. Anti-popes and those who try to elect them don’t care that the election is illegitimate. All it would take for there to be a female anti-pope with female cardinals is for them to declare a woman (one of them) to be their choice. Remember that when a new Pope is being elected if there were to be an anti-pope to arise there is no sitting Pope at that time to oppose it. It is a vulnerable time for the Church, and Satan would not hesitate to take advantage of that vulnerability. And the secular media would, of course, side with the anti-pope which would cause massive confusion for Catholics since the majority of us are poorly catechized.

 

[Cojuanco]

Let’s keep in mind that those who call for women priests are just about the least likely to receive the cardinalate. On the off chance the Pope does this, the people calling for women priests will find they are in for a rude awakening.

I mean, think about it. The Holy Father, or his successor, are for the near future appointees of the Pope who declared infallibly that women priests are impossible, or the one that came after him. I mean someone setting themselves up as antipope, male or female, over this is just exceedingly unlikely. Certainly no-one appointed by this Holy Father.

Anyway, we’re getting into wild hypotheticals here, this has about as much chance of happening as of Senator Boxer resigning, and Governor Brown appointing me in her place.

 

[livingwordunity]

Let’s keep in mind that those who call for women priests are just about the least likely to receive the cardinalate.

If all the females with a history of arguing for female priests were to be excluded there would be none left to choose from for the position since, as I was saying, I don’t think there exists a conservative female who is one of the ones obsessed with this new curiosity.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t think women (or lay men) could be Cardinals without radically redefing what the office of “Cardinal” is. Lay man or woman electors of the Pope, theological possible. Lay man or woman curial bureaucrats, theologically possible. Lay man or woman advisors of the Pope, theologically possible. But these are functions of a Cardinal that may also be done by others theologically, but they do not totally encompass what a Cardinal is.

The cardinalate is not just the electoral college of the papacy or advisors to the Pope or even just an honorary title. The title of Cardinal grew out of their status as clergy (even historical “lay Cardinals” were tonsured and in the minor orders). It was originally a title given to all clergy permanently attached to a church/diocese, or “incardinated” as we say today. Then it began to be reserved to those in prominent Sees, then to the chief clergy there, and finally to those of the Roman See only–kind of like how the title “Pope” became more specific over time. Just as when various bishops had the title of Pope, the Bishop of Rome was still the head, the status of the Roman clergy was always special. As the clergy of the chief particular Church, they were given special honor–which is why even in the very nascent Church during an interregnum, difficult questions were submitted still to the Roman priests (since the Roman Church was the head of all the other Churches).

To this day Cardinals are clergy of Rome. When clergy outside Rome are made Cardinals, those clergy are given parishes in Rome. For example, Cardinal Dolan of New York presides over Our Lady of Guadalupe at Monte Mario in Rome or Cardinal DiNardo of Houston, Texas presides over St. Eusebius Church in Rome. While the College of Cardinals as an electorate of the Pope is only a bit over a1000 years old, their office as Roman clergy goes back to the very beginning.

Lay people electors of the Pope have been done before and could be done again–the election of a Pope can happen however the previous supreme authority legislates (it is very common for a sitting Pope to slightly modify the election law). In the past, lay emperors were given a vote or veto power or even the only say; theoretically other lay people could be given a vote, or the sitting Pope could choose his successor, etc. But bestowing the cardinalate on such lay bureaucrats or electors would deviate from what a cardinal traditionally is, which is clergy. Lay emperors and whatnot who voted in papal elections, were not made Cardinals, for example.

So my argument is that the office we call “Cardinal” is so closely tied to the sacrament of Holy Orders that women could not be admitted to them. The Cardinalate is simialrly tied to the Sacrament of Holy Orders as the minor orders were. When Paul VI abolished them, he maintained instituted Acolytes and Lectors, but explicitly reserved them only to men. Paul VI (and later John Paul II) opened apparently everything possible to women, and yet the instituted ministries were still reserved for men alone, even when extraordinarily and temporarily (at least de jure) deputized lay readers, altar servers, EMHCs could all be women. The reasoning I can find for this is that the minor orders while merely sacramental, were derived from and a special participation in the sacrament of holy orders–and this was the reasoning behind doing the same for the instituted ministries, despite the fact that they are much less of a participation in holy orders than the minor orders were (I think it’s probably not definitively settled whether or not the instituted ministries are far enough removed from holy orders to be open to women). The Cardinalate is similarly tied to Holy Orders.

I guess you could let people occupying a different Church-created lay office wear a red hat, and be called a “Cardinal” (it’s just a word after all), but I don’t think a woman or layman could hold the office we have traditionally denoted by the word “Cardinal”.

 

[otjm]

If all the females with a history of arguing for female priests were to be excluded there would be none left to choose from for the position since, as I was saying, I don’t think there exists a conservative female who is one of the ones obsessed with this new curiosity.

It is for exactly that reason that conservative women might be made cardinals - that they didn’t seek it. The opportunity of someone to be made cardinal is not based on how much they seek it. It is based on their being able to bring something the Church by their skills and abilities.

Frankly, I don’t give a fig one way or the other. If the Pope, after consultation with those whose advice he trusts (and possibly those he doesn’t) decides to change the law and make the position of Cardinal (adviser, administrator and elector) available to women, then fine; lets get on with the essentials - which specifically is our own salvation primarily. Having women Cardinals, or not having them, has absolutely zero impact on whether or not I get to heaven. Zero.

It just makes for fodder for “over the fence rag chewing”.

 

[JReducation]

How do you reconcile this with this:

Can. 351 1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

?

Thanks, and God bless,
Clem

The answer to this is so easy that even a dumb Franciscan can understand it.

Cardinal is not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders The cardinalate was created by the Church.

When Canon Law says that it must be men and that they should be priest and should be then ordained bishop, the canon itself is theoretical. The fact is that the popes don’t follow the canon. Pope John Paul wrote that canon and Pope John Paul also blew it off. He made Avery Dulles a cardinal, but never ordained him a bishop, because Dulles refused the office, if it meant becoming a bishop. Pope John Paul wanted Dulles to be a cardinal so much, that he dispensed with the canon that he had written himself.

The same thing can happen with women. The canon says “men” and “priests”. But that’s not from God. That’s from the pen of John Paul II. Therefore it does not bind any pope.

To put it in a very simple way. If a pope really wanted a woman cardinal, all he has to do is look at the canon and then go, “Aha, that’s nice. I’m make one exception here.”

Then he proceeds to create a female cardinal.

That’s why it’s possible in theory. Because there is nothing in Divine Revelation that says that the Church needs cardinals at all. That is our invention, not Christ’s invention. Just as the Church created the college of cardinals, the Church can also modify it. Theoretically does not mean that it’s going to happen. It simply means that it can happen and it takes nothing away from the deposit of faith or the college of cardinals.

The truth is that the college of cardinals has been modified so many times throughout history that no one even remembers how many times it has been modified.

There were laymen who were cardinals. There were religious brothers who were cardinals. There have been deacons and priests who were cardinals (John Henry Newman and Avery Dulles come to mind).

If the pope wanted a woman cardinal, he could do one of three things.

a. Change the law

b. Make an exception to the law.

c. Pretend the law does not exist.

Canon law flows out of the heart of Peter. Therefore, Peter is not bound by canon law, we are.

I don’t see why everyone needs to say so much about this. It’s dumb dumb and more dumb to discuss this at such great length when we all know that canon law is totally dependent of the wishes of the Holy Father. As long as it’s theologically possible, the law can change. There is nothing in theology about cardinals. They are not part of Christian theology. Cardinals are part of Church governance. This puts cardinals in the domain of jurisprudence and governance, not theology and revealed truths.

I always get a headache when people start to treat canon law as it it were the 10 commandments. Actually, I get a headache from doing this. :banghead:

Because if a dumb Franciscan can get it, so should everyone else.

I think that we spend too much time thinking about things that are neither important to the faith, nor have anything to do with any of us. Most of the things that we worry about in this forum have nothing to do with my daily life or that of most people on CAF.

I guess it has something to do with one’s daily life, if one is so bored that he is looking to make himself miserable to distract from his boredom. Then one will go find something, create a controversy and then bring it here.

As my Jewish mother used to say to us when we focused on silly things, “Don’t you have anything to do with your life? Let me know. I have a few things that need attention.” She has one smart lady. I wish I had appreciated that when I was 15.

 

[otjm]

The answer to this is so easy that even a dumb Franciscan can understand it.

Cardinal is not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders The cardinalate was created by the Church.

When Canon Law says that it must be men and that they should be priest and should be then ordained bishop, the canon itself is theoretical. The fact is that the popes don’t follow the canon. Pope John Paul wrote that canon and Pope John Paul also blew it off. He made Avery Dulles a cardinal, but never ordained him a bishop, because Dulles refused the office, if it meant becoming a bishop. Pope John Paul wanted Dulles to be a cardinal so much, that he dispensed with the canon that he had written himself.

The same thing can happen with women. The canon says “men” and “priests”. But that’s not from God. That’s from the pen of John Paul II. Therefore it does not bind any pope.

To put it in a very simple way. If a pope really wanted a woman cardinal, all he has to do is look at the canon and then go, “Aha, that’s nice. I’m make one exception here.”

Then he proceeds to create a female cardinal.

That’s why it’s possible in theory. Because there is nothing in Divine Revelation that says that the Church needs cardinals at all. That is our invention, not Christ’s invention. Just as the Church created the college of cardinals, the Church can also modify it. Theoretically does not mean that it’s going to happen. It simply means that it can happen and it takes nothing away from the deposit of faith or the college of cardinals.

The truth is that the college of cardinals has been modified so many times throughout history that no one even remembers how many times it has been modified.

There were laymen who were cardinals. There were religious brothers who were cardinals. There have been deacons and priests who were cardinals (John Henry Newman and Avery Dulles come to mind).

If the pope wanted a woman cardinal, he could do one of three things.

a. Change the law

b. Make an exception to the law.

c. Pretend the law does not exist.

Canon law flows out of the heart of Peter. Therefore, Peter is not bound by canon law, we are.

I don’t see why everyone needs to say so much about this. It’s dumb dumb and more dumb to discuss this at such great length when we all know that canon law is totally dependent of the wishes of the Holy Father. As long as it’s theologically possible, the law can change. There is nothing in theology about cardinals. They are not part of Christian theology. Cardinals are part of Church governance. This puts cardinals in the domain of jurisprudence and governance, not theology and revealed truths.

I always get a headache when people start to treat canon law as it it were the 10 commandments. Actually, I get a headache from doing this. :banghead:

Because if a dumb Franciscan can get it, so should everyone else.

I think that we spend too much time thinking about things that are neither important to the faith, nor have anything to do with any of us. Most of the things that we worry about in this forum have nothing to do with my daily life or that of most people on CAF.

I guess it has something to do with one’s daily life, if one is so bored that he is looking to make himself miserable to distract from his boredom. Then one will go find something, create a controversy and then bring it here.

As my Jewish mother used to say to us when we focused on silly things, “Don’t you have anything to do with your life? Let me know. I have a few things that need attention.” She has one smart lady. I wish I had appreciated that when I was 15.

Part of the reason topics like this disturb so many electrons is exactly the reason you noted - they simply don’t know that much about the Church.

And it is probably not for no reason that this topic landed in the forum it did; we have too many Catholics who are of the opinion that if that is the way it was since (put your favorite historical marking point here), then that is the way it has to be, because the Church was at its glory at that point, and this (whatever subject) would distract from that glory.

Or this is the spawn of Modernism.

Or this is a liberal plot to destroy the Church and remake it in their own image.

Or this is the nefarious result of the Spirit of Vatican Two.

My mother was not Jewish, but she, too, knew the short solution to boredom - there was always a dust rag within reach!

 

[Ohana]

Hmm, looks like mostly men with great concerns about this… Not to worry

 

[Cojuanco]

Part of the reason topics like this disturb so many electrons is exactly the reason you noted - they simply don’t know that much about the Church.

And it is probably not for no reason that this topic landed in the forum it did; we have too many Catholics who are of the opinion that if that is the way it was since (put your favorite historical marking point here), then that is the way it has to be, because the Church was at its glory at that point, and this (whatever subject) would distract from that glory.

Or this is the spawn of Modernism.

Or this is a liberal plot to destroy the Church and remake it in their own image.

Or this is the nefarious result of the Spirit of Vatican Two.

My mother was not Jewish, but she, too, knew the short solution to boredom - there was always a dust rag within reach!

I think part of the problem is that people find it hard to distinguish from the infallible, from teachings which while not infallible still bind us in faith, and stuff like canon law and discipline. So people either have an exaggerated sensecof what can change, or what cannot change.

My attitude? It’s the Pope’s right, it’s unlikely he’ll actually do it, and given the very structure of the College of Cardinals, if he did decide to do it it wouldn’t really affect my life unless I started spouting heresy or something.

 

[JReducation]

Part of the reason topics like this disturb so many electrons is exactly the reason you noted - they simply don’t know that much about the Church.

And it is probably not for no reason that this topic landed in the forum it did; we have too many Catholics who are of the opinion that if that is the way it was since (put your favorite historical marking point here), then that is the way it has to be, because the Church was at its glory at that point, and this (whatever subject) would distract from that glory.

Or this is the spawn of Modernism.

Or this is a liberal plot to destroy the Church and remake it in their own image.

Or this is the nefarious result of the Spirit of Vatican Two.

My mother was not Jewish, but she, too, knew the short solution to boredom - there was always a dust rag within reach!

I think part of the problem is that people find it hard to distinguish from the infallible, from teachings which while not infallible still bind us in faith, and stuff like canon law and discipline. So people either have an exaggerated sensecof what can change, or what cannot change.

My attitude? It’s the Pope’s right, it’s unlikely he’ll actually do it, and given the very structure of the College of Cardinals, if he did decide to do it it wouldn’t really affect my life unless I started spouting heresy or something.

I think that you’ve both struck the proverbial nail on the head. Too many people don’t know the difference between revealed truth and law. Both of them bind us, but in different ways.

Revealed truth cannot be change. It can be restated. I can be better explained. But the essence remains the same.

Law on the other hand, binds us as well, but it can be changed by the proper authority or the proper authority may choose not change the law, but continue to bind everyone else and dispense himself. Take for example, Pope Francis dispensed with the second miracle for the canonization of Pope John Paul. Pope Benedict dispensed with all miracles for the beatification of John Duns Scotus. It’s looking like Duns Scotus may be canonized without any miracles in response to a request from the International Council of Franciscan Superiors General, which is one of the most powerful organizations in the Church, third behind Opus Dei and the Jesuits. But all of this is possible, because popes are only bound by revealed truth.

We got into a silly argument over this in another thread concerning the Syllabus of Errors That was a perfect example of what I call the Magisterium of the Laity, which only exists in Protestantism, but which many Catholics, Trads and Liberals are using without realizing it.

The Magisterium of the Laity is when laymen who are not qualified to dictate or even suggest canon law, theology, philosophy, liturgical law, proper law of religious life, sacred scripture or spiritual theology, attempt to do so rather than learn. They’re not disqualified because they’re laymen. Otherwise, someone like Thomas More would have had very little influence in theology. We know that he has much influence. But More was educated in theology, philosophy, law and rhetoric. The average man in the pew is not.

So what seems to be happening is that those in the pews who are not as well formed as Thomas More are trying to make sense of the Church’s teachings, customs and her laws. But instead of being open to being taught by those who understand, they have become disciples of Brown. They see conspiracies everywhere. They strike out on their own to study and to proclaim great truths. In the end, they find themselves in conflict with the real Magisterium.

The real Magisterium is very clear. The college of cardinals has nothing to do with Holy Orders. It was not until John Paul II promulgated the Code of 1983 that the college was limited to bishops.

Also, the Magisterium of the laity wants to dictate to popes every time a pope says something different from a previous pope. They can’t seem to accept hat in philosophy and psychology we can prove that two people can make opposing statements and both be right.

This magisterium of the laity is drawing many people’s attention away from the means to sanctity present in their situation. These folks seem to have a need to go looking for sanctity in documents that have nothing to do with them.

I’m going to speak for me. I could care less if the pope said that the next cardinal is going to be a Muslim woman. That has nothing to do with my life in community, my service to the voiceless, my relationship with St. Francis, my duties to my bishop, my duties to my family and friends, like life of prayer and constant conversion or the oil change in my car.

If I hear that my reaction is the same as that of Mr Sock. “Fascinating”.

Then I move on. Why? Because I’m not a cardinal and I am not part of the magisterium of the faithful. I’m just a dumb Franciscan, as I’m often called. People love reminding Franciscans how much smarter the Jesuits and the Dominicans are. Then they’re shocked to find out that Franciscans have more Church Doctors, more universities and more scholars than the Jesuits and Dominicans. But we don’t advertise it, because it’s not something that we’re proud up. But that’s for another day.

People need to leave these things alone and let those who experts on these matters and whose opinion the pope wants, let them be the ones to speak.

 

[PJM]

=JReducation;11430736]I think that you’ve both struck the proverbial nail on the head. Too many people don’t know the difference between revealed truth and law. Both of them bind us, but in different ways.

Revealed truth cannot be change. It can be restated. I can be better explained. But the essence remains the same.

Law on the other hand, binds us as well, but it can be changed by the proper authority or the proper authority may choose not change the law, but continue to bind everyone else and dispense himself. Take for example, Pope Francis dispensed with the second miracle for the canonization of Pope John Paul. Pope Benedict dispensed with all miracles for the beatification of John Duns Scotus. It’s looking like Duns Scotus may be canonized without any miracles in response to a request from the International Council of Franciscan Superiors General, which is one of the most powerful organizations in the Church, third behind Opus Dei and the Jesuits. But all of this is possible, because popes are only bound by revealed truth.

We got into a silly argument over this in another thread concerning the Syllabus of Errors That was a perfect example of what I call the Magisterium of the Laity, which only exists in Protestantism, but which many Catholics, Trads and Liberals are using without realizing it.

The Magisterium of the Laity is when laymen who are not qualified to dictate or even suggest canon law, theology, philosophy, liturgical law, proper law of religious life, sacred scripture or spiritual theology, attempt to do so rather than learn. They’re not disqualified because they’re laymen. Otherwise, someone like Thomas More would have had very little influence in theology. We know that he has much influence. But More was educated in theology, philosophy, law and rhetoric. The average man in the pew is not.

So what seems to be happening is that those in the pews who are not as well formed as Thomas More are trying to make sense of the Church’s teachings, customs and her laws. But instead of being open to being taught by those who understand, they have become disciples of Brown. They see conspiracies everywhere. They strike out on their own to study and to proclaim great truths. In the end, they find themselves in conflict with the real Magisterium.

The real Magisterium is very clear. The college of cardinals has nothing to do with Holy Orders. It was not until John Paul II promulgated the Code of 1983 that the college was limited to bishops.

Also, the Magisterium of the laity wants to dictate to popes every time a pope says something different from a previous pope. They can’t seem to accept hat in philosophy and psychology we can prove that two people can make opposing statements and both be right.

This magisterium of the laity is drawing many people’s attention away from the means to sanctity present in their situation. These folks seem to have a need to go looking for sanctity in documents that have nothing to do with them.

I’m going to speak for me. I could care less if the pope said that the next cardinal is going to be a Muslim woman. That has nothing to do with my life in community, my service to the voiceless, my relationship with St. Francis, my duties to my bishop, my duties to my family and friends, like life of prayer and constant conversion or the oil change in my car.

If I hear that my reaction is the same as that of Mr Sock. “Fascinating”.

Then I move on. Why? Because I’m not a cardinal and I am not part of the magisterium of the faithful. I’m just a dumb Franciscan, as I’m often called. People love reminding Franciscans how much smarter the Jesuits and the Dominicans are. Then they’re shocked to find out that Franciscans have more Church Doctors, more universities and more scholars than the Jesuits and Dominicans. But we don’t advertise it, because it’s not something that we’re proud up. But that’s for another day.

People need to leave these things alone and let those who experts on these matters and whose opinion the pope wants, let them be the ones to speak.

Outstanding reply and GREAT information!

Thanks and God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Every time I see the title of this thread, I think of comparing clothing material. I’m a goof.

 

[bcuster]

It is the National Catholic Reporter. Many live in a make-believe world where they can create God in their own image.

 

[Saints_Alive]

How do you reconcile this with this:

Can. 351 1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

?

Thanks, and God bless,
Clem

No need to reconcile it. NC Reporter isn’t an orthodox Catholic organization. They have even been told by the local Bishop to stop using the word Catholic in their name.

They will twist and distort anything they get a hold of to promote their various dissident agendas.