The coming crisis in episcopal demographics

[Dale_M]

Here in the Diocese of Little Rock, we have a number of Nigerian priests – and these guys talk the talk and walk the walk. Make the ones we have Bishops and send us more!

Very tempting, but we in the U.S. are already overflowing with priests compared to Nigeria. In 1999, the priest to people ratio was 1:1200.
usccb.org/plm/summary.shtml

But in the Archdiocese of Onitsha (Nigeria) the priest to people ratio is 1:4594.
onitsha-archdiocese.org/index2.html

The exact numbers can be quibbled over (after all, Onitsha is not all of Nigeria), but I think the size of the difference will remain. We need to be sure that we don’t make Nigerians suffer worse than they already have it!

 

[frommi]

Right! Pope John XII was 18 when elected. But then, times have changed.

Canonically I"m pretty sure you have to be 36 yrs old these days.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Canonically I"m pretty sure you have to be 36 yrs old these days.

LOL I thought that was to be Pres of the USA.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The best way to get good bishop is to not let the outgoing bishop have anything at all to do in naming them.

 

[frommi]

The best way to get good bishop is to not let the outgoing bishop have anything at all to do in naming them.

I think the current bishops are having more to do with the naming of their successors than before.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

That’s why the Pope has a hard time getting rid of liberal bishops–they just replace themselves with another liberal.

 

[chicago]

That’s why the Pope has a hard time getting rid of liberal bishops–they just replace themselves with another liberal.

But, then, that’s the nature of the priesthood and episcopacy. It’s a closed scoiety and tends to reproduce the kinds of men that those who are in control desire to come in and carry on their work.

Really, what’s new? This is the way it has been for centuries!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It doesn’t have to be that way. Any pope can break the viscious cycle and name bishops anyway he wants and break the viscious cycle of self perpetuation.

Some popes have named some as bishop for no other reason than that is what they wanted to do–they didn’t approve or disapprove a recommendation.

I just wish we would see more of that!

 

[chicago]

Of course, the men who the pope invites to the ministry have to agree to go along and “join the club”, also.

By and large, bishops don’t do much to lead, historically. There are some outstanding examples who have. But we’re probably expecting too much to hope that they will most often be anything more than mere place holders.

 

[frommi]

That’s why the Pope has a hard time getting rid of liberal bishops–they just replace themselves with another liberal.

You really are over simplifying things. For the most part this ‘chasm’ between liberal and conservative is something that is made up and perpetuated by people who disagree with something or other a bishop did. I’m yet to see the ‘criteria’ for such a distinction. It seems that a bishop is liberal (translation: "bad in the eyes of the supposed orthodox folks) if he doesn’t scream at politicians who support abortion from the mountaintop.

If you put Fabian Bruskewitz and Tom Gumbleton on a chart…most bishops are going to fall in between the two of them…that’s a good thing.

Bishops are complex individuals and to label them as conservative or liberal is just silly. Especially when it is done through a political lens. We’re talking about the successors of the apostles…not the Tories and the Whigs.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The bishops who supported the Arian heresy would have said they they were quite moderate and orthodox in their views.

And yes if any bishop will not keep abortion supporting Catholic congressmen from sacriledging the Eucharist and if any bishop will keep fighting the pope on inclusive language then yes

Those bishops are a liberal and the Catholic Church doesn’t need bishops like that!

Take them totally out of the proces of naming the bishops that follow them–leave it all up to Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church woulkd be rid of all that liberalism that comes from Satan.

 

[JW10631]

It is true that Pittsburgh has been waiting for an appointment of a new bishop for over one year…but we are NOT *without *a bishop…we simply do not yet have an ordinary. The current administrator of the diocese is indeed a bishop, Bishop Paul Bradley…technically an auxiliary, but a bishop no less…and I will be surprised if he is not elevated to become the ordinary very soon. I don’t know the reason for the delay in naming someone, of course, but in the case of Pittsburgh at least it is *not *because there is no suitable candidate. I feel quite confident about saying that.

Diana, I agree with you. Bishop Bradley has done a fine job as Administrator of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and I think Archbishop Wuerl favors Bishop Bradley’s appointment.

Pope Benedict’s reasons for delays are known only to him. Youngstown went without a Bishop for more than a year.

Frommi’s attacks on EWTN are disquieting. No bishop appointed to Birmingham has anything to fear from EWTN.

 

[frommi]

Frommi’s attacks on EWTN are disquieting. No bishop appointed to Birmingham has anything to fear from EWTN.

I don’t think fear has anything to do with it…it’s just something most would rather not deal with.

 

[frommi]

The bishops who supported the Arian heresy would have said they they were quite moderate and orthodox in their views.

And yes if any bishop will not keep abortion supporting Catholic congressmen from sacriledging the Eucharist and if any bishop will keep fighting the pope on inclusive language then yes

Those bishops are a liberal and the Catholic Church doesn’t need bishops like that!

Take them totally out of the proces of naming the bishops that follow them–leave it all up to Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church woulkd be rid of all that liberalism that comes from Satan.

Amazing to me that you are equating inclusive language with abortion…interesting.

The reality is, a bishop is allowed to disagree with the pope, just not break unity with him…and I’ve never seen a bishop actively try to break unity with the pope except for Lefebvre and Milingo.

The same “liberalism” that you claim comes from satan also does an awfully good job of keeping our eyes on the poor.

You have a short sighted and destructive view of a political point of view.

 

[chicago]

Take them totally out of the proces of naming the bishops that follow them–leave it all up to Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church woulkd be rid of all that liberalism that comes from Satan.

So what if a “liberal” bishop had been elected pope (or gets elected next time around)? Would your argument remain the same?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

No the argument wouldn’t be the same because the Holy Spirit would prevent a pope like that from acting like himself!

And yes one can be against inclusive language and against abortion supporters from being given the eucharist and be totally for the poor.

The Catholic Church is not bound by the boundaries of political parties.

Jesus isn’t liberal or conservative in regards to politics.

Jesus by definition must be more conservative when it comes to truth than liberal when it comes to truth because the truth does not change!

The truth will never be that darling word that liberals love–progressive. It will always be unchanging.

And lastly at the final judgement the sheep are put on Christ’s Right and the goats on Christ’s Left.

Be sure you’re on the Right side and not on the Left!

 

[frommi]

No the argument wouldn’t be the same because the Holy Spirit would prevent a pope like that from acting like himself!

And yes one can be against inclusive language and against abortion supporters from being given the eucharist and be totally for the poor.

The Catholic Church is not bound by the boundaries of political parties.

Jesus isn’t liberal or conservative in regards to politics.

Jesus by definition must be more conservative when it comes to truth than liberal when it comes to truth because the truth does not change!

The truth will never be that darling word that liberals love–progressive. It will always be unchanging.

And lastly at the final judgement the sheep are put on Christ’s Right and the goats on Christ’s Left.

Be sure you’re on the Right side and not on the Left!

Wow…it’s saying something that this is by far the most interesting statement I think I’ve ever read on this board.

For starters, the Holy Spirit does not take possession of a Pope’s mind to ‘prevent’ him from doing anything. Free will is a human trait that God gave us…so I’m not sure where you are coming from on that one.

And you’re right…the truth is unchanging…that doesn’t mean we’ve fully discovered the truth either.

 

[chicago]

No the argument wouldn’t be the same because the Holy Spirit would prevent a pope like that from acting like himself!

You obviously haven’t read the history of the papacy.

Jesus by definition must be more conservative when it comes to truth than liberal when it comes to truth because the truth does not change!

I think that is what the people who accused him of working on the sabbath and dining with sinners said, also.

The truth will never be that darling word that liberals love–progressive. It will always be unchanging.

Truth, in Christ, is both unchanging and progressive, by it’s nature. It could not be otherwise as he is self giving life which is constant yet moves dynamically forth. This is the mysterious paradox of faith and mercy.

And lastly at the final judgement the sheep are put on Christ’s Right and the goats on Christ’s Left.

Be sure you’re on the Right side and not on the Left!

Clever.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Holy Spirit does prevent the pope from being fallible–that charism doesn’t change and is part of the history of the papacy.

Have there been any papal encyclicals against socialism?

Yes.

Have there been any papal encyclicals against liberalism?

Yes.

Have there been any papal encyclicals against modernism?

Yes.

Have there been any encyclicals against moral relativism?

Yes.

Have there been any papal encyclicals against birth control?

Yes.

Have there been any encyclicals against abortion?

Yes.

Which side is more in favor of Socialism, Lilberalism, Modernism, Moral Relativism, Birth Control, and Abortion–the Left or the Right?

Would the Left see movements such as Socialism, Modernism, Moral Relativism, Birth Control, and Abortion as being Progressive?

Of course!

Christ is all about life–now which side is more in favor of euthanasia, birth control, and abortion–the Left or the Right?

And how many people on the Left are in favor of feeding the poor for Materialistic reasons versus Spiritual ones?

Now don’t get me wrong–the Left does not have a monopoly on sin–the Right has its share with unjust wars, capital punishment, expoitation of the poo and social injustice.

Which just goes to show that either party would be uncomfortable with jesus in charge.

The problem with both political sides is that they don’t really want to have Jesus in charge.

The Catholic church should never be guilty of that.

That should make both sides uncomfortable. In fact if the Catholic Church doesn’t make all of us at sometime feel uncomfortable then it isn’t procliaming the truth.

I hope it always makes me uncomfortable–that way I’ll be led to Jesus!

 

[frommi]

Uhhh…the pope is not infallible…there is a thing called the “infallible teachng authority of the roman magisterium”…which the Pope can and has invoked…

But simply being pope does not mean a person can’t sin or can’t be wrong…