Vatican: The position of bishops who do not want to retire

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markomalley

Guest
From La Stampa:
The latest to “rebel” against mandatory resignation at 75 years of age is Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and, until last year, President of the American Conference of Bishops. From the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict XVI has come under some pressure to abolish the rule established by Paul VI on the retirement age for ecclesiastics. So while most Western governments are grappling with the protests of citizens required by the exigencies of public finances to stay at work longer, the Roman Curia is receiving opposite signals from the Sacred College.

Despite the prominent appeals that have rained down upon the Holy See, Benedict XVI has continued, as did his two immediate predecessors, to retire bishops and cardinals at 75 years (as required by the rule established by Pope Paul VI), without extending the retirement age to 80 years, as many have requested. Based on under the first paragraph of canon 401 of the Code of Canon Law - the text approved in 1983 and signed by John Paul II in the fifth year of his pontificate - bishops are required to submit to the Pope their resignation from the pastoral governance of their dioceses at 75 years of age. According to the rules set down by the current “charter” that regulates the internal life of the Catholic Church, the issue of resignation and renunciation is armor-plated. As a rule, then, Benedict XVI has almost always accepted appointing a new bishop, barring some unforeseen extension for reasons of force majeure.
Thank God the Holy Father is not bowing to the pressure from bishops to delay the retirement age to 80. Due to CAF posting rules, I am constrained from listing precise examples, but I can safely say that this policy is blessing us with many good, holy, and orthodox bishops to fill the voids left by those who have been forced to retire.
 
It should be noted that while bishops are required to submit their resignations, the Pope can accept them (or not) as he sees fit.

So, for example, in just the USA, there are currently 7 ordinaries serving past the age of 75, namely: Archbishop Niederauer (San Francisco) and Bishops Bruskewitz (Lincoln), Doran (Rockford), Kmiec (Buffalo), Trautman (Erie), Ramirez (Las Cruces), and Brown (Orange).

The oldest of these, Bishop Bruskewitz, is about 16 months past 75.
 
markomalley said:
From La Stampa:
The latest to “rebel” against mandatory resignation at 75 years of age is Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and, until last year, President of the American Conference of Bishops. From the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict XVI has come under some pressure to abolish the rule established by Paul VI on the retirement age for ecclesiastics. So while most Western governments are grappling with the protests of citizens required by the exigencies of public finances to stay at work longer, the Roman Curia is receiving opposite signals from the Sacred College.

Despite the prominent appeals that have rained down upon the Holy See, Benedict XVI has continued, as did his two immediate predecessors, to retire bishops and cardinals at 75 years (as required by the rule established by Pope Paul VI), without extending the retirement age to 80 years, as many have requested. Based on under the first paragraph of canon 401 of the Code of Canon Law - the text approved in 1983 and signed by John Paul II in the fifth year of his pontificate - bishops are required to submit to the Pope their resignation from the pastoral governance of their dioceses at 75 years of age. According to the rules set down by the current “charter” that regulates the internal life of the Catholic Church, the issue of resignation and renunciation is armor-plated. As a rule, then, Benedict XVI has almost always accepted appointing a new bishop, barring some unforeseen extension for reasons of force majeure.
Thank God the Holy Father is not bowing to the pressure from bishops to delay the retirement age to 80. Due to CAF posting rules, I am constrained from listing precise examples, but I can safely say that this policy is blessing us with many good, holy, and orthodox bishops to fill the voids left by those who have been forced to retire.
Click to expand...
stuff like this will actually have big impact on my life, but to keep to CAF rules apparently I will not mention which bishop it effects and how it effects me.
 
Then there was the bishop who “retired” at age 74!

Sent a message, for sure.
 
But has not anyone else noticed the current practice of retiring cardinal archbishops when they are their seventies, replacing them as archbishops, and then waiting until the emeriti are over 80 to make their successors cardinals? Am I the only one who finds this just a little silly?
 
Young_Thinker said:
But has not anyone else noticed the current practice of retiring cardinal archbishops when they are their seventies, replacing them as archbishops, and then waiting until the emeriti are over 80 to make their successors cardinals? Am I the only one who finds this just a little silly?
Click to expand...
What is the purpose of the College of Cardinals? If you think about the purpose, you would realize that it is not silly at all.
 
Cardinal Maida of Detroit was almost 79 when his letter of resignation was accepted.

He had requested Pope Benedict to accept the letter at several points, but was asked to stay on longer.
 
Speaking on TV station WLS Channel 7, Cardinal George said that he hopes to stay at work and describes himself as “happy” that his health has improved. Cardinal George also joked about the situation: “I’m the very first Archbishop of Chicago that has lived long enough to do this, and I’m kind of glad about that. I expect to continue on.”
Click to expand...
How, exactly, is this a rebellion against the requirement to submit his resignation letter??

Does it state that Cardinal George will make an attempt NOT to submit the required letter.

(He turns 75 on Jan 16th- catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgeorge.html )
 
Young_Thinker said:
But has not anyone else noticed the current practice of retiring cardinal archbishops when they are their seventies, replacing them as archbishops, and then waiting until the emeriti are over 80 to make their successors cardinals? Am I the only one who finds this just a little silly?
Click to expand...
Why should certain archdioceses get two votes?
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Why should certain archdioceses get two votes?
Click to expand...
Why should the office of cardinal follow with any archdiocese. If I recall correctly this is something that Pope Benedict spoke out against before he became pope.
 
ByzCath said:
Why should the office of cardinal follow with any archdiocese. If I recall correctly this is something that Pope Benedict spoke out against before he became pope.
Click to expand...
That’s a separate question. The issue, for example, in NYC is that the archdiocese would essentially have two votes if Archbishop Dolan was made a Cardinal while Cardinal Eagan was under 80. That would mean that the USA would be “over represented” so to speak in an ensuing Conclave. And when elections can come down to only a few votes, that could be a source of tension.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Why should certain archdioceses get two votes?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that what I am trying to point out is the discrepancy in retirement age between bishops (75) and cardinals (80). At least to me, it would make more sense to have the two be the same.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
That’s a separate question. The issue, for example, in NYC is that the archdiocese would essentially have two votes if Archbishop Dolan was made a Cardinal while Cardinal Eagan was under 80. That would mean that the USA would be “over represented” so to speak in an ensuing Conclave. And when elections can come down to only a few votes, that could be a source of tension.
Click to expand...
I still don’t see this as the cardinalate does not necessarily follow the archdiocese.

So let me ask this. If a prefect for a congregation in the Vatican is made a cardinal and then steps down from that position but does so before he turns 80 does the pope not grant the office of cardinal to the next prefect because he does not want that congregation from having two “votes”?

It is not the diocese that is doing the voting, it is the individual archbishops.
 
Young_Thinker said:
Well, I guess that what I am trying to point out is the discrepancy in retirement age between bishops (75) and cardinals (80). At least to me, it would make more sense to have the two be the same.
Click to expand...
It is not really a retirement age for the cardinal. A cardinal has no function except for voting in the conclave.

A bishop has much more responsibility in the running of a diocese.
 
ByzCath said:
It is not really a retirement age for the cardinal. A cardinal has no function except for voting in the conclave.

A bishop has much more responsibility in the running of a diocese.
Click to expand...
That’s true.
 
ByzCath said:
I still don’t see this as the cardinalate does not necessarily follow the archdiocese.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to, but it often does in practice.
So let me ask this. If a prefect for a congregation in the Vatican is made a cardinal and then steps down from that position but does so before he turns 80 does the pope not grant the office of cardinal to the next prefect because he does not want that congregation from having two “votes”?
Click to expand...
It is not the diocese that is doing the voting, it is the individual archbishops.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, however Cardinals who head Congregations do not necessarily come all from the same country. Thus the successor in the Congregation most likely will be from another country or even continent.

Secondly, Cardinals who have spent extensive time in a Vatican office are far removed from the concerns and cares of Cardinals who have spent their “careers” tending to diocesan pastoral issues. Almost like the differences in views between state and federal officials in the civil world.

In the abstract I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong but in how it all plays out it appears to be quite different. It doesn’t appear the Vatican cares to unnecessarily extend the number of possible voters from any one region.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
I understand your point, however Cardinals who head Congregations do not necessarily come all from the same country. Thus the successor in the Congregation most likely will be from another country or even continent.

Secondly, Cardinals who have spent extensive time in a Vatican office are far removed from the concerns and cares of Cardinals who have spent their “careers” tending to diocesan pastoral issues. Almost like the differences in views between state and federal officials in the civil world.

In the abstract I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong but in how it all plays out it appears to be quite different…
Click to expand...
So the issue then is not really giving an archdiocese another vote but of giving a national bloc another vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top