Posted on 04/13/2007 6:54:57 AM PDT by Frank Sheed
...not that any of us are counting!
I should have said 1,414 days and 4 hours, 50 minutes EST - since Rome is six hours ahead of EST.
Not for another 5 years. He was preposterously young when he was chosen.
Oldest Latin-rite archbishops:
Cardinal Maida of Detriot, 77.07 years
Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, 76.11
Archbishop Kelly of Louisville, 75.75
Archbishop Lipscomb of Mobile, 75.56
Cardinal Egan of New York, 75.03
I’m not sure who the other 1-2 bishops the article refers to are. Archbishop Curtiss of Omaha is 74.83. None else are over 74. There are about three dozen archdiocese, so even six archbishops in one year is an awful lot. Three cardinals being replaced in one year would be pretty stunning: there are only seven archbishop cardinals, the others being from Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia.
Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles is 71 years old. He was appointed bishop by Pope Paul VI way back in 1975, and promoted to archbishop in 1985.
Is he one of the Jadot appointees?
Bishop Lennon not much of an improvement over the very liberal former Bishop Pilla here in C-Town.
Other men who became bishops during Jadot's tenure in the United States include Rochester Bishop Matthew Clark; Albany's Howard Hubbard; former Santa Fe Archbishop Roberto Sanchez, who resigned in a sex scandal; former San Jose Bishop Pierre DuMaine; former Honolulu Bishop Joseph Ferrario; San Antonio Archbishop Patrick Flores; former Newark Archbishop Peter Gerety; Joliet, Ill., Bishop Joseph Imesch; Louisille Archbishop Thomas C. Kelly, O.P., a former staffer at the apostolic nuncio under Jadot; Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston (whom Jadot selected as bishop for Springfield-Cape Girardeau, Mo.), Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk; Saginaw, Mich., Bishop Kenneth Untener - to name a few more - all of whom, supposedly, mirrored his own progressive image as a "man of the people."
Each of these prelates has been a strong advocate of the pro-homosexual agenda in the U.S. Church, ordaining homosexuals, imposing pro-homosexual education on Catholic schools, aiding and abetting special rights legislation in the civil realm for homosexuals, and giving free rein to homosexuals and lesbians in religious orders which operated schools, universities, parishes, seminaries, and retreat houses in their dioceses and archdioceses.
>>Then I’ll take the Puppy From Hell....<
You got one too, huh?
The list you are showing has those who have “reached the age.” If I am not mistaken, there are several Dioceses that are “still open” and the Holy Father received a request for removal due to poor health only last week. That is a huge number to replace!
I have the impression that the outgoing (Arch)Bishop has had significant input into his successor. That is surely true for D.C. and San Fran, IMHO. I hope that now that the Papal Nuncio has had time to get the full lay of the land, that will stop. It is clear that the Bishops being appointed to the South (and I am thinking of the Carolinas) are very solid. Who is engineering that is not known to me, but it could be the man in Philadelphia since Raleigh was one of his.
It has been speculated that several Archdioceses that were historically “Cardinatial Sees” may not be so anymore. The absence of a Cardinal from Texas, for example, is glaring with its huge Catholic population. I would not be surprised to see a change in that direction as well.
I would love to see Bishop Bruskewitz move to either coast. The thunder would roar!
How ya doin’, sis?
This is the kind of garbage that needs to get hammered.
Living in the kitchen with the pup.
She was blessed by our Pastor who ended the prayer with
“Remember, obedience, obedience, obedience.”
Apparently she didn’t listen.......
That’s where the Pope was clever. The meetings at the Vatican were on natural law and its place in human society (that is, anything violating it cannot be a legitimate law). He built up a very good case for it, and also discussed the role of the legislator, who is not a passive or powerless spectator but affirmatively does something to pass a law. And he simply said that those legislators who want to continue to consider themselves Catholics and remain in union with the Church cannot vote for anything that violates natural law (whether something that permits “gay marriage,” abortion, etc.) and thus, the laws of the Church.
There was a lot of huffing and puffing by Italian politicians, but many of them actually pointed out, on the other side, that it is not mandatory to be a Catholic nor is it something to which one has a right. If you want to vote for a proposition that violates the standards the Pope defined, that’s up to you - it simply means that then you can’t go parading around as a “good Catholic” and marching up to Communion ala Ted Kennedy. Obviously, this will matter to some politicians and not to others.
This, btw, is the thing that is behind the attacks on the Church by gays in Italy right now.
I was surprised that it got so little coverage in the US, because it is obviously something that would apply to our “Catholic” politicians here, too. But of course, we’re back at the usual problem: getting the bishops to enforce it. However, since he made it some kind of a binding statement (I don’t recall the name), I think that the bishops would have to abide by it. So we shall see where this leads us.
She'll be 8 months old in 3 days. She is a field-bred Lab from very hot bloodlines on her dad's side and moderately-hot bloodlines on her mom's.
It's like trying to ride a half-broke two year old T'bred . . . or chained lightning . . .
The Cardinal Newman Society has hammered these miscreants with some effect. However, those that have gone over to the Dark Side are nearing the point of being too far gone to care.
I personally believe that wealthy alumni can have a stark effect on administrations. One wealthy friend struck the RC college that educated his three daughters from his will and the place whined for three years. As that continues, it may have an effect. They may have to go without that new “field house” they so need for their Catholic educational mission!
;-o)
>> The list you are showing has those who have “reached the age.” If I am not mistaken, there are several Dioceses that are “still open” and the Holy Father received a request for removal due to poor health only last week <<
There are seven vacant sees, but none of them are archdioceses.
>> I have the impression that the outgoing (Arch)Bishop has had significant input into his successor. <<
I would think it only natural that the evaluation of subordinates by outgoing bishops has strong influence on the recommendations of the nuncio.
>> Who is engineering that is not known to me, but it could be the man in Philadelphia [Regali!] since Raleigh was one of his. <<
From Regali to Raleigh? LOL! Yes, I believe Regali is a good assistant in identifying solid bishops.
>> It has been speculated that several Archdioceses that were historically “Cardinatial Sees” may not be so anymore. The absence of a Cardinal from Texas, for example, is glaring with its huge Catholic population. <<
I can’t see Baltimore, the mother diocese of the USA, being denied a Cardinal, nor New York, even though it is very small since Washington to its own Cardinatial see. I can’t see Washington losing one since it was just established in the last few decades; if it did, it would be taken as a sharp rebuke to Paul VI. The other five “Cardinatial Sees” are the five largest archdioceses in the nation. The next biggest is Newark, a shrinking diocese literally overshadowed by New York.
Maybe someday, Houston-Galveston will be, but it was only recently elevated to archdiocese, is still smaller than the dioceses of Brooklyn, Rockville Center and Orange, has very inconsequential suffragan dioceses, and oversees a very modest number of parishes (150). Texas isn’t all that Catholic; about 5 million out of 20 million Texan residents are Catholic. There’s 65 million Catholics in America.
Yes.
That’s what I get for reading Rocco Palma! He has San Antonio as perhaps the next Cardinatial See.
;-o)
Barbara Tuchman wrote that for the English Puritans their true ancestors were the ancient Hebrews,not the inconveniently papist Anglo-Saxons. Cromwell let the Jew back into England about three hundred years after they had been banished. Yes, the English were and are xenophobic, but usually in a nice way. Disraeli was, after all, allowed to be prime minister, even though he was very exotic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.