BISHOP MARTINO'S DEPARTURE: DID HE JUMP OR WAS HE PUSHED? [Catholic Caucus]

That's the easy question. Bishop Joseph Martino was pushed into resignation at the age of 63. No intelligent observer can credit the official explanation: that Bishop Martino retired because of health problems. The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness.

Clearly Bishop Martino was under a great deal of pressure, and therefore it is not difficult to believe that he suffered from insomnia and fatigue: the only medical complaints that were mentioned in the press conference announcing his departure. But while those are serious problems, they are not ordinarily serious enough to compel a motivated leader to resign. And even if insomnia had risen to the level of a serious medical problem, the question remains: Why was the bishop under so much pressure-- the sort of pressure that could give rise to such serious problems?

If anyone had lingering doubts about the question of Bishop Martino's health, he had only to look carefully at yesterday's announcement from Scranton. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty's retirement was announced on the same day. The Dougherty departure, taken by itself, would have been completely unremarkable; at the age of 77, he was well beyond the ordinary canonical retirement age. But the fact that the two retirements were announced simultaneously leaves no doubt about what happened. It was a house-cleaning.

(We might even ask, in passing, why Church leaders persist in offering such implausible excuses for the resignations of bishops. If no one really believes that Bishop Martino is too sick to carry on, why is that flimsy explanation offered to the public? Corporate leaders routinely offer vague, unsatisfactory reasons for a change at the top: it is a matter of "different styles of leadership," they might say, or a question of "conflicting visions." But those explanations, lame as they are, are not transparently false. Don't Church leaders attach any importance at all to the principle of that honesty is the best policy? Don't they worry about undermining their own credibility?)

Two different explanations have been put forward by informed observers. One school of thought says that Bishop Martino was too rough in his administrative style. He was a bull in a china shop, constantly making new enemies, needlessly causing division, refusing to act in a collegial manner and respect the advice of his brother bishops. The other school of thought says that he was simply too conservative for the tastes of his brethren in the US bishops' conference-- and especially for his metropolitan, Cardinal Justin Rigali, who has emerged as the most influential prelate in America today.

Notice: Those two explanations are not mutually exclusive. During his tenure in Scranton, Bishop Martino made a series of unpopular moves: closing schools and parishes, busting a teachers' union, denouncing pro-choice politicians, demanding assurances that Catholic universities were providing an authentically Catholic formation for their students. Many loyal Catholics would agree that some (if not all) of these moves were necessary, desirable, even praiseworthy. But were they done with appropriate tact and consideration for the good of the faithful?

Bishop Martino did make many enemies. He did show a lack of delicacy. He did alienate people who might otherwise have approved of his overall drive to ensure Catholic orthodoxy. Even among Catholics who supported his overall policies, there were many who were dismayed by his administrative approach.

Moreover, Bishop Martino did nothing to ensure the support of his brother bishops. On the contrary, he pointedly insisted that only he-- not the US bishops' conference-- had authority within the Scranton diocese. In making that statement he was entirely correct, but he was not at all prudent.

By the time his departure was announced, Bishop Martino had accumulated complaints from many different sources. There were (and are) dozens of canonical cases pending before the Roman Curia, involving real or alleged abuses of authority in the Scranton diocese. The bishop had become a problem. He acknowledged as much himself, in his final press conference, saying: "For some time now there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance." A bishop should be the focus of unity within a diocese; Bishop Martino had become a source of division.

Still it is not easy to dismiss the perception that Bishop Martino was removed because he was regarded as excessively militant in his defense of the right to life. Other American bishops who have alienated priests and laity in their dioceses, provoked canonical lawsuits, criticized their brother bishops, and still remained in office. The highly publicized removal of Bishop Martino-- with only the barest of gestures to camouflage the real cause-- is a rare and remarkable occurrence.

Bishop Martino was involved in many squabbles, it is true, but his most highly publicized battles involved his praiseworthy efforts to ensure that the Church in Scranton spoke with a clear and consistent voice in defense of the dignity of human life. So it was inevitable, and entirely predictable, that his removal would cause rejoicing among liberal Catholics, and anguish among conservatives, with both sides assuming that the bishop's ouster was a result of his militant pro-life stand.

It isn't that simple. Bishop Martino was removed because he was so divisive. His strong pro-life stand did not cost him his episcopal assignment. On the other hand, it's fair to say that his pro-life stand did not save his episcopal assignment, either.

Martino was pushed out. It was an entirely political decision. He stepped on the toes of the powerful Casey clan (The Kennedys of Pennsylvania). Then he joined the orthodox Catholic Bishops in denouncing the honors given to Obama at Notre Dame.

Martino insisted that the Catholic universities in his Diocese not advocate the gay lifestyle. He threatened CINO politicians like Bobby Casey with denial of Communion.

Everything he said and did was 100% in keeping with the Magisterium.

Martino is being persecuted for being firm in the Faith.

In fact, this appears to be the beginning of universal persecution of any and all Catholic Bishops and priests who are thoroughly prolife.

The Bishop made his staement and I know him.Anyone who says otherwise from his statement is a liar because he is calling the Bishop a liar and is guilty of Calumny.
Calumny
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm
(Latin calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)

“Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another, particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction.

I take the Bishop’s resignation as it stated. I don’t deal with supposed reasons. We can get into trouble if we start looking for hidden motives in every action.

He’s not my bishop, and any speculation I could give would only be gossip. I don’t know anything about how he ran his diocese, or anything except his statements that have been publicized.

The pro-life movement does have people who like to stir up controversy. Keeping that in mind, I will simply accept what happened and keep focus on my own business.

One school of thought says that Bishop Martino was too rough in his administrative style. He was a bull in a china shop, constantly making new enemies, needlessly causing division, refusing to act in a collegial manner and respect the advice of his brother bishops. The other school of thought says that he was simply too conservative for the tastes of his brethren in the US bishops' conference-- and especially for his metropolitan, Cardinal Justin Rigali, who has emerged as the most influential prelate in America today.

Uh, I would go with the former here. Rigali doesn't complain about the orthodoxy of other bishops - or their outspokenness, for all of his quiet understatedness.

My guess is that administrative styles are coming under scrutiny. Last year's "removal", our very own Archbishop Raymond Burke, was a lightning rod on pro-life issues, but the general consensus around here is that he was Peter Principled up for reasons of job performance in the administrative arena. Now that he's been gone for a bit, the stories from the Chancery on leadership style are surfacing and they aren't pretty - from holding grudges, to denying promotions to men who are truly worthy, to really BAD personnel moves to fiscal irresponsibility. Get a couple drinks in the right people and all sorts of stuff comes out. My guess is Martino is more of the same.

Rigali is a VERY bright and astute - and under it all, very sweet - man. Yes, he is pretty much the most influential cardinal in the US right now, and he is very much a diplomat, but compromising Church teaching is not on the table for him. There's other reasons why this happened.

I agree, sad to see him go. Jump or pushed? A thorn in Biden’s side over abortion, I think he was pushed to jump repeatedly. Not exactly urged to resign, just pushed in that direction. Which would mean little wonder he suffered fatigue and insomnia. And he held firm to his principles regarding pro-life issues, a true champion.

Shut the heck up and learn what you speak about.”On June 27, 2008 Pope Benedict XVI elevated Archbishop Burke to the office of Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, a position equivalent to that of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, or President of the Conseil d’Etat of France. As such, immediately after the Roman Pontiff, Burke holds the highest judicial office in the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Leo_Burke

Anyone who thinks Martino was pushed - especially by any two-bit politician - is nuts and has a political ax to grind.

His standing pretty much alone among the other bishops was taking its toll on him personally.

It’s also nonsense to think the Vatican pushed him out. Look at what’s happened in some other cases - Bishops resigning to run for political office (South America somewhere), Bishops calling for the ordination of women (the Moonie bishop from Africa), bishops molesting children, and retired bishops writing a book that extols homosexuality (Weakland) - and what do you find? ALWAYS a careful, measured response of Christian charity to assist that bishop in returning to the faith. So because Martino weighed in on the dissenters and malcontents of his diocese, he was removed by the Vatican? Absurd. This is just an agenda being advanced by the moral reprobates of the protestant wing of the Catholic Church and a few people at NCR.

No, I will not “shut the heck up” about something I DO, quite well, know something about, considering Burke was archbishop in my archdiocese and my parish is the cathedral. I never said the man doesn’t know canon law and isn’t a great canon lawyer, and for the sake of the entire church, isn’t in the right spot - but, he’s NOT a good administrator. He should have a red hat by now and doesn’t. There’s a lot that isn’t known. Like I said, around here, it is believed that he was Peter Principled up, and a lot of damage control is under way.

From what you say about Burke, it sounds perhaps less like Peter’s Principle and more like finding a job better suited his strengths. Burke was, if nothing else, a keen intellect and avid defender of truth.

After living near Giuliani’s New York, I can tell you I’m very glad he was mayor, but I’m also very glad he’ll never make it to the Supreme Court. Contrarily, I doubt Roberts or Scalia or just about anyone could do in New York what Giuliani did, which was to rescue it from third-world status.

It sounds like Burke makes a great Supreme Court justice, but made a mediocre governor, if those complaints are true.

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.