Rome blinks; American bishop won't leave

CWNews.com ^ | 3/24/2004 | Phil Lawler

[Desdemona]

He said that he had every expectation of remaining the Bishop of Dallas until reaching the regular retirement age of 75-- which will not happen until 2006.

He'll turn in his resignation and they'll replace him then. No hanging on for him. If there's no resignation on file, the Vatican is sort of stuck.

It might be better to outright replace him than go the coadjutor route. There's other dioceses in the same position and the diocese where Galante went was in need.

God has a plan. We must trust in that.

[sinkspur]

I'll keep an eye out for Rod Dreher's column on this, as he now lives in Dallas.

I will also be anxious to see what Wick Allison, publisher of "D" magazine and a prominent local Catholic has to say. He led a group of influential Dallas Catholics in a petition to the Nuncio to remove Grahmann.

He failed, obviously. Catholics have to put up with whatever the Vatican chooses to foist on them.

[HarleyD]

"God has a plan. We must trust in that."

Why Desdemona. You sound like a Calvinist. ;O)

[Mark in the Old South]

Yes he does, The Society of Saint Pius X. You've seen the movie now see the original.
Peace to you and all you hold dear.

[ArrogantBustard]

You might be surprised how often you Calvinists sound 'suspiciously' Catholic.

[johnb2004]

This episode only confirms what many have suspected for years. Dissenting bishops do as they wish. Rome will not act. Perhaps these prudential decisions by Vatican officials are working against God's plan?

[Desdemona]

Yes he does, The Society of Saint Pius X.

Never.

[Desdemona]

Dissenting bishops do as they wish. Rome will not act.

If Rome doesn't have a resignation, they can't do much.

You know, it is possible to be a good Catholic without a strong bishop.

[johnb2004]

If Rome doesn't have a resignation, they can't do much.

Are you saying the Pope can't replace a bishop?

You know, it is possible to be a good Catholic without a strong bishop.

Yes, it is possible. It is also possible for heretical bishops to lead souls off the road to salvation.

[Desdemona]

Look, this guy is going to be replaced in two years regardless. The problem was lack of grace and class on the part of the current archbishop and a personality conflict.

The Vatican is doing the rebuilding by attrition. It creates the least number of fireworks. This was a step that was just bad.

[Desdemona]

Are you saying the Pope can't replace a bishop?

As I understand it, bishops are to resign. Weakland was removed that way. He turned in a resignation somewhat as a joke and was surprised when it was accepted. As far as I know that's the way it works, short of the bishop being involved in a hit and run or worse.

It is also possible for heretical bishops to lead souls off the road to salvation.

Hmmmm....for some of us who were so badly Catechized, our parents weren't paying much attention. If they had been, the learning would have been at home where it should be. But, when the bishops take the easy way out on things, there is no defending them.

We have to remember, things have been worse. The current bishops aren't the first prelates to be elevated to those positions who had no business being there.

[saradippity]

I keep searching the Gospels,looking for the passages that show what Jesus did to His 12 Apostles when they strayed.

However,try as I do,I only find that after His Apostles fled,denied Him,fell asleep on Him,doubted Him,all but one accompanied the Resurrected Christ til He was carried into heaven. And the missing one,the one who betrayed Him? It seems,he removed himself.

Could there be a message there?

The deeper I get into the scriptures,the more I pray and the more I learn about our Catholic Faith,the more I thank God for our Pope and the Papacy and the Primacy of Peter.

[rogator]

The people should act and cease all diocesan contributions. The should also start a letter writing campaign in the local media as well as pressure their non-pervert clergy to make a fuss.

[BlackElk]

Ahhhh, so it is the vatican's fault once again! If the cardinals would elect a revolutionary bent on the absolute destruction of tradition, validation of married priests generally, elevation of the powers of deacons, kumbayaism rampant throughout the world, a hierarchy willing to fight for lavender "civil rights", and eager to ordain them, the Vatican would again be infallible in AmChurch eyes.

Fortunately, the cardinals are a lot more likely to please God than to please AmChurch.

The refusal of the likes of Grahmann to step down is yet one more evidence of the apostasy and schism of AmChurch. Maybe the next conclave will provide a Leo XIV to supplement the work of Leo XIII on the heresy of "Americanism" in which our AmChurch leaders regard "democracy" as more important that doctrine and discipline and fulfillment of their vows of OBEDIENCE.

[BlackElk]

SSPX?????

Not in our lifetime. Not in God's lifetime.

[sinkspur]

Ahhhh, so it is the vatican's fault once again!

Of course it is.

If I was president of a company, and I sent a VP to a regional sales job which already had a regional sales VP, do you think the resident VP would get the message?

And, if he didn't, that I would ask him to step down?

Galante was humiliated by Grahmann. Rome was humiliated as well.