For those of us who are not as wise in Church titles, the following is from Wikipedia;
“A titular see in the Roman Catholic Church is a Diocese or Archdiocese that now exists in title only. Until 1882, such titular sees, were distinguished by the Latin phrase in partibus infidelium (”in the territory of the infidels”) or more often simply in partibus. It is led by a titular bishop or Archbishop, a bishop who is not a diocesan ordinary but either an official of the Holy See, an auxiliary bishop, or the head of a jurisdiction that is equivalent to a diocese under canon law.”
Hippo was St. Augustine’s diocese and is now a titular diocese. San Francisco never attained the heights of Hippo but is at least as hostile to the Faith. Maybe Gay Francisco should become a titular diocese.
To add clarity to the quoted Wikipedia article, titular sees are sees in title only. Some such sees existed as actual sees in formerly-Christian lands such as North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East. Since the vast majority of the sees in these lands were conquered by the Muslims in the 7th-15th centuries, they now exist in name only.
Also, sees that once were are sometimes suppressed as new sees created solely for demographic reasons. One example is the state of Mississippi which, until the mid-20th century, was headed by one Catholic diocese - the Diocese of Natchez. In the latter part of the 20th century, the state was divided into two new dioceses: the Diocese of Biloxi and the Diocese of Jackson. The Diocese of Natchez was suppressed, becoming a titular diocese.
The need for titular sees can be traced back ancient Church disciple which teaches that there is to be only one bishop per diocese. To keep in line with this dicipline, bishops not tied direclty to a diocese (like those in the Roman curia) and those who serve as assistant bishops within a diocese which already has a bishop, are assigned titular dioceses (sees).
This was typed quickly, off the top of my head. Hope it makes sense!
A diocese can have only one bishop for in a sense the bishop is “married” to his diocese, thus it would be polyandry for a diocese to have two bishops. Since retired bishops have in effect “died” as far as having any authority like a husband over his diocese, they are not a problem. Thus the auxiliary bishop is given his own wife somewhere in a desert some place or in this case Oregon City. In this way for many years the bishop and his diocese were seen as a model for married life and the bishop was expected to stay with his diocese til death. (Historians can insert here the famous trial of a bishop who left his diocese for another) HOWEVER, in the course of time some bishops began to see that the grass was greener elsewhere and they left their brides to seek a more beautiful girl who had the first name of Arch. The deserted bride usually remarried after a time - we don't know if an annulment was obtained of if it was a simple divorce. Along the way the example of the bishop married to his diocese as an example of the marriage commitment got lost. OK for them, but.....