Replies

I really hate articles like this because it is seriously inaccurate and I’m pretty sure that you know it.

Frankie Bergoglio is about as much responsible for appointing this homofascist bishop as Donald Trump is responsible for commissioning a wokester second lieutenant. (But if you look at the language is the commissioning document for new butter bars, it sounds like the President himself is placing special trust in that person.....bs)

What has actually happened is that McElroy recommended him to the Nuncio (through the USCCB). The Nuncio concurred. Then it went to the Congregation for Bishops (now called the Dicastery for Bishops). They chopped off on it and then took this name with probably 20 or 30 others and said Frankie, are you ok with it?

Plenty of crap bishops were appointed using this same process during the JPII regime and during the BXVI regime as well, but we didn’t start screaming that JPII appointed this scum or BXVI appointed this pedo. Why? Because, while they were responsible in a “the buck stops here” fashion, they certainly didn’t personally go out and select these people. (Examples:Bernadin, Wuerl, McCarrick, etc)

What I CAN blame the Pope on is:

1) Sending the correct message as far as his teaching office. His words matter. JPII and BXVI were very good at that. Frankie, not so much...

2) Managing the bureaucratic process a lot better to keep pedos and pedo-enablers (along with anti-traditionals, politicians, and communist infiltrators) away from being appointed in the first place. Example: a simple grading rubric could be filled out by the bishop making the recommendation and validated by the nuncio could go a long way. Wouldn’t protect against lies, but it would help. The nuncio sending a competent agent out to see the candidates in practice for a couple of weeks would be another thing. But none of that happens. So I can’t give passing marks to any of those three in that area: JPII, BXVI, or Frankie.

Sadly, I don’t see click-baitey articles discuss the real problems going on.