Should George be the next USCCB prez?
Jason Berry thinks not.
Cardinal Francis George, the archbishop of Chicago, is currently
preparing to assume the presidency of the Conference of Catholic
Bishops, whose annual meeting begins Monday in Baltimore. His new
position would make George highly visible when Pope Benedict XVI
arrives on his first trip to the U.S. next spring, which is fitting
because George was a valuable ally of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
when the cardinals’ conclave chose him to be pope in 2005.
The
problem is that George shows little indication of having internalized
the lessons of the scandal. He displays a stunning insensitivity to the
church’s failures. And twice since the 2002 conference in Dallas that
adopted the youth protection charter, George has flouted the church’s
supposed zero-tolerance attitude in his handling of abusive priests.
Read the rest right here.
The church has appeared self destructive in this matter. And it doesn’t look as though it will be ready to reconsider the celibate priesthood in our lifetimes.
However, it seems to me that either it does this, or it adopts major systematic reforms to make abuse far less likely; otherwise, at some point, similar scandals surface all over again.
Paul – originalfaith.com
I have to doubt that the bishops will deny the Presidency of the USCCB to hierarch George. For one thing it would be listening to those who know better that they themselves do what they ought to do. For another it would be embarassing a friend, a person who is no worse than any of themselves. And I might add, such a rebuke might sadden the Bishop of Rome who thinks it is his prerogative alone to rebuke one of his subordinates.
Of course I should like to be found wrong.
I deleted the comments on Reagan because they were completely off topic.
While the first case described in the Berry article doesn’t have enough detail to be convincing, the other case he notes–along with that of McGuire posted on this site, certainly would seem to depict George as clueless or callous about the abuse crisis and the on-going crisis of leadership in the Church.
But his election would fit another pattern–that of the promotion of bishops who do not respond appropriately to allegations of sexual abuse. Cardinal Law occupies a cozy sinecure in Rome, and some of the auxiliary bishops who participated in his misleadership have now been promoted to dioceses of their own. (McCormack and Murphy are two I know of.) So for George, not the worst of the bunch with regard to the abuse crisis, but far from stellar, to ascend to the leadership of the USCCB, well, plus ca change…
Since I thought George should have resigned after the McCormick affair, of course I think he shouldnt be president. Then again, I didn’t think Skylstad should have been president either.
At base, the problem is that the only accountability that matters to most of these folk is to those who wear their collar backward, their pers and those perceived above them
Perhaps most telling are these words from Berry in the article cited:
“Members of the National Review Board made a second trip to Chicago nearly a year later to consult with the cardinal. George celebrated Mass for them, but then, according to three sources present at the meeting, he issued a warning over coffee and doughnuts: “You will be the downfall of the church!”
The group was dumbstruck. “The bishops and priests have failed to deal with this [scandal],” Panetta said he told George. The healing process could not begin, Panetta said, unless the church acknowledged the problem.”
Reading the remarks of Cardinal George’s auxiliary, it is very sad to think that man as inteligent as the Cardinal would pick such an assistant — unless he expected him to act such! I don’t think that he has been forthcoming or completely honest about this case and that the Conference would do better to choose someone else. However, in a cynical way, choosing him may well once again focus the media and the Church on what the bishops have failed to do in terms of real reform,,, or perhaps just another part of the drift into irrelevance…
There was a story on NPR this morning about Cardinal George’s likely election to the presidency of the USCCB. The focus of the story, however, was on how the Archdiocese and the Cardinal apparently failed to timely remove Fr. McCormack (now in prison) from his parish duties despite several reports of sexual abuse of children in an inner city school.
Interesting (but tangential) links to an articles on Chicago’s auxiliary bishop and his stand on the abuse issues:
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=4472
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2007/11/hell-to-pay.html
Grant, is there a way to suggest a new thread? I know this isn’t exactly on topic. I’d be interested in hearing a discussion on charitable immunity and the bishops’ use of that law.
I think any continuation or expansion of this thread should link up to the SNAP “vpter guide” for the election of USCCB president – it indicates the import of this topic relative to who gets leadership among our hierarchy.
And, perhaps, how those who are close to them get chosen.
Along with Berry, I think not, too. This is just sad. Add to the considerable case Berry against George’e election the case of the porn-addicted, predatory, Chitown Jesuit Donald McGuire and it just makes you wonder when these guys are going to wake up.
Sadly, I think the best we can hope for is that the prominence of the post will direct more attention to George’s poor record and force him to resign both from Chicago and the USCCB George. Perhaps he’ll be contacting Law to see if he has a spare room at St. Mary Major.
According to the USCCB website it’s a done deal- Cardinal George is USCCB Pres.
And Bishop Gerald Kicanos of Tucson was elected vice-president. Does that put him in line for the USCCB presidency when Cardinal George’s 3-year term is up?
I know nothing about Bishop Kicanos, but according to John Allen, he has a good sense of humor (no small atttribute IMHO). Allen relates the following anecdote in his NCR column:
“On Monday of this week I was in Tucson, giving two presentations to the priests of the diocese along with a public lecture in the evening, all held in the gorgeous Redemptorist Renewal Center at Picture Rocks. Despite a busy schedule and a nagging cold, [Bishop] Kicanas spent most of the day with us. At one point, he told the priests that he had recently been in Jerusalem as part of a pilgrimage group, where he made a stop at the famed Western Wall. While there, Kicanas said, a man approached him and asked if he could pray over him.
‘Of course,’ Kicanis responded.
‘Brother, what is the name of your wife?’ the man asked.
Clearly dressed in clerical garb, the startled bishop responded, ‘Oh, I’m not married.’
Draping Kicanis in his prayer shawl, the man then boomed out, ‘Dear Lord, please grant this man a wife!’
With a gleam in his eye, Kicanas wrapped up the anecdote by telling his priests: ‘I guess we’ll see.’ ”
George was elected with 85% of the vote -see John Allen on line today.
I guess that indicates how lockstep folks are.
PS, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis lost out on being head of the canonical committe – Allen noted his effort about refusing Communion to cetain politicians.
Apart from the fact the the two top conference leaders are essentially from Chicago (your emoticon here), the Kicanas choice is a very good one–and not surprising. The conference wants and needs moderates, not lightning rods, in top positions. And the conference is generally much more moderate in private than in public, or in the loud pronouncements of a few bishops.
As for George, whatever one’s misgivings, or the efforts of SNAP or VOTF or whatever, this was a done deal. This is tradition, Teyve. The bishops would never upend George over the above issues.
“Does that put him in line for the USCCB presidency when Cardinal George’s 3-year term is up?”
Yes, the tradition is for the VP to become the next president. Kicanas is a moderate, like Skylstad, and will is a good choice. The fact that George’s election was a “done deal” only goes to show how blind and deaf the U.S. hierarchy as whole remain about this issue which, like Watergate, is increasingly about the cover-up than about the crimes. There are, of course, exceptions, at least 34, who did not vote for George.
Bishop Kicanas does seem like a moderate. Though its 4 years old, here’s a piece on him from PBS’s “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly.”
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:11SMhrzFPScJ:www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week710/profile.html+gerald+kicanas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
Apropos of nothing, I also found it interesting that he’s also a runner and a strict vegetarian.
Hopefully, he’ll have influence as the VP of the USCCB.
It is interesting to note that Bp Paprocki, the very one mentioned in Berry’s article, defeated Abp. Burke to head the Bishops’ Canon Law committee. What a choice!
“That’s Tradition.”
How long has an american bishop’s conference ben in existence?
I think that other than tradition, it’s the “prudent”. don’t make waves cast of the hierarchy that ruled the vote – actually my take is less than courageous in dealing with the issue.
I can’t imagine what it would be like to be bishop in the U. S. today. It appears to me that it would be to be in “no man’s” land, a land populated by probably good, but clueless, and pretty powerless, characters. That is surely regrettable, but it’s hard to believe that we got into this situation by accident or mistake.
The present method of selecting bishops is quite untraditional and in fact quite contrary to the pronouoncements of early Bishops of Rome. I strongly recommend Electing Our Bishops by Joseph O’Callaghan, readily available from the Internet. Historical truth is the best answer to bogus traditionalism. Catholics need desperately to learn more history.
Even as the foregone conclusion of Cardinal George’s election was realized and some more moderate bishops were also ratified, I hope that his duplicity about this situation continues to be a subject of concern for all Catholics. The example of Cardinal Bernardin when he was accused seemed appropriate and helpful and while this is not the same case, Cardinal George should likewise allow the process of examining what went wrong on his watch in the public domain. If his leadership is to have any credibility, he owes that to felllow bishops and to the Church.
There are two important things to understand about this whole situation. One is the understanding of the word ‘church’ as you are destroying our church. The authentic history would be go back to the Pauline community where the word church means “gathering” of the disciple’s of Jesus. No doubt George is thinking of the church as hierarchy and its accoutrements albeit his framing it in a holy setting.
Not take responsibility for following the charter is a tremendous violation which he contemptuously will ignore. There is no vox populi at all. Unfortunately, the RatzingerWoytila church, while giving lip service to Vatican II, steered back into monarchism rather than respect the body or gathering of the faithful.
It is a strategy that has historically worked in government and in the church. The people can only take so much. Yet eventually the regime topples. Our era is an exception because the gathering is united on many fronts so the hierarchy may get its comeuppance yet.
The problem with the episcopacy is systemic rather than individual. There are doubtless good bishops. Cardinal Bernardin stands out as a true shepherd, and I am sure there are others. But the system by which one becomes a bishop encourages carreerism and conformity and ingroup loyalty. These are not desirable qualities in a shepherd
Bill
I also thought that when George said “you will be the downfall of the church” he was thinking of the hierarchy as the church. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that his prediction was wrong. But then he has been wrong about so many things.
A last footnote: look at the on line VOTF newsletter ‘In the Vineyard” and read the Chicago VOTF’s dialogue with the Cardinal in 2005 and the aftermath.
It will explain the resignation call from there/