The latest from Scranton
“The diocese of Scranton requires a bishop who is at least physically vigorous. I am not that bishop.” *
The resignation of Bishops Martino and Dougherty is official. The Wilkes-Barre, PA Times Leader has the story, and (raw) video of the press conference. It sounds like “health reasons” is the official explanation, although rumors of disease were happily inaccurate.
After being introduced by the director of communications, Bishop Martino read a prepared statement. He described the financial and organizational problems he confronted when he became bishop in 2003. Then he said:
“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. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and, at times, a crippling physical fatigue.”
Bishop Martino concluded, “”As is customary on an occasion like this, I seek forgiveness from anyone whom I may not have served adequately as bishop due to my human limitations.”
From the Times Leader:
[Philadelphia Cardinal Justin] Rigali praised Martino, Dougherty and Bishop Emeritus James Timlin, who stood in the back of the room during the press conference. Rigali named Monsignor Joseph Bambera, Pastor at St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Archibald, as his official representative in the Diocese, giving him the title “vicar general.”
Trivia question (to which I don’t know the answer): are there any other dioceses in the U.S. with two living bishops emeriti?
* Updated to correct wording, per video.
Washington: McCarrick and Baum.
In Detroit, we have two archbishops/Cardinals emeriti: Szoka and Maida.
You guys are good. Obviously bishops are a long-lived breed!
Mollie,
Do the emeriti have to reside in the diocese? Baltimore has Apb Borders and Cdl. Keeler.
Alan – that counts!
I’m watching the press conference video and just getting to the Q&A. The second question (paraphrasing): Now that our two bishops are retired, will Msgr. Bambera be doing confirmations?
I don’t think Rigali’s answer really cleared things up for that reporter. But he did go for the heart of the people by promising to attend La Festa Italiana this weekend!
I’ve known priests who didn’t want to be a pastor anymore. But I don’t recall ever hearing about a bishop who resigned because he didn’t want to be a bishop anymore. Or is that not the right way to interpret this?
New Orleans has Hannan, Schulte, and Hughes. Archbishop Hannan is around 96 and until recently was quite active sponsoring the Catholic TV station and building housing for old folks. In his initial press conference Archbishop Aymond quipped, “The big question is, Who’s in charge here?” Archbishop Hughes will live at the seminary and do retreats and spiritual counsellng. Archbishop Schulte is not well and went.back home.
Don’t miss Rocco’s comments, including his observations on one Vicar who was not re-appointed:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
Sacramento: Bishops Quinn and Weigand
Jim – subsequent to Humanae Vitae and the non-response of the bishops to the Vietnam war and/or slow implementation of Vatican II, two bishops resigned for reasons of conscience: James Patrick Shannon – http://www.amazon.com/Reluctant-Dissenter-Catholic-Bishops-Journey/dp/0824518470#reader
and Bernard M. Kelly – http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_9_43/ai_n26713173/
To add to the list: Amarillo, Texas – Bishops Yanta and Matthiessen.
Steubenville, Ohio: current, Conlon; emeriti, Ottenweiler and Sheldon
”As is customary on an occasion like this, I seek forgiveness from anyone whom I may not have served adequately as bishop due to my human limitations.”
Does this mean that he really isn’t sorry, but is expected to say that he is, so he is doing so?
I found this interesting in the article about Kelly:
“In February 1971, at the height of a U.S. air and artillery campaign in Laos to support a South Vietnamese ground offensive, then-Bishop Kelly called it “scandalous that churchmen are so concerned about abortion and yet have nothing to say about destruction of human life in Laos.” He was commenting after a guest sermon by Fr. Raymond L. Tetreault at Our Lady of Mercy Church in Providence triggered a walkout by about 65 parishioners.”
Nothing changes.
Hello Jim (and All),
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the pastor of Sacred Heart Church in Pittsburgh PA was a bishop who had resigned from leading a diocese in order to serve as a pastor. I attended Mass there sometimes when I lived in Pittsburgh but I never got to meet him personally. I am unable to give more details because I cannot find any relevant information just now. I attended Mass at Sacred Heart last November during a brief visit to Pittsburgh and they now have a different pastor.
David Gibson has a good discussion at
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/31/scranton-bishop-joseph-martino-bidens-nemesis-resigns-under-c/
Since you all are so sharp on bishop trivia, you might be interested in this post at the USCCB media blog listing all the bishop-less dioceses (and how long they’ve been waiting for a new appointee). Scranton could be waiting a long time…
Archbishop John Quinn was named auxiliary bishop of San Diego at age 38 in 1967; archbishop of Oklahoma City at age 42 in 1971; archbishop of San Francisco at age 47 in 1977. He resigned as archbishop of SF in 1995 at age 66. He is now 80.
Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen was named bishop of Helena in 1962 at age 39 (and attended all four sessions of Vatican II as did Archbishop Philip Hannan, mentioned above). Archbishop Hunthausen was named archdiocese of Seattle in 1975 at age 53. He resigned in 1991 on his seventieth birthday. He is now 88.
Yes, bishops are long-lived. Very few die while still in office, and the majority live to be over 80. The dean by age is now Archbishop Peter Gerety, former archbishop of Newark, who is 97.
I believe Archbishop William Borders, 95, is still living in Baltimore. And yes, I do have too much time on my hands!
questions:
Are auxiliary bishops mbers of the U.S. Conference of Bishops?
If there were a Vatican III would they be mbers of that?
Ann Ollvier,
Auxiliary bishops are voting members of the US conference. The only restriction I seem to recall has to do with conference finance decisions, including the annual tax that is levied on each diocese for the running of the Conference. Yes, too, auxiliary bishops, according to present law, can speak and vote at ecumenical councils. They did so at Vatican II.
In the US conference retired bishops have voice not vote. It happens, including a bishop mentioned above, that at times retired bishops use their right to speak frequently. This has prompted certain episcopal wags to say; “Let’s reverse things and give Bishop X the right to vote but not to speak”!
John Page,
Thanks for the information. Somehow I think of auxiliary bishops as sort of step-children. I wonder how , theologically , they can be deprived of their own flocks. Glad to hear they have some official clout..
Auxiliary bishops, and curial bishops, are usually assigned a diocese that has been suppressed, ie one from N Africa before Islam, or Italian dioceses that fell into disuse. I think the latter is the case with Sufetula, the diocese for which aux Bishop Daugherty was affiliated. So they are not denied a flock; there is just nobody there now.
Several years ago, french bishop Galliot was forced out of office for his overly liberal views, so he created a webpage for his diocese of Partenia. (names are from memory; I welcome correction) If that was his episcopal realm, he thought he would make use of it. It can still be found at: http://www.partenia.org/english/partenia_eng.htm
I am pretty sure that only ordinaries can vote on some things in the USCCB, but I do not remember the limitations. Not just financial issues, iirc.
Bishop of a flock that doesn’t exist? As I see it that is just one more example of the Vatican pushing fantasy as reality.
I hereby declare myself archdeacon plenipotentiary of Ruretania, with all the honors and privileges pertaining thereto.
Does that include the privilege of offering Martinis on the internet on Friday afternoons? I say start a tradition. :-)
BTW, it’s unlikely anyone will check in much on this thread, but David Clohessy of SNAP made the point on my PoliticsDaily thread that Martino resigned or was fired for arguably much less than what some bishops did regarding sexual abuse, and yet they stayed. Not to bash all bishops by any means, or open that can of worms. But I think it is worth noting, contra the argument often invoked during the scandal that bishops could not be dismissed.
Here is Amy Sullivan’s (Time) take on the Martino affair:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1919969,00.html
Thanks to a friend’s notice, I checked in, David, and welcome your comment. I had the same thought as David C and wondered what it takes to resign or be asked to.
John McCormack turned 74 in August and has one more year before his letter to Rome at 75. Maybe passivity of the great majority of laity in NH (not enough of a revolt – that old deference that kept enough bella figura in play), or McCormack’s self-delusion has something to do with it – quoting from an op-ed of mine a year ago:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Carolyn+B.+Disco%3a+A+more+balanced+assessment+of+bishop
%27s+leadership&articleId=3a57ac11-1b04-4d7b-86a5-5f680c7a6ba9
“Where is McCormack’s sense of self-awareness? He told members of New Hampshire Catholics for Moral Leadership in 2004 that the scandal was the “passion of the church” and described himself as a “victim.” He also emphasized that he did nothing legally or morally wrong.
There was no sign of understanding by McCormack of the real human suffering he caused. He actually disputed that any of his decisions led to a child being abused — barring one minor incident. Such entrenched self-delusion is sad if not tragic in a bishop.
When confronted with reference to a memo in his own hand indicating detailed knowledge of John Geoghan’s abuse four years before McCormack admitted knowing those facts, he turned defensive: “I’m not on trial here. The state of Massachusetts brought no criminal charges. The state of New Hampshire brought no criminal charges.” Evasions and denial followed.
Regarding his assignment to ministry of a priest in New Hampshire with years of compulsive sexual encounters, McCormack said, “I didn’t read the file. I didn’t know about his history. I relied on others to make recommendations.” He mimicked Cardinal Law’s response in Boston about McCormack, trying to have it both ways. Exonerate yourself, whether you are an aide with no power to appoint priests or a bishop who depends on aides to read files. How can someone rationalize like this?
McCormack grew to adulthood in a closed clerical environment that no doubt shaped his thinking. But “the system made me do it” is no excuse.”
Not that recent appointments offer hope…
BTW, Eugene Kennedy has a provocative piece (but long) on the church’s unhealthy system of governance charged with authoritarianism at
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican-blues
“The Vatican Blues: Restore the old Church or resolve the Sex Abuse Crisis: You can’t do both.”
Oh my, the link to the op ed should be all blue to work, but it reproduces outside the margin:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Carolyn+B.+Disco%3a+A+more+balanced+assessment+of+bishop%27s+leadership&articleId=3a57ac11-1b04-4d7b-86a5-5f680c7a6ba9
Not important.
Two articles from Wilkes Barre on Martino. The first has a few tidbits I had not seen elsewhere, but I do not get around much. The second is an editorial wishing that Martino had been as open during his tenure as he was at the news conference to end it.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Did_Rome_force_out_Martino__09-03-2009.html
http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/Bishop_rarely_showed_his_hand_09-02-2009.html
Aha! So Joe Biden and the Obama Administration forced out Martino. Is Rahm Emanuel’s blood-spotted hand behind this? Now that’s an unsubstantiated rumor I can believe in – if I’m the sort of person who believes those sorts of things!