The next Catholic bishop of Dallas

Ben D., I read the article. It is total twaddle for the following reasons:

1. The pope appoints all Catholic bishops. For that reason, and for that reason alone, he is ultimately responsible for their performance and behavior -- especially to God, in whose name he claims to act, and especially in a centralized, bureaucratic governing system, where those at the top hold the ultimate responsibility.

2. The laity have rights under canon law. If the laity are being oppressed by an arbitrary, corrupt or incompetent bishop, they have every right to petition the Vatican and list their grievances. Notice that the author makes no mention of this fact.

3. The Church has become far too large, numerically and geographically, for one man to run. The Church must devise a system in which the pope can hold bishops more accountabile, laity and clergy can have increased imput into episcopal selections and all in authority aren't so overburdened.

4. The author's appeals to a bishop as a "father," while technically correct, theologically speaking, border on crass sentimentality in his application in this article.

5. The author fails to address comments made by such luminaries as Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Christ Himself concerning the corruption among religious authorities in their own times.

I have discusses issues on Fr. Johansen's blog previously. He is nothing but a blind, ignorant apologist for a corrupt system and an excessive popular pope. Taking him seriously on this issue equals taking a homeless man seriously when discussing mutual funds.

Ben D., I suggest you look at the Web site of a group called Roman Catholic Faithful (www.rcf.org), which is not affiliated with the far-more-liberal Voice of the Faithful and is dedicated to fighting episcopal corruption.>

Joseph D'Hippolito,

1. I've asked a couple of times on this thread just how directly involved the Pope is in the appointment of bishops. When does he do more than just rubber-stamp the candidate selected by the Congregation for Bishops (which, like every congregation of the Roman Curia, operates "in [the Pope's] name and with his authority" (Christus Dominus 9) )? And under what circumstances does the Congregation for Bishops do more than rubber-stamp a candidate selected by people closer to the diocese in question?

2. Granted, but how would mentioning the rights of the laity to petition Rome have been relevant to the particular focus of the article, which seemed to me to be an exposition of, and defense of, the established precedent of not removing bishops from office?

3. It seems to me that the point of Fr. Johansen's article was to explain, in some detail and from tradition, that the Pope in fact does not run the Church, in the sense that many people imagine him to, and that this is precisely connected with the relative autonomy that bishops enjoy.

4. How would you reply, specifically, to the author's claim that "spiritual realities are more real, not less real, than physical or natural realities"?

5. You seem to be reading the article as a defense of bad bishops. I just don't see this. The author was defending the Pope's practice with respect to bad bishops, but not the bishops themselves or their behavior. It was taken for granted in the article, I thought, that some bishops were bad and that their dioceses would be better off without them. But the point of the article was to give reasons why the apparently simple solution of removing those bishops from office is in fact not necessarily a solution at all, and perhaps may not even be possible. I would imagine that bishops have rights under canon law, as well, which even the Pope must respect.

I will have a look at Roman Catholic Faithful's site, thanks. Why did you mention Voice of the Faithful? Is Catholic Answers affiliated with that group? Or just to distinguish it from RCF?>