The next Catholic bishop of Dallas

Lemme guess...

Charles Curran??

No, wait... George W. Bush!

Sorry, couldn't resist.>

Mr. Dreher said:

"This pick is unconventional, but solid, even -- if those sources of mine who know the man whose name I ran by them are correct -- inspired."

I will give it a few more weeks Mr. Dreher. This is because I am sure you will find something to gripe about. You always do. How else are you going to talk about Catholicism in Dallas unless it is while gripping about something.>

John, don't give it a few more weeks, please just leave now. I can't stand your wimpy whining.>

Maria(Diane) ditto for you too. Please just leave. Non Catholics read this blog. Your lack of charity and manners is a disgrace to Catholicism. You are doing more harm than good for the Faith.>

Personally, I hope it's Ann Coulter. :) She might not be Catholic, but that's just a technicality (most of our bishops, for all intents and purposes, aren't Catholic, either). Besides, she has more courage and a greater support for Christian faith than all the American bishops combined.

Now on a more serious note: Regardless of who replaces Grahmann, Dallas Catholics should get together, hire a canon lawyer, file a class-action suit against the man for episcopal malfeasance and take that suit to Rome. The purpose would be to strip Grahmann of his epicopal title, since his actions have brought the faith into disrepute -- and if that's not cause for a canonical suit, then what is?>

Mark, why is it idiotic? For one thing, Coulter is a woman of tremendous courage; how else would you describe somebody who takes the kind of criticism she does and keeps on fighting? For another, despite her lack of formal thelogical training, she demonstrates a greater respect for and understanding about Christianity than our "shepherds" do.

Our bishops would do well to imitate her courage. Unfortunately, they come from a culture that values self-preservation, privledge and power over everything else. All they're doing is reserving seats for themselves in the "smoking" section of the Air Afterlife....>

Hmmm.

Unconventional: Someone who has never been a bishop.

Solid: Someone known for their orthodoxy and ability to teach the same.

Inspired: Someone who is especially gifted at spreading the message of Catholicism.

~

I'm thinking of Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN fame. Fr. Mitch isn't a native Texan as he is originally from Chicago (I think). He has a Dallas connection as he has taught theology at the Univeristy of Dallas in the past. And his appointment as bishop of Dallas would certainly show all (liberal and conservative alike) that the Holy Father is serious about cleaning up the Church here in the States.

I wonder if I'm correct . . .>

Adam,

Re: "I'm thinking of Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN fame."

My thoughts exactly. He was the first person who crossed my mind when I read Rod's post.

I've met Father Pacwa twice, once when visiting at EWTN and once when he spoke in the Diocese of Tyler (which is adjacent to Dallas). He is as solidly orthodox as they come and a straight-shooter with a brilliant mind. He speaks multiple languages (something like 8 or 10... or some such phenomenal number). He is steeped in philosophy and theology and, equally important, in just plain old common sense.

However, I'm not going to let myself get my hopes that high. If it is he, then praise God, but whomever it is, he surely will be a major improvement over the current bishop.>

For another, despite her lack of formal thelogical training, she demonstrates a greater respect for and understanding about Christianity than our "shepherds" do.

Yes, apparently all of them put together . . oh wait it was "somewhat" tongue in cheek. How much is "somewhat" Joseph?

I've certainly never heard her say anything about the Christian faith that made me a better Christian, helped me to have a special insight into the faith or made me desire to love and serve Christ better.

Coulter is a woman of tremendous courage; how else would you describe somebody who takes the kind of criticism she does and keeps on fighting?

Rich. Constantly in the limelight. Lover of attention. One who relishes pissing people off.

It's not that her whole shock-jock approach to Conservative punditry isn't effective sometimes and in fact it often results in her saying things that need to be said. But it's also an effective means of self promotion and certainly hasn't hurt her career when you look at it as a whole. I wouldn't call it courage.

why is it idiotic?

Utterly idiotic actually. And it was the fact it was "all the American bishops combined" that did it for me. Apparently you add the support for the faith of Chaput, Burke, Vann, Bruskawitz, Morlino, Gomez, Myers, Sheridan, Dolan, Herzog, Slattery, George, Finn and it is still surpassed by Coulter. Amazing.>

For the love of God, man, drop the name!!!

I take it this means that my prediction of Fr. John Lebonne is incorrect?>

Does anyone here have any kind of practical knowledge of how the selection process for a bishop actually works? My knowledge is fairly limited, but my memory of an old article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, plus some conversations with a priest who worked for many years in the Congregation for Bishops in the Vatican, both suggest that, for the most part, the Pope is far less directly involved with these things than the popular imagination would suppose.>

Diane, I'm just a guy who's been reading this blog for weeks now and who has been repulsed by your behavior. Your camp has consistently been gleefully mean-spirited, and your witness has been a hideous adverisement for Catholicism.>

"Just a guy"? Can't even reveal your secret identity? ;)

Meanwhile, you ignore the far more reprehensible behavior of certain Orthodox comboxers. Guess it's fine to call people shrews and to tell them to suck eggs. Or to call them knotheads and malcontents, for that matter, as our courteous host has done.

Funny. My mother always taught me that name-calling was a big no-no. Guess your mom never got around to that lesson, eh?>

BTW, GOB--you wouldn't be Caedmon in disguise, would you? (Let me guess: GOB stands for Good Ole Boy...?)

If so, my dear, I would say "Pot, kettle, black" doesn't even begin to sum it up.>

Not caedmon. Just a guy.
usually just read without posting. Just couldn't let the behaviour slide as I think it rises to the level of unrighteousness.>

Goodness! Enough talk about "camps" and such. Isn't the topic of this thread the future Catholic Bishop of Dallas?>

Mark, you're entitled to your opinion of Ann Coulter. However, listing Chaput and Myers as examples of faithful, intelligent bishops really takes the cake.
The following is an excerpt from a 2004 commentary in the Orange County (Calif.) Register concerning whether American bishops should give the Eucharist to Sen. John Kerry, given his support for legalized abortion:
An American official at the Vatican told Time that "people in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion."
Such concerns provide an opportunity for ambitious prelates to curry favor with Rome. Tom Roberts, editor of the liberal National Catholic Reporter, cites Newark Archbishop John H. Myers as an example.
"Myers fits this papal administration's template for upward career mobility," Roberts wrote. "Staunchly conservative, he is a prolific pastoral-letter writer, a soldier in a campaign against the prevailing culture and someone for whom, given the nature of those letters, there are no unanswered questions or shades of gray."
Myers, a canon lawyer who served as bishop of Peoria, Ill., before being appointed to Newark, wrote such a letter criticizing unnamed Catholic politicians in New Jersey for supporting abortion and demanding that they refrain from taking communion. Reaction was unexpected and intense.
One Catholic state senator said he would leave the church. Gov. James McGreevey, a former altar boy, said he would neither receive communion publicly nor let the church influence his positions.
Myers retreated.
"We have an understanding that I won't personally criticize [the governor]," Myers told the New York Times. "And we are working together on a lot of issues, like providing social services to the poor and helping people with HIV."
In other words, Myers chose retaining influence with politicians to asserting the Vatican's position.>

So because Meyers didn't behave as you wish, by publicly calling out McGreevey (though he may have counselled him privately for all you know) he is a coward who should look to Ann Coulter for spiritual direction?>

So because Meyers didn't behave as you wish, by publicly calling out McGreevey (though he may have counselled him privately for all you know) he is a coward who should look to Ann Coulter for spiritual direction?

Mark, there is none so blind as those who refuse to see. Your obsession with my "choice" of Ann Coulter says far more about you than my "choice" says about me.>

If Chaput and Myers are stellar examples of intelligence and fidelity to Church doctrine, then Catholicism is in bigger trouble than anybody surmises...

All I did was list 13 bishops (two of which you seem to have disagreements with over what are clearly prudential judgements) and implied that if you add up their "support for the faith" it would surpass that of Ms. Coulter. I didn't say anything about them. I didn't identify them as "rising stars" or "good conservatives" and certainly not as "stellar examples of intelligence."

As for Chaput I too disagree with his criticism of Scalia but he is clearly not an ignorant man and your labeling him such only continues to discredit you as a reliable commentator on the American episcopacy.>

Um, Joseph do you have any idea what I think about the entire American episcopacy? Probably not huh?

I happened to think that by and large they are pretty mediocre bunch filled with scoundrels and dullards.

Happy? I wouldn't presume to read minds anymore if I were you.>

GOB said:
"John, don't give it a few more weeks, please just leave now. I can't stand your wimpy whining."

I guess if I just pretend to be something I am not you will like me better heh GOB? I do not like having everything about our faith in Dallas attacked. Mr. Dreher never puts anything positive out about Dallas. People who do not live here think it is a modern-day Sodom. Nothing could be further from the truth. You never hear anything about the Catholic radio station in Dallas that reached all of North Texas. It died because no one would support it. You never hear about the large memberships of traditionalist churches like Mater Dei, St. Maria Goretti etc. All under the guise of criticizing the ineptness of Bishop Grahmann and others in Dallas everything is tarred and feathered by Mr. Dreher. Who is a "loyal Catholic in full communion with the Holy See." Only, that was never true was it?>

Mark Adams said:
"You and Mr Carpenter's behavior has quite the opposite effect -- keeping those who aren't in out and pushing those on edge completely over."

Mark, if we criticize anything and everything about being Catholic, while worshiping at a Greek Orthodox Church, we will bring more people in and not push anyone outside of the church?>

"Who is a "loyal Catholic in full communion with the Holy See." Only, that was never true was it?"

Do you have any proof that Rod was never in full communion with the Holy See? If you don't, then this is slander and doesn't speak well of Roman Catholicism.

"Mr. Dreher never puts anything positive out about Dallas. People who do not live here think it is a modern-day Sodom."

Come on, now. Don't you think this is inflating his influence just a little bit? Seriously, how many American Catholics do you think have ever heard of Rod Dreher? Let alone have any kind of opinion about Dallas?

I lived for years in Oklahoma and I didn't have any opinions about what was going on in Dallas Catholic churches and it was only 200 miles away!

"You never hear anything about the Catholic radio station in Dallas that reached all of North Texas. It died because no one would support it."

This proves Rod's point, IMHO.>

Jonathan said:

"Who is a 'loyal Catholic in full communion with the Holy See.' Only, that was never true was it?"

Loyal Catholic: One who has been officially received into the Catholic Church, beliefs Catholic teaching, and is in communion with a licit Catholic bishop.

Rod Dreher, at one time, fulfilled these requirements. Who are you to say otherwise?

~

Jonathan, you seem to have the view that to be a "loyal Catholic" one must be a Vatican cheerleader, and I think this is extremely naive, not to mention incorrect. Since when did a little (or large) dose of pessimism (which is often a reality check) make one less a Catholic? If so,

"Welcome to the Catholic Church: The Faith for undeterred optimists">

I seem to recall that when I knew Msgr. Conley, he was in his mid-40s, which would put him a little over 50 now. Perhaps a little young but not too young. Dallas and all its challenges would be a big challenge for anyone at any age. He is an outstanding priest.

Ben D., the Pope isn't as involved in the appointment of bishops as is sometimes thought. I believe there can be some back and forth between Rome and the diocese. For example, other area bishops are consulted about suitable candidates. I imagine the nuncio collects opinions. Also, dioceses regularly submit names of "bishop material" to the Vatican. Perhaps, the Congregation for Bishops sorts through that.

I've heard that the Vatican has recently tended to appoint as bishops priests who have spent time in Rome, just so they have some first hand knowledge of these folks. I remember reading that the late Joseph Bernardin was made a bishop at the age of 39, when his bishop (Hallinan of Charleston, SC) was transferred to Atlanta and simply requested him as an auxiliary. I really doubt something like that would happen today.>

scriblerus, just to be clear, I don't think the good monsignor is too young. I just think that according to Rome's track record he would be considered too young. I pray I'm wrong.>

Wow. I just stumbled onto this thread and had to duck a flying chair. Sounds like some of you need to take this to the octagon.

Fr. Pacwa would be an awesome choice, but I don't think it will happen. Wouldn't be hearing rumblings from the EWTN world by now? If it did happen, I wonder what kind of waves it would send through the Jesuit community...

I don't know Msgr. Conley, but I do know BXVI is nearly 80 and isn't interested in wasting time. If this priest is what some of you are saying he is, great.

Impossible scenario but one that would be fun to watch: Bishop Joseph Galante gets transferred back from Camden. :)>

Adam said:
"Who are you to say otherwise? "

It is not me saying that, Adam. Read his posts about Orthodoxy, or the interviews he has given regarding Orthodoxy. He all but states that he is Orthodox. He also states his consideration of Orthodoxy is based on his discontent with the scandals in the church. As if Catholicism is the only church with problems. Given his posts, it is obvious to conclude he never believed in the church's teaching authority.>

"Given his posts, it is obvious to conclude he never believed in the church's teaching authority."

Huh? Obviously you don't realize how absurd this sounds. Not only is it absurd it's blasphemy. This charge says far worse things about the Catholic Church in Dallas than Rod ever said.

Seriously, do you realize what you are saying here? Do you realize the ramifications of claiming that someone's current behavior proves that they were never a faithful Catholic?

It's too bad that Catholic radio station went out of business because you are obviously in desperate need of some catechism lessons.>

Two comments:

Mark Adams, I apologize for assuming something about you that I had no business assuming and for becoming too personal in my criticism of your positions. Neither were called for. I've been so used to dealing wtih Catholics who were nothing but toadies for the ecclesiastical establishment that I let past low expectation dictate my responses.

Jonathan Carpenter, I can't speak for the situation in Dallas, but I doubt that local Catholic radio or TV get much support anywhere (as opposed to cable). Here in Metropolitan Los Angeles, I rememember one UHF TV station that broadcast exclusively Catholic programming, only to be sold to the Home Shopping Network. Another radio station went from kids' programming to Catholic programming to conservative talk to Spanish-language programming in the span of seven years. Whatever the problems Catholic radio and TV face, I doubt if criticism from the MSM is a major factor (the examples I cite about come before the clerical sex-abuse crisis broke).>

Jennifer:

Please read the following Orthodox site if you still doubt me.

http://www.conciliarpress.com/blog/index.php?title=rod_dreher_and_orthodoxy&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

This coupled with the content makes you conect the dots about his conversion. That is if you want to connect the dots and still believe the hype.>

Scriblerus,

I just wanted to correct some misinformation you have regarding Msgr. James Conley. Earlier this year, he returned permanently to the United States and after a few months sabbatical, he has taken up residence at the parish of the Blessed Sacrament in Wichita, KS. His appointment as the new pastor there has been made public and he takes up that post officially in August, I believe.

And for the record, Msgr. Conley is an excellent priest with a great love of God and the Church. I have many happy memories of him and to count him as a friend indeed is a blessing to me and my family.>

"Second, am I as thoughtful as someone who masquerades as a Catholic while being Chrismated an Orthodox?"

Well, technically we Orthodox are Catholics but we'll leave that topic for another day. You have no proof that Dreher has been chrismated into Orthodoxy. Besides we're not talking about right now. We're talking about your claim that Dreher was never a real Catholic.

"Third, I obviously did not mean all time. A currect phrase should be from 2005 until today he was considering converting to Orthodoxy."

"Obviously?" It's not as "obvious" as you claim and now you are trying to weasel out of it because you know ridiculous it is.

"You are like those fundamentalists who always accuse Catholics of worshiping the Virgin Mary; despite the evidence and reasons you show that is not the truth. Nothing could convince them otherwise."

Well, yes, I doubt you convince them of anything whether it's true or not. You probably fancy yourself the on-line apologetist but you've probably spent too much time obsessing over Dreher and not enough time learning your catechism.

Admittedly that's harsh but accusing Dreher of never being a good, faithful Catholic is beyond the pale.>

"How about never leveling with us about what he believes?"

He doesn't owe you or me anything about his religious beliefs.

"What I mean by Catholic(It is in the catechism) is believing in the teaching authority of the church."

Do you really think Orthodox people look to the Roman Catholic Catechism for a definition of "Catholic?" What I and other Orthodox Christians mean by "catholic" is a belief in the Catholic faith and being in communion with the Church that has kept that faith.

"Given some of yours and Mr. Drehers comments about the Pope and all Catholic Bishops questions are raised about his beliefs."

I haven't really made any statements bout the Pope and other Catholic bishops. I'm not as obsessed as you are with Dreher so don't know all of the things he has written about Catholic bishops, however, disapproving of the actions of a bishop does not render one an 'un-catholic,' Thankfully because there wouldn't be many Catholics and there certainly wouldn't be too many saints.

"If you choose to ignore this and accept his "having his cake and eating it too" what else can be said."

You've obviously backed off of claiming that he was never a Roman Catholic but don't want to do the right thing and apologize. As you write "what else can be said?" Indeed. And as of "having his cake and eating it too," as hard as this may be for you to accept, it's not your business what religion he is. It's not your place to declare him in or out of the Church.>

Those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know.>

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?>