Interesting meetings: Pope with Curial heads, USCCB’s election of officers

The Bolletino today shows that His Holiness had a meeting with the heads of dicasteries of the Roman Curia this morning.

That’s interesting.

Does this mean anything?

It is particularly interesting in that it happened directly on the heels of the public release of the dubia from The Four Cardinals.  Of course, this could have simply been a routine, scheduled meeting.   It probably was.   But the timing is interesting.

Meanwhile, north of the Alps, in that bastion of ecclesiastical revolt Germany, now-retired Card. Lehman (a discipline of Jesuit Karl Rahner) said this as reported by LifeSite’s Jan Bentz:

November 14, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Liberal-minded Cardinal Karl Lehmann is urging his fellow German bishops to change Church discipline quickly while Francis is still Pope.

In an interview with German website katholisch.de, he pressed the bishops to use the “freedom that has been granted by the Pope.”

“Francis wants us to explore new paths. Sometimes you don’t have to wait until the large tanker begins to move,” he added, alluding to the alleged slowness of the Curia in making changes, an attack often uttered by German liberal churchmen.

[…]

Also, I saw (I’m not watching a stream) that, in these USA, His Eminence Card. DiNardo was chosen by his brother bishops to be the next President of the USCCB and Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles was chosen to be the VP.  DiNardo was the next in line, of course. So, Gomez is now the next in line… if the line holds.

Also, I learned that Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese for Military Services was chosen to be the head of the Justice and Peace Committee, and Bishop McElroy of San Diego was not.

That’s interesting.

Does this mean anything?

It looks as if there was no sweeping change in the USCCB in a kind of “Francis Effect”.  The majority of the US bishops opted for pretty much the same course that they have been on for a while without any sudden changes of vector.  This is also interesting in light of a talk that the new Nuncio to these USA gave at Jesuit-run Georgetown as the bishops were to meet.  A Jesuit (what else) wrote at Fishwrap:

In response to the election of Donald Trump, the pope’s representative in the United States believes that the church needs “to assume a prophetic role.” Speaking at a luncheon at Georgetown University discussing nuclear disarmament, Archbishop Christophe Pierre acknowledged that “the pope is more prophetic than the Catholic bishops here today.”

For example, on refugees, he said, “we have not done much, to be honest with you, on the issue of refugees in the United States.  And we could do much more.”

“We [the Vatican] can send some ideas, and these ideas have to be thought about in the bishops’ conference,” he said. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “is the place to express the vision of the Catholic bishops.”

These are all mere tessera in a larger mosaic. There really aren’t enough to get a good picture, and the picture itself is a moving picture, even a “talkie”… a really ‘talkie”.

It’s all interesting.

The moderation queue is ON.

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Interesting meetings: Pope with Curial heads, USCCB’s election of officers

  1. stuartal79 says:

    Very interesting. I have also read that Cardinal Burke had a private audience with the Holy Father last week.

  2. Traductora says:

    Wonderful news about the USCCB picks! Including Gomez, who is quite orthodox and has said some very good things. Sadly, I think there are a lot of conservative Catholics who don’t like Gomez because he was not enthusiastic about Trump during the elections.

    Trump should never have attacked Hispanics the way he did, because it made it hard for a lot of good Catholic bishops to support him – and gave a rationale to those less than good ones who wanted to oppose him on other grounds. It’s going to be a challenge for Trump to work with Hispanics, because he obviously doesn’t like them, but he’s got to do this if he wants to get the support of the bishops and prevent lefty bishops from having a cause.

    Hispanics are not mostly illegal and it’s insulting to speak as if they are. And even among the illegals, Hispanics are not the problem group. The problem immigrant group is a group among which even the “legal” ones are dangerous and a threat to the US and our political system, but have virtually flooded the country under Obama. But I doubt that any of the bishops wants to deal with this under a Muslim-sympathizer pope.

  3. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    A minor detail: Trump never attacked Hispanics. Another minor detail: If Trump “obviously doesn’t like” Hispanics, how about providing an atom of evidence?

    Archbp. Gomez is “orthodox”? How about his photo ops with pro-abortion politicians, invited to a Mass which was “about” No Borders, and to whom he gives Communion? How about the annual heresy/sodomy fest Gomez has done nothing to clean up? And the Mass at this year’s fest, where the gay couple brought up the gifts along with their adopted son?

    How about an occasional mention of the thousands of Americans killed each year by illegal aliens? There’s no sanctuary for them, and no sympathy from the USCCB.

  4. hwriggles4 says:

    Archbishop Broglio is one bishop with his mitre on straight, and he is not afraid to go in the trenches. Broglio has testified before Congress on occasion (once on the dangers of repealing don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue), and he has asked diocesan bishops to release one priest to serve in the Armed Forces.

    Archbishop Broglio is still fairly young (64), and he is a good example for our priests, and the young men and women who make up our Armed Forces today.

  5. Benedict Joseph says:

    Could this meeting involve what Sandro Magister reports today – relayed to English speakers by Rorate Caeli – concerning the instruction sent from the Vatican to professors at ecclesiastical institutions demanding Amoris Laetitia be conveyed according to the mind of the Pope – that is, that Holy Communion be allowed to the divorced and remarried without benefit of annulment?
    But no response to the four Cardinals.
    Is this the Papacy?

  6. Clinton R. says:

    Traductora says: “Sadly, I think there are a lot of conservative Catholics who don’t like Gomez because he was not enthusiastic about Trump during the elections.”

    One reason why conservative Catholics have a concern with Abp. Gomez is not his lack of enthusiasm for Donald Trump,rather, it can be summed in one phrase: Religious Education Congress. If you are not familiar with the REC, it is a yearly gathering in Orange County, CA that has become infamous for the presence of many dissenters of the Catholic Faith and for the closing day Liturgy that bears no resemblance to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  7. LeeF says:

    In the bishops and cardinals there seems to be a great mushy middle. How else to explain how a conclave composed of cardinals who voted for BXVI or were created by him, elected Francis. The question is whether in the next conclave, they will finally have had too much mush and react the other way.

    Re the immigration issue in the US, if the bishops were to acknowledge that 1) it is our country and we have the right to set immigration policies as we think best, and 2) there should be reasonable limits on immigration, then many more conservative Catholics would heed what they say. But if they keep up with a globalist open borders mantra, then they should expect to be ignored by many of us. Even the Holy Father recently said that although “theoretically” a country should take all immigrants who want in, they must be able to be integrated into society. And integrated does not mean keeping islamic extremist beliefs, including sharia.

  8. mburn16 says:

    “Hispanics are not mostly illegal and it’s insulting to speak as if they are. And even among the illegals, Hispanics are not the problem group.”

    I don’t ever recall anyone saying Hispanics were mostly illegal. But to say “among the illegals, they are not the ‘problem group’…” ignores that to be illegal, in itself, is what qualifies one as a member of the “problem group”. And the majority of illegals are, yes, Hispanics.

    If the Church in America wants to be a prophetic voice, it should focus on finding ways to push marriage and birth rates back up to a society-sustaining rate. We aren’t short on advocates for open borders.

  9. Eugene says:

    “We [the Vatican] can send some ideas”…uhm lets see what kind of ideas they can send like: -ignoring Christian refugees and bringing in only Muslim refugees
    – asking all towns in Italy ( my native country and being told this directly by relatives) that they MUST take in hundreds of refugees and house and feed them while their pensions are consistently lowered and crime rates have gone up exponentially, while the Pope only brought back a total of 6 families from his visit to Lesbos last year. A comment from a relative, “the Pope should really lead by example and house and feed thousands of them, the Vatican has a lot more money than our little town.”
    – ignoring a country’s right to defend itself against this Muslim invasion under the guise of a refugee crisis
    Please my brother and sister American Catholics do not listen to any expert from the Vatican, their ideas these days will only bring destruction.

  10. Eugene says:

    Re; the USCCB picks I don’t see any cause for jubilation, both Card Di Nardo and Arch. Gomez are good company men and will not openly challenge Francis on anything. BUT BUT they are MUCH better than Cupich and thank God Almighty he was not elected to any position, but then again he is too busy being the golden boy spokesperson of PF these days and his stature is now that above the USCCB anyway…God have mercy on us

  11. Kathleen10 says:

    I don’t know about these particular picks so I can’t speak to that.
    We could not possibly disagree with the bishops nor the USCCB more, nor could we disagree with the pope more, on the topic of immigration. To allow open borders would be continued insanity, and the West cannot possibly survive it. Thanks be to God, Donald Trump has won the election and we need not argue it any longer. The USCCB can whine and plead for Trump to allow immigration, and all they are going to do is continue to build up resentment from Catholics and Protestants too, in that they are acting contrary to the will of the people, who have made themselves perfectly clear by this election. America does NOT want unfettered immigration any longer. We are loyal and practicing Catholics, and WE are feeling annoyed by the actions and words of the bishops.
    Look, it should be understood by Roman Catholics, that the bishops are now receiving huge amounts of money from the federal government to help get immigrants into this country. This is a fact, not conjecture on my part. It is undeniable.
    What we now see is a sad state of affairs. Only God has the answer to it.

  12. Jacob says:

    Traductora, can you point out to me some good sources that show Trump attacking Hispanics in general and not just illegal aliens? I’m aware of his ‘rapist’ remark, but took it as applying to illegals. Thank you!

    His Eminence Cardinal DiNardo has come a long way from when I watched him be consecrated back in Sioux City, Iowa.

  13. LeeF says:

    Over at mostly lib junk Crux, there is an article by John Allen: Does Francis have an ‘R&D strategy’ on the divorced/remarried? https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/11/14/francis-rd-strategy-divorcedremarried/

    Basically he is positing the possibility that Pope Francis is intentionally letting the ambiguity play out to test the waters before saying something (supposedly) definitive.

  14. thomas tucker says:

    @Benedict Joseph: that missive has not been shown to have come from the Vatican. I don’t think we know who is behind the sending of it. Yet.

  15. thomas tucker says:

    Cardinal DiNardo is perfectly orthodox, and not just a company man. He was one of the group of prelates who sent the a Pope their concerns about management/direction of the Synod.

  16. That we are reduced to not only noticing but actually searching, on hands and knees, for the tinest crumbs or potential crumbs of comfort, shows how bad things have gotten. This must be what is meant by Proverbs 27:7: that a soul that is full shall tread on the honeycomb, while the soul that is hungry shall take even bitter for sweet.

    When things really do start straightening up in the Church, we will not need to ask whether it is really happening. There will be no doubt.

  17. Pingback: WEDNESDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit

  18. Gabriel Syme says:

    LeeF,

    How else to explain how a conclave composed of cardinals who voted for BXVI or were created by him, elected Francis.

    In the wake of the election of Francis, the existence of a body known as the “St Gallen group” came to light. This is a secretive group of liberal / dissenting prelates, who originally gathered to plot ways to undermine the CDF (under Cardinal Ratzinger) during the pontificate of St John Paul II.

    It turned out that they had schemed prior to the conclave in order to get “their man” – Jorge Bergoglio. Discussing who to vote for in a conclave is a serious offense in Canon Law.

    Some things became clearer then: when Benedict XVI was elected, Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was quoted as saying “we didn’t get our man”, so they were obviously trying to gerrymander things even back then.

    They did get their man this time though, with the election of Francis. The names associated with the St Gallen Group reads like a “whos who” of awful quasi-Catholicism – Kaspar, Martini, Daneels etc.

    So, the reason Francis was elected after Benedict was because of malign plotting. The group could barely contain their gloating afterwards. We can only hope and pray that orthodox prelates have taken note of this and will have made their own arrangements for the next conclave.

  19. Y2Y says:

    The Church needs her own Nuremberg trials, in which these vermin will be made to pay for their treason. Bring it on.