If government leaders in China can now choose bishops, then in these USA…

One of the best things I’ve seen on Twitter since Rome began the sellout of the Church in China.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Fr. John says:

    I have been wondering how long it would take for someone to make this connection.

  2. Sportsfan says:

    It’s sad for me to think that he would probably do a better job than the Vatican has done.

  3. chantgirl says:

    Yes, but are the American Bishops also allowed to have concubines/children?

  4. Bthompson says:

    On the other hand, President Trump’s nominations would apparently be way more stringently vetted. :-)

  5. Semper Gumby says:

    Ah, the Investiture Conflict (sort of) of 2018 in these United States.

    Popcorn time. Perhaps it will unfold like this…

    In a stone castle on the banks of the Potomac King Trump and his beautiful Queen have received a Papal delegation led by Cardinal Spadaro. That evening in the Great Hall the torches were lit, the guests were seated, and the kitchen squires and serving wenches loaded the wooden tables with platter after platter of pigeon pie, roast chicken, civet of hare, quarter of stag, and plums stewed in rose water.

    In the middle of the feast Cardinal Spadaro wiped his greasy mouth on the sleeve of his robe. He shook a drumstick at the King and said, “Now see here you mountebank, we’ll do as we damn well please. The East is Red and so shall be the West!”

    Uproar ensued. From the King’s tables arose shouts of “Sad!” and “Make the Demesne Great Again!”

    From Cardinal Spadaro’s tables came cries of “Anathema!” and “Make Luther Great Again!”

    Around the Hall muscular Integralists ran amok, flipping tables and head-butting each other while shouting “How much ya’ bench?!” at all and sundry.

    The Keeper of the Privy Arsenal MadDog Mattis stood and crashed his fist on the table. Drawing his sword he shouted: “There needs be jousting!” The Royal Archer drew his bow and nocked an arrow yelling: “Call the Brute Squad!”

    The troubadours hid under a table strumming their dulcimers while composing a ballad about preparing to die and blood on the battlements.

    Meanwhile, off in a corner of the Great Hall in the shadows behind a massive pillar, two hooded figures cackled with glee around a bubbling cauldron. Count Schumer pulled out a wild-boar skull hidden in his robe and tossed it into the cauldron. Countess Pelosi pulled out a dead baby…

    Ok, this is getting out of hand so I’ll stop here.

    p.s. Great Twitter bio Catholic Foot Soldier has.

    [You have grasped the essence of it.]

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  6. ejcmartin says:

    If that means here in Canada bishops are to be chosen by Justin Trudeau, God help us! (Then again technically the Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, hmmm…)

  7. Simon_GNR says:

    It’s my understanding that in medieval times the Kings of England chose who would be bishops in their realm and the pope had little to do with it. Certainly, Thomas Becket was chosen to be Archbishop of Canterbury by Henry II in the hope that he would remain loyal to the king and bring the Church in England round to do Henry’s bidding. Perhaps technically all appointments to bishoprics had to be approved by the pope, but in practice it was the king who nominated new bishops. Presumably though, only the pope could present the pallium to the new Primate of All England.

  8. Caesar says:

    No more effete Europeans or foreign homosexuals running the Church in the US! We should be demanding an American Church!

    American Catholics for an American Catholic Church!

  9. Caesar says:

    No more effete Europeans or foreign homosexuals running the Church in the US! We should be demanding an American Church!

    American Catholics for an American Catholic Church!

  10. Marion Ancilla Mariae II says:

    “American Catholics for an American Catholic Church!”

    No, thanks. This American Catholic wants the Church established by the Galilean who said, “go and preach the Good News to all nations,” and prayed that “they may all be one, as the Father and I are one.”

  11. uptoncp says:

    A mediaeval English vacancy in see typically resulted in a three way tussle as King, Pope, and Cathedral Chapter all claimed the right to nominate, and any one of the three might win. At Norwich, for example, the monks of the cathedral priory were usually trying to get their prior the job, as the bishop was also their titular abbot and they wanted a friendly face at the top. Henry VIII squared that circle by removing Rome film the question, and enacting that while the chapter had the authority to elect the new bishop, it was illegal for them to elect anyone except the crown nominee. (Modern practice has added an extra layer of bureaucratic farce, – the Crown’s right of nomination odds currently exercised by the PM, who chooses from a shortlist of one provided by a church committee, the Crown Nomination Commission.)

  12. TonyO says:

    It’s my understanding that in medieval times the Kings of England chose who would be bishops in their realm and the pope had little to do with it.

    The kings of France also claimed rights of nomination at times. And the Emperor in Constantinople certainly claimed rights of appointment or nomination (even before the schism, that is).

    But at least in those cases the monarchs were Catholic, and the countries they ruled were officially Catholic countries. It’s bad enough to imagine a non-Catholic country’s ruling having the right of appointment of Catholic bishops; officially handing over the power to the rulers of an officially anti-Catholic country, whose laws and official doctrines are explicitly contrary to Catholicism, can be called nothing other than a betrayal of the Catholics there. As well as a mockery, a short-sighted benighted stupidity, and several dozen other derogatory terms.

    It is completely obvious that the methods of choosing bishops needs reform, desperately. The Vatican nominally holds the power (except in China), but in practice the Vatican approves only men urged by the papal nuncio in conjunction with the suggestions of the provinces and their bishops. In theory, each bishop recommends priests to the other bishops of a province for voting, but again in practice the other bishops can hardly have gathered their own body of evidence on a priest’s worthiness, and such vote successes are extremely easily influenced by other factors than such worthiness (even granting that the proposing bishop’s own suggesting is more driven by worthiness – which is manifestly debatable). The reality is that the entire process constitutes various bodies of men voting on information handed to them by a biased party, the proposing bishop.

    My own view is that the priests and deacons of a diocese should be relied upon to identify possible successors to the bishop’s office, but not directly. Every year the bishop should ask his priests and deacons for recommendations for (over time, in different years:) the holiest priests they know – and the reasons; or the most managerially capable priests that they know – and why; or the priests most capable of spiritual guidance – and the basis; or the priests most capable of instructing the faithful to grasp orthodox Catholic faith; etc. Over the course of the years, if one priest regularly pops up as well recommended on all fronts, he should be forwarded to the province and the papal nuncio, with the priests’ own reasons why they named the guy.

    The Congregation for Bishops should have roving reporter clerics (think of them as spies) whose job it is to go out under cover to proposed priests and observe them at Sunday and daily mass, and other times, and see if they (a) preach orthodox Catholicism or some local “brand” that is popular but not Catholic; and (b) if they appear to live up to their own vows and duties (life of prayer, sober personal life, etc). The papal nuncio might have a minor role in all that, but he should not have a decisive role: priests who have been selected by their own confreres through a long review process over several years, not for direct nomination but for identification of specific qualities, should be reviewed by the province and the best should be forwarded to Rome.

    In all events, a new bishop should generally be named from the priests of the diocese. Also in general, every diocese should have at least one but preferably two auxiliary bishops to relieve the ordinary of the grueling and mind-deadening necessity of doing confirmations virtually every week of the year, sometimes more than once a week, and to provide to the Church at least the option of choosing, as the new Ordinary, men who have ALREADY been operating with the episcopal consecration and will have been more closely observed after that time by the people and priests of the diocese. There should only rarely be selected as new Ordinary a priest from some other diocese, virtually never the already consecrated ordinary of some other diocese (which just shoves back the need to appoint yet another bishop and disrupts a second diocese without need) – and ACTUALLY never the importation of some other ordinary from another diocese that isn’t even within the province. (The moving of the bishop of Rapid City, SD, to become the ordinary of Spokane, WA, and then to become the ordinary of Chicago, IL is an abominable practice. It is also idiotic in and of itself, regardless of the abominable personable qualities of the current archbishop of Chicago. There is no possible excuse for appointing a man to his third diocese as bishop.)

    Reform is needed. The China method is retrograde reform: makes things worse, not better.

  13. TonyO says:

    And, by the way: in all that, a priest should be automatically disqualified from consideration if the bishop receives from the people letters about him that he does not teach orthodox Catholicism (with examples illustrating). Thus the people also have a role. (It should not even matter if the bishop calls him on the carpet to “explain himself”, because (a) of course a priest will try to cover his errors with an “explanation” but if the people give an explicit example, that should outweigh the priest’s own excuse, and (b) if the priests is inept enough to explain Catholicism so that the ordinary people MISunderstand his preaching so that they come away confused about what he was saying, this itself shows he is not fit for the role).

  14. MissBee says:

    So bad, but so good!

    And it made me think of this – Vince Lombardi as St. Vince Lombardi (or as I would say, “Vincent Lombardi of Green Bay). Not entirely improbable, is it????

    Semper Gumby – if I could give stars I would, too!

  15. Ultrarunner says:

    Apparently, it’s far easier to cede papal authority and recognition to an athiestic communist state formed in the 20th century than to do so with Christian based denominations created 500 years ago. Why?

  16. I have I on good authority that the Chinese “bishops” are all unbaptized athiests who were simply hired for the job. The was no consecration in either the old rite or the new. There was nothing but a random guy who didn’t even know who Jesus was just showing up one day saying he’d been selected by the communist to be the bishop and you better not complain if you know what’s good for you. With that being the case I guess I can just buy vestments and have everyone call me bishop. It’s the same thing but at least I’m baptized. If these men are recognized as bishops it calls into question the validity of holy orders on the Catholic Church.

  17. Semper Gumby says:

    Thanks Fr. Z and Miss Bee.

  18. Fr. Reader says:

    Do you have any concrete information or source? It is a very strong accusation: ”are all unbaptized atheists.”

  19. Fr. Reader says:

    Your proposals sound interesting, but in th is world there are many different places with different circumstances.

Comments are closed.