As news of Archbishop Dolan’s precedent-shattering election as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ricochets around the Catholic blogosphere, pundits on all sides are having their say, and more comments and analyses are sure to follow.
Some of those already heard from as of this posting are Rocco Palmo, at Whispers in the Loggia; Thomas Peters, at CatholicVote.org; Patrick Craine, at LifeSiteNews.com; and Steven Ertelt, at LifeNews.com.
The editors at the National Catholic Register have put together a “Getting to Know . . .” roundup of helpful links to previous stories on Archbishop Dolan and the new USCCB vice president, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville.
Also weighing in are the folks at America, the National Catholic Reporter, and Commonweal.
Catholic News Service: Incoming president of USCCB among those surprised by his election
New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan was as surprised as anyone that he was elected president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Nov. 16.
“I’m surprised, I’m honored, I’m flattered and a tad intimidated,” Archbishop Dolan told Catholic News Service shortly after being elected in an unprecedented departure from the USCCB’s normal tradition of electing the conference vice president to the presidency.
He said he had no idea what was behind the bishops’ 128-111 third-ballot vote to make him president instead of current vice president Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson, Ariz.
November 16th, 2010 | 12:31 pm
When these regional bishops’ councils become true synods, I’ll pay attention to changes in the ranks of the middle management.
November 16th, 2010 | 12:34 pm
The reaction of the left-leaners is amusing. Grant Gallicho at Commonweal blames the “cynical” right wing campaign against Kicanas. SNAP is right wing now? Since when?
And none of them mention what was clearly the tipping point – the Rainbow Sash, uh, very helpful and enthusiastic endorsement of Kicanas on Monday.
Who the heck wants that PR headache?
This is not to dismiss Dolan’s strengths, which are considerable.
November 16th, 2010 | 12:44 pm
God bless Archbishop Dolan. The Conference got this one right!
November 16th, 2010 | 2:05 pm
Sorry to be the clueless Protestant…but why was this surprising, exactly?
November 16th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
Ethan, (just in case I don’t see you later)
:)
The sun rises in the east, sets in the west, and barring death or incapacity, the sitting V-P of the USCCB succeeds to the presidency. The real race is usually for the V-P slot.
November 16th, 2010 | 3:23 pm
All I can say is Praise be to God for the election of Archbishop Dolan – clearly the Holy Spirit was hovering over this election!
November 16th, 2010 | 3:27 pm
Not that it matters, because the USCCB, like all regional bishops’ councils, has no power, no authority and is nothing more than a gabfest that can do nothing without first asking Rome, “Mother, may I?” Which is why our bishops will continue to be and act infantile.
Not that I really have a dog in this fight–nobody much cares what we Eastern Catholics do, and some of us DO have working synods.
If you want a disedifying experience, watch one of the meetings of the USCCB on EWTN. The closest thing to it is a meeting of middle managers from a multinational conglomerate.
November 16th, 2010 | 3:31 pm
What are the most important things that the USCCB decides?
I.e., why does it matter? A reasonable answer would help address Stuart Koehl’s comment #1 above.
For an example, why couldn’t the USCCB censure the President of Notre Dame for honoring radical pro-abortionist Obama with an honorary doctorate?
November 16th, 2010 | 3:53 pm
Does the USCCB have formal, canonical power? No. But for most Latin Rite dioceses, particularly smaller ones like mine, the DC bureaucracy is tremendously important and influential, for better or worse. Mostly worse, other then the fine work done in the Pro-Life Secretariat.
Why couldn’t the USCCB “censure” Notre Dame? In part because the permanant lay staff at USCCB largely supported Obama, and N-D, and because plenty of bishops wanted to avoid the entire issue. What makes this a big deal, is that by throwing off “business as usual” a majority of bishops seem to want the American Church to speak nationally with a clear and forthright voice. And they chose arguably the single most media-savvy of their number to BE that voice for the next 3 years.
My question is… does the Dolan-Kurtz election mean real root and branch reform in the USCCB bureaucracy? As an institution it, along with the staffs of plenty of chanceries around the country, part of the “Culture of Dissent” for decades.
November 16th, 2010 | 4:35 pm
So basically, it’s a sign that the USCCB might potentially be trying to shift into a more active and relevant (note, I mean actually relevant, not “relevant” as the term is normally used in Christian circles) position within American Catholicism?
November 16th, 2010 | 4:40 pm
Actually, the US bishop’s conference does have a significant amount of authority. They have in recent years passed rules on what should be taught in grade school and high school religion texts, which is actually having an effect on textbooks. They have a doctrinal office that has recently critiqued the writings of some theologians (whereas in the past that was left entirely to Rome in a cowardly way). They have significant authority in matters of liturgical translations. Of course, they do need Rome’s approval for some things, and that is as it should be. According to Catholic theology,
even acts of an ecumenical Council must be ratified by the Pope to be valid.
The reason this election is a big surprise is that
the Catholic episcopate in this country has not impressed people with its competence in recent decades. Electing Kicanas would, at the very least, have subjected the Church in this country to another round of press stories of how the Church had learned nothing from the sex abuse crisis. It also would have been guaranteeing a paralyzing fight for the next three years between the rapidly fading remnant of the liberal old guard (which does not want to go gently into that good night) and the newer, more vigorously evangelical (small e), and robustly countercultural bishops, who now fill almost all the larger and more important sees in this country. In other words, electing Kicanas would have been a recipe for trouble all around.
People had come to expect so little from the bishops that it seemed to many inevitable that they would do the obviously imprudent thing. That instead they stood up and did something right even at the risk of offending and embarrassing some of their episcopal brethren therefore surprised many people. It is a very good sign.
November 16th, 2010 | 5:45 pm
Does the USCCB help out with situations like the following:
Two Catholic Churches in Brooklyn Will Close
November 16th, 2010 | 9:03 pm
Not to compare the people or the offices, but I’m reminded of Father Neuhaus’s response to the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI: “How sweet it is!”
November 17th, 2010 | 8:13 am
This was off my radar, but what a truly pleasant surprise. The Holy Spirit is truly at work in our world!
November 17th, 2010 | 8:38 am
All I can say is the New York Times will ‘be afraid, very afraid’. Why they may restart their patronage.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact