Speaking of the Anchoress

She sends along this link and wonders if this might be the answer to the question of why JPII, who was an obviously holy man, chose such lousy bishops.

Seems reasonable to me.

  • chris(other)

    are these supposed to link to the same place?

  • http://www.theleenmachine.blogspot.com KML

    Intriguing. As a tangent, it made me think of when my husband and I were living in Boston seven years ago and eagerly awaiting news on a new pope. When we got word that the announcement was about to be made, we took off from our respective work places and met at a bar at the halfway point just in time to see Ratzinger appear on the balcony to the cheering crowds. As we were watching, a tourist wandered behind us and exclaimed, “THAT guy?? He’s more conservative than the LAST one!” then wandered away. American Catholicism in a neat package, right there.

  • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

    As Mark is wont to say, B16 is da bomb!

    Ad multos annos!

  • Ted Seeber

    That was my question. But buried in the middle is a single paragraph that is the answer: JPII delegated choosing bishops to others, Benedict XVI reviews *every* set of candidates for himself.

  • Richard M

    I think it’s been apparent for some time now that this was why Bl. John Paul II, for all his many virtues, appointed a pretty subpar bench of bishops.

    To be sure, he often had little to work with, especially in his early years in Rome. But the reality is that he simply spent little time reviewing or questioning ternas given to him. Occasionally, he would intervene to put in place an unorthodox bishop, as he did with John O’Connor in New York or Jean-Marie Lustiger in Paris. But that was very rare.

  • Mark R

    I think John Paul II was very trusting that his apointees would “step up” to their duties as a good number of Polish bishops did during the Cold War. I don’t think he could have known what feet of clay anyone in authority develops, especially in the Church in the West.

  • Chris

    There seems to be a very interesting dichotomy surrounding John Paul II’s papacy.

    On the one hand, we have the unrelenting slayer of European atheistic Communism — clearly a providential undertaking that has changed the world for the better — as well as the author of one of the most important documents ever written in the Church, Humana Vitae.

    On the other hand, we have, perhaps, over-delegation of critical decisions to those driven by other agendas. And more importantly, what some might consider a tragically insufficient pastoral response to the ravages of the homosexual infiltration of the Church and the attendant molestation scandals/coverups. It’s very hard for me to write this, but I admit I’ve had my doubts that canonization would happen as fast as everyone is expecting, given the magnitude of the scandal and the almost mockingly unscathed manner in which certain cooperating bishops carried themselves in spite of the outrage. If the Church will not canonize Pius XII over an epidemic of revisionist history and attendant misinformed hysteria, they may very well give a good wait on JP II to ensure no other high profile shoes drop (a la Fr. Maciel).

    This is not to cast aspersions on our beloved departed pope. He was truly “petrine” in the sense that, on an administrative level, he may not have used the best judgment; but speaking as the Vicar of Christ, he was one of the holiest men to ever lead the Church. Is he a saint? I believe so. Sainthood is not a declaration that a person was perfect, or didn’t have personal shortcomings. That it seems very clear that Our Lady of Fatima chose, at the behest of her Son, to guide John Paul II in bringing Fatima to fulfillment, should be reason enough to confer sainthood on him. He was the consummate servant, guided buy the Handmaid of the Lord.

  • iClaudius

    The Bishops that JPII selected got one thing right – they elected Benedict.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X