jump to navigation

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell Given Huge Promotion, Transferred to Rome August 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, family, Francis, General Catholic, pr stunts, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell’s increasingly controversial tenure as Bishop of Dallas has come to an end.  He was appointed by Francis to head the important new Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life just created.  His transfer is effective in 2 weeks, which is really short notice, so we can expect that his effective tenure as Bishop of Dallas is over as of today, or perhaps, weeks ago. DMN coverage next, some commentary from me at the bottom:

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell has been tapped for a position at the Vatican, where he will oversee a new department focused on the lives and families of ordinary Catholics around the world.

The promotion, effective Sept. 1, will make Farrell the highest-ranking American clergyman serving in the Vatican, the Diocese of Dallas announced Wednesday.

The move leaves an opening in Dallas, where Farrell has been bishop since 2007……..

…….Farrell said Wednesday morning that he was “extremely humbled” by the appointment and “grateful for the Holy Father’s confidence in me.” But, he said,  “I meet this news with mixed emotions.”

“Dallas has been my home for 10 years and, from the beginning, I quickly grew to love the beautiful people and culture here,” he said in a statement. “The strong faith, kindness and generosity of the people in the Diocese of Dallas surpassed all of my expectations.”

A diocese spokeswoman said a new bishop could be appointed as soon as October. Auxiliary Bishop Greg Kelly will lead the diocese in the interim.

Pope Francis chose Farrell to lead the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, a newly-created department that combines the responsibilities of two existing pontifical councils. It will be part of the Roman Curia, an administrative body that advises and helps the pope carry out the church’s affairs worldwide.

In his new role, Farrell, 68, will focus on the needs of lay people, regular Catholics who are not part of the clergy.

The reorganization comes as Pope Francis strives to make the Catholic Church more inclusive and efficient. [“Inclusive.”  That’s what Christ stressed all the time, wasn’t it?  He never said anything about bringing the sword of division, separating the wheat from the chaff, or anything like that. The redefinition of Jesus Christ along sexular pagan lines continues apace.]

The pope wrote that he created the new department so that the Roman Curia can effectively “respond to the situation of our times and adapt to the needs of the universal Church.”…….

…….The Diocese of Dallas saw an increase in vocations to the priesthood and raised $130 million during a landmark fundraising campaign under his leadership, said diocesan spokeswoman Annette Gonzales Taylor. [Well, just about any vocations would have been an increase from the total collapse of the seminary system and ordinations under the last decade or so of his predecessor.  Ordinations have averaged 3 or 4 a year under Farrell, much more than before, but not nearly enough to make up for the number of priests set to retire soon]

“We’re exceptionally proud, but we’re also exceptionally sad to be losing him,” Gonzales Taylor said Wednesday. “He’s just be an outstanding leader and, from my point of view, a wonderful boss. He’s going to be sorely missed.”……

…….Farrell’s new assignment will reunite him with his brother, Brian, who is also a bishop and the secretary of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Farrell asked for prayers as he begins “this next unexpected chapter of my priesthood.”

“My God continue to bless the Diocese of Dallas,” he said.

In the end, Bishop Farrell’s tenure played out almost exactly as expected by many local observers when he was first named Bishop of Dallas in 2007.  It was widely expected then that he would not retire here, that he would be something of an interim or “caretaker” bishop.  Certain well-informed local priests expected him to spend 7 or 8 years (in reality, it was 9) addressing the myriad problems left by his predecessor Charles Grahmann and then be promoted to some dicastery in Rome, to finish out his career near his much-beloved brother.  This is exactly what happened.

In many material respects, Bishop Farrell’s tenure was a successful one – he got the Diocese out of debt after massive payouts to the survivors of priest sex abuse cases, and did somewhat improve the seminary and the number of priests being ordained, which latter had all but died under his predecessor.

I have already observed, I believe, how hard Bishop Farrell has changed direction under the current pontificate.  He has really tacked into the wind. Under Benedict Bishop Farrell was fairly conservativish, a bit “right” of center in the American episcopate.  Since, 2013, however, he seems to have drifted quite a bit in the other direction.

As a man, like so many bishops – though he was, it seems, an extreme case – he was very hard to get in front of.  He seemed to be constantly gone, or had others run very effective interference for him.  Even in public events, getting much more than a handshake and a smile from Farrell was all but impossible. Obtaining a meeting was apparently reserved for a select few (if any).  Even though he supposedly obtained a mansion for fund-raising, there are no reports of fundraisers actually being held there, to my knowledge.  Farrell tended to “rule” from behind the scenes and was certainly not above hiding behind bureaucratic subterfuge, as the Joyce Rupp/Dr. Rick Gaillardetz imbroglios, the twin issues that launched this blog in late 2009, showed.

Farrell was always assessed as a very political creature who would not be long in Dallas.  Benedict’s abdication probably kept him here a year or two longer than planned.  But now he has gotten his reward, a plum assignment, in Rome, near his brother, in which to ride out his career.  Many have speculated Bishop Farrell’s socially liberal policies of late (banning guns in all diocesan facilities – since repealed – strident support for unlimited Hispanic immigration, constant paeans on his blog to the new wisdom of Francis, taking up a crusade on domestic violence, etc) were perhaps related to a desire to seem in step with the new mood in Rome.  It is likely these later stands may have been more reflective of Farrell’s true beliefs, given his status as protege of the very troubling Cardinal McCarrick, and may well serve as indicators of why Farrell was chosen for this very important new office.

Of course, I pray for Bishop Farrell’s success in his new duty and that he may use this apostolate for the good of souls and of Holy Mother Church, which could have a huge impact on the life of the Church. As to how Bishop Farrell will conduct himself in this new role, he has always been a very good soldier, knowing who he needs to please and how to do it.  I was not the only one to notice what seemed a fairly substantial change in Bishop Farrell’s rhetoric and pastoral emphasis after March 2013.  Remember his joint statement with former Ft. Worth Bishop Vann on the USCCB’s 2008 “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” staking out a very welcome and clear guidance with respect to the life issues trumping all others in determining who Catholics can support, electorally (pretty much wiping out legitimate support for democrats)?  Could you imagine him releasing such a document, today?

We also eagerly await the naming of his replacement, which comes at such a critical juncture for this diocese.  If Bishop Farrell was something of an interim crisis recovery expert,  it was similarly expected that his replacement would likely be much younger and here for a very long time.  It is thus vital to pray for this new bishop, conducting Rosary crusades and other prayer efforts, even outside the chancery itself, to show our filial obedience and spiritual communion with out present and future ordinaries, while imploring God that they be men worthy of the name, Catholic bishop.  Please also pray for Bishop Farrell, that the Grace of Jesus Christ may guide and direct all he does according to the Truth revealed and practiced by the Church for over 1900 years in his very important new role.

Amazingly, with the sacking of Cardinal Burke, this new appointment makes Bishop Farrell the highest ranking “American” (he’s Irish, but served most of his apostolate in the US) in the Curia.  That’s something that sort of makes one go “gulp.”

A few other interesting notes from Rocco Palmo:

……the Vatican statement announcing the move conspicuously did not include Farrell’s elevation to the rank of archbishop, which has always been customary practice for appointments of this kind……

…….Third, he enjoys close ties and clear goodwill among four prominent figures in Francis’ orbit: having served as vicar-general and auxiliary of Washington under Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl until his southern transfer, the sister of the ever-influential head of Francis’ “Gang of 9,” Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, lives in Dallas, [Yikes] while the work that brought him to DC to begin with saw him succeed then-Bishop Sean O’Malley as director of the capital’s Centro Catolico Hispano, which the Capuchin founded a decade earlier as Latinos began to arrive in the city en masse, only leaving the role on his appointment to the Virgin Islands……..

…….Lastly for now, as some fireworks are bound to ensue in the top rank with the appointment for a now-vacant Dallas church – where Farrell was already laying the groundwork to receive another auxiliary – it bears recalling that, with the new Prefect to be aided by three Secretaries for each of the new office’s areas of competence, the legislation establishing the Dicastery provides that (in a first for a top Curial organ) the lead deputies need not be clergy, but may likewise be named from among religious or the laity.

Yes, I’m certain that for this new Dicastery for the Laity, Francis has found his man.

And here I thought I would have nothing to blog on today.

Comments

1. Warren Memlib - August 17, 2016

Soon to be Archbishop and then Cardinal – as head of a Vatican dicastery?

2. Dismas - August 17, 2016

Not to worry. Cupich will see to it you get a great bishop.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

Holding my breath, buddy!

richardmalcolm1564 - August 17, 2016

Kansas City managed to get a pretty conservative bishop after Finn was turfed, and that was after a sizable local campaign to get a liberal in place. So it’s not *completely* impossible you might get someone on the more conservative side rather than another McElroy.

3. S. Armaticus - August 17, 2016

The positive sign is that he is not an abject FAILURE like Francis. From the above, I guess he has Benedict to thank for that if the below is correct:

” In many material respects, Bishop Farrell’s tenure was a successful one – he got the Diocese out of debt after massive payouts to the survivors of priest sex abuse cases, and did somewhat improve the seminary and the number of priests being ordained, which latter had all but died under his predecessor.”

richardmalcolm1564 - August 17, 2016

What it really means is that he succeeded an abject failure as bishop, meaning his passing grade was on a curve. Farrell, in short, is a competent enough administrator and adroit enough ecclesiastical operator that he was able to get a diocese being naturally bolstered through large-scale internal and foreign immigration back to the level of at least background noise.

Lots of Catholics have moved to Dallas. Things are going tolerably well as a result, and will be until the children of all these Hispanics and Yankees start becoming ex-Catholics in the 2020’s and 2030’s, like their Italian, German, Polish and Irish predecessors in the Rustbelt did before them.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

Great analysis. Yes, Farrell’s success is definitely quite relative, his predecessors were both so disastrous it would have been somewhat hard to fail. He is a very solid administrator/bureaucrat and a fair fundraiser. He’s not a very inspiring leader and certainly not a spiritual giant. But relative to what came before, which promoted unworthy priests and then covered up rampant abuse for years, he was quite a big improvement.

richardmalcolm1564 - August 17, 2016

Indeed. Imagine putting Farrell in place in a diocese in the Northeast or Industrial Midwest; you’d have to put him in a place where the previous ordinary was something even worse than Grahmann, like (say) Saginaw post-Untener, Boston post-Law or Rochester post-Clark, to start looking “better.” And it would be a deeply qualified “better.”

And even then, he would be what would amount to one more “Decline Manager,” adroitly downsizing and clustering as needed, trying to keep as many lights on as possible. Since, as we know, the spiritual and liturgical depth of Dallas’s parish life is about that of a rain puddle, the real price for Farrell’s unwillingness to embrace any real restoration of its Catholic identity and faith will be paid by his successors, after he’s moved on. *They* will be the ones who who have to play the role of Decline Managers.

He doesn’t seem to be an outright *bad* bishop.* But he’s typical of the more merely competent (and yes, moderately liberal) end of a large strata of American bishops, and unfortunately, what the Church in America desperately needs right now is far more than that.

* I’m informed today by deacon acquaintances that he was great for growing the permanent diaconate. I’m struck by how this has become a common go-to way to gloss a bishop as “great for vocations.” They may ordain only 2-3 guys per year while losing 15 to retirement, but hey, they’ve ordained 54 deacons during their tenure.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

More than that. They ordained that many deacons in a year, or nearly so. I kid you not. This diocese actually has a glut of deacons right now. Which causes me to fear for the future, because all that extant “resource” can create pressures for its use in time of “crisis.”

Which rounds out your point very nicely. That’s exactly the kind of recourse many of the decline managers have been very tempted to turn towards.

richardmalcolm1564 - August 17, 2016

Well, until they can say Mass, there’s a limit to what you can do with them. (The limit being reached is big clusters of parishes administered by deacons or lay women, with roving priests racing to and fro to say Mass and hear the occasional confession in what amounts to being “mobile sacramental dispensers.” THAT should make the priesthood even MORE popular.)

While I have reservations about the wisdom of the restoration/creation of a permanent diaconate, I don’t want to be too harsh; I know some good men who are deacons, and give a great deal of themselves in service in that role. But it’s just not nearly as hard or impressive or helpful to find (say) three married 50-year olds willing to become deacons as it is to find one 20 year old willing to spend the rest of his life as a priest. Large pools of deacons may be nice, but it cannot be a substitute for adequate numbers of priests, and should NOT be allowed to disguise the lack of the latter. But even the best deacons will tell you that. They are not junior priests.

4. sixupman - August 17, 2016

A “Company Man”?

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

To the degree the Church is like a company, yes.

5. Mary Ann Parks - August 17, 2016

Missed a chance to appoint a layman.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

Heh. Good.

6. Camper - August 17, 2016

I would say “good riddance” except that his successor will likely be worse, given the direction of Francis-church.

Woody - August 17, 2016

Yes, be careful what you pray for!

7. The Model Bishop – St. Alphonsus Liguori | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - August 17, 2016

[…] a corollary to the big news of the day in the post below, a brief overview of some of the great virtues practiced by St. Alphonsus Liguori, as written by […]

8. c matt - August 17, 2016

In what universe does creating a new department increase “efficiency?”

9. David - August 17, 2016

About two or three years ago, I figured Bishop Farrell was destined for another See. I have met him on a few occasions, and while I did find him pleasant, he seemed preoccupied with his duties, which required numerous travel. There were things he did in Dallas that I liked, and there were a few things I wasn’t too happy about, but I found him better than his two predecessors (I didn’t reside in Dallas as a kid, but I felt Tschoppe could have nipped some of the scandals in the bud had he been much more assertive during the 70s and 80s).

After the Bishop of San Diego passed, I wondered if Bishop Farrell was on the short list, since he has a good following with Hispanics. Unfortunately, San Diego got a “dud”. Had Farrell gotten San Diego, I would of liked to see Bishop Doug Deshotel moved up. Now, Deshotel has his own See in Louisiana.

I wish Bishop Farrell well. I think it will be several months until Dallas gets a new Bishop (October seems unreasonable) and I’m wondering if Bishop Daniel Flores, an auxiliary in Detroit, will be returning to Texas. We shall see – I can’t make these decisions, I am not the Papal Nuncio and I am not Papa Francis.

reader - August 18, 2016

If we’re talking about the same Flores, I believe he’s already Bishop down in Brownsville. I was a student at UD at the same time as he was although I don’t know him personally. He seems to always have seen his “mission” as centered on hispanics, even in the seminary. I don’t know if he would be the right guy for a more ethnically mixed diocese like Dallas. If he does show up, expect even more hispanic ministry, in my opinion. I believe he dedicated the (relatively) new Guadalupe statue at UD which has a fragment of rock from Mexico where she appeared. That was the brainchild I hear of someone who attended the Dallas Ministry conference, made some contacts, and got the rock — pieces of which very rarely ever leave our southern neighbor…

As for Farrell improving the seminary — well, a bucket load of money has been spent on it in recent years — how many million(s) to redo the chapel ? Anyway…

Tantumblogo - August 18, 2016

He is in Brownsville. I wonder what Gallina would have to say, since she’s there, or very near?

I do know one good local priest who thinks very highly of Flores. He’s been there several years, I’d say it’s a possibility.

David - August 18, 2016

I’m not Papa Francis, but maybe Bishop Michael Sis or Bishop Strickland could be destined for a larger See. I know both of them haven’t been bishops very long and Papa Francis may want them to stay in San Angelo or Tyler longer to gain experience., but I do think both would be assets. Bishop Sis was very helpful to me coming back to the Church in college.

10. MFG - August 17, 2016

God Bless Bishop Farrell-he allowed Mater Dei to get their own parish which has become the largest FSSP apostolate in North America. That alone makes his tenure a success.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

MFG, I appreciate your viewpoint. As for MD, I am thankful that a parish was established under Bishop Farrell, but really, that was only right and just. There was obviously a huge demand for the TLM in the Diocese, which is why the sole TLM parish now attracts over 1000 souls each Sunday. However, Farrell has remained unjust in blocking the legitimate aspirations of several diocesan priests to learn and offer the TLM, insisting that all the TLM needs of the Diocese be met by MD, even though substantial evidence, such as commentary on this blog, shows that there remains a very large unmet demand for the TLM in folks that simply won’t or can’t travel 3o 0r 50 miles to Irving. This matter came up again very recently in Plano, with a parish willing to host a TLM and a priest desiring to offer it, but permission being denied. This denial is unjust and contrary to both the letter and spirit of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

So, a very mixed bag, at best. Sorry if that sounds harsh but he’s been a relentless opponent of the TLM aside from MD.

MFG - August 17, 2016

I know Tantum, but let’s keep perspective. Mater Dei was suppressed for 17 years and had the most restrictive apostolate (no funerals, catechism, weekday confessions after Mass). God has also drawn good out of the Bishop’s TLM restrictions by allowing Mater Dei to flourish without competition and that has shown the beautiful traditional parish life that must accompany a TLM. Only then will transformation and corporate conversion develop. That may not have happened to the degree it has if diocesan priests began offering the TLM — this aspect might be overlooked.

That said maybe now is the time where God may allow these restrictions to disappear with a new Bishop, allowing for diocesean TLMs and maybe even the fabeled FSSP parish in Collin a County. Things happen in stages.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

OK. I am perhaps a bit demanding in my expectations, and while I think I’ve been clear that Bishop Farrell was a substantial improvement over his two superiors, he was far from ideal in many respects. It’s a bit of a logical fallacy to assume that had Bishop Farrell allowed Summorum Pontificum to be implemented liberally (or, fairly), Mater Dei would have necessarily suffered. In the past year, one nearby parish has significantly expanded (Tyler), and one stood up with two additional priests (FW), and yet MD continues to grow. I think that indicates a still extant demand, and a very substantial one, that is yet to be fulfilled.

At some point, and I don’t think that point too far off if present trends continue, the size of Mater Dei could begin to undermine the sense of community, the catechesis, and the unity that makes it so special. So I share your hope that a new bishop will hold a very different attitude with regard to the TLM. I still think the sort of ghettoization of the TLM is in general a negative thing, even though I am jealous of protecting what we have.

But yes things could certainly be worse. There are diioceses where there is no TLM, or where it is treated even worse, so I am certainly thankful for what we have, and appreciate those who have made it possible.

richardmalcolm1564 - August 17, 2016

Well said. I don’t really buy the “best put our eggs all in one basket” theory, and not just because it makes it harder for more laity to discover or attend the TLM. Think of the priests, too: you have priests who want to celebrate the TLM (at least beyond a private Mass in their rectory), but are denied this great spiritual good for their own lives – and they are being denied, contrary to law.

Moreover, the experience of other cities suggests that it typically does not, in fact, harm a canonical traditional parish to have the TLM liberally celebrated. St. Louis has *two* full-blown oratories (one of them with much greater Mass attendance than Mater Dei), and yet a number of diocesan parishes now regularly offer the TLM. The result in St. Louis is also that one has a certain diversity of traditional liturgical and spiritual apostolates. “Spread too thin” might will be an issue in smaller communities, but in a major metropolis like Dallas/Fort Worth?

In any event, I think it was going to be hard for Bishop Farrell to continue to resist establishing at least a traditional parish post-Summorum, especially if there were no other offerings in the entire diocese. Far more liberal bishops than he have certainly done so.

Tantumblogo - August 18, 2016

I know MFG well. His practice of charity is probably superior to mine, and shows through in his comments. He has been fortunate not to have the experience I have had of trying to approach the bishop about several matters and encountering severe disappointment. To be honest, those past experiences color my impression of Bishop Farrell to a significant extent. It is difficult to overcome the disappointment of observing the man who has been given the ultimate care of one’s soul making recourse to bureaucratic dodges and less than honest shenanigans. The Rupp/Gailllardetz affair mentioned in the post was a very trying experience. A naive blogger piously hoped the bishop would intervene to protect the souls of his faithful against very harmful influences promoted by certain lay staffers in the Diocese. Silly me. Then I found out these kinds of really atrocious Lenten retreats had been going on for years, and with speakers even worse than those I was so concerned over. In it was the education of Tantumblogo in how the Church works today in far too many cases. Then there was the Potemkin Village of the NO Latin Mass at St. Mark, more or less created to fail in the minds of many.

But to be clear there are certainly far worse bishops and I am very thankful that Bishop Farrell did permit Mater Dei to form as a real parish and start its tremendous growth. From that little seed enormous fruit is already being harvested, with hopes for still more in the future.

MrT - August 18, 2016

I don’t think diocesan TLMs have the jazz they need when the priest is formed without sufficient exposure to the vast treasury of pre-Vatican II Catholic wisdom, philosophy, theology, etc.

richardmalcolm1564 - August 18, 2016

“I don’t think diocesan TLMs have the jazz they need when the priest is formed without sufficient exposure to the vast treasury of pre-Vatican II Catholic wisdom, philosophy, theology, etc.”

Don’t get me wrong: If I had an Ecclesia Dei society run TLM parish in my area, I would join in a heartbeat. There is nothing like having the full range of traditional sacraments and parish devotional life, and the stability that comes with it.

But as for those diocesan priests – you might be surprised by a few of them. None of them received that formation in seminary, sure. But more than you might think have worked to give it to themselves on their own hook. Not many, not nearly enough; but I know a handful. One happens to be the pastor where I attend a diocesan TLM. And he has suffered for it.

Having more diocesan priests celebrating the TLM regularly can only be a good thing, and we should hope to see more of it. These are the men who will (or at least, can) become bishops one day.

Tantumblogo - August 18, 2016

Agreed. There are some very good diocesan TLM priests. I generally prefer those formed in Tradition, but there are some really exceptional priests offering the TLM that are not in ED groups or the SSPX.

MrT - August 19, 2016

Good to know. Then there’s the other problem. Because Their Excellecies look at the TLM as some sort of viral infection, they prefer to bring in a traddie org and locate them at a semi-obscure location. These diocesan TLM fans then don’t get the chance to celebrate. So they oppose the wishes of local traddies to have a priest with a traditional seminary formation come in and do the whole nine yards.

Mark W - August 17, 2016

Really? Which parish in Plano? I assume St. Mark’s, but was that really requested and denied?

And yes, I’m one of those people, with an entire family as well, that would go to the TLM if it was offered somewhere closer, but being on the extreme east end of Plano make Irving a non-option. I just don’t have the transportation for that right now.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

No, not St. Mark. Lesser known parish, I’d rather not say.

But I can add that in the past the TLM has certainly been requested at St. Mark and denied, as it’s been requested in a number of other locales and also met with the response that “We have one parish for the Traditional Latin Mass and don’t see a need/have resources for more.”

Mark W - August 18, 2016

That tells me what I need to know. Thanks.

11. David - August 17, 2016

I don’t know where the Dallas Morning News got October. Salt Lake City is still officially without a bishop, and it’s been 15 or 16 months (I think Msgr. Bircumshaw will be made bishop there soon), and bishops of Arlington, Virginia, Rockville Center (NY), and I believe Memphis have sent papers to Rome, since they have reached 75. Rockville Center is on my watch list, and could use a strong leader. I pray that either Fr. James Gould, Fr. Brian Bashista, or Fr. Eric Albertson becomes the next Bishop for the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia.

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

I don’t know. Rocco Palmo hinted at the same thing.

12. Gc5341 - August 17, 2016

Having sampled several parishes in Dallas I have found the liturgy to be banal. Priests are less active during Mass. We’ve got the deacon to read the gospel and give the homily. We’ve got an army of eucharistic ministers to distribute communion.

It’s the girls who consistently show up to altar serve while the boys are mia. Music varies depending on what Mass you attend. Last week I visited a parish with a nice jazz ensemble. Another church features the kumbaya guitar band.

Meanwhile in order to save time only eucharistic prayers 2 and 3 are permitted. Eucharist prayer 1 is shelved. Funny thing though is that announcements are never skipped.

These are Dallas parishes under Bishop Farrell. With Pope Francis making the decisions you can bet our new Bishop will work hard to further banalize our liturgical atmosphere. It’s only going to get worse.

13. MIKE IN DALLAS - August 17, 2016

Danny Flores is a friend of mine — he would be SUPERB! Which I guess means we’ll never see him. I think aux. Bishop Greg Kelly will simply slide in. With my low regard for Congregation of Bishops, we’ll get a dud.

14. Woody - August 17, 2016

Cardinal Burke becomes the new bishop. And then Texas secedes from the Union! Wake up, Woody, wake up!

Tantumblogo - August 17, 2016

Heh. There’s pipe dreams, and then there’s pipe dreams.

But it’s a very, very attractive one.

Camper - August 18, 2016

Don’t be so sure on Texas secession. Yesterday (Aug. 18th) drudgereport.com had an article that said that 60% of Texans said they would support secession if Clinton wins the White House. Cdl Burke is another thing.

15. sixupman - August 17, 2016

The UK diocese in which I reside is to undergo a wholesale reconstruction: de facto, the new basis of operation is to be based upon a laity/permanent diaconate structure? Traditional Orders have not been approached for their assistance – although adjacent diocese have. The new Vatican Department is probably of the same thinking.
Married clergy next? The inexorable march !

richardmalcolm1564 - August 17, 2016

If you keep failing, just change the passing grade.

The real problem comes when they finally run out of laity. But I understand that the Church of England has a great reservoir of experience on which they can draw when you need tips on devolving into a real estate holding company.

16. Dennis Hogan - August 17, 2016

With luck, Dallas might get Duca back from Shreveport.
Although I’m leary of home diocese promotions any more (a case in point being Olson in Ft. Worth) I think an exception could be made in Bishop Duca’s case. A worthy man! Let’s hope.

17. William - August 18, 2016

Can you tell us more about the repeal of the weapons policy? I looked and can’t find anything about this…

18. Gc5341 - August 18, 2016

I wonder if Bishop Mark Seitz gets the appointment to Dallas. He served in Dallas for years.

Tantumblogo - August 18, 2016

I thought about posting on that. Lord, I hope not.

Gc5341 - August 18, 2016

I agree. I pray that it doesn’t happen.

19. A Voice Crying in the Wilderness - August 18, 2016

Francis’ “upward pressure”

20. DM - August 19, 2016

Tantum just thought I’d let you know that some liberal jerk posted a pretty nasty comment about you on Fr. Z’s blog posting about this topic, after someone else had linked to your discussion of Bishop Farrell. All of us here know of course he’s wrong. Far from you having “public hatred” of the Bishop as this person claims, I’d say you have been far, far more charitable and reasonable towards Farrell than he deserved, given all his controversies in Dallas you’ve covered. I certainly would not have been. I’m sure you wouldn’t pay heed to detractors like this anyway, just letting you know we’re all behind you here.

Gc5341 - August 19, 2016

Good comment. Tradition and truth are under attack. Things are going to get worse. I am afraid that some major disaster will happen changing our lives as we know it. Hopefully not but likely so. A disaster will bring suffering and then cleansing. Only from this kind of suffering will the church be restored. It seems so many in our church today have hard hearts. They stubbornly believe they know best. What God wants is not considered. Tradition is a threat so traditon is suppressed. With just the last few sentences today’s liberal authorities would shut me up by labeling me as “judgmental.”

Our stubborn rulers will not change their ways. They’ve set us on a course for ruin, much suffering and death. Change will only come after a natural disaster forces them out.

Tantumblogo - August 19, 2016

Meh. They can say what they want. I let my writing stand for itself. I don’t worry about what other people say.

There are local folks who develop a grudge over time. Sometimes I don’t cover their hobby horse and it causes them to go off the deep end. Sometimes people just seem to sort of lose it, in these extremely trying times.

Thanks for the head’s up, but I won’t lose any sleep over it. Nor will I respond.

21. Camper - August 19, 2016

This announces that Bp. Farrell was known for authoritarian stances and that he “smashed” a movement for Catholic renewal at UD.
https://www.gloria.tv/video/Fd2NNHdxthHQMAkTQF6seBc93

richardmalcolm1564 - August 19, 2016

Exactly what was this Catholic renewal movement at UD, and what did Bp. Farrell do to shut it down?

Tantumblogo - August 19, 2016

Hmmm…….well there has been a great deal of scandal at UD over the past 10 years. The “smashing of renewal” – or what I might call the attack on orthodox belief – really began under Grahmann when he appointed the liberal wrecking machine Msgr. Milam Joseph as president. This was a deliberate, open attempt (he openly proclaimed this) to break the still-extant orthodoxy of the theological faculty and replace it with what Joseph called a more “mainstream” (read: liberal) orientation. UD had maintained/built up a solid (but very much conciliar) theological faculty even during the depths of the revolution in the Church. But Joseph was successful in running most of those off. UD’s downturn began then, and while it is still more faithful/orthodox than most Catholic universities (this isn’t saying much), it is not near as solid as it once was. There are still some very good profs and departments there, but it’s not what it once was.

There was huge scandal also under Farrell’s tenure, when there was an attempt made to put the remnant of the theological faculty (most had departed for Ave Maria or other places in 2001) under what many UD alums feel is the very problematic School of Ministry. There was a minor revolt among alums and some students. More here:

https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/trouble-brewing-at-ud-again/

Camper - August 20, 2016

At UD, many women wear short shorts and are not reprimanded. The place can’t be recommended for men at all.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: