Whenever a priest that I (or my husband) am on good terms with does something annoying, we tell him we're going to pray he becomes a bishop.
Once, after our previous pastor purposely introduced my husband to the new parachute vicar with the wrong name, we told him we were praying that he would be named a cardinal.
I'm glad the Church has a mandatory retirement age for bishops. The U.S. Congress shows what happens when the requirement doesn't exist. People serve beyond their age-limited mental and physical capacity. Younger energy is blocked by those who won't leave. The institution begins to feel calcified.
While it's great to see so many Boomers being forced into retirement, it's sad to realize that many of them will be replaced with other Boomers. 10 more years of Boomerdom....
Had no idea the retirement age was a recent thing. I'm somewhat comforted knowing that the scandals of the past decade could have been so much worse if we had media shoving microphones in front of 85 and older Ordinaries asking for hot takes.
I pray that if they get the call they say maybe. There are several who need to go and they are all not old. There should be a vetting with laity involved since they will be the ones stuck if the choice is not the best. The Holy Father is the only one who can remove.
I'd love to see an analysis on the number of US priests vs. the number of US bishops. The likely drain the episcopacy has been, and will be, on available priests is not negligible.
In some addiitional points to the Bishop Murry blurb (requiescat in pace, my friend), he had leukemia *three* times. He recovered from the first two bouts but when it returned for a third time he submitted his resignation to Rome, but died before it was accepted.
I hope we get more younger bishops so we avoid the cohort of priests ordained in the mid-1990s before the 1992 Catechism was a big part of priestly formation and the rise of the JP2 priests. Liturgical reverence is the heart of the future health of the Church, and we need our episcopate to promote it.
The flexibility of the "mandatory" retirement age provides sanity to the process. If a bishop (or priest or deacon) is showing signs of inability to fill the office, accept the resignation. If the cleric is clearly able to continue and is willing to do so, do not accept the resignation. The default before 75 is he stays, after 75 he goes.
It would be interesting to see of the younger bishops which have seniority to backfill for those seats which will soon be vacant. For example, Bishop John Folda, Fargo, has his 10th anniversary as a bishop in a few weeks and he's 61. I have to think that we will hear in the not to distant future that he'll be appointed to a new see.
I love the data! I pray that we are given great men to be bishops in the coming years.
Whenever a priest that I (or my husband) am on good terms with does something annoying, we tell him we're going to pray he becomes a bishop.
Once, after our previous pastor purposely introduced my husband to the new parachute vicar with the wrong name, we told him we were praying that he would be named a cardinal.
I'm glad the Church has a mandatory retirement age for bishops. The U.S. Congress shows what happens when the requirement doesn't exist. People serve beyond their age-limited mental and physical capacity. Younger energy is blocked by those who won't leave. The institution begins to feel calcified.
If a mandatory retirement age is a thing, is age 75 still the right age?
Many retirement systems phase in retirement eligibility based on birth year, presumably due to increases in life expectancy.
Maybe it needs to be staggered more. Based on position or birth year, etc.
While it's great to see so many Boomers being forced into retirement, it's sad to realize that many of them will be replaced with other Boomers. 10 more years of Boomerdom....
Had no idea the retirement age was a recent thing. I'm somewhat comforted knowing that the scandals of the past decade could have been so much worse if we had media shoving microphones in front of 85 and older Ordinaries asking for hot takes.
I pray that if they get the call they say maybe. There are several who need to go and they are all not old. There should be a vetting with laity involved since they will be the ones stuck if the choice is not the best. The Holy Father is the only one who can remove.
I'd love to see an analysis on the number of US priests vs. the number of US bishops. The likely drain the episcopacy has been, and will be, on available priests is not negligible.
If only we had mandatory retirement for presidents, senator and congress!
In some addiitional points to the Bishop Murry blurb (requiescat in pace, my friend), he had leukemia *three* times. He recovered from the first two bouts but when it returned for a third time he submitted his resignation to Rome, but died before it was accepted.
I hope we get more younger bishops so we avoid the cohort of priests ordained in the mid-1990s before the 1992 Catechism was a big part of priestly formation and the rise of the JP2 priests. Liturgical reverence is the heart of the future health of the Church, and we need our episcopate to promote it.
The flexibility of the "mandatory" retirement age provides sanity to the process. If a bishop (or priest or deacon) is showing signs of inability to fill the office, accept the resignation. If the cleric is clearly able to continue and is willing to do so, do not accept the resignation. The default before 75 is he stays, after 75 he goes.
It would be interesting to see of the younger bishops which have seniority to backfill for those seats which will soon be vacant. For example, Bishop John Folda, Fargo, has his 10th anniversary as a bishop in a few weeks and he's 61. I have to think that we will hear in the not to distant future that he'll be appointed to a new see.
Very nice visualizations - like that you're using datawrapper ;)
Any comments on the appointment of Bishop Christopher Coyne as the coadjutor archbishop of Hartford?