Leo is a canon lawyer, so he will want this to go by the book, which means a complaint needs to be issued, an investigation needs to occur, & Martin needs to correct course. If he doesn't, then he can be dismissed.
John Paul II let Raymond Lucker and Rembert Weakland (among others) continue right up until the age of 75. Pope Francis's action to depose bishops really was the exception to a very strong norm
Why is it obvious? I am not seeing anything that points to “obvious” psychological issues. Is there anything in the memo or documentation, not just hearsay, that points to this?
The issue here is that this goes against the priestly formation program just put out by the Dicastery for Clergy. This can very easily be sent to Rome to be challanged & Martin will, most likely, be shut down on this. This isn't something within his competence that the PPF allows him to do.
Bp. Martin is just following the example of Pope Francis: superficially well-meaning, but in substance counterproductive, divisive, unpastoral, abrupt.
He, Cdl Cupich and others are also likely acting boldly as a challenge to Leo, attempting to impose their terms on the new boss through a flurry of changes that seem to say “this is how it’ll be over here.”
One of the only consolations I had as a first-year teacher was knowing that next year it was going to be slightly easier. This will just be pointless torture for pre-first-year seminarians.
I'm starting to get cynical enough to wonder whether that isn't the point, as someone who has some familiarity with some of the seminarians. If Bishop Martin talks with the young priests and the seminarians, he's going to figure out that not only will no one take his side now, there's no one coming down the pike who will either.
"One priest of the diocese called the bishop an “autocrat,” while another said he is “a bully” who has a reputation for berating his priests, going once on a lengthy tirade toward diocesan seminarians that left clergy frustrated."
Bishop Martin has made several changes that are within his purview, albeit in an imprudent or wrongheaded way. But this is the first time that I have read the sort of thing that could lead to an apostolic visitation. Verbally abusing your priests and especially seminarians (some of whom are in undergrad, as Charlotte has a minor seminary) on top of everything else is not going to win you any friends in Rome, even if they agree with your agenda.
Were any of the Catholic schools in the diocese consulted about this? This sounds like more work for them potentially, in training a new teacher that they know will only be there for a year, who hasn't actually expressed any interest in teaching in a traditional classroom setting. I taught at the high school level for six years; the first year at a new school can be very rough, even for someone who wants to be there and has prepared for it. This sounds like a potential nightmare for the seminarians and the schools they would be assigned to.
It also seems wrong to change the structure of seminary formation midway through without more advance notice and planning. Why not implement the new requirement for seminarians beginning their formation next year?
“Fluff” classes? I would expect a young man who just received a BA in Philosophy and who will become a primary educator and shepherd of a parish one day to be able to offer more to a middle school or high school than a “fluff” class.
That’s not what he is implying. I’m a high school teacher and my very first thought about this plan was “…are the schools on board with this?” simply because continuity is incredibly important in a school setting. No one wants to hire a teacher for one year. It’s not good for the students, the school, etc., and honestly, it’s not good for the teacher, either. Schools hope to hire for the long haul (if the teacher works out) because even if the curriculum remains the same, teaching styles vary from teacher to teacher, and there is collaboration within a department.
The “fluff class” idea isn’t a reflection of the seminarian’s knowledge or talents, but is simply a smart way to accommodate an unstable situation. Students do not do well with instability, trust me.
I don’t know how Charlotte’s seminary formation is setup, but where I live, you have your propaedeutic year, philosophy, then pre theology, then theology. I don’t understand the idea of sending these people that seem to only have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree to teach highschoolers. What are they going to teach? All of them theology? For one year?
What’s interesting to me is that Bishop Martin doesn’t really have any pastoral experience outside of working in Catholic schools. I must think that plays some sort of role in forcing all seminarians to teach for a year. But these are diocesan priests, not religious. It makes sense to have the Jesuits do this, but not diocesan priests. What happens if someone just isn’t a good teacher? Would that ruin their formation? I didn’t attend a Catholic high school but I know people who did, and my impression is that there are big differences between what happens at a Catholic high school and what happens in the real world.
Would these be seminarians? It sounds like this would just be a break for a year while they are forced to pay a certain amount of money to live somewhere nearby.
The statement of “The teaching year will be an opportunity “for our men who have little working experience to take on the demands of a full-time job, paying bills, and learning how to manage the elements of daily life that the people in our parishes have to balance all the time,”’ is something I don’t think you can have as a seminarian. To fully do that you would have to leave the seminary, as living in “the real world” doesn’t work when you live in a rectory as a seminarian. This also implies that being a priest isn’t “a full-time job,” but teaching high school is (implying that +Martin has worked harder than his other priests because he has worked in a school). The idea of having a “lay mentor” also doesn’t really make sense.
Above all this just isn’t synodal and lends credibility to the idea that the synod on synodality is just an excuse for certain ideologies in the church to be pushed because of “popular support.”
At some point +Martin is going to be gone because I must imagine every time another member of the episcopate reads an article like this, his credibility sinks even more.
In my area, Catholic high school students are fairly wealthy. You have to be to afford close to $20,000 a year. This leads to kind of a snobby student body. Even the Jesuit and Franciscan schools near me are known as "rich" schools. This also leads, to an extent, a secular culture at these schools, things like drugs, Pride clubs, things like that. That's not to say that public schools are better (they're worse) but I can't hep but think that teaching a group of at least somewhat wealthy student who mostly don't care about religion at all is much different than the type of ministry priests normally do. Pastoral care and administering the sacraments seems much different to me.
I am confused how you think pastoral care and administering the sacraments is different? Don’t the “rich high school students…who mostly don’t care about religion at all” need pastoral care? Won’t these students be part of a flock of a parish? Also, I think part of this memo is also to give seminarians the opportunity to work in union with lay leaders. They will be working closely with fellow teachers and principals. These skills will be invaluable as they work with their future parish staffs and parishioners.
They would be teachers, not chaplains, so it doesn't seem that they would be having the time and opportunity to work with these students in the way you seem to think, as I would imagine it. And that wasn't the bishop's reason for having this plan.
If they aren't Catholic then they wouldn't part of a parish. From what was reported here, the seminarians seem to be there in a teaching capacity, not in a pastoral capacity. I believe seminarians already have pastoral "rotations" so this would be different.
This is why I subscribe to The Pillar, and why many more should as well.
Thank you for keeping the light shining on the actions of this bishop. While not a priest of the diocese, I do have contact with some of them.
I can say that it is even worse than what is being reported. It isn't a theological/governance issue as much as it is a personal issue with the bishop. He is not emotionally stable and has a very extreme voluntarist understanding of obedience. It certainly isn't a secular priest's understanding of obedience. It may sound like hyperbole, but I believe that Bishop Martin needs an intervention.
My prayer is that someone who has the authority will investigate and then find a way to ease Bishop Martin out into an auxilary bishop position. The Archdiocese of Atlanta would be the best place, where his good friend who promoted him now serves.
It’s interesting to see what a bishop can get away with when they are seen as having the "correct" theological views and take most of their ire out on trads.
Get away with what? Maybe I’m a bit ignorant but what is he “getting away with”? Has he broken canon law? Has he directly contradicted the PPF? Has he overstepped his authority as a bishop? Don’t bishops have the right and authority to determine the formation of the seminarians in the diocese?
How about this for a complementary plan for the episcopacy: every new bishop, prior to his taking on his new position, must serve as pastor for a year in a poor or inner city parish prior to being seated as a bishop. That will cause panic in the disco!
I imagine the pneumatic mail tube is blasting letters into Pope Leo’s admin area at such a rate that staffers will have to wade through correspondence to use the toilet, inhale a cigarette, go for Roman 2nd breakfast, pre-lunch, lunch, early afternoon coffee break etc (at least these are the sort of break intervals that I think Romans enjoy). That’ll get old fast.
After everything I've seen out of +Martin, the amount of foul language, names, and insults I feel would be entirely and completely justified in launching at this... fella... would get me perma-banned.
So, how about this instead: "ya know, folks, I think I might kinda disagree with the guy"
It seems patently obvious that Bp. Martin has serious psychological issues.
How long he is allowed to run roughshod like this over the souls in his care will tell me a lot about Pope Leo.
Leo is a canon lawyer, so he will want this to go by the book, which means a complaint needs to be issued, an investigation needs to occur, & Martin needs to correct course. If he doesn't, then he can be dismissed.
Good point.
I guess I am just used to the prior pontificate where process and precedent were not super important.
John Paul II let Raymond Lucker and Rembert Weakland (among others) continue right up until the age of 75. Pope Francis's action to depose bishops really was the exception to a very strong norm
Why is it obvious? I am not seeing anything that points to “obvious” psychological issues. Is there anything in the memo or documentation, not just hearsay, that points to this?
The issue here is that this goes against the priestly formation program just put out by the Dicastery for Clergy. This can very easily be sent to Rome to be challanged & Martin will, most likely, be shut down on this. This isn't something within his competence that the PPF allows him to do.
I can't see such a document. Can you give a link to it please.
https://www.clerus.va/content/dam/clerus/formazione/risorse/2024/-formazione-permanente-negli-usa/Program-of-Priestly-Formation-6th-edition.pdf
Can you give a citation for the proposition in the document?
Bp. Martin is just following the example of Pope Francis: superficially well-meaning, but in substance counterproductive, divisive, unpastoral, abrupt.
He, Cdl Cupich and others are also likely acting boldly as a challenge to Leo, attempting to impose their terms on the new boss through a flurry of changes that seem to say “this is how it’ll be over here.”
One of the only consolations I had as a first-year teacher was knowing that next year it was going to be slightly easier. This will just be pointless torture for pre-first-year seminarians.
I'm starting to get cynical enough to wonder whether that isn't the point, as someone who has some familiarity with some of the seminarians. If Bishop Martin talks with the young priests and the seminarians, he's going to figure out that not only will no one take his side now, there's no one coming down the pike who will either.
No one is really taking his side whatsoever, of any age. That's the sense I get from the Charlotte guys I know
"One priest of the diocese called the bishop an “autocrat,” while another said he is “a bully” who has a reputation for berating his priests, going once on a lengthy tirade toward diocesan seminarians that left clergy frustrated."
Bishop Martin has made several changes that are within his purview, albeit in an imprudent or wrongheaded way. But this is the first time that I have read the sort of thing that could lead to an apostolic visitation. Verbally abusing your priests and especially seminarians (some of whom are in undergrad, as Charlotte has a minor seminary) on top of everything else is not going to win you any friends in Rome, even if they agree with your agenda.
Were any of the Catholic schools in the diocese consulted about this? This sounds like more work for them potentially, in training a new teacher that they know will only be there for a year, who hasn't actually expressed any interest in teaching in a traditional classroom setting. I taught at the high school level for six years; the first year at a new school can be very rough, even for someone who wants to be there and has prepared for it. This sounds like a potential nightmare for the seminarians and the schools they would be assigned to.
It also seems wrong to change the structure of seminary formation midway through without more advance notice and planning. Why not implement the new requirement for seminarians beginning their formation next year?
It will also affect continuity of instruction and probably push schools to create "fluff" classes for the temps in order to mitigate the disruption.
So many possible ways for this plan to go wrong.
Yup. Budget impact on schools? Consistent hiring practice? &c &c
“Fluff” classes? I would expect a young man who just received a BA in Philosophy and who will become a primary educator and shepherd of a parish one day to be able to offer more to a middle school or high school than a “fluff” class.
I don't converse with querulous hacks.
That’s not what he is implying. I’m a high school teacher and my very first thought about this plan was “…are the schools on board with this?” simply because continuity is incredibly important in a school setting. No one wants to hire a teacher for one year. It’s not good for the students, the school, etc., and honestly, it’s not good for the teacher, either. Schools hope to hire for the long haul (if the teacher works out) because even if the curriculum remains the same, teaching styles vary from teacher to teacher, and there is collaboration within a department.
The “fluff class” idea isn’t a reflection of the seminarian’s knowledge or talents, but is simply a smart way to accommodate an unstable situation. Students do not do well with instability, trust me.
Many thoughts on this:
I don’t know how Charlotte’s seminary formation is setup, but where I live, you have your propaedeutic year, philosophy, then pre theology, then theology. I don’t understand the idea of sending these people that seem to only have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree to teach highschoolers. What are they going to teach? All of them theology? For one year?
What’s interesting to me is that Bishop Martin doesn’t really have any pastoral experience outside of working in Catholic schools. I must think that plays some sort of role in forcing all seminarians to teach for a year. But these are diocesan priests, not religious. It makes sense to have the Jesuits do this, but not diocesan priests. What happens if someone just isn’t a good teacher? Would that ruin their formation? I didn’t attend a Catholic high school but I know people who did, and my impression is that there are big differences between what happens at a Catholic high school and what happens in the real world.
Would these be seminarians? It sounds like this would just be a break for a year while they are forced to pay a certain amount of money to live somewhere nearby.
The statement of “The teaching year will be an opportunity “for our men who have little working experience to take on the demands of a full-time job, paying bills, and learning how to manage the elements of daily life that the people in our parishes have to balance all the time,”’ is something I don’t think you can have as a seminarian. To fully do that you would have to leave the seminary, as living in “the real world” doesn’t work when you live in a rectory as a seminarian. This also implies that being a priest isn’t “a full-time job,” but teaching high school is (implying that +Martin has worked harder than his other priests because he has worked in a school). The idea of having a “lay mentor” also doesn’t really make sense.
Above all this just isn’t synodal and lends credibility to the idea that the synod on synodality is just an excuse for certain ideologies in the church to be pushed because of “popular support.”
At some point +Martin is going to be gone because I must imagine every time another member of the episcopate reads an article like this, his credibility sinks even more.
"my impression is that there are big differences between what happens at a Catholic high school and what happens in the real world."
Such as? Could you elaborate?
Sure
In my area, Catholic high school students are fairly wealthy. You have to be to afford close to $20,000 a year. This leads to kind of a snobby student body. Even the Jesuit and Franciscan schools near me are known as "rich" schools. This also leads, to an extent, a secular culture at these schools, things like drugs, Pride clubs, things like that. That's not to say that public schools are better (they're worse) but I can't hep but think that teaching a group of at least somewhat wealthy student who mostly don't care about religion at all is much different than the type of ministry priests normally do. Pastoral care and administering the sacraments seems much different to me.
I am confused how you think pastoral care and administering the sacraments is different? Don’t the “rich high school students…who mostly don’t care about religion at all” need pastoral care? Won’t these students be part of a flock of a parish? Also, I think part of this memo is also to give seminarians the opportunity to work in union with lay leaders. They will be working closely with fellow teachers and principals. These skills will be invaluable as they work with their future parish staffs and parishioners.
They would be teachers, not chaplains, so it doesn't seem that they would be having the time and opportunity to work with these students in the way you seem to think, as I would imagine it. And that wasn't the bishop's reason for having this plan.
Aren’t priests also teachers? Aren’t priests called upon to teach, catechize, and evangelize? Wouldn’t that experience be helpful entering that role?
If they aren't Catholic then they wouldn't part of a parish. From what was reported here, the seminarians seem to be there in a teaching capacity, not in a pastoral capacity. I believe seminarians already have pastoral "rotations" so this would be different.
Parishes are territories with boundaries. Of course none Catholics are part of a parish.
From your shepherds, O Lord, deliver your sheep!
Look I don’t know him, but this guy seems like he kinda sucks. I’ll pray for him.
This guy thinks he knows everything. Martin's arrogance is off the charts.
This is why I subscribe to The Pillar, and why many more should as well.
Thank you for keeping the light shining on the actions of this bishop. While not a priest of the diocese, I do have contact with some of them.
I can say that it is even worse than what is being reported. It isn't a theological/governance issue as much as it is a personal issue with the bishop. He is not emotionally stable and has a very extreme voluntarist understanding of obedience. It certainly isn't a secular priest's understanding of obedience. It may sound like hyperbole, but I believe that Bishop Martin needs an intervention.
My prayer is that someone who has the authority will investigate and then find a way to ease Bishop Martin out into an auxilary bishop position. The Archdiocese of Atlanta would be the best place, where his good friend who promoted him now serves.
It’s interesting to see what a bishop can get away with when they are seen as having the "correct" theological views and take most of their ire out on trads.
Get away with what? Maybe I’m a bit ignorant but what is he “getting away with”? Has he broken canon law? Has he directly contradicted the PPF? Has he overstepped his authority as a bishop? Don’t bishops have the right and authority to determine the formation of the seminarians in the diocese?
So... maybe after my regular Seven Sisters holy hour for my pastor tomorrow I should do another for the priests in the Diocese of Charlotte. 😣
How about this for a complementary plan for the episcopacy: every new bishop, prior to his taking on his new position, must serve as pastor for a year in a poor or inner city parish prior to being seated as a bishop. That will cause panic in the disco!
I imagine the pneumatic mail tube is blasting letters into Pope Leo’s admin area at such a rate that staffers will have to wade through correspondence to use the toilet, inhale a cigarette, go for Roman 2nd breakfast, pre-lunch, lunch, early afternoon coffee break etc (at least these are the sort of break intervals that I think Romans enjoy). That’ll get old fast.
After everything I've seen out of +Martin, the amount of foul language, names, and insults I feel would be entirely and completely justified in launching at this... fella... would get me perma-banned.
So, how about this instead: "ya know, folks, I think I might kinda disagree with the guy"