The National Catholic Register reports some shocking news:
New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan was elected president of the U.S. bishops’ conference at 10am this morning. The vote was 128-111 on the third ballot, a runoff in which he defeated Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson, Ariz., who served as USCCB vice president for the last three years.
Minutes later, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., was elected vice president of the conference on a third ballot in a runoff vote of 147 to 91 over Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver.
November 17, 2010 at 1:11 am
We're happy because with Dolan we have a hope that CCHD will be reformed (number 1 on my to-do-list for the good preident-elect is to fire John Carr). He's strongly pro-life – he finally got the Dems and Obama's number after Obamacare.
No degradation intended, just an honest assessment. With Kicanas we'd have had ongoing encouragement and enabling of dissident, fishwrap, Pelosi/Biden/Sebelius CINO "Catholicism."
Bonne chance et bon courage!
November 17, 2010 at 1:19 am
"You might interpret this as the bishops are tired of short and skinny presidents."– Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the reason for the vote in his favor.
One of my favorite local priests was Vice Chancellor for a while. He always said he didn't have the, (skinny, undernourished, gaunt) "Chancery look." Let's here it for the hearty faithful!!!
November 17, 2010 at 4:35 am
Archbishop Dolan, president and Archbishop Kurtz, vice-president! Thank you – I read it hear first and I am so happy!
November 17, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I feel compelled to add that I don't find some of the comments on this post very charitable.
Don't pull the pin on the "uncharitable" grenade unless you are willing to be specific. Otherwise, it is a cowardly passive-aggressive smear.
November 17, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Does anyone know who the rest of the people are in the photo accompanying this article?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700082662/Dolan-chosen-as-president-of-US-bishops-group.html
November 17, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Can't say this photo signals much happiness w/Dolan's election either…
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/11/in-bishops-shocker-tim-wins.html
November 17, 2010 at 6:19 pm
romishgraffiti,
Fair enough.
I think that I'm doing the right thing, given the nature of comboxes where people post from all over the world under usernames, or "anonymous".
I would prefer to speak directly to those who I think have unintentionally made uncharitable remarks. (The Lord knows that I myself have often said things that were less than charitable.) Jesus tells us that if our brother sins "tell him his fault between you and him alone" (Matt 18:15).
However, it is very difficult to do so through these public comboxes. However, just because I can't do it privately doesn't mean that uncharitable remarks should be left alone.
So, I made a generalized comment, hoping that people might reflect on their words a little more carefully. You obviously feel that a different method should have been used.
I'm sorry that you find that "cowardly".
November 17, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Nicholas,
What I think Romish means (and I agree) is that you could afford to be more specific about the COMMENTS that you found to be "uncharitable", and explain WHY (specifically) you think they violate charity. In this age of the nonsensical belief that "to be Christian is never to offend", we're (understandably) wary of the "that's uncharitable" comment; it's much more often a canard, than not.
Care to specify, without naming names?
November 17, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Paladin and romishgraffiti,
If I pointed out specific instances, that would void the idea that we rebuke privately. Surely you know that as soon as I point out a specific word, people will crawl back through the posts to find out what I'm talking about. I just want us all – including myself – to be more mindful when we post.
Although I can't prove this, I find it hard to believe that some of the language and tone used in comboxes would be used in face-to-face encounters. It's that kind of language that I find uncharitable.
(Of course, I've been – and regrettably continue to be – guilty of it myself. It is a vice of combox comments, I guess.)
Maybe some of the posters here would sneeringly call bishops "xxxx" and "xxxx" to their faces; but, I doubt it. I have a feeling they would register their discontent in a more … charitable, a more respectful way, if they were face-to-face.
More to the point: The purpose Matthew's post was not to dump on anybody for his perceived faults. The purpose of Matthew's post – especially the jump to the National Catholic Register – was to celebrate Bishop Dolan's election; which I celebrate, too. I think our bishops made a wise choice.
Nevertheless, a celebratory post turns – almost instantly – into a recitation of displeasure with bishops who voted another way.
The point of my first comment was: Let's celebrate the wonderful news because it is wonderful, not because it we're relieved it didn't go another way.
In hindsight, maybe I should have just said that and left off the "uncharitable" bit.
November 17, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Well… it's always a good idea to keep an eye on one's "charity meter", and I fully understand your point about slipping into snark; but I'm equally wary of having us fall into a syrupy sort of "soft soap spirituality", where harsh rebukes are weeded out in favour of milquetoast.
Re: comments "to the face" vs. "on forums": there are many people who don't know Bishop Kicanas' soft stances on homosexuality, abortion, and the like, and publicizing these facts (with or without a carbon-copy sent to his Excellency) is not only justified, but utterly necessary. One can't expect Bishop Kicanas to advertise his obstinate refusal to heed the Holy Father, Cardinal Burke, and others whose political sensibilities haven't clouded their judgment on life issues, after all. In this age where catechesis is a wasteland, we need to distinguish truth from error, and equivocation from holy boldness, by pointing out such examples. It's not wrong to warn people against trusting Bishop Kicanas with issues on which he's soft, resistant, or at least confused.
It's also understandable that people express their relief at the near-disaster (re: Bishop Kicanas' possible election), and then explain WHY (so as to show that they're not simply acting out of a personal grudge against the man).