As Liam points out, we have a “Movin’ on up” moment in the American hierarchy. Not to the East Side, of course, but to the Left Coast. As the blogosphere stirs and takes note this morning, I’ll confine my remarks to brief bits of snark.
- Rock seems to say it all in his subtitle: “Gomez Gets LA.” Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing to complain about with the intrepid reporting provided from the Loggia. But the questions should be asked: do bishops get sees or do flocks get bishops? And if we were flies on the wall when these matters were discussed at the congregation of bishops, how would we hear the pope, cardinals, and their advisers speak of these matters?
- A lot might be made of Archbishop Gomez being the “first Latino cardinal,” but let’s get some catholic perspective: the Church has had red hat Latinos for centuries–just not from the US. A reminder: the US is not the center of the Catholic world.
- And I’ll repeat my oft-written suggestion that, on the whole, the current episcopal body is developed by a very modernist and questionable culture: bishops cultivate proteges instead of shepherds, and small dioceses seem to have a choice between serial episcopacy and long terms of mediocrity in the cathedra. If this area of the Catholic Church were reformed, I think it would be a positive development for shepherds to gain a sense of responsibility to their clergy and faithful, and the movement of a bishop to another diocese would be an exception to the rule.
* Careerism in the Episcopacy