Enough Is Enough, Cardinal Mahony!

I'm not one to publicly criticize bishops.  In fact, I usually detest it and encourage others to not do so.  Usually...but not this time; although it helps that Roger Cardinal Mahony is retired.

In case you're not familiar with what I'm eluding to, Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles has publicly announced that his predecessor Cardinal Mahony will "no longer have any administrative or public duties."  Abp Gomez has also announced that Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry (who was then Vicar for Clergy under Cardinal Mahony) has been granted his request "to be relieved of his responsibility" as Episcopal Vicar for the Archdiocese's Santa Barbara region.  This happened after the Archdiocese of Los Angeles was court ordered to release 30,000 pages of it's clergy sex-abuse files this past week.  As far as I know, a diocesan bishop publicly relieving his predecessor (who's a cardinal) and an auxiliary bishop at the same time are unprecedented.  You can read Archbishop Gomez's statement here.

Perhaps relieving is not the right term to use.  Since the announcement was made, I've been searching through Canon Law.  While it specifically doesn't address a bishop emeritus (fancy name for retired bishop), it seems that any duties that a titular bishop (a bishop who isn't the head of a diocese) has within the diocese are granted by the diocesan bishop and therefore can be removed by him, but only the pope alone has the ability to accept a bishop's resignation. It seems Abp Gomez has the ability to significantly limit Bp Curry's diocesan abilities until that happens, but can't relieve any of the auxiliary bishop's faculties in the way he can if he were a priest. Since Roger Mahony is a cardinal, Abp Gomez can only prohibit him from the archdiocesan duties that had previously asked him to do. Only the pope can prevent him from participating in a papal conclave, and only the pope can remove his faculties.  (Canon lawyers and other smart people, please correct me if I have any of that wrong.)  In fact, I just saw that Abp Gomez released this statement today which clarifies the canonical status of the two bishops.

Back to my point. As a devout Catholic and father of small children, the whole thing sickens me.  The sexual abuse of minors by clergy sickens me.  The fact that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has 30,000 pages of documentation on clergy sexual abuse sickens me.  The fact that Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Curry covered so much of it up sickens me.  The fact that Archbishop Gomez had to take action against two other bishops sickens me. 

Want to know what really sickens me?  That Cardinal Mahony released a public letter to Archbishop Gomez in response to the matter.  Seriously Cardinal?  The people have had enough! You've been relieved of any diocesan duty so, your eminence, please just go away quietly.  At the very least, you made some very bad decisions when you were Archbishop of Los Angeles; at the very most you should have been criminally charged and imprisoned.  Either way, a lot of people have been hurt by your actions, and the largest archdiocese in the United States that was entrusted to you for over 25 years will be cleaning up from your episcopacy for years to come.  The only reason you're still in good standing is because Abp Gomez doesn't have the authority to say otherwise.

Archbishop Gomez, thank you for your transparency and cooperating with exposing this evil.  Only by bringing our sins to the light can we begin to move forward.  

Bless our victims, forgive our sins, and help your Church, Lord.
 

What's a Titular Church?

I have to warn you, this article is more on the informative side than usual. Okay. To the be honest, my wife thought it was downright boring. But keep reading, maybe it'll be interesting!

Earlier this month, New York's Timothy Cardinal Dolan wrote in his blog about taking possession of his titular church in Rome. Well if you're not familiar with that, you might want to ask: What's a titular church? And why does Cardinal Dolan have one? Here's the answer.
 
The first cardinals of the Catholic Church were actually the priests in Rome. For obvious reasons, they were the pope's closest advisers and elected a new pope when the Holy See became vacant. When clergy from outside of Rome were selected to be cardinals, the custom of linking them to a Roman church began.  At that time, a church around Rome was known as a titulus, and someone who held property for the Universal Church was called a titular.  (Titulus/titular are from the Latin meaning title.) Today, cardinals who are designated cardinal priests are given a titular church in Rome from this tradition. The cardinal gets his name and coat of arms at or near the door of the church, but in most cases has little to do with its administrative or sacramental life. In a similar way, cardinals who are cardinal bishops are given one of the Suburbicarian Sees near Rome, and cardinals who are cardinal deacons are also given a titular church called a cardinalatial deaconry. This way, where ever in the world a cardinal resides, he remains symbolically close to the pope.

The other case where the term titular church is used is with bishops who are not heads of dioceses.  These bishops are known as titular bishops.  Auxiliary bishops, papal nuncios, and heads of the Roman Curia are common examples. While these bishops do not function as diocesan bishops, they must still be the bishop of a church or diocese, at least symbolically. As a result, a diocese that no longer exists, called a titular see, is assigned to them. These titular dioceses will always have potential to be reinstated, although this rarely happens.

In modern times, when a diocesan see is suppressed its area is absorbed into another diocese. This could happen for organizational reasons, such as when an area's Catholic population is no longer sufficient to maintain a diocese, or if the see is moved to where the population has increased. In history, dioceses would be suppressed if the city is destroyed by disaster or war, or when conquered by non-Christians (7th century northern Africa for example). These bishops would flee to other dioceses and assist the bishop there, acting in a similar way to today's auxiliary bishops. When the helping bishop would die, there would often be a successor who would take the title of the former diocese with the hopes that it would someday be restored.

So if your diocese has an auxiliary bishop, his job is to assist the diocesan bishop in the same way another priest in the parish assists the pastor.  In some way, the auxiliary bishop actually has a diocese of his own, but it has no cathedral, clergy, or laity, although it probably did at one time (and may again if it is ever restored in the future).

Since 1970, diocesan bishops whose resignations are accepted for retirement are no longer assigned titular dioceses. They are now given the title bishop emeritus of their former diocese (according to Canon 402). The same goes for a coadjutor bishop, which is a bishop designated to assist the diocesan bishop and will succeed him when he resigns or dies. Instead of being given a titular see, he is now titled coadjutor bishop of the diocese that he will eventually oversee. I'm not sure why this was changed, other than the possibility of running out of titular dioceses with the number of retired bishops is growing. If anyone knows the answer, please tell me!

I know this article is a little different from my usual stuff; I decided to let my nerdy side come out a little. The Catholic Church has many neat historical customs and traditions that the everyday Catholic may not know of, so I thought talking about one of them is good once in a while (or this could just be a total bust).

I don't know if the subject of a "titular church" will ever come up in cocktail party talk, but if it does, you'll be well prepared!