The Congregation for Bishops could not decide yesterday on the name to forward to the Pope as Archbishop of Westminster.So it looks like Vatican expert Paolo Rodari jumped the gun in announcing that Benedict XVI had settled on Bishop Bernard Longley.
My first thought on hearing this was: "What is wrong with these people"? Longley, a liturgical conservative but a born diplomat, seemed rather a good choice.
Now it appears that the Congregation is deeply split, with different factions arguing for Bishop Longley, Archbishop Nichols and (weird, this) Bishop Philip Tartaglia of Paisley, a real doctrinal conservative. Tartaglia is lined up for Glasgow, and the Scots would be pretty furious to lose him, so I find the suggestion baffling.
Meanwhile, the Nuncio is reported to be batting for Archbishop Smith of Cardiff, the business-as-usual candidate.
Still, the delay (if there is to be one) tells us something significant. Rome knows that the English Church is a problem.
Just look at the bishops' wretched "summary" of the Pope's letter on the SSPX affair, which left out all the bits the liberal bishops didn't like.
(Journalists from several publications have told me they think the summary was a disgrace.)
So much is wrong with the Church in England and Wales that one doesn't know where to start. It throws money at bureaucrats and at moronic projects such as livesimply (sic).
Its bishops are almost Gallican in their disdain for the great reforming projects of Pope Benedict.
The Bishops' Conference is so divided in its response to anti-Catholic legislation that Church teaching varies from diocese to diocese.
I suppose an extra couple of weeks won't make any difference.
But please, Holy Father, be bold.
This one is ultimately up to you, not the Congregation.
Choose a Catholic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: TOUK)