Rorate Caeli

A confusing nomination


Armand Maillard, Bishop of Laval, who was himself the main cause of one of the most sordid episodes of persecution of Traditional Catholics in France in recent years, in Niafles (several posts available here), was promoted today by Pope Benedict to the archbishopric of Bourges.

Bourges is a historical archdiocese, with no suffragan dioceses left - but it is larger and more significant than Laval. Is Maillard's nomination to this larger see an example of "promoveatur ut amoveatur" or just another confusing result of the episcopal-appointment process (as the unforgettable Wielgus Affair)?

15 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:31 AM

    Maybe he's promised to behave himself now? (One hopes . . .)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Things like this make it appear that the church is spinning out of control in spite of the Pope's efforts. It also makes the SSPX claims of the dark forces in the church more plausible. All in all, it leaves one not knowing what to think - and THAT is not a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:09 PM

    Like altar girls for Ordinatio Sacredotalis in the spring of '94, this is a sop to the pouting French bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:55 PM

    The Holy Father must be kidding. It's just a move, so he would be able to appoint Msg. Fellay in the place of Levada.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:45 PM

    Let's face it -- traditional Catholics are NOT a priority of this papacy. The recent motu proprio is another version of Mao's cultural revolution theme of "Let 10,000 blossoms bloom."

    ReplyDelete
  6. How long ago was Salt Lake City's "gay friendly" bishop elevated to San Francisco? And we're surprised about this guy??

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope the Holy Father knows what he is doing...!

    ReplyDelete
  8. This nomination is just one after another : all bishops appointed in France under pope Benedict XVI are like Bp Maillard, with one or two exceptions. With the same papal Nuncio by the way than under the last years of John Paul II when the nominations were much more encouraging !
    The only doctrinally sound bishops who have some courage to speak aloud in France are a few Wojtylian bishops. Some other Wojtylian bishops are also doctrinally sound but much more discreet. The one and only Benedictine bishop who is theoratically pro-trad had very cold feet with the motu proprio.

    In short, this pope is condemning the Church in France to a certain liberal death populating the episcopate with liberals. Why ? I would like to understand but I don't and so far, nobody is understanding.
    The most radical neo-modernist magazine Golias is openly "rejoicing" (quotation) at the previous appointment of Bp Santier at Evry : this Bp had proclaimed his repentance recently for the Church "persecution" of homosexuals and protestants. He was ashame of the evangelization of his former diocese !
    He is also promoted from a tiny diocese to a bigger one, close to Paris.

    For the Americans, just figure out to have ALL new American bishops being clones of Niederauer, Weakland, Bernardin, Mahony ... ALL ! That is what His Holiness is imposing to the French Church in order to kill her totally.
    Personnally, in this field, I WEEP at the good days of John Paul the Great.
    There was still some hope for the French Church then : under Benedict XVI, we know now the next stage is ... a cemetary.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:50 AM

    Could it just be weakness? John Paul II more or less did what he wanted, as far as I can figure out, and didn't pay much attention to pressures. If Benedict XVI lets himself be pressured by French bishops and the Secretariat of State - which we know he does given the drama about the motu proprio - then such appointments are to be expected.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous3:11 AM

    John Paul II more or less did what he wanted, as far as I can figure out, and didn't pay much attention to pressures

    What?

    Don't mean to make this a combative thread, but you can clearly see patterns in the JPII US appointments at least - for example, the Bernardin group - Lynch of St. Pete, Pilarcyk of Cincy, etc., all still doing terrible damage.

    Then there's the St. John's group - with Mahony at the fore.

    As well as the British bishops, almost to a man.

    The Pope, unfortunately, depends on what bishops from a certain country, as well as the Papal Nuncio and the proper curial office tell him about episcopal candidates. If a country or area of a country (like California/the Midwest) has a "bishop maker" like Mahony or Benardin, that is a power that is hard to break, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was not implying all and every appointments under John Paul II were perfect, even in France. It was far from being perfect.
    However there was a trend : John Paul II has greatly renewed the US episcopate. If there is today a small majority ready to implement "Liturgiam authenticam" among USCCB, it is the result of this policy.
    Even if there are "bishop makers" influential loccaly, like cardinal Mahony, I bet the Los Angeles cardinal is not behind the appointment of Bp Baker in Alabama or the promotion of Bp Burke to a bigger archepiscopal see...

    You can see the same policy under John Paul II in Australia, in a lesser degree in Latin America. I notice Benedict is going on in the USA, in Canada, in Australia but oddly seems to change to "liberal" candidates for France, Brazil for example. That's weird and I still do not see any logical impulse there.
    Moreover to promote liberals massively in some countries like France is simply sentencing this local Church to death.
    You don't "cure" a severely ill patient with a heavy, daily dose of poison, do you ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is a sad example of the collegiality "agreement" of Vatican II. Until the Pope breaks this...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous2:01 PM

    I, for one, would never have listened to any of the “traditionalists” (which I consider myself) if it had not been for then Cardinal Ratzinger's insistence on the "hermeneutic of continuity." He has constantly insisted that if we are not practicing the faith of our fathers, we have abandoned our calling. Shouldn't it give us pause that a man as brilliant and Faithful as the Holy Father is not totally on board with the traditionalist perspective? Many of the changes that happened in the late 20th century were destructive, but to many, it is an open question on what to do now. Are we really so certain that we know exactly how things should move forward? The Pope has clearly expressed that simply exerting power to change things back to the way they were (some of which needed reform) may have consequences far worse than the frustration resulting from slowly righting the ship. It would confirm the notion that Tradition/Liturgy/Form is simply a matter of power rather than faith and reason. I think he has a point, as frustrating as that is. No one is going to agree with everything the Pope does, but let us hope he has reasons, and sometimes simply makes mistakes.

    That said, I hope this Bishop is better than he appears. Many of Bishops seem like company men who blow with the wind. If the wind changes direction, maybe he will too. Either way, we should pray for him and the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous9:10 PM

    I wonder how the monks of Fontgombault feel about thgeir new diocesan bishop!

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!