Here we go.... Archbishop Gomez elected USCCB president BALTIMORE (CNS) -- Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles was elected to a three-year term as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops during the bishops' fall general assembly in Baltimore. The native of Mexico was chosen Nov. 12 with 176 votes from a slate of 10 nominees. Archbishop Gomez, 67, is the first Latino to be elected president. He has served as conference vice president for the past three years, working alongside Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, the outgoing president. His term as president begins when the assembly ends. The Los Angeles prelate has been a leading advocate of immigrant rights, often voicing support for newcomers as they face growing restrictions being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies. In subsequent voting, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit, conference secretary, was elected vice president. He was elected on the third ballot by 151-90 in a runoff with Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services. Under USCCB bylaws, after the election for president, the vice president is elected from the remaining nine candidates. The two top officers begin their terms at the conclusion of the fall assembly Nov. 13. In voting for a new secretary, the assembly elected Archbishop Broglio, 112-87, over Bishop Daniel E. Thomas of Toledo, Ohio. Archbishop Broglio will serve through the end of the term in 2021. The bishops also voted for the chairman of one committee, chairmen-elect of five other conference committees and three representatives on the board of Catholic Relief Services, which is the U.S. bishops' overseas relief and development agency. In the first committee vote, there was a tie vote between Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami and Bishop George V. Murry of Youngstown, Ohio, for chairman of the Committee for Religious Liberty. Each candidate received 121 votes, but Bishop Murry, at 70, became chairman under USCCB bylaws because he is the older of the two candidates. Archbishop Wenski is 69. The committee had been chaired by Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, but he stepped down earlier this year to undergo treatment for bladder and prostate cancer. Bishop Murry will serve the remaining year of Archbishop Kurtz's term. Vote tallies for committee chairmen-elect are: -- Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance: Archbishop Jerome E. Listecki of Milwaukee elected over Bishop Mark L. Bartchak of Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania, 144-97. -- Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs: Bishop Daniel P. Talley of Memphis, Tennessee, elected over Bishop Steven J. Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, 123-114. -- Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis: Auxiliary Bishop Andrew H. Cozzens of St. Paul and Minneapolis, elected over Bishop Thomas A. Daly of Spokane, Washington, 151-88. -- Committee on International Justice and Peace: Bishop David J. Malloy of Rockford, Illinois, elected over Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, California, 140-101. -- Committee on Protection of Children and Young People: Bishop James V. Johnson of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri, was elected over Bishop W. Shawn McKnight of Jefferson City, Missouri, 167-77. Each chairman-elect will begin his three-year term as chairmen at the end of the 2020 fall general assembly. In addition, several chairmen-elect chosen last year will become committee chairmen at the end of this year's assembly and will serve three-year terms: -- Committee on Catholic Education: Bishop Michael C. Barber of Oakland, California. -- Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations: Bishop James F. Checchio of Metuchen, New Jersey. -- Committee on Divine Worship: Archbishop Leonard P. Blair of Hartford, Connecticut. -- Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development: Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City. -- Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth: Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco. -- Committee on Migration: Auxiliary Bishop Mario E. Dorsonville of Washington. A final vote was taken for three seats on the CRS board. Elected were Bishop Frank J. Caggiano of Bridgeport, Connecticut; Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas; and Bishop Anthony B. Taylor of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Analysis: US bishops at odds over abortion and 'the Francis test' By Ed Condon AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to Facebook Share to TwitterShare to WhatsAppShare to PinterestShare to PrintFriendlyShare to More Baltimore, Md., Nov 12, 2019 / 07:01 pm (CNA).- During the second day of the USCCB Fall General Assembly in Baltimore, divisions among the bishops bubbled briefly to the surface, with bishops exchanging sharp interventions on the “preeminence’ of abortion as a social concern. The exchanges highlighted simmering tensions among the bishops, which have less to do with the centrality of abortion to the Church’s political engagement, and more to do with bishops contending to appear closer to the pope than their colleagues. Cracks in the conference appeared as the bishops discussed amendments to a letter meant to accompany a series of videos aimed at helping Catholics engage with the American political process when Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago asked for a separate consideration of one of the amendments. The cardinal suggested the insertion of a long paragraph into the text which would contextualize the Church’s position on life issues, and especially the teaching of Pope Francis. The committee considering the amendments, led by the USCCB president-elect Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, agreed to include an abbreviated version of Cupich’s paragraph, including language insisting that the “firm and passionate” defense of the unborn should be matched with support for the “equally sacred” lives of the poor, inform, elderly, and marginalized. Cupich argued that his proposed wording was necessary, even if it was longer, in order properly to represent the full concerns of the pope. Speaking in support of Cupich, Bishop Robert McElroy told the assembly that he was specifically opposed to the letter’s retention of language calling abortion the “preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself.” McElroy told the conference this language was “discordant with the pope’s teaching, if not inconsistent,” and implied that a failure to accept Cupich’s proposed language was tantamount to a breach with the Holy Father’s magisterium. “It is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the preeminent issue that we face as a world in Catholic social teaching. It is not.” McElroy’s intervention triggered murmurs on the conference floor, with several bishops visibly distressed. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia responded to McElroy, saying that calling abortion the “preeminent priority” was not just correct but necessary, pointing out that in the current American political context it was the most pressing concern. Chaput went on firmly to reject McElroy’s implication that recognizing this reality was in any way a breach with the pope, or a failure to present or value his own magisterium. “I’m certainly not against quoting the Holy Father’s full statement [as Cupich proposed],” Chaput said, “I think it’s a beautiful statement and I believe it.” “But I am against anyone saying that our stating that [abortion] is preeminent is contrary to the teaching of the pope, because that isn’t true. It sets up an artificial battle between the bishops’ conference of the United States and the Holy Father which isn’t true.” “I don’t like the argument Bishop McElroy used, because it isn’t true.” In a rare break with etiquette, the bishops in the hall broke into applause in support of Chaput. Pope Francis himself has repeatedly spoken out against abortion in the strongest possible terms, likening abortionists to “hitmen,” and comparing the practice to genocide “with white gloves.” McElroy’s pointed suggestion that the U.S. bishops are out of step, even resistant, to the pope’s own teaching comes one week after the publication of a book which accused the American bishops of resisting the pope’s leadership in their efforts to pass stricter measures for bishops’ accountability last year. That book, Wounded Shepherd, drew a strong response from the USCCB, which last week said it “perpetuates an unfortunate and inaccurate myth that the Holy Father finds resistance among the leadership and staff of the U.S. bishops’ conference.” As the bishops of the United States have been at pains to emphasize their closeness to the pope, many in Rome have noted the rise of a narrative in which Americans are cast as totems of opposition to Francis. During a September trip to Africa, the pope casually remarked that “it is an honor that Americans are attacking me,” in response to a book which suggested that so-called conservative opposition to his teaching was organized by U.S. Catholics. In his address at the opening of the USCCB assembly on Monday, the apostolic nuncio to the U.S. emphasized the importance of the pope’s priorities being reflected in American dioceses, and many U.S. bishops, including the USCCB leadership, are deeply sensitive to the impression that they are anything less than supportive of the pope and reject any suggestion of disloyalty. Many also saw McElroy’s intervention as harmful to the conference and even disingenuous. “He wants us to think that to disagree with him – or [Cardinal] Cupich – is to disagree with the pope. It’s not true, but it works to undermine the conference leadership,” another bishop told CNA immediately following the vote. “It doesn’t serve communion among us, or with the pope. It’s about personalities and power.” The final vote on the amendment declined to include Cupich’s longer text, with applause again breaking out when the result was announced, but several bishops approached CNA after the session concluded to express their concerns that the actual substance of the amendment had been obscured by McElroy’s pointed intervention. “I had no problem with either [Cupich’s] longer version or [Gomez’s] preferred formulation,” one bishop told CNA. “But Bishop McElroy suggesting that by calling abortion what it is in our society we are against the pope is absurd.” The bishop suggested to CNA that McElroy’s intervention “needlessly weaponized” the debate about the language of the letter. During a press conference after the morning session, several bishops sought to smooth over the exchange between McElroy and Chaput, insisting that there was no contradiction between the bishops holding abortion to be the “preeminent” concern for the conscience of Catholics and the teachings of Pope Francis. Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, who was made a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2016, said that “The short answer is that yes, abortion is the preeminent [concern] and the vote makes that obvious.” Asked about McElroy’s characterization of his view, and that of the conference, that calling abortion the preeminent concern was either opposed to or discordant with the pope’s teaching, the cardinal suggested the McElroy was perhaps trying to make a different point. “I think Bishop McElroy was warning against exclusive choices – either/or – or highlighting something to the point that other issues disappear. And I think, if I have understood his intention correctly, he was right.” It is likely that McElroy’s intervention will be raised behind closed doors, when the bishops will gavel themselves into executive session. Behind closed doors, efforts to insist that the conference speaks and thinks with one mind are unlikely to continue long. The increasingly serious challenge facing the large majority of U.S. bishops is how to deal with a small minority of their number who seem to be attempting to position themselves between the conference leadership and Rome, and appearing to drive a wedge between them and the pope at the same time.
I have recently laid it all our in the MOG thread Prophesy - GSWYL with messages God provided dealing with the abomination of desolation. Our Lord himself has revealed through his messengers, as he said he would always do: Amos 3:7. This is how we will know if the Eucharist is valid or not.
Thank you Fatima. I just reread those posts. I’m still trying to digest it in light of what’s happening today. So much happening- both outright evil and much, much confusion.
So to kind of summarize, an “anti-pope” will declare the Protestant teaching of the Eucharist- that it is not the true presence. At about that time the “church” reforms into basically a Protestant type service. Whereas those following the true magisterium will go underground and continue to celebrate the real and Holy presence in the Eucharist. The Church -through the actions of this “anti pope” basically de facto “schisms” from us! So what is happening now? Isn’t PF essentially putting this in motion? All that’s really necessary is for enough “Higher ups” to declare him apostate by all of his actions. Any bishops who side with such heretical beliefs might already be in schism and possibly unable to truly guide their flocks in valid masses and therefore they would essentially already be “Protestant-ized”. Just a thought
What’s even more scary along these lines is that there is now the PF “litmus test” happening at the USCCB’s - you’re either with him or you’re not. Maybe we’re witnessing this prophecy as Fatima posted on GSWYL. I’m sure the PF litmus test will be enacted worldwide.
The office of the USCCB is across the street from the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, better known as the National Shrine. That whole area of Washington, DC is an old Catholic enclave. On Saturday, November 16, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco will celebrate the first ever Mass of the Americas in the Shrine at 10 am, EST. It will be a Pontifical Solemn Mass in the Tridentine form and will be televised live on ewtn. I hope to be there. I am sure that the "litmus test"intentions will be on the Archbishop's mind.
Yes, all is a precursor for the time our Lady has spoken to, prior to the era of peace, which she promised at Fatima. The tribulation/purification of the church and the world is in play as we speak. It is well recorded in messages from scripture and prophecy what transpires going forward.
I probably came on a bit strong with that, and I was aiming at McElroy rather than Pope Francis, in his attribution to the latter of diminishing abortion to just another little thing. In fairness to Pope Francis, he has been effective and eloquent in some of his criticisms of abortion, such as his 'hitman' reference, although Bonino remains at the back of one's mind. Maybe I wasn't too strong, on second thoughts. Abortion is the elephant that fills the whole room, isn't it? Every sacrifice to Moloch strengthens his infernal cause.
You have been confirmed correct many times in the last 3 years. You advanced in rank to prophet and scholar
I concur. I quit posting (not reading, just quit posting) a couple years ago as I felt it was not my place to criticize the Pope and the hierarchy, rather it would be best for me to pray for them. And I've been praying for Pope Francis, our Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests for years now in my intentions during the daily Rosary. But you were right, you weren't under the diabolical disorientation. Rather, they are
Don't dispair, you know that you are on the side of the winner! The cart, it seems, is too far in the mud for human rational to solve. Nothing less than an act of God is called for. And He will act, one way or the other. I just hope, it is 'the other'
Unfortunately there's only 1 way out of this hole we have dug for ourselves. But I completely Trust He has a plan that will convert and save the most souls possible Getting through it ain't gonna be pretty. But as my Dad used to say, "if getting into heaven was easy, they'd let everybody in"
No it ain't gonna be pretty for some. But it is not pretty either, being bombarded with outrageous apostasies every day either. As my Dad used to say: 'Better an end with horror, than horror without an end' The latter is the definition for hell I guess. And if my 'plea bargain with God' goes through, we have little to fear, do we?
