Retiring Cardinals

[Lil Red]

I was just reading [url="http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/vescovi-bishops-obispos-11286/"]this article[/url], and was wondering what phatmassers thought.

[color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica][size=3]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=3]Despite the prominent appeals that have rained down upon the Holy See, Benedict XVI has continued, as did his two immediate predecessors, to retire bishops and cardinals at 75 years (as required by the rule established by Pope Paul VI),[b]without extending the retirement age to 80 years, as many have requested[/b]. Based on under the first paragraph of canon 401 of the Code of Canon Law - the text approved in 1983 and signed by John Paul II in the fifth year of his pontificate -[b]bishops are required to submit to the Pope their resignation from the pastoral governance of their dioceses at 75 years of age[/b]. According to the rules set down by the current “charter” that regulates the internal life of the Catholic Church, the issue of resignation and renunciation is armor-plated. As a rule, then, Benedict XVI has almost always accepted appointing a new bishop,[b] barring some unforeseen extension for reasons of force majeure.[/b][/size][/font][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica][size=3]

[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=3]Joseph Ratzinger does not believe it appropriate to set aside the rule that requires ecclesiastics to submit their resignation upon reaching the age of 75. The former head of the American bishops supports raising the retirement age for ecclesiastics.[b]Cardinal Francis George, in fact, has said he hopes that Benedict XVI “does not accept the letter of resignation” he must send next month according to the Code of Canon Law. [/b]On 16 January, the cardinal (the first ecclesiastic to occupy the post of Archbishop of Chicago who was also born in that city) will celebrate his 75th birthday, precisely the age upon which the bishops are asked to immediately send their resignation letters to the Vatican. At that point, the Pope can decide to immediately move the “over-75” into retirement or keep him in service until his successor to the episcopal chair is appointed.[/size][/font][/size][/font][/color]

[AccountDeleted]

I put stay at 75, not because I think that every person is less able to function between 75-80 (I don't), but because I think it gives the Holy Father the opportunity to review the performance of the Bishop and replace him if he needs to be replaced, but also to refuse his resignation if he feels that this Bishop should continue.

[Lisa]

Even if they submit their resignation at 75, they aren't always immediately replaced. Our Bishop turned 75, but I believe that it was about 2 years before a new Bishop was appointed.

[Lilllabettt]

My bishop is 72. He is really good at what he does. Really, I have a hard time seeing how he could be doing better. So it seems a shame for him to resign as long as that is the case.

[Luigi]

People live longer these days, health care is better, etc. Move it to eighty.



As if my vote counts for anything...

[Vincent Vega]

All I know is that it's supposed to be Francis Cardinal George.

[MithLuin]

I agree with nunsense. The mandatory resignation later is not automatically accepted. One could, presumably, word it is such a way as to make it clear that one is still in good health and willing to continue serving the Church in one's post. In which case...the pope could keep you on for another couple of years, perhaps even until age 80.

The 'secular' retirement age is 65; 75 is a decade past that. I don't see any need to force bishops and cardinals to continue working until they are 80 just because some of them can! So, I'm fine with the 'letter at 75' set up that we currently have.

[Aloysius]

I like 75 for nunsense's reason: a review. not just a health review, I think, but a review of whether that bishop should still be running that diocese or whether that diocese now needs new blood. I wouldn't make anything explicit about how they can continue on if they're in good health, I think it perfectly wise to give the Pope the prerogative to decide whether or not to keep them on regardless of whether they are in good health. it gives the Holy Father a point where he can review a bishop and decide whether to keep him on or not while avoiding any scandal that would come with firing them if he thought they were not the right person to continue on in that diocese. that way, if it looks like a diocese is not doing so well under a particular bishop's leadership, but that bishop is not doing anything explicitly heretical or wrong, the Holy Father can happily accept the opportunity to replace him without him losing his dignity as a bishop and priest.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325588567' post='2362159']
I like 75 for nunsense's reason: a review. not just a health review, I think, but a review of whether that bishop should still be running that diocese or whether that diocese now needs new blood. I wouldn't make anything explicit about how they can continue on if they're in good health, I think it perfectly wise to give the Pope the prerogative to decide whether or not to keep them on regardless of whether they are in good health. it gives the Holy Father a point where he can review a bishop and decide whether to keep him on or not while avoiding any scandal that would come with firing them if he thought they were not the right person to continue on in that diocese. that way, if it looks like a diocese is not doing so well under a particular bishop's leadership, but that bishop is not doing anything explicitly heretical or wrong, the Holy Father can happily accept the opportunity to replace him without him losing his dignity as a bishop and priest.
[/quote]

Actually I was thinking this as well. We have a priest here in Oz who was a bit 'iffy' and was asked to retire by his Bishop but this priest, who was a 'personality' took it to the media and caused such a stink that the Bishop granted him another two years on the condition that he go quietly then. Two years passed by and the priest caused another stink but the Bishop didn't relent the second time and he had to retire. And this Bishop had tried very hard not to let this priest lose face - by giving him the title of Emeritus and other things but the priest wasn't as thoughtful towards his Bishop.

I think priests and Bishops should hand in their resignations, and trust in God whether they are asked to stay or not, but the ones who fight it are usually the ones that need to go anyway!

[Aloysius]

:yes: it's a way of exerting papal power over the episcopacy without undermining the special authority inherent to the episcopacy, kind of a nice way to act in accordance with the ecclesiology of Vaticans I and II. we do not want a church where the pope is constantly firing and hiring bishops like mere employees, since bishops are successors to the Apostles in the college of bishops with the bishop of Rome as first among them as equals in a sense, but all the same as the pope does possess direct personal jurisdiction over the whole Church it is useful to be able to peacefully transition away from bishops who lead in bad directions or fail to lead well.

[Basilisa Marie]

I had an idea, but then realized that I really like nunsense's idea of having 75 be more like a performance review with the option of retirement than an actual submitting of his resignation.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Aloysius]

I think explicitly making it a "performance review" is actually a bad idea, because we don't want it to seem like the Pope is just meddling in local churches firing his fellow bishops for being bad bishops; it's much better if everyone is expected to retire at 75 and the Pope uses that opportunity to let bishops who he does not wish to continue in a given see to gracefully bow out with full dignity. it's the difference between retiring at 75 and thanked for faithful years of service and basically being fired for a bad performance as a sort of official reprimand from the Pope. that's why I think it should stay as is: submit your resignation at 75, and the Pope will decide whether he wants to quickly accept it or take his time and hold on to you for a while.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325588567' post='2362159']
I like 75 for nunsense's reason: a review. not just a health review, I think, but a review of whether that bishop should still be running that diocese or whether that diocese now needs new blood. I wouldn't make anything explicit about how they can continue on if they're in good health, I think it perfectly wise to give the Pope the prerogative to decide whether or not to keep them on regardless of whether they are in good health. it gives the Holy Father a point where he can review a bishop and decide whether to keep him on or not while avoiding any scandal that would come with firing them if he thought they were not the right person to continue on in that diocese. that way, if it looks like a diocese is not doing so well under a particular bishop's leadership, but that bishop is not doing anything explicitly heretical or wrong, the Holy Father can happily accept the opportunity to replace him without him losing his dignity as a bishop and priest.
[/quote]

^ I meant more along the lines of what you said there.

[AccountDeleted]

Yeah, not a performance review per se because that could be embarrassing, but an honourable way to be replaced if it was necessary. There are still some Bishops who aren't really in line with Rome, and this would give Rome a way to handle the problem without seeming like a big bad bully.

PS I think the bully tag is also the reason why Rome doesn't 'get rid of' some of those 'wild and crazy' rebellious nuns and priests. (and perhaps a lot of patience and restraint and charity)

Edited January 4, 2012 by nunsense

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1325680491' post='2362709']
Yeah, not a performance review per se because that could be embarrassing, but an honourable way to be replaced if it was necessary. There are still some Bishops who aren't really in line with Rome, and this would give Rome a way to handle the problem without seeming like a big bad bully.

PS I think the bully tag is also the reason why Rome doesn't 'get rid of' some of those 'wild and crazy' rebellious nuns and priests. (and perhaps a lot of patience and restraint and charity)
[/quote]

i agree with this to an extent, except for the attitude about avoiding things in order not to seem like a bully. I think it is more of a scandal when Rome doesn't reprimand wayward bishops than when Rome remains silent on the issue. Too much confusion when laity see time and time again, dissent without the repurcussions.

I agree the Pope shouldn't do a "performance review" in light of a bishop's job performance such as how he manages his diocese, his administrative performance, etc., but of course, a Pope should always review a bishop's orthodoxy and faithfulness to the magisterium.