Dear Blog Visitors:
Today’s news concerning the Diocese of Rochester was
expected, but perhaps not so soon. When
Bishop Matthew Clark turned 75 on July 15, he followed proper protocol by
submitting his resignation to the Vatican.
In most cases, the Vatican takes several months to respond to a letter
of resignation. Additionally, in the
case of the Rochester Diocese, it was assumed that Bishop Clark would remain in
place until his replacement was named by the Vatican. So, the diocesan announcement this morning
seemed on the surface to be somewhat rushed.
In brief, it was announced that the Vatican has accepted Bishop Clark’s
resignation, and he is essentially retired as of today’s date.
Either the Vatican will act immediately and appoint Bishop
Clark’s successor within weeks, or the process could conceivably take several
months. The time factor is at best
anyone’s guess. In the meantime, Bishop
Cunningham of Syracuse will temporarily administer the affairs of the Rochester
Diocese, and Father Joseph Hart will supervise the day-to-day operations. As part of this arrangement, Bishop
Cunningham will commute between Syracuse and Rochester at least once per week.
In another blog post, I thanked Bishop Clark for his many
years of service to the Diocese of Rochester.
He was consistently kind to me, even when I was active in the church
reform movement. The best descriptive
words I can think of to describe him are KIND, CONSIDERATE, PASTORAL and
PATIENT. As a member of the hierarchy of
the Roman Catholic Church, he never felt it was necessary to enforce doctrines
or policies with a hammer. We often read
about bishops finding themselves at the center of a storm, due in many cases to
their overstepping their authority.
Instead, Bishop Clark always exercised patience and only wielded
disciplinary action when either disobedience was openly displayed on a regular
basis, or when it became necessary to remove someone from ministry due to
sexual abuse or other unlawful activity.
As can be expected, some ultra-conservative Catholics have
been openly celebrating the departure of Bishop Clark. Their assumption is that the Vatican will
appoint a conservative bishop who will be sympathetic to and supportive of
their issues. My advice to them is the
age-old saying: “Be careful of what you wish for.” If we do in fact get a law-and-order- type
bishop, conservatives may be surprised to learn that such a bishop will not
want them speaking on his behalf. I know
of several cases where over-zealous conservatives found themselves scolded by
their conservative bishops for attacking their liberal counterparts either in
cyberspace or other media outlets. In
short, a very conservative bishop will make it perfectly clear that he is in
charge, and will not want anyone being a spokesperson for him, other than the
appointed director of communications.
Although Bishop Cunningham is more conservative than Bishop
Clark, it does not necessarily mean that Cunningham is paving the way for a
permanent conservative bishop. The last
time the Diocese of Rochester had a conservative bishop was during the
three-year tenure of Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
Sheen asked the Vatican for a transfer, because he found that Rochester
was resistant to his authority.
Rochester, especially during the episcopacy of Bishop Clark, has built a
reputation of being inclusive in its policies, and although the ordination of
women is still forbidden in Roman Catholicism, women have nevertheless been
given leadership roles, such as that of pastoral administrators in
parishes. Any bishop coming to
Rochester, who tries to remove women from such leadership positions, would have
quite a battle on his hands.
Some well-meaning friends have given me some advice today,
such as perhaps becoming an Episcopal priest or serving in a pastoral role in
an independent church. These are
certainly possibilities I will consider if a new bishop should try to make my
life miserable as a married priest.
However, my guess is that a new bishop will come to understand that my
ministries (weddings, baptisms, funerals) are performed independently of the
Rochester Diocese, and should therefore not be of concern to a diocesan
bishop. We’ll see how things play out.
As stated above, Father Joseph Hart will be overseeing the day-to-day
operations of the Diocese of Rochester, under the temporary leadership of
Bishop Cunningham. Fr. Hart was one of
my professors in graduate school. During
that period, he was open to reform initiatives and supported increased
leadership roles for women in the church.
When he became vicar of the diocese under Bishop Clark, he had the
responsibility of making sure policies were not violated, which was somewhat of
a departure from his days in teaching.
Now that he reports to Bishop Cunningham, he may be asked to assume the
role of enforcer. (I hope this won’t be
the case.) In any event, I wish Joe well
in his new role, and I am appreciative of all that I learned from him in my
church history courses.
In conclusion, my sincere thanks to Bishop Matthew Clark for
his wonderful 33 years with the Diocese of Rochester.
Peace to all,
Ray
