Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Pope Names Wuerl New Archbishop of Washington, DC

(Hat tip: Amy Welborn)

From Reuters:
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Tuesday named Donald W. Wuerl, bishop of Pittsburgh, to be the new archbishop of Washington D.C., one of the most prestigious posts in the American Catholic Church, the Vatican said.

Wuerl succeeds Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, 75, who is retiring after five years in the job.

The post of archbishop of Washington is one of the most influential in American Catholicism because of the regular contacts the prelate has with the White House and other branches of U.S. government.

Wuerl, 65, has been bishop of Pittsburgh since 1988. He was ordained a priest in 1966. Before moving to Pittsburgh, he served as assistant bishop in Seattle.


[More]
My Quotes:
I had hoped this wouldn't happen for reasons explained here. Although I will try to keep an open mind, here's my prediction: McCarrick II.


UPDATE
American Papist has a roundup of the coverage.


Other Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bishop Wuerl's Name Surfaces for D.C.

Bishop Wuerl: Bishops Should Consult One Another Before Speaking On National Issues Like Kerry And Communion

5 Comments:

At 5/16/2006 9:12 AM, Blogger Publius said...

If Hans K√ľng, Robert Drinan, and St. Blogs' own Joseph O'Leary are all still priests in good standing, do you really think Rome is going to put someone in Washington who will get the Church's tax-exempt status yanked the next time a Democrat becomes president? If serious crosier-whacking were to begin, it wouldn't begin with something as explosive as denying most of the Catholic politians on Capitol Hill communion (or rather attempting to deny communion to them, since I rather think any Archbishop of Washington would have a hard time actually getting most of his priests to do it).

 
At 5/16/2006 9:19 AM, Blogger Publius said...

As an addendum: If the communion-for-Kerry-Catholics thing is the worst that can be said against Bishop Wuerl (and I understand that quite a bit can be said for him), then Washington could have done a whole lot worse. Of course this is coming from someone who still lives in the Diocese of Richmond where Bishop DiLorenzo is the best thing since sliced bread due to the great liberalism of his predecessor, so take it for what it's worth.

 
At 5/16/2006 11:15 AM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

My problem with Wuerl is only tangentially related to the issue of pro-aborts receiving Communion in the sense that it happens to be the issue that gave rise to Wuerl's view that the USCCB should have de facto veto power over an individual bishop's authority to address the matter within his own diocese.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it would be workable for the Abp. of Washington to withhold Communion from every pro-abort "Catholic" in D.C.

But I don't think he should be trying to make his own job easier by trying to deny the Abps. of St. Louis, San Antonio, and Denver their authority to take a different tack in their dioceses.

 
At 5/16/2006 11:47 AM, Blogger Thomas said...

I've posted a roundup of the coverage if you are interested.

 
At 5/17/2006 10:16 AM, Blogger Boethius said...

I agree with your take: McCarrick II.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger