I wanted to knock my head on a wall for this one...
In the interview, he revealed among other things that it often happens, "more than I could have expected," that the candidate chosen to be made a bishop does not accept the appointment.
He indicated the reasons for such refusals in the growing difficulty of fulfilling the role, in a society in which the bishops are under public attack, "in part as a result of the scandals and charges concerning sexual abuse."
As for career ambitions – the cardinal cautioned – if a priest or a bishop aspires and maneuvers to be promoted to a prominent diocese, "it is better for him to stay where he is." [Well, one appointee has this trait, yet he still got appointed!]
And he concluded the interview by sketching the profile of the bishop the Church needs most today. A bishop who is at the same time a theologian and an apologist, a public defender of the faith: [TAKE NOTE OF THIS ONE FOLKS!!! Because it will not fit one of the appointees as far as I know.]
"Today, especially in the context of our secularized societies, we need bishops who are the first evangelizers, and not mere administrators of dioceses. [One is an evangelizer indeed, but only on TV. He loves the limelight. But NEVER an administrator. He is a disaster.] Who are capable of proclaiming the Gospel. Who are not only theologically faithful to the magisterium [The same guy is NOT faithful.] and the pope, but are also capable of expounding and, if need be, of defending the faith publicly." [The "appointee" attacks it by making it look like a theological discourse therefore "protected" by the so-called "academic freedom".]
[Chiesa lists the names of key appointments...but I'll get to the meaty part.]
The sixth appointment, on October 13: that of Luis Antonio Tagle as archbishop of Manila.
Tagle received his doctorate in theology in the United States, at the Catholic University of America, with a thesis on episcopal collegiality, [Vatican II aggiornamento HOOHA!] under the guidance of Professor Joseph Komonchak. With him, he collaborated on the drafting of the history of Vatican Council II most widely read in the world, promoted by the "school of Bologna" founded by Fr. Giuseppe Dossetti: a history with a particular slant, which sees Vatican II as a rupture and new beginning with respect to the previous experience of the Church. [This book sums up the whole theological leaning of Tagle. Believe me, it is.]
In this history, Tagle wrote among other things the chapter dedicated to the "black week" of November 1964: "black" for the progressives, hostile above all to the "Nota explicativa prævia" that Paul VI added at that point to the beginning of the dogmatic constitution "Lumen Gentium," in order to clear up its ambiguities.
When the volume with this chapter of his saw the light of day, in 1999, Tagle had been for two years a member of the international theological commission that flanked the Vatican congregation for the doctrine of the faith, at the time headed by Ratzinger.
In 2001, Tagle became bishop of Imus, where he distinguished himself by his nearness to the poor and his simple and charitable way of life. [Just that. Nothing about his REAL job description as bishop of the diocese.]
At the episcopal conference of the Philippines, he is president of the commission for the doctrine of the faith.
As www.chiesa revealed in an article last November 14, in the biography of Tagle delivered [meaning Tagle personally wrote this and sent this to the Vatican.] to the cardinals and bishops of the Vatican congregation responsible for evaluating the candidates for archbishop of Manila, his collaboration with the "school of Bologna" was completely omitted. [Conveniently omitted.] To the disappointment of some who learned of it only after the appointment was made.
Manila is a cardinal see. And there are some who have even added Tagle to the list of the "papabili." [God help us...]
I'd rather take aspirin.
If what Cardinal Oullet says is true, then why....
Never mind the aspirin.