This week posts are focusing on the implications for the Amarillo Diocese” of a synodal process that looks to hear from voices on the margins of the church. Implication #2 is based on Bishop Zurek’s birthday…
Implication #2- Bishop Zurek may not be willing to undertake the “journey, which follows in the wake of the church’s ‘renewal’ proposed by the Second Vatican Council“, because his approaching retirement makes it more of a task than a gift…
The synodal process is “a two-year process that culminates in the Synod of Bishops in October 2023.” Bishop Zurek turns 75 in August of that year and since Canon 401 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that archdiocesan/diocesan bishops (including cardinals) are requested to submit their resignation to the pope on reaching that age, he may not be the bishop representing the Diocese of Amarillo at the Vatican. So…
Is Bishop Zurek Catholic enough to do all of the preparation for the 2023 Synod even though “the destination of his journey” is not Rome…
if not, is he Catholic enough to inform the Holy Father of his unwillingness, and submit his resignation now?
by Bishop Patrick J. Zurek
Click to read Bishop
Zurek’s Letter to St. Mary’s Cathedral
Bishop Zurek will need the support of “the few” if he is to answer Pope Francis’s call for, “the church to practice synodality, that is listening to — and hearing — one another in all facets of church life“, because calling down an “airstrike” on “the dome” would be adding on to our “serious mistake“.
“Inasmuch as there could be serious legal implications for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles if we do fully disclose to you our concern regarding the Reverend John Salazar, Sch.P., by this letter I am informing you that the Reverend John Salazar, Sch.P. would never be allowed to minister as a priest in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in any way whatsoever given the circumstances of his case.”
From a 1991 letter from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to the Diocese of Amarillo prior to Bishop’s Matthiesen’s bringing of John Salazar to the Diocese of Amarillo. Bishop Matthiesen ignored this warning. Later he defended the “serious mistake” by stating that he never conducted his own checks of the priests – which included the Rev. John Salazar-Jimenez, and that it wasn’t until 10 years later that he learned some priests were not the first-time sex offenders that they purported to be when he agreed to hire.
A Memorial in the Grotto of St. Mary’s Cathedral raised by Monsignor Waldow (whom Bishop Matthiesen labeled as a “congenital liar”) during Bishop Yanta’s episcopacy. Monsignor Waldow wrote:
“In memory of the death of innocence of the victims of clergy sexual abuse. When innocence dies…a life stops. It is essential that we never forget.”
