Twenty-five years after the first “Tale of Two Bishops“, is not Bishop Zurek setting us up for the sequel, since he, just as Bishop Matthiesen in 1997, has decided to use “squatter’s rights” to remain in the bishop’s residence after retiring from the Diocese of Amarillo in order to distract our next bishop from dealing with the “different types of abuse” which “are grafted” onto his Episcopacy; consequently, just as before, will this not lead to, “An argument”❓
XVI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
How to be a missionary synodal Church
Instrumentum laboris
Part I – Relations
With ordained ministers: at the service of harmony
38.
“The bishop has the task of presiding over a Church, being a visible principle of unity within it and a bond of communion with all the Churches. The singularity of his ministry entails a power that is proper, ordinary and immediate, powers that each bishop exercises personally in the name of Christ (cf. LG 27) of the proclamation of the Word, presiding over the celebration of the Eucharist and the other sacraments, and pastoral guidance“; accordingly, “numerous priests, diocesan leaders and laypeople” made the argument that former Bishop “Matthiesen was valued not only for strong moral leadership but for a pastoral style that, priests say, included good listening skills, kindheartedness and tolerance for diversity…By the time he retired as bishop of Amarillo in January 1997, at age 75, he had served the diocese for 51 years as priest, secondary school principal, newspaper editor and bishop“; however, while literally riding atop a white horse, Bishop Matthiesen also violated the “singularity of his ministry” as he ignored other bishops’ warnings and “recruited and maintained so many priests with troubled histories, including at least five who were hired directly from a treatment center for sexual abusers“; subsequently, “Amarillo’s first homegrown bishop” decided to claim “squatter’s rights” to the bishop’s house so that he could hang around and distract our next bishop from knocking him off his high horse for the “different types of abuse” which were “grafted” onto his Episcopacy; indeed, did not Bishop Matthiesen forget, as St. Jerome wrote in today’s office, to “Leave aside empty vanities and vulgar error, believing in him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave him glory and a throne on his right hand, to whom are subject all things in heaven and earth, whom everything that has breath serves, who is coming as the judge of the living and of the dead: God will require vengeance for his blood from any who disobey him”❓
“This does not imply his separation from the portion of the People of God entrusted to him (cf. CD 11), and which he is called to serve in the name of Christ the Good Shepherd. The fact that “the fullness of the sacrament of order is conferred by episcopal consecration” (LG 21) is not the justification for an episcopal ministry that is ‘monarchical’, conceived as an accumulation of prerogatives from which every other charism and ministry derives“; accordingly, Bishop Yanta was “called to serve in the name of Christ the Good Shepherd” in the Amarillo Diocese at a time when we had the highest percentage of clergy abuse in the United States; consequently, those “numerous priests, diocesan leaders and laypeople” who rode along with Bishop Matthiesen now made an argument for riding, “the new bishop right out of town — to send him the way of several priests (he) sent packing and projects (he) dismantled“, because Bishop Yanta had discovered that they were associated with the “different types of abuse” which were “grafted” onto Bishop Matthiesen’s Episcopacy; eventually, “Yanta acknowledged that it is difficult at times to serve in a diocese where a popular retired bishop still resides. Quoting his former boss in San Antonio, Yanta said, “Archbishop [Patrick] Flores always said, ‘When you leave a parish, leave.’ ” Asked whether he thought Matthiesen had caused problems for him, he said, “I’ll answer that by saying when I came to the diocese, I wanted it to be united and for Bishop Matthiesen and myself to be role models of unity. That has occurred in a lot of instances.”, but having said that, did he not abandon any “squatter’s rights” to the bishop’s residence and leave as if, “Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back again“❓
“Instead, it affirms the capacity and duty to gather and compose in unity every gift that the Spirit pours out on baptized men and women and on the various communities‘”; nonetheless, when Bishop Zurek came in 2008, instead of hearing from a people who, “gather and compose in unity every gift that the Spirit pours out on baptized men and women and on the various communities“, didn’t he hear a pastor say, “If you talked to Bishop Yanta, you’d know that he never listens, he talks. We offer counter arguments, and he comes back with justification for decisions he’s already made. I don’t think there’s a priest in this diocese who would follow him to get a drink of water;”; consequently, was this not a lament of an individual who felt he was unjustly attacked, yet not confident of being found innocent, and so cried out for the new bishop to, “Incline your ear to me and hear my word“❓
Alleluia, alleluia,
Certain aspects of episcopal ministry, including the criteria for selecting candidates for the episcopate, are being addressed by Study Group 7“; so, can I not make an argument that Bishop Zurek, though not homegrown or as popular, is now doing as Bishop Matthiesen did by claiming “squatter’s rights” in order to remain in the bishop’s residence after retiring from the Diocese of Amarillo as Bishop Yanta didn’t; furthermore, could this not be a sign that Bishop Zurek has “different types of abuse” which “are grafted” onto his Episcopacy” as Bishop Matthiesen did and Bishop Yanta didn’t; therefore, could not Bishop Zurek be staying in order to distract our next bishop from dealing with his abuses, as Bishop Matthiesen did and Bishop Yanta didn’t; finally, isn’t Bishop Zurek forgetting, as Bishop Matthiesen did and Bishop Yanta didn’t, that, “The Son of Man came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many“❓
Alleluia, alleluia
…namely, how these two “Tales of Two ‘Squatter’ Bishops” focus on attitudes that are opposed to Christian discipleship: abuse, rivalry, and intolerance of outsiders; and how these attitudes are the way that…
“An argument arose among the disciples“❓
