Everyone by now has heard the news that Pope Francis, on the recommendation of the U.S. papal nuncio and the visitators, is expected imminently to request the resignation of Bishop Joseph Strickland. In an interview done two months ago with John-Henry Westen, I explained why I believe the good bishop should not only refuse that request, but also refuse to acknowledge his deposition if Rome should proceed to that dire step. Why do I argue this?
According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, “the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles” (Lumen Gentium 20). Moreover,
The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern. Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it, since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church. (LG 27)
Finally, even though a bishop governs only the portion of the flock of Christ entrusted to him, he nevertheless has a responsibility to and for the Catholic Church as such: “Each of [the bishops], as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles, is obliged by Christ’s institution and command to be solicitous for the whole Church… For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church” (LG 23).
In short: a bishop is a bishop because Jesus Christ has made him a high priest of the Church and a successor of the apostles. He is not a “vicar of the pope,” that is, one who stands in for the pope like a branch manager beholden to Vatican, Inc., but a vicar of Christ in his own diocese, receiving his episcopacy from God at the pope’s delegation.
Barring a just cause for the grave step of deposition—historically used for cases of heresy or other notorious crimes—the bishop remains a bishop by divine institution and authority. Nor can he be faulted for addressing and assisting the faithful who dwell beyond the borders of his own diocese even if he has no immediate pastoral care over them, for in bearing witness to Christ and the sacred deposit of faith, he is simply doing his job, according to his discernment of what the times demand.
The reader may well ask: “Is there any precedent for such resistance?”
Let me tell you the story of Isidore Borecky (1911–2003). Born in Ukraine, he studied for the priesthood in Lviv and in Munich between the wars, and was ordained on July 17, 1938. He then worked in Canada for ten years until Pope Pius XII appointed him Apostolic Exarch of Apostolic Exarchate of Eastern Canada. Ten years later, he was appointed Eparchial Bishop of the newly-created Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto until his retirement on June 16, 1998. He was a father of the Second Vatican Council, and, as the founding bishop of his eparchy, much beloved.
So far, so good. But you see, he was supposed to stop being bishop when he reached the “mandatory retirement age” of 75. At least, that’s what Rome thought. Bishop Borecky, however, refused to retire, saying that this rule applied to the Latin church and not to the Eastern churches, that he was exempt from it, and that he would remain in his office until he died. “We have, as the Ukrainian Catholic Church, to fight for our rights,” the bishop told a reporter. The Vatican eventually appointed a successor, Roman Danylak (1930–2012), but Borecky refused to acknowledge him as the new bishop.
The cited news article continued:
The dispute has immobilized and divided the eparchy, which has about 100,000 members as well as 125 priests, most of whom are married. Some laypeople and priests, along with Borecky, stayed away from Danylak’s consecration as bishop…. For his part, Danylak did not attend the celebration of Borecky’s 45th anniversary as bishop in June…. The dispute between the two bishops appeared to come to a head in a letter June 28 from the Vatican. It affirmed that Danylak has “all rights and duties” in spiritual and temporal matters. It said Borecky “retains only the prerogative of a liturgical character,” and that his decisions about the eparchy were “void of every judicial effect.” The letter came at the request of Danylak after both he and Borecky issued letters to the eparchy claiming authority over its affairs.
The Vatican letter was from Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches. He said the pope had given Danylak the authority over the eparchy and pointed out that Borecky “has already completed his 81st year of age.” Borecky countered in an Aug. 5 letter to Silvestrini, “I have taken the position, based on advice, that there is some question” whether Vatican II’s “resignation requirement” applied to bishops appointed before the council, especially an Eastern-rite bishop…. “Unfortunately, I did not have the courtesy of a direct communication from Your Eminence either advising me of the appointment of the apostolic administrator or outlining the specific reasons which would constitute the ‘serious and special reasons’ for the appointment,” wrote Borecky.
I was told by an elderly gentleman living in that eparchy that more of the clergy supported Bishop Borecky. (Those who are interested in reading some articles from the midst of the events may consult The Ukrainian Weekly of Sunday, January, 1993 and Sunday, February 7, 1993.)
How did the story end? As an entry on Danylak notes, after six years of standoff Bishop Lubomyr Husar of Lviv “negotiated a resolution whereby Borecky retired and Danylak was reassigned to ‘special responsibilities in Rome,’ resulting in the vacancy of the Toronto eparchy effective June 24, 1998. Bishop Cornelius Pasichny of Saskatoon was appointed the new bishop on July 1 of that year.” Bishop Borecky stuck to his post till 87, and died five years later. Although he didn’t die in office, he relinquished it of his own volition, as befits the dignity of a successor of the apostles.