By this, I don't mean that they should choose from their brothers, men who are capable of carrying out tasks assigned to them. But when we see the votes that are taken, meaning how many votes a particular candidate received, isn't there a kind of humiliation that accompanies this kind of transparency, especially if the vote isn't anywhere close.
Personally, I am happy that the pro-life bishop who won is the the one who won!
But here is the Chicago Tribune's secular and political take on it--and the only ones responsible for the politicization of this kind of thing isn't the Tribune, but the bishops:
Cardinal Blase Cupich has often been praised for his political savvy since he was installed in Chicago by Pope Francis. But Cupich suffered a rare setback Tuesday morning when his fellow U.S. bishops rejected him for the post of chairman of the powerful pro-life activities committee, instead electing Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann. The post is traditionally reserved for cardinals, meaning the conservative Naumann’s 96-82 vote victory over Cupich has widely been seen as a snub for the more progressive approach advocated by Cupich and the pope. National Catholic Reporter columnist Michael Sean Winters — a liberal — went so far as to say the vote by the U.S. Conference of Catholic BishopsContinue Reading by clicking here as the disgraceful Michael Sean Winters uses a vulgarity to describe what the bishops did to make Cardinal cupich suffer so much!