I had a special relationship with Pope Paul VI that began with his election to the papacy.  As soon as the conclave that elected him ended on June 21, 1963, Archbishop Coleman Carroll, Archbishop of Miami, announced that he was going to Rome for the coronation Mass and he invited me to accompany him  even though I had become a priest of the Archdiocese only two years earlier.  I had been dispensed from my solemn vows as a Benedictine in 1961 because the Archabbot of Saint Vincent Archabbey  in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, had wanted me out of the Archabbey and the Order because I was an architect and did not approve of his building plans.  The monastic chapter had voted down his project following my expression of disapproval in Chapter.  I was promptly accepted by Archbishop Carroll as a priest in the Archdiocese.

Pope Paul VI, as Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini and as an official in the Secretariat of State, had had a close relationship with the Carroll family since Monsignor Walter Carroll, the brother of Coleman was also an official in the Secretariat of State and Monsignor Montini had visited the Carroll home in Pittsburgh.  So, at the end of June in 1963 we went to Rome and we had a private audience with Pope Paul VI after the coronation Mass.

In 1971 Archbishop Carroll’s first and only Auxiliary Bishop, Bishop John J. Fitzpatrick was made the Bishop of Brownsville by Pope Paul VI in May of that year.  Rumors began circulating immediately that I would be the next auxiliary bishop of Miami.  I tried to put a stop to the rumors by explaining to anyone and everyone that when I was dispensed from my solemn vows as a Benedictine in 1961 I had automatically  acquired an impediment to promotion even to the rank of a monsignor by the terms of Canon 641.

Still the rumors persisted and finally Archbishop Carroll went to Rome by himself in August, 1971, something he would normally never do since he hated the heat of Rome in the summer.  The months passed by and then at the end of November, 1971 Archbishop Carroll informed me that Pope Paul VI wished to appoint me his auxiliary bishop.  I protested “But that is impossible since I have an impediment.”  The Archbishop replied, “Do not question the decision of the Pope since he is the Supreme Legislator of the Church.”  So, on December 6, 1971 I was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Miami and was ordained on January 25, 1972.

In February, 1972 I received my copy of the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDES,
a Vatican publication that is analogous to the Congressional Record.  In it I read that in September, 1971 Pope Paul VI had asked the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for Religious whether he should abrogate Canon 641.  The Congregations met separately in October and jointly in November to consider the question and then recommended to the Pope the abrogation of Canon 641.  The Pope accepted the recommendation.  Two weeks later I was appointed Auxiliary Bishop.

One can assume that in August Archbishop Carroll, who had a Doctorate in Canon Law, visited with Pope Paul VI  and said something like:  “Your Holiness, you know that Canon 641 was adopted by the Church in medieval times to prevent monks from leaving their monasteries to become bishops at a time when most priests in the Church were monks.  This is the 20th Century and surely the need for that Canon no longer exists.”  The Pope evidently agreed, and as they say, the rest is history.  In November, 1975, Pope Paul VI appointed me the first bishop of the new diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee.

5 Responses to POPE PAUL VI AND I

  1. David Martin says:

    I can tell you that Pope Paul VI had little to do with the Vatican II Council. He did sign documents and did express hope for the Council, thinking initially it was the work of God, but it wasn’t long before he acknowledged that the Council was the fissure through which Satan entered the Church. By 1972 his trusted ones, especially Cardinal Villot, were forging his documents and letters and censoring his mail.

  2. Adrian Johnson says:

    I agree with Doming Litton’s comment above!
    When Houston’s Bishop Fiorenza wanted a new cathedral, he proposed an architectural plan that looked like a cross between a petroleum refinery and a public convenience.
    He proposed his ghastly plan to wealthy Houston Catholic laymen, who took one look at it and told him in so many words, “I’m not giving money for something that ugly. Come back with something more traditional and we’ll talk.”
    He hated that, but the current Cathedral in downtown Houston is a livable compromise: modern Romanesque, somewhat patterned on the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

  3. Beth Crawford says:

    I wonder now, having listened to you say in an interview that one of the single most causes of the ills of the church today is “the virus of the false spirit of Vatican II” and Pope Paul VI being responsible for that counsel (he didn’t convene it, but he approved and signed every document and closed it), I wish I knew your thoughts. Why wasn’t there more rebellion against Vatican II and its awful Novus Ordo mass from the many good bishops?

  4. Hah! Architecture eased you out of the Benedictines! A chuckle on that one.

  5. Bev Miller says:

    What a wonderful story! Thank you for this and for your excellent essays. I’m learning a lot as a new Catholic.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s