According to Internet rumor, he is in line to replace Cardinal Mahony.
Thoughts?
Update: It's now official.
Il Santo Padre ha nominato Arcivescovo Coadiutore dell’Arcidiocesi di Los Angeles (U.S.A.) Sua Eccellenza Reverendissima Monsignor José Horacio GÓMEZ, finora Arcivescovo di San Antonio.
I just saw this, so according to St. Google the all-knowing, and AP, it's true.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iw-izdbv_bBWqUOx-NjF5avTiOAQD9ETGLL81
rollingrj: Olmsted would make better sense? Could you elaborate, give reasons? I am not challenging you or saying you are wrong, just want to hear your thinking.
I thought Gómez was a good choice because he has a reputation for strictness and orthodoxy and should make a good cleanup man for LA. I don't know anything about Olmsted, hence my question to you.
Here's a routine reminder: Be patient about legitimate differences in personal taste.
Not sure what rollingrj's reasoning is, but I've been hearing great things about Bishop Olmsted for years from young Phoenix Catholics. His teaching is clear, he fosters vocations and ministries of all kinds.
Isn't it wonderful, that there are so many excellent bishops around?
BTW, several sources say Gómez is a former Opus Dei member. I can't find any comment on how or why he came to be "former". Anybody know anything about this?
Joseph, it was something I saw on the 'net. Can't remember the article. My only reasoning is if he cleaned up what problems there were in Phoenix, he might do as well in LA.
Please take this comment for just what it's worth, an observation, not a speculation.
Our locally owned Catholic television station broadcast the principal Sunday Mass from San Antonio for years up until recently. I don't have a clue nor will I research whether the good archbishop presided over the archdiocese during that period.
That said, most of the liturgical music heard during those broadcasts did not exemplify what I would consider cathedral-level practice. Maybe things have changed recently. I would hope.
rollingrj: Could be that they are equally, if not identically, qualified.
I have had the impression from several articles that putting in a mexican-born archbishop was part of the selection, considering how heavy the LA latin population is.
What about the Opus Dei angle, anyone? I am intrigued that a former OD member was chosen, and I am intrigued as to why he is a "former" member.
He definitely is still a member of the Work. In fact, he is the only numerary member of Opus Dei in the US that is also a bishop.
I don't know Gomez's liturgical tendencies as regards music, but otherwise Opus Dei always has very, very well celebrated Masses. One can only hope that influences practice in LA.
I can only hope that he can stop the silliness that is the LA Religious Education Congress. I just saw some of the stuff on tap and it does not look good (not that it ever has).
Archbishop Gomez was our Metropolitan, as my diocese is a suffragen of San Antonio's. He undid a lot of the stuff that Archbishop Flores had done and really turned San Antonio around for the best. Archbishop Gomez cares about the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Our loss is LA's gain. It's just too bad that he had to leave the Spurs for the Lakers.
If Abp. Gomez remains a member of the clergy of the prelature of Opus Dei, any obligations in law arising from his commitment to it ended when he became a bishop. At least that's what happens to religious order bishops.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
