Who appointed Charlotte's destroyer Bishop Michael Martin?
Bishop Michael's T. Martin’s draconian moves against the Latin Mass in Charlotte Dioceses reveal the enduring influence of Francis’s agenda—Leo XIV's role in collaborating with it.
Bishop Michael's T. Martin’s draconian moves against the Latin Mass in Charlotte Dioceses reveal the enduring influence of Francis’s agenda—Leo XIV's role in collaborating with it.
Charlotte Diocese, North Carolina, USA, is in the spotlight.
Two very draconian documents have been leaked, revealing the steps being taken by Bishop Michael T. Martin against the traditional Latin Mass.
The first consisted of scripted answers for priests, to give to those perturbed by the suppression of the Mass
The second was a expansive account of the most liberal interpretation of “the spirit of Vatican II possible”—denouncing Latin, vestments, kneeling for communion and so on.
The Pillar reports that this second document has been shelved for now, after resistance from the clergy.
Nonetheless, all eyes are on Charlotte Diocese and Bishop Martin.
But who is Martin, and where did he come from?
And—more importantly—who is responsible for him being made the bishop of Charlotte Diocese?
One answer to this question is Francis.
The other answer is Leo XIV, then Cardinal Prevost.
Who chooses bishops
Bishop Michael T. Martin was appointed Bishop of Charlotte, 9 April 2025.
At the time of his appointment, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost—now Leo XIV—was the Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops.
The ultimate responsibility for the appointment of a bishop rests with the man who appoints him. In this case, that man was Francis.
It is true that even a Pope (or alleged Pope) relies to a great degree on his collaborators, but he himself chooses and appoints these collaborators.
However, this does not absolve the collaborators of their own responsibility or involvement.
They—including Prevost—retain their own, real moral responsibility.
Here is how the USCCB explains the process that the current Dicastery for Bishops follows:
The ultimate decision in appointing bishops rests with the pope, and he is free to select anyone he chooses. But how does he know whom to select?
The process for selecting candidates for the episcopacy normally begins at the diocesan level and works its way through a series of consultations until it reaches Rome. It is a process bound by strict confidentiality and involves a number of important players – the most influential being the apostolic nuncio, the Dicastery for Bishops, and the pope. It can be a time consuming process, often taking eight months or more to complete. While there are distinctions between the first appointment of a priest as a bishop and a bishop's later transfer to another diocese or his promotion to archbishop, the basic outlines of the process remain the same. […]
A department of the Roman Curia, headed by a Cardinal. The head of the Dicastery, called the "prefect," is presently Cardinal Robert F. Prevost, OSA, an American who previously served with the Order of St. Augustine in Peru, and in addition to his role as Prefect serves on the Pontifical Commission for Latin America. Among the dicastery's responsibilities are moderating all aspects of episcopal appointments; assisting bishops in the correct exercise of their pastoral functions; handling ad limina visits (regular visits to Rome by bishops every five years); and establishing episcopal conferences and reviewing their decrees as required by canon law. Its membership consists of approximately 35 cardinals and archbishops from around the world. Current U.S. members of the Dicastery are Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago and Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington.
The USCCB describes the process that takes place nationally, before moving to the role of the Nuncio—and then arriving at the role of the Dicastery for Bishops:
Stage 3: Dicastery for Bishops
Once all the documentation from the nuncio is complete and in order, and the prefect approves, the process moves forward. If the appointment involves a bishop who is being promoted or transferred, the matter may be handled by the prefect and the staff. If, however, the appointment is of a priest to the episcopacy, the full congregation is ordinarily involved.
A cardinal relator is chosen to summarize the documentation and make a report to the full dicastery, which generally meets twice a month on Thursdays. After hearing the cardinal relator's report, the congregation discusses the appointment and then votes. The Dicastery may follow the recommendation of the nuncio, chose another of the candidates on the terna, or even ask that another terna be prepared.
It then describes the role of the Prefect—in Martin’s case, Cardinal Prevost, now Leo XIV—in relaying the Dicastery’s findings to the Pope:
Stage 4: The Pope Decides
At a private audience with the pope, usually on a Saturday, the prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops presents the recommendations of the Dicastery to the Holy Father. A few days later, the pope informs the Congregation of his decision. The Congregation then notifies the nuncio, who in turn contacts the candidate and asks if he will accept. If the answer is “yes,"“ the Vatican is notified and a date is set for the announcement.
In short, the Prefect’s role is crucial. While the (alleged) Pope is responsible for his choice of bishop and of Prefect, the Prefect also bears responsibility.
As we have already mentioned—that Prefect was none other than Leo XIV, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost.
Prevost’s involvement in the Dicastery for Bishops
Here is how we described Prevost’s involvement in the Dicastery for Bishops in our pre-conclave report:
What it means for Prevost to be Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops
Francis’ episcopal appointments will be among the longest-lasting effects of his reign. Prevost has been intimately involved in facilitating this legacy.
His position as Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops means that, after Francis, he has been responsible for the selection and appointment of Latin rite bishops, as well as administering “problem cases.”
Although Prevost has not been forthright about the key issues facing Catholics in our time, the discharge of his role as Prefect may reveal much about his thoughts.
For instance, Prevost has praised what Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli referred to as “one of the novelties” Francis introduced by appointing three women to the Dicastery, referring to the “enrichment” and “important contribution” they have offered to the process of selecting and appointing bishops.10 Even if this is considered inoffensive in itself, the general push for the greater involvement of women is linked, for many powerful persons, with a push for female ordination to the diaconate or other orders.
Even more clarity appears when we consider the appointments and cases administered under Prevost’s tenure as Prefect.
For instance, in February 2023, early in his tenure as Prefect, the Dicastery announced the Apostolic Visitation of the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France—ending ultimately in the departure of Bishop Dominique Rey.
This becomes even clearer when we consider two contrasting cases in the U.S.
First, Prevost was Prefect when the notoriously liberal Bishop Robert W. McElroy was appointed Archbishop of Washington in January 2025.
Second, Prevost was Prefect in 2023, when the Dicastery undertook a visitation of the diocese of Tyler, Texas. This ended in the Dicastery asking Bishop Strickland to resign, before he was ultimately removed by Francis.
In short, Prevost was the Prefect of the Dicastery which enabled the appointment of a notorious liberal to one of the most prominent positions in the U.S., and the deposition of the most prominent conservative in the U.S.
It is true that the final decisions and responsibility for all such appointments and administration lay with Francis; but once again, silence implies consent. There is no warrant for assuming that Prevost has only carried out these actions under protest or against his better judgment. In any case, continuing in his role rather than resigning, Prevost signals that he believes such appointments and decisions are at least tolerable. This recalls St. Robert Bellarmine’s words:
[M]en are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.11
Let us consider Prevost’s “external works” further, to see what they reveal.
What sort of bishops has Prevost been helping to appoint?
As mentioned above, The Pillar claims that “Prevost saw his task as that of identifying men who embodied Pope Francis’ ideals for bishops.”12
Andrea Tornielli asked him to identify the characteristic profile of the bishops he is appointing,13 and he summarized it with reference to Francis’ ideas of “closeness.”
He makes much of a bishop’s role in promoting unity, both with the Church and with the Roman Pontiff. He writes:
The bishop is called to this charism, to live the spirit of communion, to promote unity in the Church, unity with the Pope. This also means being Catholic, because without Peter, where is the Church? Jesus prayed for this at the Last Supper, ‘That all may be one,’ and it is this unity that we wish to see in the Church.
Today, society and culture take us away from that vision of Jesus, and this does so much harm. The lack of unity is a wound that the Church suffers, a very painful one.14
He treats unity as something lacking in the Church “that we wish to see,” which appears to be a tacit denial of the defined dogma that the Church “necessarily and indefectibly is One”—that is, united in faith, government and worship.15 Pope Pius XI also rejected and refuted the idea that Our Lord “merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment”:
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion […] For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ […] For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist.16
The Church is perpetually united in herself: the bishop’s role is to ensure that his flock remains united to her, but the Church is not disunited by virtue of those who have fallen away from her. Such an idea represents a fundamentally non-Catholic ecclesiology.
Further, the communion, charity and social unity Prevost discusses make up only one “bond of unity” for which the bishop is responsible.
Conclusion
This pre-conclave report also detailed the ways in which Prevost’s theology of the episcopate sidelines the importance of doctrine, and replaces episcopal authority with “synodality.”
In addition, we noted that the rejection of legitimate authority is nearly always accompanied by the introduction of arbitrary authority—namely bullying, administrative brutality and lawlessness.
This is precisely what we are seeing with Bishop Martin’s “rule by memo.”
In spite of all this, we should not rule out an idea which will seem fanciful to those who have not yet grasped the depths to which the Synodal Church has already sunk.
It is true that both Martin’s memos represent the logical conclusion both of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium and the new liturgical theology behind the Novus Ordo Missae.
However, we cannot fail to notice their cartoonishly provocative nature.
Does Martin represent the future of the liturgy in the Synodal Church—or is he being set up as the pantomime villain, whom the brave Leo XIV is going to strike down?
It may sound fanciful—but stranger things have happened.
There are reasons to believe that Prevost’s election was tied up before the Conclave even began. The comments by men such as Steve Bannon, Taylor Marshall and others, along with the timing of a series of articles about this previously unknown cardinal, are highly suggestive. Austen Ivereigh also suggests that Francis essentially anointed Prevost as his dauphin in his final years.
In light of all this, one cannot help wonder what was discussed in Martin and Prevost’s one-on-one meeting in Rome, on 1 April 2025.
Nothing would better establish Prevost’s credentials as the hero—the role that too many traditionalists and conservatives have decided that he must be filling—than striking down the pantomime villain of Bishop Michael T. Martin.
UPDATE: Friday 30 May
The Pillar reports that Martin was advised, at the April 1 meeting, to slow down his plans for diocesan overhauls, including the controversial cathedral relocation and other changes. At the time of this meeting, “priests in the diocese were pushing back on the bishop’s plan for broad liturgical changes in the diocese.”
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Further reading:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
"Nothing would better establish Prevost’s credentials as the hero—the role that too many traditionalists and conservatives have decided that he must be filling—than striking down the pantomime villain of Bishop Michael T. Martin." Indeed, this seems likely. And, may I add, it would be a way of putting everyone back to sleep while they work on something more draconian in a very silent and confidential way.
Thanks for this. Another excellent report full of information I never would have otherwise found.
We talked about the "Pastoral Letter on the Celebration of the Liturgy in the Diocese of Charlotte" on Faith & Reason today. On the first reading I thought it satire. Later I realised its spiteful subtraction of Catholic tradition, sanctity and beauty reminded me of something, which was the deadly sin of envy.