Detroit Catholics praise first American pope, who studied in Michigan
Catholics in metro Detroit are praising the first American to be pope, who once lived in Michigan, saying he will continue Pope Francis' legacy of caring for marginalized communities. Some also hope he will improve the Vatican's record of handling sexual abuse, expressing concern about how he handled some cases in the past.
Born in Chicago as Robert Francis Prevost, Pope Leo XIV attended in the 1970s a Catholic high school in west Michigan, the now-closed St. Augustine Catholic Seminary, a boarding school in Laketown Township for boys in grades 9-12, according to the Vatican.
Before being selected by his fellow cardinals during a conclave this week, he served for decades in Peru as a missionary. Close to Pope Francis, he rose through the ranks in the Vatican, becoming a cardinal-bishop in February, assigned to a diocese in Rome, Italy. Catholic cardinals voted on May 8 to select Prevost during an assembly known as a conclave at the Vatican.
"I'm delighted," Michael Hovey, a senior instructor at the University of Detroit-Mercy who teaches religion and is the former coordinator for ecumenical and interfaith relations for the Archdiocese of Detroit, told the Free Press shortly after the announcement. "I think we're going to see great things out of him."
Like Pope Leo XIV, Hovey was also a missionary in Peru for a year and a half, and so feels a connection to the new pope. He's also excited about the name he chose, Leo. The last pope with that name, Pope Leo XIII, was a supporter of workers' rights.
"I'm especially happy with the name he's chosen, Leo the 14th, because Leo the 13th is the pope who started what we now call Catholic social teaching," Hovey said. "Leo the 13th wrote an encyclical on the rights of workers, critiquing some of the excesses of capitalism, and talked about the need for things that we now take for granted, like good working conditions and time off, vacation and sick days."
Archbishop of Detroit Edward Weisenburger also praised the new head of the Catholic Church, holding a news conference on the afternoon of May 8 at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Detroit, the seat of the archdiocese.
Weisenburger, who was installed as archbishop in March, said he was pleasantly surprised an American was chosen.
"Pope Leo XIV's election leaves me exceptionally joyful," Weisenburger said in a statement from the archdiocese. "And I must humbly acknowledge that I did not anticipate a United States citizen would be elected Pope."
For decades, it was seen as taboo to have an American pope, given the power of the U.S. and fears it would take over the church.
Weisenburger noted the new pope's history in South America and his close ties to Pope Francis, who appointed Weisenburger in February to lead the Detroit archdiocese. Both Weisenburger and Pope Leo XIV speak Spanish as Latinos make up an increasing part of the Catholic Church's membership.
"His lifetime of ministry includes many years of ministry as a bishop in Peru, giving him a thorough understanding of South America," Weisenburger said. "Moreover, his close association with Pope Francis, history of charitable efforts for the poor and marginalized, extensive prior experience in the Vatican, and personal humility are all qualities that perhaps focused the light of Christ upon him for his brother Cardinals to see."
The Detroit archbishop called upon Catholics to "pray for Pope Leo XIV as he now begins his sacred ministry as the successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on Earth."
Paul Long — the CEO and president of the Michigan Catholic Conference, the voice of the Catholic Church in the state on public policy — echoed the views of the archbishop.
'The cardinals' election of Pope Leo XIV is a source of joy and excitement for Catholics and indeed all people of goodwill in Michigan and across the globe," Long said. "The world holds great interest in the leadership of the Catholic Church and the pope's teaching on faith and morality, his approach to geopolitical realities, and the burning need for peace in our world."
Long said Catholic leaders in Michigan hope Pope Leo XIV "continues to build bridges, foster dialogue, and uphold the dignity and worth of every human life."
The Michigan Catholic Conference and Weisenburger have both emphasized this year the importance of respecting immigrants, an issue that Pope Leo XIV has also stressed on his Twitter feed. In several posts on X, previously known as Twitter, the new pope appeared to criticize Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, for his conservative views on immigration. Vance had said Catholic doctrine known as "ordo amoris" means we should not care as much for groups such as migrants as we do for fellow Americans and our families. Catholic leaders said Vance misinterprets church teachings.
"JD Vance is wrong," read a tweet posted by Pope Leo XIV in February. "Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others."
Pope Leo XIV also has liberal views on environmental issues, agreeing with Pope Francis on the threats posed by climate change.
While Catholics believe in 'dominion over nature," humans should not become 'tyrannical" over it and instead have a 'relationship of reciprocity' with the environment, he said, the Vatican News reported in 2024.
While the new pope was praised by many, he also has his critics who say he has a weak history of fighting sexual abuse in the church and is too right-wing on LGBTQ+ issues. In 2012, he criticized what he called the 'homosexual lifestyle' and 'alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children," the New York Times reported on May 2.
Over the past week, there were some reports questioning whether Prevost should be named pope given his past record on dealing with sexual abuse allegations. The Will County Gazette, a newspaper in suburban Chicago in Illinois, ran a report on May 2 on an activist and abuse survivor who said Prevost should not become pope because of how he allegedly mishandled abuse committed by a priest. The headline quoted the activist, reading in part: "If he saw and stayed silent — he's not a good priest."
'With Prevost, we definitely do not want to enter into another situation where there is a cardinal that becomes pope that has bad things in their closet,' Eduardo Lopez de Casas, a clergy abuse survivor and national vice president of the Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), told the Illinois newspaper. 'Survivors worldwide ... should not have to watch men responsible for cover-ups climb to the top of the Catholic Church.'
The Pillar, a conservative Catholic media outlet, also raised concerns about Prevost, mentioning some abuse cases in Peru.
Janet Smith, a retired professor of moral theology formerly at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, said that Pope Leo XIV has an opportunity to assuage those who are concerned about his record by making it clear has a zero tolerance on abuse.
Smith cited the case of a priest from Slovenia accused of assaulting women, Marko Rupnik. Rupnik had been excommunicated, but that excommunication was lifted by Pope Francis in 2022, outraging advocates for abuse victims. Some of his artwork is featured in the Vatican. His supporters deny the allegations against him.
More: 'Pope Trump' jokes spark outrage and late-night gags as cardinals gather in Rome
"One of the first things that Leo the 14th could do that would signal that he, in fact, is going to exercise the zero tolerance that the Vatican keeps talking about in respect to sex abusers, is that he will lay aside and refuse to have any of his art ever used again in the Vatican, and actually to apologize for ever having used it, especially after they knew the accusations against him," Smith said. Pope Leo XIV should also reverse the decision that Pope Francis made to lift his excommunication, she said.
Overall, Pope Leo XIV is "an unknown quantity" and it remains to be seen how he will lead the church, said Smith, who is sympathetic to the views of conservative and traditional Catholics. Smith said she hopes he will be more open to the traditional Latin Mass, which Pope Francis cracked down on. Weisenburger recently announced that the traditional Latin Mass will end at parish churches in the Detroit archdiocese by July.
The fact that Pope Leo XIV was often promoted by Pope Francis "suggests he probably is in line of Pope Francis," but she added that "there are some signs to the contrary."
More: Michigan native will help choose the next pope. What to know as papal conclave begins
Traditional Catholics are "holding on to as signs of hope, that he bore the traditional garb, that he chose a name that could be associated with conservative pontiffs, so he's a mix, not yet a completely known quantity. I'm trying to remain hopeful."
A special Mass for Pope Leo XIV may be planned for later at the cathedral, said Holly Fournier, a spokesperson for the archdiocese.
The Holland Sentinel and Reuters contributed to this report.
Contact Niraj Warikoo: nwarikoo@freepress.com or X @nwarikoo
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Catholics in Detroit praise Pope Leo XIV, who studied in Michigan
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
A Word, Please: When phrases lose their popularity
Not long ago in this column, I talked a bit about the expression 'step foot,' as in 'I wouldn't step foot in that store.' The first time I heard it, I was embarrassed for the speaker who, I was sure, meant 'set foot.' The second, third and fourth times I heard it, I sensed a change was underway — and I'm not a fan of change (that's an understatement). Eventually, I looked it up and learned that 'step foot' is slowly gaining on 'set foot,' whether I like it or not. Figures of speech, like words, evolve. Take 'vicious cycle,' for example. For a solid century, there was no 'vicious cycle' — at least not in published writing. Pretty much everyone who could get near a printing press agreed the expression was 'vicious circle.' The idea behind the expression, of course, is that of being stuck in a loop, a bad one. Merriam-Webster defines 'vicious circle' as 'a chain of events in which the response to one difficulty creates a new problem that aggravates the original difficulty.' As the 20th century dawned, 'vicious circle' continued to dominate, but suddenly it had some competition. 'Vicious cycle' was emerging as a contender. 'Vicious circle' held onto its lead until just about a decade ago, when 'vicious cycle' nosed ahead. At the same time, the original and originally correct expression 'vicious circle' started to dive. I'm not optimistic about its future. 'Top up' is another term that caught my eye lately, and not in a good way. I started seeing it in travel articles pondering whether it's worthwhile to buy airline miles to 'top up' your existing balance enough to book a flight. My whole life, the expression I heard was 'top off.' According to Merriam-Webster, 'top off' is a phrasal verb that has two definitions: The first is 'to end (something) usually in an exciting way.' So an athlete may top off their career with a final victory, or a nice dinner can be topped off with dessert and coffee. The second definition is similar to the first: 'to fill (something) completely with a liquid.' Be it a mug of coffee or a tank of gas, when it's not quite full and you fill it all the way, you're topping it off. 'Top up,' meanwhile, was a perfectly fine way to say 'top off' if you're British. But it wasn't for us, I thought. We were top-off people. Turns out that's not quite right. 'Top up' has been in print as long as 'top off,' and though the American version has always been more popular in American publishing, 'top up' has never been far behind. I was wrong about that, but I was even more wrong about 'You've got another think coming.' I couldn't understand how anyone could make the embarrassing mistake of using 'think' in this expression. Obviously, the correct version was 'You've got another thing coming.' I never considered the context. The expression follows a stated or implied statement of 'If you think X …' so 'another' makes sense because you've already had one think. Of course, a think is a thing. So it's not wrong to say you've got another thing coming. And that's lucky for modern English speakers, because Ngram Viewer shows that 'another think coming' started to decline in popularity about 10 years ago while 'another thing coming' is becoming more popular than ever — just when I was getting used to 'think.' For me, there are two takeaways from these trends. One, the language will keep changing. And two, change will continue to annoy me. — June Casagrande is the author of 'The Joy of Syntax: A Simple Guide to All the Grammar You Know You Should Know.' She can be reached at JuneTCN@
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
They led the fight for marriage equality
They led the fight for marriage equality | The Excerpt On Sunday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Jim Obergefell and his partner John Arthur's fight to have their marriage recognized by their home state of Ohio ultimately paved the way for nationwide marriage equality for the LGBTQ+ community. John, tragically, passed before the ruling, but the couple's story endures as a milestone for the LGBTQ+ community. Jim Obergefell joins The Excerpt to share more about his historic journey. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Officiant: John Montgomery Arthur, do you, continuing from this day, take James Robert Obergefell to be the love of your life, your eternal partner, your husband? John Montgomery Arthur: I do. Zach Wichter: Hello, and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Zach Wichter, a reporter at USA TODAY. What you just heard was John Arthur's vows to Jim Obergefell during a wedding ceremony that changed the course of American history. Obergefell and Arthur's fight to get their marriage recognized by their home state of Ohio went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, ultimately paving the way for nationwide marriage equality for same-sex couples. John tragically passed before the ruling, but the couple's story endures as a milestone for the LGBTQ+ community and in American history. Jim Obergefell joins me now to share more about his story. Jim, thanks for joining me. Jim Obergefell: Absolutely, Zach. Great to be here. Zach Wichter: Did you ever think that marriage was a possibility? Was that on the horizon for you at all? Jim Obergefell: For me, growing up, marriage always was part of my future, but that was a straight marriage. All of my siblings were married and having kids, so that was always what I imagined. But when I came out, I felt like that dream, that image of my future was taken away from me because that wasn't a possibility. And in fact, when John and I became a couple, early on in our relationship, probably 1994 or '95, we talked about marriage and how we both wanted to get married. But we wanted marriage. We didn't want a symbolic ceremony, we didn't want a civil union, a domestic partnership. We wanted marriage. So, we just thought we're never going to have that option because there isn't anywhere in the United States we can do that. They led the fight for marriage equality Obergefell and Arthur's fight to have their marriage recognized by Ohio ultimately led to nationwide marriage equality. Zach Wichter: Can you tell me a little bit more about how you and John met and about your story together? Jim Obergefell: The first time I met John was shortly before I quit my teaching job and left for graduate school. I was still in the closet and I went out with a friend and we went to a bar near the University of Cincinnati where we had both graduated. We walked into this bar and my friend Kevin said, "Oh, there's one of my friends, John." That was the first time I met John. He scared the daylights out of me, because he was an out gay man comfortable in his own skin. And I thought for sure he was going to see right through me and say, "Come on, Jim. We know. You can come out." Then I was back in Cincinnati for a weekend, went out with that same friend. We went back to that same bar, and guess who was there again, but John. In that conversation, John said, "You'd never go out with someone like me, and I said, "How do you know? You haven't asked." And he didn't take the hint, so I thought, that's it, I've met him twice now, probably never going to see him again. But then Kevin became one of John's housemates, and Kevin invited me to John's house for a New Year's Eve party. I went to that party and never left. And seven weeks later, John gave me a diamond ring. Zach Wichter: How did you know? And you mentioned before that neither of you really saw marriage as a possibility. So, what did that diamond ring mean for you in that moment? Jim Obergefell: That diamond ring signified you're the person I choose. You're the person I want to spend my life with. And we don't have the ability to do anything legal, but at least you know that's how I feel, and that's what this ring signifies. We both felt that. We both felt that this is a relationship that will last. We just made our commitments to each other. Even though they weren't legal, they weren't binding in any way, but they were binding on us in our hearts. Zach Wichter: What was the path to that day or night that you got the ring up through your actual wedding ceremony? What were the steps along the way? Jim Obergefell: We just had fun. We traveled, we collected art, and just all of those things that any couple does as they build a life together. Like I say, we had talked about marriage, but realized that isn't on the table for us, it isn't an option. So, we just kept doing what we were doing. It wasn't until 2011 that things really took an unexpected turn. It was that year in May, or late or early June that John was diagnosed with ALS. That was really when instead of seeing a few decades more together, we knew our time together was limited to two to five years. ALS for John progressed fairly rapidly. And by April of 2013, he started at-home hospice care. We could have put him in a facility, but we had to think about things that other couples didn't have to think about. How would he be treated as an out gay man in a facility? How would I be treated as his partner of almost 21 years? We had nothing legal, no rights. We made the decision, let's do at-home hospice care because that meant I could keep him safe and comfortable. And it was my honor to do that, no matter how tiring or overwhelming it was. Zach Wichter: At what point did you really start to feel like you needed to fight for this? How did you go from not thinking of marriage as a possibility to feeling the need to have that recognized by the state? Jim Obergefell: I'm going to start back a little bit earlier, and actually back to the day John came home from his third neurologist appointment, when that neurologist concurred with two others that it was ALS. He said, "Jim, we're going to have to find somewhere new to live.", because the condo we had was two levels in an old factory. And he said, "It isn't going to work for me. But when we find a new place, Jim, don't put my name on the deed. I don't want you to have any issues when I'm gone." So, he was already thinking about me and wanting to make sure that I would be okay after he died. And that was just how he was throughout his entire time with ALS. In June 26th, 2013, I was standing next to his bed, holding his hand when news came out from the Supreme Court that with their decision in United States versus Windsor, they struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. That was that law that had defined marriages between only one man and one woman. We hadn't talked about marriage again since the mid-90s, but as that news was sinking in, I realized, wait, we've always wanted to get married, here's our chance. We could get married and at least have the federal government see us, recognize us, treat us as a married couple. So, I spontaneously proposed and he said "yes". Zach Wichter: Once DOMA was turned over, how did you start to think about this fight for yourself, and how did you go from this discussion to eventually suing the state and ultimately winding up in the Supreme Court? Jim Obergefell: Suing the state of Ohio was never our plan, was never on the radar, was never something we had considered. And going to the Supreme Court certainly was even beyond that. That all happened unexpectedly. We decided to get married. And because we lived in Ohio, which had its own state level Defense and Marriage Act, we couldn't get a marriage license or get married at home. So, we figured out let's go to Maryland because it's the only state that doesn't require both of us to appear in person to apply for a marriage license. I loved that because my whole goal was I want to keep John as safe and as comfortable as possible. So, I could get the marriage license on my own, come back to Cincinnati, and then we could go to Maryland just for the ceremony. And that's what we did. Through the generosity of our family and friends, they covered the cost of a chartered medical jet and we flew from Cincinnati to Baltimore, Washington International Airport on July 11th, 2013. We stayed in that medical jet and I got to take his hand and we got to say, "I do". That was all we wanted. We just wanted to get married. Because of a story that was written about us that came out in the Cincinnati Inquirer online two days after we got married, a local civil rights attorney, Al Gerhardstein, he'd been fighting for civil rights for women, for trans people, for prisoners, for the queer community for decades in Cincinnati, he came to hear about us. He read that story and he reached out through mutual friends to say, "Hey, I would like to come talk to you because you have a problem you probably haven't thought about." Five days after we got married, Al Gerhardstein came to our home and he pulled out a blank Ohio death certificate, said, "Do you guys get it? When John dies, this document, his last record as a person, will be wrong. Because here where it says, 'marital status at time of death', Ohio will fill this out and say that John was unmarried. In the space for surviving spouse name, Jim, your name won't be there." So when he said, "Do you want to do something about it?", he tells me, we talked about it for less than a minute, and said, "Yes." That was Tuesday, five days after we got married. On Friday, eight days after we got married, we filed a lawsuit in federal district court suing the governor of Ohio, John Kasich and the Attorney General Mike DeWine. And because of John's health, the federal judge it was assigned to, Judge Timothy Black, had to clear his docket and he heard arguments on the case on Monday, 11 days after we got married. And that very day he ruled in our favor. And then John died three months later to the day, but he died a married man. Zach Wichter: The fight didn't stop there, obviously. The judge ruled in your favor, but it went on in appeal, it got overturned. How did you decide at that point, once the record was correct in your paperwork, that you were going to keep on with the fight? Jim Obergefell: Once Ohio appealed and we lost to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, when Al said, "Do you want to keep fighting?", my immediate answer was, "Of course I do." If I don't, I'm not living up to my promises to John. I promise to love, honor and protect him. And if I don't keep fighting this to make sure our marriage can't be erased, then I'm failing in my promises. In April, 2015, I was in the Supreme Court for oral arguments. And then I was there again on June 26th, 2015 when the decision came down. Zach Wichter: What was that experience like being in the court for oral arguments in a case that bore your name? Jim Obergefell: I don't think you could ever prepare yourself to go to the Supreme Court as a plaintiff, let alone as the name plaintiff, when there's more than 30 other plaintiffs in the case. It would be overwhelming enough just being one of those 30 plaintiffs, but to have your name and your story and your face be what everyone sees, what everyone hears, what everyone knows, it's overwhelming. And I had to be in that courtroom. I had to be there to hear what the justices said, to hear what the states argued. But to be fair, I went into the courtroom feeling optimistic. I refused to think that the highest court in the land could possibly rule against us. And I was positive, I was optimistic, and that didn't change after oral arguments. And I was happy that I knew I had at most two months to wait for a decision. Zach Wichter: I've seen in other interviews you've said that you never really considered yourself an activist. So, how did you go from Jim from Ohio to suing the state of Ohio and becoming a gay rights figurehead? Jim Obergefell: I think it just happened. And honestly, it's because of John, because we loved each other and we wanted to exist. Learning that our right to call each other husband and to have it mean something wasn't going to be reflected on his death certificate... I mean, it did, it broke our hearts. But I think the more important thing is it really made us angry, the injustice of it, the harm that it was doing to us. So, I think it was that. It was that I loved John, he loved me back. We finally had the chance to say I do. But then understanding how our home state, the state where I was born and raised, would completely disregard us, made me angry, made us both angry. So, not something I ever thought would happen, but it's amazing what'll happen when you love someone enough, when you're willing to fight for what you know is right, and when you're angry. Zach Wichter: And you mentioned before you were also in DC the day the decision came down. What was that experience like, and what were you thinking about, and what would you have said to John if he was there with you? Jim Obergefell: I'm just holding the hands of friends sitting on either side of me thinking, all right, here it comes, here it comes. And of course I'm thinking, John, I wish you were here, I wish you could experience this, I wish it was your hand I was holding. All I wanted in that moment was to hug and kiss John and say, "Our marriage can never be erased." He wasn't there. I didn't have that joy of sharing that moment with him. I thought about so many people who I had met over the course of the case, the people who were coming up to me and sharing photos and telling me stories and talking about what this potential decision meant to them and what it meant to the person they loved, their child, was thinking about them. And then just the unexpected realization that for the first time in my life as an out gay man, I actually felt like an equal American. I wasn't expecting to feel that. And that was a really beautiful realization. I feel equal. It's about queer kids having a future, knowing that in the words of a mom and dad who stopped me on the street in Philadelphia with their child in a stroller, they said, "Thanks to you and those other plaintiffs, Jim, we know our kid can one day marry the person they love, no matter whom that person is." That's what I think about. So, I don't get too hung up in the "you're a historic figure" because that just, I don't know, feels weird to me. I focus more on the difference the fight I was part of has made for millions of people. Hundreds of thousands of couples have gotten married since June 26th, 2015. And that's something we should celebrate. I'm really, really grateful that I got to be part of that. And it's simply because John and I loved each other and we wanted to exist. Zach Wichter: Jim, thanks for coming on The Excerpt. Jim Obergefell: Thanks for having me. It was great. Zach Wichter: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Zach Wichter. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
New bishop installed at cathedral in Manx capital
A new Catholic bishop has been officially installed in his post in Douglas. John Sherrington was named as Archbishop of Liverpool by the late Pope Francis in early April. The archdiocese includes the Isle of Man. He assumed his new role at a ceremony at the Church of Saint Mary of the Isle, which was attended by dignitaries including MHKs and local leaders of other churches. Archbishop Sherrington's installation at his "co-cathedral" - Liverpool's Metropolitan Cathedral, 80 miles (129km) away across the Irish Sea - took place on 27 May. As is tradition, the service in the Manx capital began with the archbishop knocking on the closed cathedral doors before being invited in by the Dean, Monsignor John Devine. Guests included the island's Lieutenant Governor Sir John Lorimer, President of Tynwald Laurence Skelly, Chief Minister Alfred Cannan and leaders of other Christian denominations. During the service, the letter issued by the late Pope in early April, confirming Archbishop Sherrington's appointment, was read aloud to the congregation. The bishop was then installed in a special chair in the cathedral, which features his coat of arms alongside that representing the co-cathedral. The proceedings also included the hymn This Little Light of Mine, performed by the children of St Mary's Catholic Primary School, and the island's national anthem. During his homily, Archbishop Sherrington said the ceremony marked a "day of great joy". Archbishop Sherrington moved from the Diocese of Westminster to succeed the Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon OP, who was been in the post since May 2014. Archbishop McMahon submitted his resignation to the late pontiff last year, having reached the usual retirement age for bishops of 75. Bishop Sherrington was ordained a priest in the Diocese of Nottingham in 1987. He was also ordained as an Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster and Titular Bishop of Hilta in 2011. In addition to the Isle of Man, the archdiocese covers Merseyside as well as parts of Cheshire and Greater Manchester, and an area of Lancashire south-west of the River Ribble. The elevation of the Manx cathedral in November 2023 followed Douglas being awarded city status as part of the late Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee celebrations in 2022. Read more stories from the Isle of Man on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC Isle of Man on Facebook and X. New Archbishop of Liverpool appointed by Pope Ceremony marks Manx church's new cathedral status Cathedral status service to feature Manx elements Cathedral status service to feature Manx elements Douglas church granted cathedral status by Pope Douglas Jubilee city status 'a huge honour' Archdiocese of Liverpool The Roman Catholic church on the Isle of Man
