MSW analyzes the candidates
Who Will be the Next USCCB President?
Five of the 10 nominated would resist the path charted by Pope Francis and now embraced by Pope Leo. Instead of the popes' more holistic approach to moral theology in the public square, these five candidates are associated with the culture war approach, stigmatizing opponents, emphasizing the unique importance of the abortion issue for all elections and downplaying the importance of Catholic social teaching. None of them could unite the conference.
What to make of the nomination of Bishop Robert Barron? Many bishops appreciate Barron's ability to communicate and many others worry about the increasingly strident content of his communications. All recognize that his heart is in his Word on Fire ministry, not in diocesan leadership. I can't imagine he would be an effective administrator and, besides, in Rome he is seen as too much of a showman.
The only nominee who screams "Pope Francis" is Detroit Archbishop Ed Weisenburger. He rightly addressed the scandal of not just dissent from, but animus towards, the papal magisterium of the late pope at Detroit's Sacred Heart Seminary. He joined with other clergy in the Motor City on a prayerful procession to the Immigration and Customs' Enforcement agency office to protest their indiscriminate raids. But precisely because Weisenburger is so closely aligned with the Francis agenda, he could not unite the conference, which is Job No. 1 for the next president.
Four of the nominees strike me as more middle-of-the road bishops who might have a shot at uniting the conference more than it is today. Archbishop Nelson Perez of Philadelphia has not had the kind of high-profile culture war involvement as the others, but he is very conservative and he also lacks experience in Rome. Archbishop Richard Henning had the unenviable task of following the universally beloved Cardinal Sean O'Malley in Boston, and I hear good things about how the new archbishop is doing, but Boston is a huge archdiocese and I suspect Henning still has his hands full learning the ropes there. Both Perez and Henning are proteges of Bishop William Murphy, former bishop of Rockville Centre.
Archbishop Charles Thompson of Indianapolis and Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville are both smack dab in the center of the conference and both would have a better shot at uniting it than the other eight nominees. Thompson and Flores are both quite conservative on issues of sex and gender but also deeply committed to the church's social teaching. That is to say, both sides in the divided conference find things they like about them. Both have been in their posts for many years, so they could carve out the time to serve as president. Thompson has no Roman experience, whereas Flores was deeply involved in the synodal process and I suspect that many bishops like the idea of electing a Hispanic during Trump's second term just as they elected Gomez during Trump's first term.
The Case for Bishop Barron
The statistical reality is sobering for anyone to read. Only 52 per cent of priests in America presently trust their own bishop, a figure that has declined from 63 per cent in 2001, and a mere 27 per cent say they trust the US bishops' conference as a whole. That is not a marginal deficit; it is a crisis of confidence that recalls the nadir of the US clerical abuse scandal which so profoundly scarred the Church in the early 2000s.
Bishop Barron’s merits are by no means limited to his formidable intellectual pedigree, though they begin there. A student of Thomistic theology and former rector of Mundelein Seminary, he possesses the rare ability to make the depths of Catholic doctrine accessible without ever lapsing into triteness.
More importantly, he has demonstrated an online evangelical dynamism that is almost singular among the American episcopate today. His Word on Fire apostolate has achieved a reach which rivals that of any Catholic media enterprise in the Anglophone world, and his presence on platforms such as YouTube, PBS and CNN has given him a level of cultural visibility reminiscent of none other than the Venerable Fulton J. Sheen.
That comparison is both apt and cautionary. Archbishop Sheen, too, was a master communicator, a bishop who evangelised the masses through radio and television with an elegance that captivated millions. And yet, Sheen never received the cardinal’s red hat, a decision that many regard shrouded in inter-ecclesial tension and one of the more regrettable oversights of post-war American Catholic history.
Bishop Barron is not without his critics. I hold to the view that his theology is too accommodating, risking a facile engagement with modern culture that is hard to ignore with his modern tendencies. Others on the progressive wing accuse him of being insufficiently bold in confronting moral and social controversies. However this is what makes Bishop Baron a suitable lead for the role.
While his determination to occupy a centrist pastoral posture can appear evasive or lacking in courage, this I would argue, is precisely the strength of his candidacy – he is neither a culture warrior nor a fashionable progressive. He is, rather, a Catholic bishop who is intent on re-presenting the timeless truths of the Church to a generation adrift in secular noise.
Barron’s position as leader of a global media apostolate makes him unique among the U.S. bishops, and an especially unique candidate to lead the bishops’ conference. But while the bishop’s leadership at Word on Fire presents some opportunities for the USCCB, it also presents some challenges. And the conference’s approach to handling the prospective election of an episcopal media superstar reveals as much about its present as about its future — especially regarding its commitment to transparency.
Word on Fire is an immense apostolate, with nearly 27 million in revenue last year, a think tank, a huge social media presence, and a publishing arm. It has an extraordinary footprint, and is increasingly a significant force in the academic, catechetical, and devotional work of American Catholicism.
Barron is not a front-runner for the USCCB presidential position, but he is a candidate, and in elections, anything can happen — that’s why they count the votes!
In one sense, if Barron were to be elected president of the USCCB, his ability to marshall the resources of Word on Fire could broaden the work of the bishops’ conference, allowing it to draw from experts with versatility and take advantage of Word on Fire’s resources to take up projects quickly. When he has been head of USCCB committees, Barron has already shown a willingness to make available the resources and personnel of Word on Fire to assist the bishops’ conference.
In that way, a Barron presidency could offer the USCCB a kind of versatility it has never had before — coupling the gravitas and officialdom of the episcopal conference with the entrepreneurial tenacity of Word on Fire’s start-up culture, possibly giving the conference more flexibility on major initiatives.
But Barron’s fame could also present challenges for the bishops’ conference. At the helm of Word on Fire, the prelate is quick to comment on social and political issues; part of Word on Fire’s work seems to be a kind of charging into the fray, with Barron saying often that his aim is to bring the Gospel into conversation with the reality of contemporary experience. At times, this leads to controversy.
Even apart from the substance, Word on Fire’s is an approach temperamentally at odds with the conference’s general culture of reserve, and its practice of broad staff and episcopal weigh-in before statements are issued, with even very short statements or relatively uncontroversial ones given numerous drafts before issuance.
Those issues could be resolved, of course. And both externally and internally at the USCCB, there are Catholics who would prefer to see the conference become more flexible in its approach to public engagement, and might well welcome Barron’s use of social media at the conference.
But even if he might offer a refresh, the broader challenge in Barron’s public engagement would be even attempting to differentiate his profile as president of the bishops’ conference from his public engagement under the banner of Word on Fire. In truth, it would almost certainly prove ineffective for the conference’s public relations arm to aim at distinguishing between Barron statements on USCCB letterhead and the rest of his public profile — meaning three years of headlines beginning “USCCB leader says” to describe whatever Barron was doing on social media, or on his podcast
The fact that only 27% of the priests in the USA trust the USCCB and only about half trust their bishops says volumes about the USCCB.
ReplyDeleteBishop Barron's unique candidacy is a good way of thinking about how to resolve that trust. A middle of the road candidate that might unite the conference on some issues, or a middle of the road candidate that has a very visible media empire that might capture national attention?
Unfortunately, Barron maintains his visibility by often weighing in on the right side of culture war events which negates his more intellectual middle of the road positions. He also caters to right wing media personalities. All of this may help with media sales, but it fails to provide real leadership that unites bishops and people.
If you are travelling largely outside Catholic and Christian circles as I do these days, you know that outsiders see the RCC as rich, corrupt, and narrow-minded to the point of cruelty.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised, even offended, by non-Catholic friends who tell me that I must be so happy to be lapsed because they read an article about Awful Catholic bigots. I try to say I am not happy about being lapsed and to provide correctives info, but mostly I just change the subject.
Whovever is elected will set the tone for American Catholicism. Is there anyone on the list who can satisfy the moral and liturgical leanings of the core white faithful while still emphasizing Christ's mercy and inclusion to those outside or on the outskirts of the Church?
There is a book review at America's website by Heidi Schlumpf about the Church Militant called Catholic Fundamentalilsm in America. There is an interesting comment from someone apparently fairly young - a current college student or a recent graduate. If correct, there seems little hope for progressives in the church
ReplyDelete"I think older Catholics need to understand that Gen X Catholicism is almost entirely of this Catholic Nationalist brand. New converts (think JD Vance) or "converts" (those who grew up Catholic but didn't consider themselves true faithful Catholics until finding these ideas, often in college) to the faith often accept these ideas. To many on the inside and outside of the church (at least in the US and in the Midwest), these movements "are" the church. Look at the podcasts Hallow just added. Look at CatholicAnswers.com (literally claiming to have the Catholic answers), Exodus 90 rhetoric (very very popular among FOCCUS kids and at Newman centers) and who is teaching college students Catholicism. This is of course my opinion and my experience but I suspect older Catholics are not fully aware of just how great an influence Catholic Nationalism has on my generation. It was inevitable to stumble upon many of these ideas in college, Louis de Montfort Marian consecration, COVID vaccines are immoral, St Michael's prayers after mass, 5 rosaries a day to save the unborn, you have to vote for Trump as a Catholic, confession daily, TLM is a better form of mass, and many more I can't think of in this moment that made me feel like I had to accept this in order to be Catholic"
A lot of people like I'm Better Than You Clubs. Unfortunately, organized religion attracts a fair number of these people. They think Heaven offers the ultimate in Executive Lounge amenities.
DeleteSide note: Hard to find info on this in mainstream media, but a woman over on TikTok is doing an experiment to see if various churches, temples, or mosques actually help anybody. She poses as a mother with no food and a hungry baby.
https://medium.com/@zoharahman/the-nikalie-experiment-489d8cb78e1d
Catholic churches have actually been fairly responsive to her calls.
In that vein, I'd like to see Bishops make surprise visits to parishes and ask priests to show them what they've got on hand at that moment to respond to people in crisis for food, shelter, medicine, and gas.
Seems to me that that would be energy spent actually doing Christ's work better than banning politicians from Communion or eating up time with synodal listening sessions and report writing.
Good idea, but doubt ser.iously that the bishops actually care about those things. The only thing they seem to really care about besides abortion is raising money, and declaring bankruptcy when necessary to avoid paying the victims of sexual abuse.
DeleteMy first parish here has a sister parish in DC. That parish takes care of people, shelling out thousands every year to help people pay their rent, utilities so they don't get cut off, medical bills, repair a car, groceries, etc. I will send them a check directly because I don't think the suburban parish still helps them financially as they did years ago. They have a wonderful gospel choir that puts on a Chrismas concert every year. They send out notices about it along with a voluntary donation reqquest. I just got it last week. We won't go downtown for the concert,but will send a donation.
"A lot of people like I'm Better Than You Clubs." Jean, bingo.
DeleteOld boomer lady me is not ready to cede the church to snot nose rad trad college students.
Katherine, what will be left when boomers like you are no longer around to save the church? Will the rad trad young folk get bored and leave, or will Benedict’s “ smaller, purer” remnant church be its replacement?
DeleteYou go, girl! You were born into it and are married to a deacon, so you've got bona fides.
DeleteI've never been able to get with the program in any organized religion. I'll stumble after Jesus in my own faithless way, but I've got limited energy for or interest in a big effort with a church in whatever time is left.
Like Jean, I have a mixed relationship with the church. I admire much about it, especially THE church - the many amazing Catholics, anonmous to the world, who are Christ to others. I admire the intellectual tradition, unmatched by any except maybe Judaism. But I can't accept many of the teachings without betraying my own conscience. I certainly could not return to being an active parishoner anywhere these days, except the Jesuit parish in DC (too difficult) or the Franciscan parish - also too far away to be practical with a paralyzed husband at home. He does not want to go to Catholic mass. So our only other choice is the Washington National Cathedral, the same problems as the Jesuit parish at Georgetown.
ReplyDeleteThe local parishes seem to be part of the movement outlined by the comment at America.
Re: the USCCB election, I sincerely hope they don't choose Barron. He has some positives; he is good with media, he has some intellectual chops. But he has a huge chunk of hubris, and he's more interested in his Word On Fire ministry than doing the actual work of being a bishop.
ReplyDeleteBishops Thompson or Flores would be much better candidates. It is sad that only a little over half of priests trust their bishops. There is some serious bridge building to be done.
Barron was among those canonizing Charlie Kirk after his death. He is in fact a culture warrior, but more flashy than most. He is definitely not a progressive. I’m no longer in the pews so maybe have no right to an opinion. But if they want to have any hope of stemming the losses from the pews - the progressives- Barron is not a good choice. His Word on Fire stuff is a bit of a turnoff for Catholics like me who have left, and will not bring back those who have already left, but may simply result in accelerating the losses. But - the young folk in the pews are very conservative. If they don’t tire of the church as they get older, and as the boomers/Vatican II generation die off, maybe Barron would appeal in a decade or so to those who remain . If they want to reduce polarization now, he’s not the best option.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who wants an interesting break today, here's a story about Medieval selfies. Specifically Brother Rufillus ("RedHead"), a German monk, who liked to draw pics of himself in illuminated MS.
ReplyDeletehttps://medievalbooks.nl/2018/09/20/me-myself-and-i
That's interesting. Rufillus got around, and was no shrinking violet. The article said he was not the same person as Rodolfus the parish pastor, who paid for one of the manuscripts. It indicates that Rufillus was a pseudonym or pen name, and we don't know his real name. But I wonder if he could have been a parish priest. Religious order priests can be pastors in the present day. All of the pastors of our parish were Franciscans until the 1990s.
DeleteOnly a small fraction of very early MSS survived damage, destruction, or recycling. It's very possible that scribes and illuminators did stuff like this a lot more often than we think.
DeleteI like how palimpsests can be recovered by laser illumination. I believe a document showing that Archimedes discovered calculus was recovered this way.
DeleteI love paleography. A calligrapher was commissioned to do a stroke by stroke transcription of the Beowulf MS by some nameless RB. She extrapolated a lot of interesting things about it. She did a presentation at Stanford University. Strictly for nerdos.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/4hkDAXrVF60?si=tqqdGMGKv-3OmbV3
Whoever the next president of the USCCB is, must be capable of being the public face of the church in the United States. Ideally, it would be someone whom the Trump Administration and Congressional leaders are willing to deal with - and also whom the administration of Trump's successor, who may very well be a Democrat, would be willing to deal with. It should be someone who is a gifted communicator and is comfortable dealing with the media, both Old and New, both secular and Catholic. It should be someone who can have a productive and effective relationship with the Holy See. It should be someone who can articulate and live out Catholic social teaching during this perilous time in American history.
ReplyDeleteI don't know enough about the candidates to bet on a horse in this race. The only one I've encountered is Bishop Barron. I don't know that he can be bishop of Winona-Rochester, president of the USCCB, and guiding light of Word on Fire Ministry, all at the same time. I guess he's already relinquished some responsibility at Word on Fire?
Interesting that you have ability to "deal with" Trump/Congress at top of list. Is there a history of the head of USCCB wading into the political arena?
DeleteGiven blowback for the very mild comments you've made in defense of immigrants in your homilies, I expect American bishops would just want to keep Catholic clergy quiet about political issues except abortion and the sins of the LGBT people, the perennial crowd-pleasers for Catholics.
Brian Burch, now ambassador to the Vatican and whose CatholicVote organization helped make a case for Trump's reelection, keeps a very low profile. Nobody really knows where he got his money to run all those full-page ads before election day last year but I can guess. Seems likely that any new USCCB head might need to be able to "deal" with him.
It's urgent that the USCCB seek to influence the government on policies pertaining to immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. There are many other areas, such as climate change, war and peace, life issues and conscience rights where the USCCB needs to be the voice of the church with policymakers.
DeleteInfluence them how? It would nauseated me to see American bishops marching into the Oval Office fawning over Trump with nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize and golden presents. Leave that type of fawning to foreign leaders and the tech and industry mavens.
DeleteIt also seems to me that if the USCCB wants to influence national decision-makers climate and immigration that they first have to persuade their own flocks. The white conservatives who make up the majority of American Catholics are all in with Trump on that front.
Trump seems to have a pretty good record on conscience rights and in his condemnation of war in Gaza and Ukraine (though he seems happy to rattle the American sabre elsewhere).
Also, via Supreme Court nominations, Trump got rid of Roe, which has been among the American Church's chief preoccupation for decades. It's now up to the USCCB to urge bishops to "deal with" state legislators on that, no?
The Cardinal here is the main lobbyist with Congress, and with rich Catholic donors. The lobbying takes place mostly behind the scenes at the “parties“ and other “social” gatherings of the power people. I would think the individual bishops might do the same with their state legislators. But it seems that the majority of bishops are trumpers, so abortion and LGBTQ are still their main concerns. McElroy was more progressive and involved with immigration issues in San Diego.
DeleteI wish some of them would speak out against the overt racism of this administration. The only refugees now being allowed are white South Africans. It gets worse and worse but is ignored by most white Americans who don’t mind that the war on DEI is also involving rewriting history - stripping out black history from museums, national parks, including the National Zoo, government websites, history books in red states, etc, etc. Now even overseas where Hegseth has ordered the removal of a monument in the Netherlands that honored all black units who fought in the world wars there. Slavery is now being depicted as having been mostly a “ good” thing, teaching Africans valuable skills ( cotton picking?) and the history of slavery and Jim Crow is being removed- literally whitewashing history. A statue of a confederate leader that had been taken down in DC has been put up again on administration orders.
Jean said, "It also seems to me that if the USCCB wants to influence national decision-makers climate and immigration that they first have to persuade their own flocks"
DeleteI think that is true, and more their job than trying to be an influencer of politicians.
"Influence them how?"
DeleteTo take one top-of-mind example: the bishops can advocate for human rights with DHS, regarding how immigrants are detained. Conditions in the detention facilities are said to be atrocious.
They don't have to go directly to Trump for everything (as much as Trump wishes to project the impression that he controls everything the government does). I doubt he personally ordered ICE to implement the callous and cruel conditions in detention centers - although, now that these conditions are coming to light, I'll be surprised if he intervenes to do anything about them.
Jean: "It also seems to me that if the USCCB wants to influence national decision-makers climate and immigration that they first have to persuade their own flocks"
DeleteKatherine: "I think that is true, and more their job than trying to be an influencer of politicians."
The bishops have to do both - and many other things besides. They do need to teach their flocks; and they also need to seek to influence the federal government.
It's true that a majority of Catholics voted for Trump in the last election. That doesn't mean that those Catholics are flouting church teaching. People make voting decisions for many different reasons. Some of those reasons may be more aligned with church teaching; some may be less.
And how the church and its teachings influence voting decisions is not straightforward. My guess is, most American voters don't bring their religious faith into the voting booth; but many Americans - I'd think, a majority - have some sort of religious formation that, in some way and at some level, influences how they think about key issues in public life.
Unfortunately the bishops have failed to teach their flocks about Catholic Social Justice teachings. They have apparently failed to even teach the priests under their supervision. It won’t get to the people in the pews unless it’s taught in their parishes - in homilies on Sundays. And from what I read, backed up by Jim’s comments here, they are unwilling to teach Matthew 25 and the Beatitudes or any other Social Justice gospel. It’s anti- trumpism, and most bishops like trump. I would be willing to bet that most Catholics in the pews don’t even know their bishop’s name unless they have a kid in the Confirmation class. . If they don’t hear it from their parish priests, they won’t hear anything about the gospels that teach the details of “ love thy neighbor”. It’s all abortion, abortion, abortion, and anti- gay marriage stuff.
DeleteJim, what I'm asking is what you think effective Catholic involvement in American political policy looks like, specifically. What actions, pressures, or rewards can the Church apply to reach Trump or his creatures. How does a bishop remonstrate with Kristi Noem?
DeleteI certainly agree there is a moral element to global warming, rights of immigrants, abortion, etc that the Church should encourage priests and bishops to work into their homilies and public statements regardless of who's in power.
But, as I see it, the specific, immediate danger that Trump poses to the nation is his unconstitutional expansion of presidential powers and move toward autocracy. I don't think that's something the Church can do much about.
Bishops have denied communion to liberals who support choice, representing the entire people, not just Catholics. It would send a big loud message about immigration if Vance were to be turned away from communion.
DeleteI’m curious about Vance’s marriage. They were married in Kentucky in an interfaith ceremony that had Hindu elements and someone reading from the Bible. Not Catholic. I’ve heard nothing about them ever having their marriage “ regularized” to suit the Catholic.Church . Anyone know? I assume that some trump loving priest or bishop did whatever was required once it was clear that Vance had been bought by a billionaire and was on the path to power.
DeleteCutting people out of the communion line if they're not excommunicated strikes me as a terrible idea for anybody. If receiving is supposed to wipe out venial sins and strengthen faith, some of these MAGA officials need it more than most.
DeleteVance wasn't Catholic at the time of his marriage, so the Church considers it licit and valid. We had a civil ceremony and that passed the Church Lady sniff test, tho they bugged us to get it blessed ("Just don't make a big production out of it. No white dress, just a nice outfit in light colors. It's not a do-over!")
We thought about it for our 40th, but I doubted the local dude would do it given that he declined to give me Last Rites or officiate at a funeral service. At this point, my last wish is to be cremated and the ashes poured into the gas tank of his lovingly restored Grand Am when he's not looking.
"How does a bishop remonstrate with Kristi Noem?"
DeleteSure, great question. The practical answer is: it may not be a bishop who does it. It may be a professional lobbyist employed by (or contracted by) the USCCB. S/he may be able to get onto Kristi's calendar for 15 minutes; or perhaps, as Anne noted, s/he might be able to get a few minutes of face-to-face conversation at a public reception or event.
What could someone say to Kristi that would motivate her? If it were me, I would assume she has a Christian conscience, and approach her from that angle: "Madam Secretary, you may not be aware of the suffering that your detainess are undergoing. The church would like to work with DHS to address the conditions, and also to deliver pastoral care to them."
She's on the list of possible presidential candidates for 2028. She may calculate that it's in her favor not to alienate the very large sector of the public that is concerned about this issue. Or she may not care; pretty often, good seed falls on rocky soil and doesn't take root.
"t I doubted the local dude would do it given that he declined to give me Last Rites or officiate at a funeral service. "
DeleteI can't begin to describe how angry this makes me. I consider it pastoral malpractice.
"Cutting people out of the communion line if they're not excommunicated strikes me as a terrible idea for anybody."
DeleteI don't like it, either, but probably there are cases that call for it. It certainly needs to be a very last resort, only for people who have a lengthy track record of really flagrantly flouting what the church believes, and should be preceded by a ton of private accompaniment.
Kristi Noem isn't Catholic, she's some kind of Evangelical. So I'd think anything a Catholic bishop could say to her would have limited influence. The reason she is not going to be the Repub candidate for president in 2028? The puppy killer story. People care more about that than what she's doing to human beings. Cruella DeVille and all that sort of thing.
DeleteI don't believe that denying someone Communion is a good corrective, unless they're Julian the Apostate or something.
Pretty much everybody but the local priest's rad trad fans from out of town hate the guy. He has done away with EMs, altar girls, lay lectors, does not offer the cup, etc.
DeleteI only asked the guy because going thru the Catholic motions would have made Raber feel better. I don't think having him give me the Last Rites or having him lead prayers over my carcass is gonna make much difference in the Hereafter.
I have the prayers for the dying in my "death folder" and a bottle of holy water from the St Francis mission in Tuscon that my niece sent me. I told Dave to make use of that when the time comes and to forgive my many sins and faults as a wife and mother when the time comes.
"The puppy killer story."
DeleteIf shooting her dog keeps her out of office, fine by me. Cricket took the bullet for all of us.
I don’t think anyone should be cut out of the communion line, including christians who aren’t Catholic.But they did it with Pelosi and it got national attention. If Vance received similar treatment it would definitely get a message across - just as it did with Pelosi.
DeleteJim - “I would assume she has a Christian conscience, and approach her from that angle.”
DeleteWhat on earth would give you the idea that she has a Christian conscience? Her Christianity is performative, like trumps and a whole lot of other “ Christian” politicians.
I would have to defer to Jim about Vances marriage. Civil marriages don’t have to be annulled. Vance’s marriage was religious, but not conventionally religious. However it is described as including Christian elements. If a Catholic wants to marry a divorced person who was married in a Christian ceremony I believe they have to get that marriage annulled. If it was only a civil ceremony no annulment is needed. But I’m not an expert on this stuff.
Delete"Unfortunately the bishops have failed to teach their flocks about Catholic Social Justice teachings. They have apparently failed to even teach the priests under their supervision. It won’t get to the people in the pews unless it’s taught in their parishes - in homilies on Sundays."
DeleteIf Catholics don't know about Catholic social teaching, then personally, I think it would be more accurate to say, "the church has failed..." than "the bishops have failed..."
I don't know to what extent Catholic social teaching has seeped into the brains and consciences of Catholics. I can say that the church has been visible locally in the protests at Broadview (Chicago suburb with an ICE detention facility). I doubt many Catholics can recite by heart everything the Catechism says about immigration, but I'd think that quite a few of them have a general understanding that the church cares for the poor and vulnerable, including immigrants.
Of course, an individual may disagree with the church, and/or may not care what the church says, and/or may think the church has no business talking about political issues.
Back to the bishops: MSW may be right that the American bishops aren't very unified, but from what I can tell, they are in agreement when it comes to Catholic social teaching. They may not agree on which issues in the public square the church should emphasize, but I'd be surprised (and dismayed) to learn that even the most conservative bishops dissent from what the church teaches about immigration, peace, crime and whatever other topics are salient in our public life at the moment.
"I would have to defer to Jim about Vances marriage. Civil marriages don’t have to be annulled. Vance’s marriage was religious, but not conventionally religious. However it is described as including Christian elements. If a Catholic wants to marry a divorced person who was married in a Christian ceremony I believe they have to get that marriage annulled. If it was only a civil ceremony no annulment is needed. But I’m not an expert on this stuff."
DeleteI'm not an expert in these things, but if what is reported here is true (JD was not Catholic when he married Usha), and assuming neither was previously married, then, as Anne stated, I believe the church would view that marriage as valid. And there is no reason to have a valid marriage annulled or declared invalid.
Jim, the fact that more than 60% of white Catholics voted for trump is strong evidence that the church has failed to impart much of the substance of Catholic Social teachings. Are the bishops supposed to lead? Guide the priests in their responsibility to teach these things - basically to teach the gospels? Or are they simply supposed to lecture endlessly on abortion, and ignore poverty, the environment, workers rights etc because they’re too “ political”? If the church really intends to teach the gospels, it can’t avoid being “ political”.
DeleteThe church teaches what most Catholics seem to have internalized: that the Catholic faithful have both a right and a responsibility to make their own decision in the voting booth.
DeleteYou may hold the opinion that a vote for Trump is contrary to Catholic teaching, but I think a lot of Catholic Trump voters would disagree pretty strenuously with you. Certainly the Trump voters in my extended family, who are pretty pro-life, would disagree with you. They think abortion is a more important issue than poverty or the environment.
Jim, the people do have the right to vote as they please. Now. MAGA might change that. But the bishops have failed in their responsibility to teach. There is not only one single teaching in the Catholic Church. When the bishops (and parish priests) tell people that abortion is the “most important” issue, and say that voting for a pro- choice political candidate is a “mortal sin”, they fail to teach the gospels. Both Francis and Leo have said that abortion is NOT the single most important issue and that there are others - immigration, refugees, and poverty are preeminent life issues also. Cutting off humanitarian aid is also a death sentence for thousands now, and the death count will reach the millions before long. These lives should count for as much or more as the 8 week embryo, so undeveloped biologically as a human life that it is the size of a blueberry. It is not a person. Those who die as a result of no medical care and food are persons without the slightest doubt, unlike the blueberry embryo.
DeleteYour family, Jim, then is an example of how the church has failed to teach the gospels. They send the message that abortion alone is the preeminent issue and so your family doesn’t consider the millions of born people whose lives are at risk from MAGA policies. The bishops pretend to support a free vote, but then double down on abortion. The bishoos turned their back on Francis and made sure that their true message gets through. Your family is evidence of how effective they have been. Jesus’s teachings are not taught.
The church is enabling an evil government, one that is scapegoating and persecuting people who aren’t white, just as Hitler scapegoated the Jews. So far they are just rounding people up, imprisoning them, and shipping them out of country, paying other countries to imprison them. This is, in essence, what happened to the Jews, step by step. The Jews were rounded up and sent to deportation camps before being shipped out of the country. So far the camps here aren’t extermination camps. So far the overseas camps aren’t wholesale extermination camps as far as we know. The Nazi death camps were not publicly advertised - they were kept secret and people who suspected looked the other way and said nothing. There are deaths now in deportation centers, but not gas chambers. But the people are being shipped out of the country, some to almost certain death.
The official church was complicit in Nazi Germany and is complicit in the US now. Are the only lives that matter those that are not yet physically developed, much less born? The bishops do not teach the gospels. They keep their collective mouths shut to get what they want for the church, just as the church did in Germany. The church may be making a Faustian bargain. If MAGA wins total long- term control, that means white Christian nationalism, with white evangelicals in charge. Once the Catholic Church is no longer necessary to further their ends, no longer a useful pawn, it may rediscover that much of evangelical Christianity believes that the Catholic Church is the anti- Christ and the Catholic Church will come under the thumb of evangelical beliefs. The battle for the future of America is now. If America loses, the Catholic church will also lose at some point in the future.
Sorry, Jim. I know many anti- abortion people are sincere, but I also see a huge amount of hypocrisy in the movement. If the so called “ pro- life” Catholics who want to force Catholic theology on everyone - including the 80% of Americans who aren’t Catholic- don’t like be called “ pro- birth” instead of “ pro- life” they would do a hell of a lot more to help the women who may be forced to give birth because of Catholic Theology. They talk a big game, but the women ( 2/3 just above or below the poverty line) are essentially abandoned by the so called pro- lifers. Baby bottle campaigns, a few months of diapers and formula won’t support them. So they end up on “ welfare”, which is now being eliminated program by program by the trump administration. If the allegedly “pro- life” folk ( who don’t think poverty is important in their vote) were truly pro- life they wouldn’t elect politicians who cut the lifelines for women who face a challenging pregnancy. Every Catholic parish could sponsor a few women facing this and help with rent, food, childcare, medical care, transportation, etc, etc. But they don’t - they pat themselves on the back for “ saving babies” - who aren’t yet real babies but mostly partially formed embryos - and then leave the women flat to survive as best they can. Once the kids get to school age in a poor neighborhood, these Catholics and evangelicals want to take tax money away from the public schools to subsidize their religious schools. Bah humbug.
Delete"The official church was complicit in Nazi Germany and is complicit in the US now. "
DeleteI'm not interested in relitigating the Nazi question. But on the question of what the Trump Administration is doing now: I doubt one Catholic in a thousand expected these human rights abuses, and voted for Trump with that expectation. Even the Trump Administration itself didn't start out this way, until it became clear that they wouldn't meet their "quotas" by following the law. Seems you're faulting people for not having 20/20 foresight. Polling (and last week's votes in NJ and Virginia) show that Americans are regretting their decision at the polls in 2024. But those votes, once cast, can't be retracted; we're stuck with this for the next three years.
And the church is doing the opposite of what you accuse here. Far from being complicit in the mistreatment of immigrants, clergy and religious (and laity) are on the front lines opposing it. They are not the only ones, but they are there. Very much in line with what Francis and Leo want.
" the bishops have failed in their responsibility to teach."
DeleteSorry, I don't agree. The bishops teach all the time. They teach more than anyone, even a 'pro' like me, can keep up with.
As I mentioned in a previous comment: it's the church's responsibility, not just the bishops' responsibility, to teach. That starts in the church in the home, the family. And it includes parish religious education, liturgical preaching, and many other apostolates from Commonweal to Internet influencers to this tiny little blog.
Francis's views on how to prioritize church teachings in the US may not have been perfectly aligned with a majority of the American bishops. But Francis also taught that it is the American bishops, not he, who is responsible for applying the church's teachings to the American social and political situation. Francis had a right to share his views with the American bishops, and they had a responsiblity to listen respectfully and with an open heart, but ultimately it was the bishops' conference's responsibility to make (and own) the contents of the various editions of the Faithful Citizenship document. This is all very much in line with Francis's pontificate. If anything, Francis would have wanted the American bishops to be less "top-down" (taking their 'marching orders' from the Pope and the Holy See) and more "bottom-up" (listening to and consulting synodally with their flock).
I’m sorry, but I disagree. The bishops are too distant from the people in the pews. So they are supposed to lead the priests and guide them in what they should teach. Obviously the bishops are pretty selective in what they teach the priests to teach. They doubled down before the election in their conference about abortion being the pre- eminent issue, even though Francis said it was only one issue among several and not “ pre- eminent” above the others. The bishops have spoken out a bit about immigration, but one has to wonder if this is motivated by the fact that the pews would be even emptier than they are now if it weren’t for the immigrants, who are now about 40% of the adult Catholic population according to what I read recently. They are more than 50% of the young adult and younger population. You’re an insider, so you probably hear a lot more of what the bishops say than most Catholics. It if the parish priests are reluctant to speak out on anything but abortion because they fear blowback, then obviously the “ family church” at home won’t be teaching their kids about it because they haven’t been taught in their parishes.
DeleteI know that you are passionate about saving developing embryonic life. I’m equally passionate about saving the lives of people already born, but the bishops mostly say little about them and support politicians whose policies cost lives of people who are full, living, breathing human beings.
Reality check: It might further the discussion to look at the USCCB newsroom and browse through the press releases as a way to gauge what the bishops want everybody to think about.
Deletehttps://www.usccb.org/newsroom
My takeaway is that the bishops are not ignoring immigrants, climate change, etc. It's possible that the concerns of the bishops collectively are less vehement and urgent about these issues than they were in the past about abortion, but that would take more time to parse out.
I don't see any releases about abortion, possibly because these are now state rather than national issues.
I try to keep in mind that one bishop can lash out about a specific issue that bugs him in a way that strikes me as arrogant or ham-handed. But that doesn't mean that he's speaking for the US Church and certainly not for the Church worldwide.
Jean. I don’t t think many people in the pews pay much attention to bishops except for Barron. They often don’t know his name, much less know anything about the USCCB. Usually the only direct communications with the people in the pews are the annual Bishops’ Appeals to raise money. Very few would ever look at the website of the USCCB. Only crazy people like those of us here. But the priests and deacons who work with the parishioners do know more about their bishop and his views than the pew sitters do. It’s their job. So the bishops should be teaching the priests and deacons what they should be teaching. And except for abortion, gay marriage and immigration, they don’t push other messages. Neither abortion nor gay marriage are mentioned in the gospels, but caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger and loving your neighbor are. But you don’t hear much about them except for immigration now and then. The laity hear homilies in their parishes, and the pastors push whatever message he wants to push. If his bishop isn’t pushing the church’s social justice teachings the pastor usually won’t either, especially because so many seem afraid of blowback. But isn’t it part of their job to challenge people? The bishops do push to get thousands loaded onto buses at parishes and schools to go to DC every January to protest abortion. That’s the only issue that they exert that kind of effort for.
DeleteWell, well, well. Big story in the NYT tonight about bishoos speaking out about the cruelty involved in the deportations.
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/us/bishops-trump-immigration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.008.kmF8.oUQMs1sZtWTr&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Sorry. I thought you and Jim were disputing the extent to which the bishops focused on social justice issues. I the point is how well they impart their concerns to the sheep. I'll butt out. My sense is that a bishop in any denomination is like a CEO who rarely shows up where people are actually working and makes people nervous. Raber's uncle Andy was an Amish bishop, and since he died, everybody's a lot more relaxed.
DeleteThe bishops sets the tone and priorities for the clergy. Since it’s been almost exclusively abortion as THE priority and most priests these days are politically to the right, the message doesn’t get proclaimed from the pulpits. So the sheep do t hear it.
DeleteIt will be interesting to see if this statement from the USCCB is proclaimed from the parish pulpits. According to the news today this is the first statement the USCCB has released with this kind of attention getting fanfare in 12 years.
"My takeaway is that the bishops are not ignoring immigrants, climate change, etc. It's possible that the concerns of the bishops collectively are less vehement and urgent about these issues than they were in the past about abortion, but that would take more time to parse out."
DeleteJean, I agree that they're not ignoring those other issues. But I think the people themselves - some of them, anyway - are more 'primed' to receive teaching about abortion than they are about climate change. On immigration, personally I think they're more primed than MAGA World suspects, and I think there is a chance that the bishops' statement gets some traction at a grass-roots level.
It would be a tall order for someone to check all the boxes! I would say someone who is a good communicator and not seen as overly partisan. I don't think Barron can check the "not partisan" box. It looks like it is a three year term. I don't know if they are "term limited" to one term.
ReplyDeleteAs many expected, the Bishops elected conservative archbishop Coakley as their new president but on the third ballot. On the first ballot Coakley was the top vote getter (67) with Bishop Flores in second place (52) and Barron in third place (52). In the second ballot Coakley got 102 votes to Flores 77 with Barron falling to 16 votes. The third runoff ballot between Coakley and Flores was 128 to 109.
ReplyDeleteThe votes for Vice President was a clear win on the first ballot for Flores getting a majority of 117 votes.
The long tradition of the bishops was to elect someone for three years as Secretary-Treasurer, then elect him as Vice President for three years followed by three years as president. Since Coakley is now Secretary-Treasurer, they may be going back to that tradition.
Coakley's election might be seen as the conservatives managing a very stubborn retreat from the inevitable with a conservative president for four more years followed by a moderate Hispanic for three years as president. Coakley certainly will please the rich Republican who love Trump. Flores, a Hispanic who was in charge of synodality for the bishops will please Rome.
Tomorrow will be an election for Secretary-Treasurer to fill the position being vacated by Coakley. Conservatives will have 24 hours to figure out a strategy. Electing Barron as Secretary-Treasurer might give him a period of six years to prepare for being president. Electing Perez as Secretary would give him a similar period of preparation.
The future is not good for conservative control of the USCCB. Leo unlike Francis not only understands the US, but can communicate in Spanish, Italian and English with anyone about bishop candidates in the US and elsewhere. He will not need to rely upon the next Apostolic Nuncio other than as a functionary. He appointed a person with good administrative skills to his old position as head of the Vatican department that chooses bishops.
Francis spend most of his decade of being pope by restructuring the College of Cardinals. Looks like he did a good job. They decided they wanted to continue Francis' program but with the best person to administer it and so picked Leo. The rumor is that Leo is going to convene the cardinals in January to help him run the Church.
Administratively that gives Leo a decade to thoroughly and systematically redo the College of bishops much in the way that Francis did for the Cardinals.
I don't know much about Archbishop Coakley, except that he is strong on immigration. Here is a brief statement from him from earlier this year:
Deletehttps://archokc.org/news/statement-from-archbishop-coakley-on-mass-deportation
I understand he has also opposed capital punishment.
The NY Times, in even-handed reporting, notes among other things that he is a friend of the Napa Institute:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/11/us/bishops-coakley-immigration.html
Bishop Coakley was quite vocal in his Obama-shaming during that administration. His arguments were basically (I paraphrase), how ironic that the first black president whose race endured persecution is now persecuting the unborn.
DeleteHis criticisms of Obama (and piling on Kathleen Sebelius when Burke told her not to come to Communion) struck me as unnecessarily personal and bitter.
Charity requires me to assume that Bishop Coakley was overwrought with Obama et al because Coakley loves little babies so much. If so, I expect to see Bishop Coakley love babies enough to get equally strident with Trump and co on immigration, climate change, and the other issues Jim has mentioned.
Message from USCCB in the WaPo this morning. Will be interesting to see if this makes it to the parish level. Snip:
ReplyDeleteIn a rare group statement, America’s Catholic bishops voted nearly unanimously Wednesday to condemn the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants as an attack on “God-given human dignity,” and advocated for “meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws.”
“We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement,” read the message from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. After the vote (216-5, with three abstentions), the bishops stood and applauded. The last such “Special Message” was delivered 12 years ago.