Joe Biden and Catholicism in the United States

 

A Catholic scholar weighs Biden’s future with Vatican and US bishops

The Vatican may be breathing a sigh of relief on Joe Biden's election. But the second Catholic president faces significant headwinds from American bishops, writes Massimo Faggioli in a new book. 

This is an interview by RNS; my comments in italics

You describe Joe Biden as a kind of liminal figure, caught between the 20th and 21st century. Explain what you mean.

He is a cradle Catholic, born and raised in a world shielded from pluralism, much more than today. So he was born in one world and reached the highest office in a very different world and a very different church.

What’s fascinating about his Catholicism is that he embodies an attempt to bring back a Catholic identity that doesn’t need other adjectives. Today, there’s always an adjective qualifying “Catholic”: a liberal, conservative, traditionalist and so on. This is the phenomenon of branding. But that’s not Joe Biden. His Catholicism is co-essential with his life and identity.  

Two images of Biden dominate my imagination: rosary praying (traditional) and Eagles Wings (Vatican II) Is that a conscious attempt to appeal to all Catholics?

You point to areas where Francis and Biden agree, such as the environment and immigration. More generally, how does the Vatican view Biden?

There’s a sigh of relief in the Vatican because Biden’s election means a return to multilateralism, to cooperation with international organizations, which has become in the last 50, 60 years a pillar of the Vatican concept of global community

Biden is a product of the Washington establishment, and not as close as Francis is to a third-world agenda. In the long term, there are natural differences — on China, the Middle East, Latin America. But it will take time for them to emerge.

Yes the harmony with the Vatican on some issues such as the environment and immigration should not blind us to the fact that Francis has deep criticisms of the US, including the US church, based on his third world experience.

You note that Francis has embraced a vision of Catholicism that is no longer centered on the West. What is his attitude to the U.S.?

John Paul II and Benedict XVI had a special relationship with the United States for different reasons — anti-communism for John Paul II and a very negative take on Islam for Benedict XVI. Francis’ understanding of the United States is shaped by a typical Latin American Catholic perception, by the United States’ support for dictatorships on the continent.

There is a deep worry in the Vatican for what America has gone through in the last four years. Francis is not ignoring America. That’s not thinkable. When he has spoken on marriage and divorce and gays and abortion, he knew it would create a huge backlash from the U.S. Catholic bishops, and he did it anyway

Yes Francis vision of Vatican II was shaped by the Latin American bishops preferential option for the poor. While the American bishops initially issued progressive documents on the economy and nuclear warfare, they made a complete turnabout under JP2 and Benedict. Latin America however continue to develop a progressive vision as a church of and for the poor despite attacks out of Rome on liberation theology. Eventually first Benedict and now Francis has put his stamp of approval on their interpretation of Vatican II. The synodal form of government in the church now being promoted by Francis comes from Latin America.

You devote a large part of the book to exploring the changes in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. You call some of them neoconservatives and others neotraditionalists. Explain what you mean by that.

Neoconservative is a movement that began in Catholic intellectual circles in the United States in the 1980s. They thought Catholic liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s had gone too far and we should go back to a more moderate idea of church. They were not aiming at an upheaval of the whole system. They wanted a rebalancing.

In the last 15 years, since the election of Benedict in 2005, some in those same circles have become neotraditionalists. They say the teachings of the Second Vatican Council were wrong: Let’s go back to a pre-Vatican II theology.

When Trump becomes president there’s also an embrace of a political theology that embraces ethno-nationalism among the U.S. bishops. There’s a rejection of any discourse on racism, gender equality, etc. This is something that has happened in various places in the Catholic Church, but in other countries, it’s fringe. In this country, it is much bigger.

These distinctions are very important in dealing with conservative trends among bishops and American Catholics. Moderation after Vatican II changes was a good thing in its time, however now that it  has resulted in criticism of Vatican II on liturgy, ecumenism, and public life it crossed a line into neo-traditionalism. Now it is going even further in alliances with right wing political movements.

How has the neo-traditionalist wing expressed itself?

After the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol there were statements saying, “Let’s not resort to violence.” But there is no statement calling what the president did what it was, or calling his lies, lies. Other cardinals and bishops have noticed. The cardinal of Myanmar represents a tiny percentage of the population of Myanmar, but immediately after the coup, he said, “We Catholics are in favor of democracy, of the constitution, rule of law.”

The Catholics in the United States represent more than one-fifth of all the population, and in four years you never had anything comparable to what in one day the cardinal of Myanmar said. This is not how the Catholic Church behaves in a modern democracy under threat.

In third world countries bishops ally themselves with democratic movements, often because these are important to Catholic minorities. In first and second world countries where Catholics are the majority or a large minority bishops can be tempted to align themselves with right wing authoritarians.

Can Biden ignore the bishops’ conference and deal directly with the Vatican?

The Vatican has already opened a channel of communication with the new administration. The U.S. bishops’ conference has cornered itself. It has bad relations, not only with the White House but with the pope. It’s not in Biden’s interest to challenge or criticize the bishops. He doesn’t need that. But Biden and the pope can understand each other without the need to involve the U.S. bishops. They (the bishops) are dealing with an open rift among themselves. I suspect that’s going to last. In the last eight years, the USCCB has become immovable. All those bishops and cardinals Francis appointed have never been elected to a position of leadership in the USCCB. Many have just given up. Very few are willing to say something publicly. So it’s a Catholic Church effectively without a leadership that is taken seriously.

Yes Biden's best strategy is to continue to pray the rosary, and sing Eagle's Wings, be the chief mourner, conquer the virus, revive the economy, take on climate change, and immigration (and ignore the bishops except when they praise him). 

You write that the Catholic Church is in the midst of a “soft schism.” What do you mean?

I don’t think it will be a schism like in the Middle Ages, but the polarization in the Catholic Church in this country goes much deeper than political behavior. It is more than a legitimate diversity of political ideas. Bishops hostile to Pope Francis in 2018 looked with sympathy at Vigano’s attempts to unseat Pope Francis. This is not normal. When good Catholics go as far as trying to unseat a legitimately elected pope, this is a warning sign. None of those bishops regretted what they said.

As a European, the author is aware of the many complicated schismatic movements that Catholicism has survived over the centuries. So this is only a soft schism, something that we need to be concerned about but not exaggerate.