Time Change- For Catholics

As we prepare to get an extra hour’s sleep, let’s rest easy and think about what might happen because of the amazing summary reports of the national and universal synod process. We the laity suddenly have our concerns revealed to all the world. We can whip out these documents as things come up – and one thing that’s coming up is the annual meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore, November 14-17.

OH, NO! you groan. But think about it. If there’s anything the synod process has made clear, it’s how far the people are from the prelates. Now that our ideas are out there in the public sphere, it’s up to the bishops to respond. I am eagerly awaiting this meeting to see whether the voice of the laity will make a difference in the debates and in the selection of new leadership.

Michael J. O’Loughlin is writing in America before either document was issued, but the issue he singles out clearly indicates the divergence between the concerns of the bishops and what the synod participants expressed. O’Loughlin anticipates a focus on “the U.S. church’s high-profile campaign for religious liberty, which has dominated the conference’s work in recent years…bishops have cited religious liberty in expressing opposition to expanded rights for L.G.B.T. Americans and proposals that could protect legal access to contraception and abortion.”

Among the marginalized in the US synthesis are “the unborn and their mothers,” for sure, but also “members of the LGBTQ+ community (6).” The bishops’ religious liberty strategy opposing “expanded rights for L.G.B.T. Americans” would not satisfy those who came together to ask for this:

The hope for a welcoming Church expressed itself clearly with the desire to accompany with authenticity LGBTQ+ persons and their families. Many “who identify as LGBTQ+ believe they are condemned by Church teachings.” There is an “urgent need for guidance as [one parish] begged, ‘we believe we are approaching a real crisis in how to minister to the LGBTQ+ community, some of whom are members of our own families. We need help, support, and clarity.” Often families “feel torn between remaining in the church and supporting their loved ones.” In order to become a more welcoming Church there is a deep need for ongoing discernment of the whole Church on how best to accompany our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. (8)

I also would argue that using “the unborn and their mothers” was to avoid using “abortion” or “contraception.”

Elections matter, and the USCCB will select its chair and co-chair from among ten bishops. These men were nominated before the synod results were published, and some would be truly awful, like San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (no communion for Biden or Pelosi) or Military Services Archbishop Timothy Broglio. Michael Sean Winters in NCR details his sorry history in Rome during the first years of the sex abuse crisis.

The US synthesis was published under the auspices of the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB. One of the bishops in the running to be national chair is Daniel Flores, bishop of Brownsville, who heads that committee, so he knows what the document contains. Will he bring up the “enduring wounds” so movingly presented? Or the urgent request to recognize the “co-responsibility” of the laity, to pick just one of the highlighted issues about how the church operates.

There’s a bishops’ committee for Canonical Affairs and Church Governance, which seems to be mostly
concerned with following the rules, a critique offered again and again in the synthesis document. The people say: “The next step for the U.S. Church is to give special attention to its parishes and dioceses for that is where the People of God most concretely encounter the Spirit at work and where the first fruits of this discernment will be realized. (12)” Will anyone on that committee seek to open up the discussion of how the church operates in the lives of ordinary people? Maybe about women? Shared decision-making? Transparency? But I digress.

For a conservative chairmanship choice, Winters picks either Flores or Baltimore Archbishop William Lori. He finds both smart (Flores brilliant, Lori a man of ideas) and both “can listen to different opinions and try and forge a consensus, not a ‘my way or the highway’ leader.” Flores is “an effective communicator and…he understands Pope Francis, not least because he is familiar with the Latino literature that has so formed the pope.” I wonder if people will see Flores as conservative after they digest the synod reports! Winters would like Flores to remain as head of the doctrine committee, but does not seem to mind if Lori no longer heads the pro-life activities committee.

For a reform chairmanship choice, Winters singles out Seattle Archbishop Paul Etienne. “He hails from a diocese that is growing, with immigrant communities drawn from Asia as well as Latin America. Etienne has embraced environmental protection close to home, working with a developer known for creating sustainable buildings, to redevelop properties around the Cathedral of St. James. Firmly pro-life, Etienne is a consistent ethic of life champion in the manner of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.”

O’Loughlin provides the religious liberty angle on all these men; Lori was the head of the religious freedom ad hoc committee when it was a new idea, and Flores is currently a member of the permanent committee. Cordileone is running for chair of the committee as well as of the USCCB, and last year “spoke in favor of drafting a document that could have been used as the basis for denying Communion to Mr. Biden and Ms. Pelosi. But at least one candidate for U.S.C.C.B. president spoke out against that measure. Seattle’s Archbishop Etienne had urged caution on moving ahead with such a statement and ultimately voted against the measure, stating the Eucharist was ‘now enmeshed in a conversation about politics. And that’s a very difficult place for us to be.’”

Etienne’s position is more in line with the synthesis document. One region is quoted: “Partisan politics is infiltrating homilies and ministry, and this trend has created divisions and intimidation among believers.” The authors also reported that “Many regional syntheses cited the perceived lack of unity among the bishops in the United States, and even of some individual bishops with the Holy Father, as a source of grave scandal. (5)” O’Loughlin says “As far as supporting the priorities set forth by Pope Francis, Bishop [Frank J.] Caggiano of Bridgeport has expressed support for the synodal process.” All the candidates must have turned in something from their domains, whether or not they are on record as enthusiastic.

Winters feels Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City might be the sleeper candidate; O’Loughlin points out that he’s also on the religious liberty committee. Those I have not mentioned are Bishop Michael F. Burbridge of Arlington; Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller of San Antonio; Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Winters finds them all divisive and unlikely to be chosen for a variety of reasons.

I truly hope that whichever two who are selected will embrace the listening church. I am ready for a time change. All this work so many put in must have a measurable result.