USCCB

Does it seem to you that I’ve been unusually positive this month? That’s because I have been ignoring the US bishops, but I’ve been thinking about them. Two articles in NCR, three dueling bishops, and a scandalous document brings them into focus, not in a good light.

The headline writer for Michael Sean Winters lays it on the line: “Pope Francis, you have two years to remake the US hierarchy. Get to it.” Winters is not quite that blunt himself, but he does skewer the rumored strategy of “two for us, one for them.” By profiling the Francis cardinals and a few bishops in contrast to the elected leadership of the USCCB, he makes the point that any more for them is too many.

Brian Fraga illustrates the difference between a columnist like Winters and a reporter. Subtlety vs. outrage, perhaps? While I feel Winters’ urgency, I appreciate the data and expert opinion Fraga pulls together to document a convincing case.

I am resisting the urge to list all the places where bishops are sliding up to or even past retirement age. Check out Fraga’s article if you suspect yours may be ready to depart, for good or for ill. Even the good guys age, though no pope accepts every resignation.

Here’s the data: “If he names new bishops to all those local churches, Francis will have appointed 64 percent of the U.S. episcopate since becoming pope in March 2013. Forty-six percent of current U.S. bishops are Francis appointees, said Catherine Hoegeman, a Missouri State University sociology professor who tracks U.S. episcopal appointments.” I am so glad to know she is thinking about this; she notes that an unusual number of archdioceses may be opening within the next couple of years.

Fraga documents the bishop appointment process according to former Philadelphia Archbishop Justin Rigali, but I am more intrigued by the professorial opinions he collects, as follows.

Natalia Imperatori-Lee of Manhattan College deals in reality: “To have great bishops, you need great seminaries. You need vibrant engagement with the intellectual life of the church, and I just don’t see that happening.” She does note the opportunity to appoint Hispanic bishops to increase “cultural sensitivity,” a goal I support, though I question whether they would “change the tenor of the church’s engagement in culture war issues.” The tenor, perhaps, if not the substance.

The appointments made so far by Pope Francis have not been as ideological as in the prior two papacies. Massimo Faggioli of Villanova University finds the cardinals more impressive than the bishops, whom he characterizes as “vaguely good pastors.” Steve Avella of Marquette University and Mark Massa of Boston College offer similar opinions. Avella notes a situation which required an asterisked response from the Fort Worth Diocese about the resignation of the organizer of “a women’s empowerment summit.” Horrors! Hodgeman predicts “middle ground guys” rising; I’d prefer more of Faggioli’s impressive cardinals.

One of those is Robert McElroy of San Diego. Did he anticipate that his article in America would generate what feels like bitter controversy among the USCCB leadership? I find the episcopal critiques that don’t identify him by name as appalling as the ad hominem attacks in the magazine comments, or even the ponderous rebuttal by theologian E. Christian Brugger in Catholic World Report.

Archbishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield (IL) does not conceal which “heretic cardinal” he is writing about in First Things; he quotes McElroy word for word. Paprocki quotes Canon Law as if he’s the one required to enforce it. He makes absolute statements about McElroy’s issues, which I covered in my January 28 blog. Read NCR’s editorial and Fraga’s article if you want doctrinal specifics. In America, Michael O’Louglin summarizes some early responses and Gerald O’Connell gives McElroy another chance to comment in a March interview and podcast. Paprocki identifies himself as “chairman-elect of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance.” All that means is that he’s not chair yet and is using the title none the less.

The other member of the USCCB leadership who alludes to McElroy is President Timothy Broglio, whose sermon, picked up by Our Sunday Visitor, winds down to say: “There are also attempts to muddy the clear moral teaching of the Church in matters of the dignity of the human person, human sexuality and the sanctity of holy matrimony. Sometimes we hear a suggestion of a difference between teaching or doctrine and pastoral care. However, we know that nothing truly pastoral fails to begin with the truth. The object of our mission is the salvation of souls.” Perhaps he believes his new position requires such grandiosity. Elections matter, and this kerfuffle makes me realize that the current leadership is not hesitating to move the church in direct opposition to the best initiatives of Francis and the wide support they have received in the Synod process.

Daniel Horan in NCR has the best introduction to my final concern:

“Though it should seem obvious, it is worth restating that just because something is new or unfamiliar to you does not mean that it is necessarily novel or invented, and just because you don’t understand something does not make it wrong or sinful. This needs to be restated because some people, including some church leaders, cannot seem to remember this before they act in harmful ways.

On Monday (March 20) the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine published a document titled “Doctrinal Note on the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body,” which calls for the refusal to provide gender-affirming care to those experiencing gender dysphoria. In the process, those responsible for this document not only deny the reality of transgender, nonbinary and intersex persons, but they also compound the harm experienced by already very vulnerable people.

That a statement like this was coming was not a surprise, but its final scope and content was unknown even to those who had been aware of the document at various stages of its drafting. Predictably, the result is nothing short of a disaster: theologically, scientifically and pastorally.”

Horan’s long article examines all of these aspects; I recommend it. Even to me, a non-specialist, the document is amateurish. I always look at sources, and Horan notes what leapt out to me: so many references in the technology sections are to documents issued by Pope Pius XII in the 1950s! Nobody would choose to abandon today’s medical care for what was available then, or to abandon Vatican II and developments since then for the theological thinking of that era.

I am especially disappointed because this committee is headed by Brownsville Bishop Daniel Flores. His leadership of the Synod process in the US has resulted in a truly representative document—and now this! Who pushed this document forward?

I am especially pleased by the statement from Mary Haddad, RSM, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA). She makes lemonade: “The Note recognizes that the science of gender identity is evolving and instructs Catholic health care providers to follow research carefully and to evaluate new treatments according to sound moral principles grounded in the good of the human person with his or her own integrity.” She says specifically “We look forward to our active participation in this important dialogue.”

And leave it up to Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry to point out “Thankfully, this document is limited in its power at this point. Whether it becomes a national policy remains to be seen. Each bishop can still determine for himself if the recommendations in this document are helpful for the pastoral care of the transgender people in their communities. We hope that local bishops will turn to transgender people and to the wider medical community to decide what policies about transgender healthcare they will pursue.”

Indeed. The lack of consultation represents the weakness of the current regime at the USCCB. The anti-Francis party has captured the offices, but they have not understood the “signs of the times.” Let us hope that more bishops open their minds to the needs of American Catholics, all of them, especially those most harmed by their careless theology, science, and pastoring. And if they do not, let us pray that their resignations are accepted and a new crop assume their responsibilities. It is time.