
Chicago, Ill., Jan 7, 2019 / 04:41 pm (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary is beautiful. Set on 600 leafy acres, its buildings merge the aesthetics of the American Colonial Revival with the motifs of great Roman edifices. Its library is expansive. Its chapel is a gem. Mundelein is the kind of place that is hard to leave.
When their seven-day retreat at Mundelein ends Jan. 8, some of the U.S. bishops may be reluctant to leave the seminary. But if they are not eager to go home, it will not be because of the setting.
When they depart, many bishops will find their retreat was not an end to the siege under which they find themselves.
Once home, they will face the same questions, the same investigations, the same demand for answers that they left behind. And they will face the same impatience from Catholics across the country.
The president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, for example, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, will likely face questions about his dealings with the Vatican in the lead-up to the bishops’ meeting: he will be asked whether he knew earlier than he let on that the conference would not be permitted to vote on a reform package of policies that he championed.
Back in Houston, DiNardo will also face questions from county prosecutors who have accused the archdiocese of withholding evidence during a police investigation.
DiNardo will not be the only U.S. cardinal with problems when the retreat comes to an end.
After losing an auxiliary bishop to allegations of sexual abuse, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York now faces questions about why his archdiocese misrepresented a priest under investigation.
Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston is investigating accusations of misconduct at the seminaries in his archdiocese. Cardinal Blase Cupich faces a diocesan investigation from Illinois’ attorney general.
Cardinal Joseph Tobin’s Archdiocese of Newark remains at the center of questions regarding long-time archbishop Theodore McCarrick. And Cardinal Donald Wuerl, McCarrick’s successor in Washington, faces continued scrutiny as he remains the archdiocesan interim leader until his successor is named.
Other bishops face allegations of misconduct or cover-up, among them Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo and Bishop Michael Hoeppner of Crookston.
Like Dolan, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles must also address an auxiliary bishop accused of sexual abusing a minor. And dozens of other bishops are faced with state and federal investigations into the historical and current administration of their dioceses.
The bishops did not formally discuss strategy or plans during the retreat: meals were taken in silence, recreation periods were few. But their leaders, DiNardo and Gomez, will go to Rome next month for a meeting with Pope Francis, and the heads of bishops’ conferences from around the world. That summit, occasioned by the eruption last year of sexual abuse scandals in the United States, is scheduled to address the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults around the world.
Sources expect very little practical policy to come from the February summit. The meeting is expected to encourage bishops in the developing world to develop the baseline child protection protocols that U.S. bishops developed in 2002, and to engender in all participants a greater awareness of the profound harm that clerical sexual abuse can cause to victims.
As he did in his letter to the U.S. bishops at Mundelein, Pope Francis is likely to encourage the assembled bishops to greater personal conversion, and to emphasize, as he often has, the centrality of personal integrity in resolving allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct.
It is expected that a guilty verdict for Archbishop McCarrick will be announced before the February meeting, along with the likely penalty of laicization. But Vatican sources do not expect a report on the Vatican’s investigation into its own documents on McCarrick to be forthcoming.
Leadership and committees of the U.S. bishops’ conference continue to revise and discuss the policies they proposed in November, along with alternatives that emerged during their meeting. It is not likely that the February summit will substantially impact that work. Instead, it seems most likely that the bishops’ will work on their policies and proposals until a March meeting of the conference’s administrative committee, and then send them to Rome for review.
After DiNardo was accused of not giving the Vatican enough time to weigh in on proposals before the November meeting, the bishops will want to leave ample time for back and forth with Rome before they vote at their June meeting on whatever draft policies have received an initial approval from the Vatican.
The priorities for the U.S. bishops are said to be establishing a mechanism for credibly investigating allegations of abuse, negligence, or misconduct against bishops; investigating the possibility of expanding the Church’s definition of vulnerable adults to include seminarians and others under the authority of bishops, and creating protocols for bishops who are removed or resign from their posts amid scandal or allegations.
It seems likely they’ll be able to accomplish some portion of those goals by the conclusion of their June meeting.
The question, of course, is whether Catholics will wait.
Among the effects of the scandal has been a much broader sense of disillusionment and disenfranchisement from Catholics than was palpable in the aftermath of the 2002. It is not yet clear whether the scandals of 2018 have impacted Church attendance or diocesan financial support. And, of course, for many Catholics the anger of last summer has abated. But episcopal leadership is under a new level of scrutiny in the U.S., and voices from across the ecclesial spectrum have been unrelenting in calling for change.
Some of those voices are likely to intensify after the February meeting, at which the outcomes, and even the agenda, are not likely to meet public expectation.
Since June, the bishops seem to have been playing catch-up with a tornado. Their responses to new fronts of the crisis often seemed insincere or unconvincing. They have seemed often to have been owned by the events unfolding around them, and they frequently have been criticized for seeming to lack authenticity, contrition, and above all, leadership.
As a result, in addition to the legitimate questions bishops have faced from Catholics, and from the media, they now must also contend with a growing anticlerical populist backlash in the U.S. Church, one that seems to foster broad distrust for episcopal initiatives and the Church’s governing structure, rather than on calling for or supporting reform efforts.
The retreat may well motivate bishops to address their problems with new vigor: it may have given them an opportunity to regroup, catch their breath, and emerge as the leaders that Catholics seem to have been looking for.
If they have any hope of restoring confidence in U.S. Catholic hierarchy, the opportunity afforded to them by their retreat is one the bishops ought not miss.
Because any practical change is likely six months away, if there is to be change in the narrative of the last six months, or if the burgeoning anti-episcopal populist movements in the U.S. Church are to lose steam, it will only be because bishops emerge renewed from their retreat, and begin to address the Church with the kind of courageous, direct, transparent, and fatherly leadership Catholics have been calling for, even in the absence of new policies. Even then, it will be an uphill battle, and will become more difficult with each passing month in which leadership is seen to be lacking.
If their retreat has had its effect, the U.S. episcopate may now have more spiritual health and vigor with which to lead the Church than it has had since before the crisis began. Whether they will emerge ready to take the mantle of leadership, and begin to foster healing from the Church’s still-gaping wounds, remains to be seen.
[…]
I always thought I understood that to support or encourage the sin of another was also a sin. And I thought that having a prominent Catholic speak out in public attacking church teaching was a serious offense called “giving scandal”?? If this is so, what is the problem that Cardinal Cupich sees with the USCCB not being sufficiently pro-Biden? Why does a Catholic Cardinal want to support a pro-abortion candidate by cloaking him with apparent church approval anyway?
Gomez’ statement was pure fluff, and Cupich’s throwing in his (unasked for) 2 cents just makes it that much more absurd.
If one were to ask for a clear reason why many Catholics are leaving, I would cite this silliness – and that’s exactly what it is – as a contributing factor.
“Cardinal Cupich wanted a more supportive, clearly pro-Biden statement”
Yeah, I’ll just bet he did.
If Cupich couldn’t support the USCCB’s well-crafted, balanced, responsible statement, then the red he wears is more symbolic of the devil than of being a Cardinal. Thank God I’m not in Cupich’s archdiocese.
Biden on his first day already signed an EO to fund abortion s with taxpayers money overseas. He starts his presidency killing the more unborn.
Cardinal Cupcake is a disgrace to the Catholic Church. He should resign from office and turn in his red hat.
Despite the prayers and anthems of the inauguration yesterday, isn’t the elephant in the living room the generational genocide that has continued on with public support since 1973? The practice of procured abortion is an unjust and violent assault on innocent human life in which young minority women are most affected.
Cupich. Of course.
Archbishop Gomez, President of the USCCB, proposes a Coherent Family Policy as a point of engagement between natural law and Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and a national public policy incoherence gone off the rails. But adolescent Cardinal Cupich whines that he has a problem (probably still smarting from his success in sidelining Cardinal DiNardo, then President of the USCCB, on a strategy to correct a pattern of sex abuses, and then not being elected to any USCCB offices?).
The balanced and coherent CST centers on the transcendent Dignity of the Human Person (without 60 million exceptions) within the Family, plus Solidarity with Subsidiarity, plus Rights with Responsibilities, plus Faithful Citizenship with Informed Conscience (the Biden challenge), plus an Option for the “poor” with the Dignity of work, and all of this with long-term care for God’s Creation (and pre-born creations?).
But why propose the comprehensive coherence and depth of the CST when we can settle for a more politically-driven nexus of incoherence?
Why settle for Gomez’s CST—the negation of all ideology—when we can bundle all of our ersatz ideologies onto one letterhead? The Cupich faction has got it all worked out (!), from a national and historical perspective–the railroad (pun intended) nexus of cattle stockyard slaughterhouses in 19th-century Chicago. Hamburger moral theology, anyone?
If bishops decide to defend the faith on essential moral teaching they have every right, and the obligation as defenders of the faith to teach and correct. I’m not aware of any liceity canonical or otherwise of a superior [Cardinal Cupich apparently has a Scots Guard status to keep the troops in line conferred by the Vatican] including the Vat Sec of State Parolin to embargo and demand removal of an earlier statement by Archbishop Gomez and the USCCB that clearly and correctly identified Pres Biden’s anti Catholic positions, “Archbishop Gomez pointed out that the incoming president’s agenda does not square with Catholic teaching. ‘So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences'” (Pete Baklinski in LifeSite). Bishops pleas be courageous and pleasing to God, not man. Do your work as defenders of the faith!
If bishops decide to defend the faith on essential moral teaching they have every right, and the obligation as defenders of the faith to teach and correct. I’m not aware of any liceity canonical or otherwise of a superior [Cardinal Cupich apparently has a Scots Guard status to keep the troops in line conferred by the Vatican] including the Vat Sec of State Parolin to embargo and demand removal of an earlier statement by Archbishop Gomez and the USCCB that clearly and correctly identified Pres Biden’s anti Catholic positions, “Archbishop Gomez pointed out that the incoming president’s agenda does not square with Catholic teaching. ‘So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences'” (Pete Blazinski in LifeSite). Bishops be pleasing to God, not man. Be courageous and do your obligatory and necessary work as defenders of the faith!
Read a good Catholic author refer to the Vichy Bishops. Perfect definition for Cardinal Cupich. HE is perfectly Modernist. Sad thing is he and his side could whine to the Vatican and get heard.
“Gomez stressed that the bishops’ job is not to be political, but to preach the truth.”
That is NEWS. Let’s check back to see if a walk follows such amazingly new, different, and curious talk.