At its annual meeting in November, the USCCB will be electing a new president and vice president. A slate of ten names has been put forward. They are as follows:
Bishop Robert Barron, Diocese of Winona Rochester
Archbishop Paul Coakley, Archdiocese of Oklahoma City
Bishop Daniel Flores, Diocese of Brownsville
Archbishop Richard Henning, Archdiocese of Boston
Bishop David Malloy, Diocese of Rockford
Archbishop Nelson Pérez, Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Bishop Kevin Rhodes, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend
Archbishop Alexander Sample, Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon
Archbishop Charles Thompson, Archdiocese of Indianapolis
Archbishop Edward Weisenburger, Archdiocese of Detroit.
The election this year will be an unusual one since the current vice president, Archbishop William Lori, who would normally accede to the presidency, is ineligible at age 75. That means that out of the slate of ten names, the bishops will be picking both a president and a vice president.
Therefore, the bishops have an opportunity here, however small, to signal in what direction they want the USCCB to move in this, the first year of a new papacy.
I have seen very little in the way of commentary on this election, which probably indicates that most observers find the list of candidates to be what most expected it to be and that there is little about it that is controversial. But one opinion piece did catch my attention. And that was the usual highly politicized reading of the situation by Michael Sean Winters of The National Catholic Reporter.
Misleading labels and rhetorical trickery
Winters’ essay is rather unremarkable and is not something I would normally give much attention to. But it does exemplify certain rather superficial arguments and common talking points among many in more liberal Catholic circles. And since narrative control in our media age is important, I thought it prudent to engage in a counter-narrative to the one provided by Winters.
Winters begins with the assertion that the most important aspect of the current landscape of the American episcopacy is that it is marked by a fractiousness that needs healing. The fault lines of the divisions among the bishops reflect a standoff between bishops who favored the agenda of Pope Francis and bishops who did not favor it, and in some cases openly opposed it. Therefore, the next president and vice president of the USCCB must not be from either of these extremes and should be someone who is more “centrist” and can therefore unite the bishops in a more moderate approach.
Winters, however, does not supply any concrete evidence that the bishops are indeed so fractiously divided. I know many bishops personally, and what they tell me is that there are no divisions in the American episcopacy more than what we have seen now for decades. There is nothing particularly divisive that is stirring up “bishop against bishop” animosity, and the vast majority of the bishops find that episcopal camaraderie tends to transcend theological divides.
There was the brief kerfuffle involving the invitation from Cardinal Cupich to Senator Durbin to receive an award, with a handful of bishops voicing public disapproval, which I thought proper. But it may very well be the case (and I think it is) that this had more to do with certain issues some bishops had with Cardinal Cupich in particular, rather than being evidence of a widespread civil war about to break out among the bishops. After Pope Leo made his off-the-cuff comments to a reporter defending Cupich, the whole issue just evaporated overnight, giving further evidence that there were no deep-smoldering embers of division here just waiting to erupt into flames.
Winters’ claim, then, that there is a fractiousness between staunchly pro-Francis and anti-Francis bishops that needs healing, is without any strong evidence. Furthermore, he uses this questionable hermeneutical filter as a reason for dismissing the candidacy of certain bishops, such as Archbishop Coakley and Bishop Robert Barron, since he views them as overly strident and conservative “culture warrior” bishops who will only increase the divisions rather than heal them.
This is a clever rhetorical trick since it allows Winters to label bishops he disagrees with on theological grounds as too divisive, based on his concocted category of “culture warrior” bishop. Bishops who emphasize social justice are viewed by Winters as espousing the more expansive moral theology of Pope Francis, while bishops who emphasize abortion are labeled “culture warriors” who favor a more constricted moral theological vision.
Dubious and deflecting definitions
Furthermore, Winters’ definition of a “centrist” bishop is a bishop who addresses both social justice issues and abortion, as if this is a unique and rare phenomenon. But here, too, the typology he presents us with of social justice bishops versus culture warrior bishops is a tendentious, even nonsensical, muddle.
First, it is empirically false to categorize bishops in a manner that pigeonholes them as either a “social justice” bishop or a “culture warrior anti-abortion” bishop. This is a tired and common claim, but it is also a forced and false claim. To be sure, there might be differences in emphases from one bishop to the next on this issue or that issue. Overall, however, the vast majority of bishops, including allegedly more “conservative” bishops like Coakley and Barron (as an overwhelming abundance of public evidence demonstrates), are champions of both social justice and pro-life issues. Likewise, many allegedly more “liberal social justice” prelates like Weisenburger are also staunchly pro-life.
Second, what is a “culture war issue” anyway? It is a pejorative term employed by many on the Catholic Left to dismiss the politics of abortion or gay marriage or “trans” everything as issues that are simply unresolvable on a political level. Therefore, they claim, the attempt by socially conservative bishops like Coakley and Barron (among many others, but they are the ones who are candidates) is ill-advised and makes the Church look like it seeks to repress freedoms. Better to address these issues on the level of “culture” rather than politics and seek to convert minds and hearts before we try to coerce them via political power.
Prescinding for the moment from the issue of political viability, why are issues such as abortion or “gay marriage” deemed merely “cultural” whereas issues such as racism, anti-immigrant xenophobia, or “transphobia” are treated as issues that must be addressed on a political and cultural level? After all, xenophobia and racism are deeply embedded features of human nature, every bit as resistant to political coercion as are issues relating to sex and procreation. Since when did the health of marriages and families become an issue devoid of political implications that needs to be addressed for the sake of the common good?
Once again, this is just a clever rhetorical strategy that allows Winters and others like him to engage in a sophistical act of linguistic legerdemain. And the sole purpose of which is to dismiss more socially conservative bishops as dangerous integralists intent upon political impositions of Catholic doctrine on an unwilling population.
Furthermore, it allows them to play fast and loose with the seamless garment of life doctrine that they claim to espouse. As a Catholic Worker devoted to the vision of Servant of God Dorothy Day, I embrace wholeheartedly the fundamental principles behind the seamless garment of life concept. But embracing this doctrine does not mean that one cannot place all the issues, however deeply related, into a hierarchy where some sins against life and dignity are indeed worse than others.
Gossip, mud, and obvious bias
Therefore, to accuse bishops like Robert Barron of being single-issue culture warriors ignores the fact that such bishops do indeed embrace the seamless garment of life ethic. And they do so in a manner that prioritizes the fight against direct assaults on human life in the form of prenatal homicide or physician-assisted killing. It is not an assault on the seamless garment of life ethic to prioritize the well-being of children, which upholds (as a necessary corollary) the prioritizing of healthy family life in our pornified and sex-crazed culture.
In other words, this is not an obsession with “pelvic issues” but is precisely an expression of concern for the social justice aspects of the marriage, family, and life issues. This is a point made repeatedly by St. Pope John Paul II, as well as Dorothy Day, who often noted the deep links between justice and the pro-life cause.
To be blunt, I suspect that one of the primary purposes behind all of this from Winters is that he is seeking to scuttle the chances of Bishop Robert Barron, whom he has often criticized in deeply unfair ways in the past. Therefore, it is not merely my overheated imagination that views his essay, at least in part, as a not-so-veiled attempt to dismiss Bishop Barron as just too divisive to be a good USCCB President.
“All [of the U.S. bishops],” claims Winters, “recognize that [Bishop Barron’s] heart is in his Word on Fire ministry, not in diocesan leadership.” That’s a remarkable statement. Winters apparently believes many (or all?) bishops are worried that Bishop Barron’s duties with the Word on Fire apostolate make him too busy and split in focus to be an effective president of the USCCB.
“I can’t imagine,” writes Winters, “he would be an effective administrator.” But I do not recall, even once, Winters worrying out loud if all of Cardinal Cupich’s duties in Rome might make him an ineffective Archbishop of Chicago. This is not a criticism of Cardinal Cupich, but simply a basic point of fact. Bishops today must multitask, and that is just a fact. Winters knows this, of course, so his “worry” that Bishop Barron is “too busy” is not credible in the least.
And it is also not credible because one can point out that Barron’s ability to build Word on Fire into the massive success that it is today is strong evidence of his administrative and logistical skills—the sort of skills that one hopes to see in the president of the USCCB.
Furthermore, as someone very familiar with many Word on Fire employees and who has been to Word on Fire events and the apostolate’s studio, I can say with utmost confidence that Bishop Barron has adeptly delegated and entrusted the daily nuts-and-bolts administration of Word on Fire to others.
It is also deplorable to imply that Bishop Barron is an absentee bishop for his current diocese. What evidence does Winters have for suggesting this? Is he privy to the good bishop’s episcopal schedule? Does he have empirical evidence that Bishop Barron is a negligent absentee bishop more interested in globe-trotting than in being in his diocese? I know many people in his diocese, both clerical and lay. And there is not, from what I know, any concern that he is an absentee bishop. Indeed, he travels all over his diocese and has been a very present episcopal shepherd.
There is a sad insinuation by some that Bishop Barron has “gone MAGA” and has become “too political” because he is a member of the Religious Liberty Commission. Have we forgotten that Fr. Ted Hesburgh was on no less than sixteen presidential commissions? And that many other clerics of note have served on similar commissions? Furthermore, Bishop Barron, in conjunction with some other bishops (culture warriors, I assume), just issued a strong public statement condemning the recent expansion of government subsidies for IVF treatments. That is hardly the act of a blind Trump loyalist. Such attacks are far more partisan than anything that Bishop Barron has said or done.
Winters also claims that bishops “worry about the increasingly strident content of [Bishop Barron’s] communications.” Of course, he cites no examples. So it remains an unsubstantiated and largely impressionistic accusation that tells us more about Winters’ political and theological leanings than it does about some alleged stridency from Barron. Indeed, it is a strange charge since one of the more common complaints about Bishop Barron from traditionalist types is that he is not strident enough, is too milquetoast, and “plays it too safe”. Catching such criticisms from both sides of the aisle suggests that Barron is doing something quite correct and non-divisive and may actually be the kind of “centrist” that Winters pretends to prefer.
Finally, Winters says many in Rome think Barron is “too much of a showman.” Once again, this is baseless mudslinging. A lot of us can claim that we “know people in Rome who say thus and such”. Indeed, I know people in Rome who think the National Catholic Reporter, and Winters in particular, are hypocrites who once made their living by constantly criticizing popes Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI, but who now have discovered the ultramontanist within them.
We all know “people in Rome”. Thankfully, most of the ones I know understand the issues at hand better than your characterizations in your essay.
• Related at CWR: “Two Visions of ‘Evangelization’” (September 20, 2023) by Matthew Levering
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
To begin my comment on this column [referring to listings of bishops] first contact with then Fr Barron and his PBS EWTN series Catholicism, I was sold on the man’s knowledge, his intellectual acumen, deep and beautiful awareness of the history of Catholicism and its meaning manifest in its art, cathedrals.That he is seen by Sean Winters as unfit for USCCB leadership is a strong recommendation that he is indeed fit.
He hasn’t revealed to this writer any harmful progressive ideas although his refined thought may appear to some crossing the line of orthodoxy. To the contrary any honest evaluation would find a consistent Apostolic faith. Although the big bugaboo is his Balthasarian hope that Hell is emptied [as well as the other more legitimate hope that most will be saved, a matter that we may only hope and aspire to].
Columnist/essayist Chapp shares that hope. I too would be pleased if there were not a place of eternal suffering with no hope of relief. That by some unexpected epiphany Hell will disappear. Although I remain in unison with Christ’s revelation, the infinite good of God, and the reality of Justice.
Bishop Barron seems by some to placate the policies of Francis. What that may well be, as I tend to believe, is a manner of finesse of thought that doesn’t outright conflict with Francis, nor does it endorse his progressivism.
Fr Peter
Bishop Barron is to be congratulated for his EWTN series Catholicism.
Kenneth Clark did something more secular in the 1960’s for BBC in which he highlighted the triumph of the Church and this, in an sixties era when it was politically indelicate, to argue that western civilisation was basically the creation of the Church.
Beauty as observed in Catholic settings has stirred many souls into accepting the Truth.
Plato’s dialogue may be appropriate.
‘For those who cannot grasp abstract concepts through discourse, a more manual craft or visual art form would be a necessary, though less fitting, alternative.’
Is there a hunger for Beauty and eventually Truth and Goodness after so much lying?
It’s there though it needs inspiration. Appreciate your fine comment Leo.
Amen. I enjoyed both of those series and have rewatched Civilization on YouTube.
Fr., what I find moderately frustrating about Bp. Barron is his take on all the wonderful glories of our Catholic past . . . completely omitting any reference to the Holy Latin Mass – the inspiration of which gave rise to the art, architecture, morality, politics etc., that gives Bp. Barron chills running up his spine and typifies what is clearly the “high-water” mark of the Church, i.e. the Medieval era from the early 1200’s through the 1,500’s. The evidence is growing, almost daily, that continued allegiance to the “New Mass” is causing death-throes in the body of the church. The decomposition is obvious with anyone honest enough to use his eyes to see or his ears to hear. Bp. Barron acted totally shocked when Shia LaBeouf indicated he preferred the Latin Mass to the NO because, in his estimation, it felt that attending it was not too different being sold a “used car”. For how much longer will we have to endure the willed ignorance of stubborn, proud and arrogant prelature who cling to their “new mass” awaiting a 60+ year OVERDUE new “spring time”? If you are asking me, Bp. Sample, would be a far better representative of Catholicism at that level going forward – he hasn’t embarrassed himself by feigning the future of the church doesn’t actually rest with a return of the TLM to the universal church.
About “Michael Sean Winters of The National [un]Catholic Reporter,” how backwardist can he get?
From some dead white dude named Shakespeare, “the winter[s] of our discontent” (Richard III).
“Therefore, the bishops have an opportunity here, however small, to signal in what direction they want the USCCB to move in this, the first year of a new papacy.”
As Christ is always our reference point, we can know through both Faith and reason, that Social Justice begins and ends with respect for the inherent equal Dignity of every beloved son and daughter from the moment of conception to natural death. God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, and those Baptized Catholics who deny this fundamental Truth Of The Deposit Of Faith, no longer desiring to fulfill their Baptismal Promises to adhere to The Deposit Of Faith Christ Has Entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church for The Salvation Of Souls, have ipso fact separated themselves, “through their fault, their most grievous fault, from communion with The One Body Of Jesus The Christ.
For a counterpoint to Winters’ opinion piece, see this:
https://thecatholicherald.com/article/restoring-trust-why-the-us-bishops-conference-should-choose-bishop-barron
In any case, I could easily live with Bishop Barron as president of the USCCB. I see him as a loyal son of the Church, and he seems to be doing something right.
I agree, Andrew. I view Bishop Barron as a faithful successor to Bishop Fulton Sheen. He is an absolute blessing to the true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.
If they are firing at you, you’re over the target.
Winters is a political activist, and not a particularly adept one at that.
And if you’re catching fire from both extreme sides you might be doing something right.
🙂
Appreciate the effort but Michael Sean Winters is a heretic. Why respond to him at all?
Bishops who are advised by Winters would never vote for Barron, and Bishops who can be confused by Winters would likely remain confused after reading Chapp.
“Sounds like a hopeless business.”
“There must be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized.” (1 Cor 11: 19)
“Divisions” in “the Church” are not caused by “different theologies.” The divisions flow from differing beliefs, which differentiate disciples of Jesus from people who are non-disciples.
“On the third day he ‘OBTRUDED IN THE SPIRIT.’”
The phrase in capitals manifests one of the many the disbeliefs published by Cardinal Walter Kasper. Kasper, besides being a disbeliever in the Gospel (and no doubt other parts of the New Testament), which he believes is stocked with “mythology” that “we probably don’t need o believe in.” Kasper is also a theologian. His personal “theology” derives from what he disbeliefs about the Gospel. It is a fact that Cardinal Cupich (among many others no doubt) promotes the “theology” of Kasper, and thus shares Kasper’s disbeliefs.
The power of Jesus inspires many people to believe in the Gospel (and the New Testament), and conversely, the power of Jesus causes many people to disbelieve in the Gospel (etc).
Unity with the Gospel of Jesus is real, and worth everything. Unity without belief in the Gospel might feel comfortable, but it is fake, and worthless. Even for “eminent” men who are granted “authority” to elect pontiffs, etc etc.
As a traditionalist, the divisions between Winters and Chapp all seem shallow to me. 25 years ago, people like Chapp would have been the ultramontane. He would have condemned both traditionalists and liberals like Winters as disloyal to JPII, even though both trads and liberals at the time had some valid critiques of JPII’s papacy. Now, of course the shoe is on the other foot with Pope Francis and Winters is an ultramontane who takes everything the Pope says as dogmatic and now Chapp pleads for collegiality. None of this seems particularly sincere to me for either.
Bishop Barron gets a lot of criticism from both sides but I think it is largely warranted. I don’t see his project as having any more success than Cardinal Cupich’s.
“I don’t see his project as having any more success than Cardinal Cupich’s.”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read this month.
Funny how you claim to know what I would have thought 25 years ago. Do I know you somehow? I highly doubt it.
In reality, 25 years ago I was critical of both traditionalists and progressives. But not because they were “disloyal to JPII”. I was critical of both because they are both theologically superficial. And they are both strangely the same deep down, sharing a common rupturist narrative. Nobody thought of me as an ultramontane. Mainly because I wasn’t.
And you just beclowned yourself comparing Barron and Cupich as equally ineffective.
Bp. Barron of Winona-Rochester, 65 years (NOV 19, 1959)
Where might Bp. Barron go??? If elected right about age 66 in NOV 2025, a four year term makes him 70, so less likely to move to another see, though still possible. Assuming not elected next month, Bp. Barron easily advances to an archdiocese or a dicastery in Rome to serve a decade or more as a more senior prelate.
Abp. Tobin of Newark, 73 years (MAY 3, 1952)
Abp. Gómez of Los Angeles, 73 years (DEC 26, 1951)
Abp. Lori of Baltimore, 74 years (MAY 6, 1951) — not yet 75 as article says.
Abp. Wenski of Miami, 75 years (OCT 18, 1950)
Abp. Aquila of Denver, 75 years (SEP 24, 1950)
Cdl. Abp. Dolan of New York, 75 years (FEB 6, 1950)
Cdl. Abp. Cupich of Chicago, 76 years (MAR 19, 1949)
Not here:
Abp. Broglio of the Military Services, 73 years (DEC 22, 1951)
“There is nothing particularly divisive that is stirring up “bishop against bishop” animosity, and the vast majority of the bishops find that episcopal camaraderie tends to transcend theological divides.”
And that’s good news?! As part of the laity, it’s hard to read that any way other than “Most bishops are so apathetic about the state of the Church today that it has never so much as crossed their minds to listen to or care about things that are dividing and stirring up layman against layman.”
I have the same sense.
Has Bishop Barron been even mildly critical of MAGA and the anti immigrant hysteria? I seem to remember him being critical of Democratic Congressmen who were not sufficiently enthusiastic in applauding Trump. It might be good to see some independence in dealing with MAGA.
“and the vast majority of the bishops find that episcopal camaraderie tends to transcend theological divides.”
I see that as a problem. Out of 439 active and retired bishops ten objected to Cardinal Cupich giving a lifetime award to a militantly pro- abortion senator. Ten. It may have dropped out of the news, but it was a terrible scandal. I don’t think there is much of a theological divide among the bishops. It seems to be pretty much a go along to get along group.
You also say in the article “I embrace wholeheartedly the fundamental principles behind the seamless garment of life concept.” But then go on to say that there are a hierarchy of sins, which indicates there are seams in the garment, and in fact there is no such thing as seamless garment of sin. The whole concept only resulted in giving pro-abortion politicians cover by saying they were anti death penalty, so those two things evened out.
Agree.
There seems to be a small fraternity of Bishops motivated by proclaiming the truth, and an XL fraternity motivated by keeping quiet…no matter what.
The way the president of the USCCB is viewed by far too many is as if its a political campaign. What’s become of our Catholic Church? It’s shameful and disgraceful. I’ll ask the question that no one seems interested in asking: What good does the USCCB do? I cannot think of a darn thing. Most of its staffers are leftist ideologues who have done a great disservice to the Body of Christ. Isn’t it sufficient for a bishop to stay in his own diocese and fulfill the very mission of the Church. My recommendation: Don’t give a dime to your diocesan collections, nor to USCCB special collections. It’s a waste of money. And, when you tithe to your parish dedicate your contribution to a RESTRICTED FUND. That way your money cannot be assessed and accessed by the diocese. The bleeding of Joe and Mary Pewsitter needs to end.
Bishop Robert Barron’s track record betrays a troubling silence on one of Pope Leo XIV’s and Pope Francis’s most urgent concerns: the inhumane treatment of immigrants under Donald Trump’s administration. While Barron has built a global media empire to comment on movies, atheism, and wokeness, he has been conspicuously tongue-tied on immigrant justice even after Pope Leo XIV urged U.S. bishops to “speak strongly” against immigration cruelty. In contrast, Pope Leo has spoken with moral clarity, condemning xenophobia, climate denial, and economic systems that discard the poor. His apostolic exhortation, *Dilexi te*, continues Francis’s legacy of placing the marginalized at the center of the Church’s witness.
Barron, however, has chosen to emphasize culture war topics, avoiding critique of MAGA policies that directly harm the poor, immigrants, and refugees. His silence suggests complicity, not centrism. His voice is loud on “drag queens” and IVF, but muted when it might offend Trump-aligned Catholics. That’s not bridge-building—that’s pandering. Given his ideological lean, Barron is already the de facto chaplain of MAGA Catholicism. Elevating him to USCCB president would send a message that the Church in America prefers power over prophecy. It would betray the spirit and substance of the current papacy.
Thank you, Mr. Winters. Nice of you to weigh in on your essay. You summarize your own points very well.
Touché!
While it is tempting to ignore Winters (and The “Catholic” Reporter), I think it is important to occasionally hear a thorough and articulate critique as we have here.
So thanks to Mr. Chapp. I wouldn’t have the patience.