The conversations that need to happen among bishops

The public skirmish that began last month between a handful of bishops and Cardinal Cupich took a very unexpected turn yesterday, as Pope Leo weighed in, and then Senator Durbin withdrew from a lifetime achievement award offered by the Archdiocese of Chicago.

For people watching from the outside, including myself, the divisions exposed profound differences in ecclesiologies, pastoral emphases, and perhaps political dispositions. In an essay I published here at CWR last month, I argued forcefully that Cardinal Cupich was wrong in his approach.

But the cardinal’s Tuesday statement, issued after Senator Durbin withdrew, was reasonable and helpful, even if I disagree with parts of it.

Cupich focused on a call for more dialogue, among Catholics, and seemingly among bishops. I sense that most U.S. bishops are indeed open to dialogue with one another. An Oct. 1 statement from Bishop Michael Burbidge demonstrated that, taking a conciliatory and fraternal tone, even amid clear disagreement with Cardinal Cupich.

In that sense, it appears that an unexpected opportunity has developed through the messiness of the last couple of weeks.

Most bishops I know are reflexively consultative and tend to confer with broad circles of friends when they’re discerning how God calls them. There is maturity in the urge to consult in private before speaking in public—that’s what good leaders do. Because of that, I’ve spoken with numerous bishops over the past few weeks, most of whom reached out for some advice about how they might best respond to the Durbin award in Chicago, which I’ve tried to give in honesty and humility.

Here’s what I’ve observed in broad conversations with America’s episcopate.

While most bishops are open to genuine dialogue among each other, many are also angry that those bishops who lecture about polarization are often the immediate cause of it. And they are frustrated that calls for unity sometimes ignore that the source of unity is orthodox fidelity to Jesus Christ himself.

In other words, if there is a unique synodal opportunity among the bishops today, it will require openness on all sides and docility to the Holy Spirit from all parties.

The lay perception that “synodality” is sometimes a veil for predetermined outcomes is also shared among many bishops. Some of them have felt in recent years that only certain topics are open for discussion, and only certain viewpoints can be heard at the table.

Bishops will certainly talk, when they gather in November, about the rancor of the past few weeks. But some believe they can only be open and honest in side conversations among friends. They fear going unheard or marginalized if they push back against scolding about a synthetic, superficial unity that does not challenge brothers with the truth.

Bishops, like all of us, want more openness and transparency in the Church. The pontificate of Leo XIV seems to offer a fraternal context in which that can happen. And the Durbin affair might offer a start to conversations—but only if those who call most ardently for synodality are willing to embrace both parts: speaking in docility to the Holy Spirit and listening in the same spirit.

In the end, I hope that the divisions that exist among bishops and within the Church more broadly can find a path forward due to the messiness of the last two weeks. I have seen too many necessary conversations avoided due to camps circling the wagons.

Cardinal Cupich has invited dialogue. Bishop Burbidge has taken him at his word and engaged the conversation in a fruitful way. Others should do likewise.