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.
Plato’s comment is a good one, but somewhat condescending. You needn’t be unable to grasp “discourses” to be overwhelmed by the inherent beauty of the Church and especially of Him Who is the Beauty by Whom the Church is beautiful.
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.
Would that I were capable of offering a response satisfying your predilections on the traditional Mass Mark. This is an area in which Bishop Barron is likely disposed to remain in compliance with the direction of the Church.
Which Church? The Church of The True Magisterium, or The Church of the counterfeit magisterium of Jorge Bergoglio, that includes all those who deny 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 The Father And His Only Begotten Son Jesus The Christ.
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected.”- Jorge Bergoglio, as a cardinal, denying sin done in private is sin, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that we, who are Baptized Catholic, are Called to be, “Temples of The Holy Ghost”. (God’s Universal Call To Holiness). The unforgivable sin, blasphemy of The Holy Ghost, making it appear as if it is Loving and Merciful to desire that we or our Beloved remain in our sin, and not desire to overcome our sinful inclinations and become transformed by accepting Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy. For if it were true that it is Loving and Merciful that we desire that we or our beloved remain in our sin and not desire to overcome our disordered inclination , and become transformed through Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, we would have no need for our only Savior, Jesus The Christ.
You can only have a Great Apostasy from The True Church of Christ, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Through The Unity of The Holy Ghost(Filioque).
“For The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
“ Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Mystici Coporis 22)”
Enough! Cardinal Burke , You must Call for a Council to anathema the counterfeit magisterium attempting to subsist within Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, while they deny God’s Call that we be “Temples of The Holy Ghost”, in all our relationships.
And if Cardinal Burke does not respond, I sense it is because something is not quite right, and Cardinal Burke may be in danger because he is well aware of Canon Law, and The Teaching of The True Magisterium of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church.
If “the digital age has found its way into the heart of the Church”, the Faithful know which images are a manipulation, and which images speak the Truth, as The Faithful , being in essence Faithful , Abide In The Word Of God, Who Is The Way, The Truth, And The Life (Light) Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Incarnate.
“No one Comes To My Father Except Through Me.” – Jesus The Christ
“Penance, Penance, Penance”
“At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
It appears true as you allude ND, although there is a duplicitous analogy of two Churches in parallel existence. Whereas there is One centered on the Chair of Peter.
That there are many in the hierarchy from top to bottom that follow a false interpretation of the Gospels, as there are many who are sincerely faithful. Although it’s also an error to assume that every change made during and since VatII is disparate from the truth of the faith. Any Catholic who condemns the Novus Ordo is in danger of condemning himself. That the TLM is being wrongly suppressed does not equate to the invalidity of the NO.
I urge you to keep in mind that the Chair was instituted by Christ. And remains the center point for the One Church.
ND just a word to better explain my response, that while there is a segment within the Church that is faithful to revelation that can figuratively be understood as separate from errant members of the hierarchy including ‘members’ of the Magisterium, we must avoid a schismatic separation.
As to your comment,”When it comes to Truth and Love, there is no extreme, only deficits. Aristotle was mistaken as Virtue requires Truth and Love”, Aristotle [and Aquinas] situates Love in the cardinal virtue Justice, Justice the only virtue that has no median between excess and defect. Something is either just or it is not.
Sadly, post V2, we now have two liturgies:
1. The Mass of Rome
2. The mass of Roam
If one cannot clearly see and clearly hear the difference, he lacks eyes and ears.
Will the USCCB be part of this schism from the Left?
A.I ON ‘X’ CONFIRMS : A SCHISM FROM THE LEFT IS EXPECTED IF THE POPE CLARIFIES THAT LG 14,16 ETC IN VATICAN COUNCIL II REFER TO HYPOTHETICAL CASES .
https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1985296677914206649https://x.com/andrades_l15298
https://gloria.tv/post/ydhkoFyuWN836Ya9WWSsbyHzR
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.
As Christ Is our reference point, I find this strange:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal-burke-denounces-fake-videos-claiming-he-rebuked-pope-leo-xiv
Why rebuke Jorge Bergoglio, without rebuking those who claim Jorge Bergoglio had not ipso facto separated himself from Christ’s Church when he stated:
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, ( what, no Holy Ghost) nor is society affected”- Jorge Bergoglio, as a cardinal, denying sin done in private is sin, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that we, who are Baptized Catholic, are Called to be, “Temples of The Holy Ghost”. (God’s Universal Call To Holiness), in all our relationships.
, “Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
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.
I agree Tom.
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.
🙂
You invoke the myth of equivalent guilt between demonic revolutionaries and defenders of objective truth.
Extremists end up resembling each other. Whatever the ideology.
You miss the point. “Extremism” does not exist, let alone is it bipolar. Believing it exists becomes an excuse for assuming a rhetorical middle is where an imaginary honesty resides. It does not. Ideas and values do not exist on a spectrum. They are either true of false. Half truth is just as foolish as blatant falsehood. It is impossible to be “extreme” about what is true. Truth is a divine endowment, not a political invention.
I’ve seen extremism up close Mr. Baker. It really does exist.
When it comes to Truth and Love, there is no extreme, only deficits. Aristotle was mistaken as Virtue requires Truth and Love.
mrscraker: No reply buttons below, so I’ll reply here.
No you haven’t seen “extremism” up close, because it is a meaningless word when applied to human beliefs and values.
You cannot see nouns or verbs, especially those contrived for political manipulation. You can only see the effects of beliefs that people act upon. Evil thought and evil behavior exists, which I have also witnessed to the point of human carnage.
The use of a word like extremism is a concession to the tyranny of clichés. It is frequently used to avoid confronting the reality that the only “sides” in moral decision making are right and wrong. We try to convince ourselves we avoid evil by doing nothing, taking refuge in an imaginary middle.
Right is right, no matter who and how few are right, and wrong is wrong no matter who and how many are wrong. Neither right nor wrong are “extremes.” They are divinely endowed absolutes. We can respond to a moral decision and be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Neither is determined by politics or sociology.
I think we’re misunderstanding each other, Mr. Baker. This is about extremist ideologies that creep into the Church & society. Not right vs wrong.
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.”
On Michael Sean Winters:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24632
“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.
Sorry to break it to you but Bishop Barron is not going to lead to a renewal of the Faith in America or in the world. All trends are still plummeting downward (accelerated by COVID) and when the boomers go to their reward here in the next few decades the Church is going to undergo a massive contraction (particularly acute if immigration is cut off). I obviously do not wish for this development, I sincerely wish Bishop Barron was successful in brining millions to the Faith but barring divine intervention I don’t see it happening.
But do keep laughing. You and Chapp trumpeting the “New Evangelization” for another quarter century have left the rest of us with a complete wasteland.
“Sorry to break it to you but Bishop Barron is not going to lead to a renewal of the Faith in America or in the world.”
You’re moving the goalposts. That wasn’t the point I made. You said that Barron and Cupich are equally ineffective. That’s obviously false. Blatantly false. And I say that as someone who knows a fair amount about both men and their public work, and as someone who has been active in Catholic apologetics, catechesis, and evangelization for nearly 30 years.
Not all trends are plummeting downward, but I readily acknowledge—as anyone who has read my work over the past 25 years knows—that things are dire on many fronts. (I’m currently reading Christian Smith’s impressive and depressing new book, Why Religion Went Obsolete, and I cannot disagree with the stark picture he presents in great detail.)
CWR, which I’ve edited since late 2011, has posted many—many!—pieces on various aspects of the current situation.
But, I’ve seen firsthand how the work of Bishop Barron and Word on Fire has helped many—many!—people become Catholic and become better Catholics; I know such people personally. I’ve never heard of one person who could say that about Cardinal Cupich. Quite the contrary.
Finally, I had laughed at the insulting and silly nature of your comparison; I’ve never laughed at the serious challenges we face as Catholics. And to imply that those who have pursued evangelization as best we could for the past 25 years are actually part of the problem is a slanderous insult. I politely suggest that you consider measuring your words, reining in your cynicism (which is hardly Christian), and pause a moment or three before engaging in risible friendly fire.
The “new evangelization” we need is the “old” evangelization. Stating this plainly usually just invites the usual tired cliches in opposition, but I’ll say it anyway. This lack of perception lies at the heart of our troubles.
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.
With regard to Kasper: He “should not tell us too much what we have to do”.
Some may remember who spoke the quoted words, and who denied saying it, until my the miracle of electronic recording it was indisputable and then who after causing a scandal complained of “deliberate dirty tricks”.
by, not my. I really must get my mitts off phones
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.
My thought exactly. The peace among them is not necessarily a good thing, given the status quo in the Church.
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.
Describe the “hysteria.” Name one person, including Trump, who is anti-immigration, legal immigration. Then you can explain why there is a hysterical need to characterize concern for rapists, murderers, drug dealing gangs, and sex traffickers as being hysterical.
I don’t know their actual names but yes, you do encounter a few people like that in comment boxes. They want no immigration period. Legal or otherwise. They think we have too many people as it is.
I don’t believe they understand the age imbalance our society will be facing soon. It’s not just the overall population but that it’s becoming increasingly elderly.
I wish law enforcement the very best in rounding up dangerous criminals but we need as many young people as possible in our workforce.
Relaxing or temporarily restricting the rate of legal immigration based on many considerations is rational and has been national policy for 249 years. We do not gain willing citizens from rewarding bad behavior, evidenced by American flag burning at pro-illegal demonstrations. And those on the waiting list for legal immigration are neither a threat nor solution to eldercare and a workforce. The educational establishment that promotes amorality among young minds has more to do with their growing enthusiasm for future euthanasia policies for “boomers” as well as the growing sloth epidemic.
And the “New Catholicism” has jumped on board with nihilism indifference.
So MAGA is the solution to all our problems? Yes, if only we gave “ICE Barbie” more money, our troubles would be over.
You have a consistent inclination to form retorts towards premises never affirmed. Did you ever hear of the fallacy of the undistributed middle?
Nonetheless does the protection of rapists, murderers, and sex traffickers disturb you in any way?
That doesn’t sound very respectful to Miss Noem, William.
Disrespecting ICE Barbie? Absolutely. Ditto Hegseth, RFK Jr and many others. Google “engineered incompetence.” This is putting unqualified people in jobs, solely for their loyalty. Manifestly unqualified people are more fanatically loyal.
“ICE Barbie” or the equivalent that was directed at Gov. Sarah Palin are not respectful to women. Disagreeing with policies is fair enough.
William, what do hair extensions have to do with competency?
It’s fair to comment on an official’s policy or job performance. It’s a free country. But let’s not attack others for their outward appearance or hair fashion choices. Those don’t signify anything.
To your comment below William. Who judges competency, you? First learn how to form non-fallacious arguments. Then you can provide a name of a single competent appointment made by Biden.
Do you actually believe Hegseth and Noem are fit for their jobs? Norm with the plumped lips and hair extensions. Hegseth with his Botox and phony warrior ethos.
Clowns.
I am a registered Republican, and I believe that Trump is a depraved, lying, serial sexual abusing, con man, insurrectionist, sadist, narcissist, and anti-Christ. He, and you, are tools of Satan.
I think the problem is when you’re ignoring your own citizens while putting illegals in New York at taxpayer’s expense. That type of thinking.
“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.
Actually, I see it as a problem too. I think the bishops place too much emphasis on collegial “niceness”. However, my point in the article wasn’t to praise this phenomenon, but to merely point out that Winters’ claim that the bishops are this deeply divided and fractious group in need of healing is false.
You might be right in a way. They have been “united” in their wimpiness towards the real crisis of our age, the mass slaughter of inconvenient life, pretending instead to have a moral conscience by demanding protections for illegal aliens guilty of grotesque crimes. And they’ve been pretty united in not taking the worst pope in history to task for undermining Catholic witness throughout the world. And let’s not forget their united voice in protesting the persecution of orthodox brother bishops. Opps, I meant their united decision to not protest. And their united decision to accommodate the Vatican’s continuing persecution of Catholics who value worshiping God instead of ourselves at Mass.
Thank you for the response.
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.
Absolutely correct.
The RCC in the USA did just fine prior to the existence of the USCCB. This bureaucracy is a money hungry political machine for the Catholic Left and Catholic NGOs. Both crave Caesar’s coin and Caesars approval.
I could not care less who they chose as their puppet president.
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!
Please define what you mean by “culture war” issues? You write about them rather dismissively as if they are of little importance when compared to the truly important issue of migrants. Criticizing the vagueness and ideological misuse of the phrase “culture war issues” was a key part of my article. And yet you chose to ignore that critique in your rantings as you go on to parrot the “culture war issue” talking point as if it is just self-evident what that term means. Why is pre natal homicide a “culture war” issue but immigration is not?? Why is protecting the safe spaces of our daughters and wives from Transexual intrusion a culture war issue but immigration is not? I am a Catholic Worker who has taken in refugees and immigrants. I am very pro immigrant. I do not care at all for our current ICE tactics. But I also oppose direct assaults on human life in abortion, IVF, Doctor assisted suicide and other forms of medicalized killing. I believe in the seamless garment of life ethic. And therefore I reject tout court this stupid distinction between “culture war issues” and “truly important issues”. Some bishops choose to emphasize one set of issues and other bishops emphasize others. But this asinine parsing out of the issues as “culture war issues” vs. “non culture war issues” is puerile. Bishop Barron is doing fantastic work in evangelizing the culture. Would that we had more bishops like him. Instead of criticizing him for not being sufficiently forceful with regard to our own favored issue we should be thanking him and requesting that other bishops get involved in evangelizing culture in equally effective ways. And given Barron’s strong criticism of Trump on the IVF issue it can hardly be said that he is a blind MAGA supporter. Funny how folks like you had zero issue with Cupich lining himself up with the Democratic party and clearly lionizing and valuing Democratic politicians. I did not see any of you accusing him of being the “chaplain of the Democratic Party”. Funny how you guys never seem to have an issue with bishops engaged in partisan political collusion so long as it is of the “correct” kind.
Larry Chapp: You ask what I mean by “culture war issues.” The answer is simple: topics selectively weaponized to galvanize partisan outrage while ignoring or minimizing the Church’s broader social witness. Abortion, IVF, and gender debates are indeed moral concerns — but when a bishop spotlights them incessantly while staying silent on systemic cruelty toward immigrants, racial injustice, or climate collapse, the imbalance itself becomes a moral scandal.
No one said immigration is the “only” important issue. But Pope Francis — and, yes, Pope Leo XIV — have made clear that indifference to the suffering of migrants is not merely a political lapse; it’s a failure of discipleship. Barron’s reticence here cannot be waved away by invoking the “seamless garment of life.” A seamless garment, by definition, has no convenient holes.
You claim Barron “criticized Trump on IVF,” as if that offsets years of silence on immigrant detention, family separation, and asylum cruelty. That’s moral tokenism, not prophetic leadership. The question is not whether Barron has ever disagreed with Trump — it’s whether he has ever risked alienating Trump-aligned Catholics by condemning their movement’s inhumane policies. The record speaks for itself.
And as for the “Cupich is partisan too” defense — that’s textbook whataboutism. The Church’s moral witness is not a see-saw between right-wing and left-wing bishops. It’s a question of whether our shepherds sound like pastors or pundits. Barron’s public voice — polished, media-savvy, and strategically apolitical when injustice offends his base — has made him the de facto chaplain of MAGA Catholicism.
No one doubts Barron’s gifts as a communicator. The question is whether he uses that platform for prophetic truth or for political comfort. His silence on Trump-era cruelty toward immigrants is not prudence; it’s preference. And that makes him unfit to lead a Church that claims to stand with the marginalized. Elevating him to USCCB president would not be evangelization — it would be capitulation.
Well, there you go Deacon Dom.
Speaking of taking fire from both extremes…
Bishop Barron is obviously doing something right.
🙂
Deacon Dom: What exactly is “immigrant cruelty?” Whom exactly would benefit by not apprehending drug gangs and sex traffickers? Or should the cruelty of drug gangs and sex traffikers be allowed to expand their victimization of children? All while collecting more government hand outs than established American citizens.
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.
“Bishop Barron is doing fantastic work evangelizing the culture”. (L.Chapp)
Yes, he is and that is what is required, nothing less.
I can only speak for my own short life and exposure to Bishop Barron. I, too am a product of Beige Catholicism. I was in a Catholic grammar school in the 60’s. One day we were learning the faith and the catechism and the next singing Kumbaya. The nuns were mysterious in their habits and then they weren’t. And then they left the order. I found Bishop Barron in the early 2000’s when I was helping with our RCIA/OCIA program. One I got involved with in order to learn something of the faith. I rarely if ever hear from our bishop, I listen regularly to Bishop Barron. I am director of our OCIA now and went back to school in my late 50s for a BA and MA in philosophy and theology. None of that would have happened without Bishop Barron. Zeal in the faith is no shortcoming. Neither is showing it.
Bishop Barron should be the next Cardinal-Archbishop of either Chicago or New York…preferably New York given his extraordinary gift for communication. I don’t always find myself in agreement with him, but he is a gift the the contemporary Church. Will the American episcopate elect him president? Given the pitiful lack of acumen they continually exhibit, I highly doubt it. May I be proved wrong.
Barron leaves the vast majority of them in the dust, they know it.
Bishop Barron is certainly not a single issue cultural warrior. One of his interests that is worrying, though, is his unwavering support for the ideas of Rebe Girard. Girard’s many bizarre ideas, including advocating the Epistle to the Hebrews should not be in the Bible, opposition to sacrifice, etc., are the last thing the Church needs in order to recover.
Girard did question Hebrews early in his academic life. Then he admitted his “mistake” of that “hasty and wrong-headed dismissal of the Epistle to the Hebrews…”
You seem to have a penchant for misrepresenting people’s beliefs, or only giving part of the story. You’ve done it about Russell Kirk many times, along with others. What’s your issue with being truthful and charitable?
It’s surprising you brought Russell up. I’m still happy to continue that discussion, but without trying to judge other people’s motivations. Would be great if you allowed my replies to appear. That way, others might be able to judge whether your character judgements hold any water.
Girard had many offensive opinions, which he defended at length. His rejection of the Christian view of sacrifice is only one of them. This is an opinion page. I’ve just given my view. If you now demand that every critical opinion anyone dares put forward here be footnoted, be consistent enough to allow their replies to appear.
Rebe or Rene?
It’s René Girard. Some excellent quotes by Girard: “Individualism is a formidable lie’. ‘More than ever, I am convinced that history has meaning – and that its meaning is terrifying’. ‘Victimism uses the ideology of concern for victims to gain political or economic or spiritual power’. ‘The profound self is a universal self’ (thanks to Google AI).