On the liberal, petty, and hypocritical attacks on Bishop Robert Barron

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