Washington D.C., Jun 17, 2019 / 06:00 pm (CNA).- While the spring meeting of the U.S. bishops’ conference has only just concluded, some bishops are already looking to the election of new conference officers at their November meeting. While the elections are still five months away, bishops are already discussing their options – particularly in light of the scandal the Church in the U.S. has faced in the last year.
It is widely expected that Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, the bishops’ conference vice president, will be elected to succeed Cardinal Daniel DiNardo as conference president. Gomez has several factors working in his favor. Most notably is the sheer force of custom: With only one recent exception, the conference vice president has been elected president as a matter of course. That Gomez has served in the second slot for the last three years is likely sufficient by itself for him to secure the votes of most bishops.
Within the conference, Gomez is perceived to cut across traditional ideological and social lines. He was ordained a priest of Opus Dei, and he has a long history of leadership on pro-life and marriage issues. But, an immigrant himself, he is also among the most outspoken advocates for the conference’s call for just immigration reform and advocacy for the poor. He is, in short, difficult to pigeonhole into a partisan camp, and at a time when the Church is increasingly segmented by politics, many bishops see that as an important advantage.
Some bishops have also mentioned to CNA the symbolic significance of electing a Hispanic archbishop, a Mexican-American immigrant, in advance of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. While the bishops have a working relationship with the Trump administration on issues pertaining to abortion, marriage, and religious liberty, they remain strongly opposed to the president’s immigration policies, and if Trump wins a second term, they will likely be at odds with him over that issue throughout. Gomez is seen to be the right voice to lead advocacy on behalf of their immigration agenda.
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020, Gomez’ well-known advocacy on immigration could make it easier for him to gain a hearing from a Democratic administration, especially during the battles over religious liberty on gender and sexuality that would be sure to come.
Because Gomez, who leads the largest U.S. diocese, has not been made a cardinal, it is sometimes speculated that he might have a difficult working relationship with Pope Francis, or that the Holy Father might consider him to be too conservative.
This speculation seems to be grounded in particularly American misunderstandings of both men: characterictures of Gomez as a doctrinaire conservative and Francis as a freewheeling progressive work only if the frame of reference is the U.S. left-right divide. Those with experience in Latin and South America are far more likely to see the common threads running through the thought of both: especially a common concern for solidarity with the powerless and the marginalized, including both the unborn and the immigrant.
Ultimately, that Gomez is not yet a cardinal could reflect more about the hermeneutics of the Congregation for Bishops than about any actual division between Pope Francis and the Archbishop of Los Angeles.
Whatever the reason that Gomez is not a cardinal, the archbishop is not perceived to be ineffective in engagement with Rome. Gomez is seen to have successfully manned the point position in negotiating with the Holy See an approach to establishing sexual abuse policies that would be acceptable in both Rome and the U.S. The archbishop became an especially active figure in deliberations after the breakdown in communications that led to the cancelled votes at the bishops’ November meetings.
He does not seem most comfortable at a podium, presiding over the full assembly of bishops, though his aptitude in that role has grown over the course of recent meetings. While DiNardo leads the room with a poise that seems at once fraternal and efficient, Gomez is more reserved in a large public setting. But if this is seen as a liability by some bishops, it is unlikely to overcome both the archbishop’s personal reputation and the force of precedent.
Of course, in recent history, custom has been overcome in conference elections. In 2010, Cardinal Timothy Dolan was unexpectedly elected conference president ahead of Bishop Gerald Kicanas, who was then vice president. Dolan was elected through the work of a cadre of bishops who thought a Kicanas presidency would be out of step with the leadership and emphases of Pope Benedict XVI.
It is possible that Gomez could face a credible and organized opponent in November 2019. Most frequently discussed at the conference, and mentioned to CNA by a few bishops, is the idea that the newly-installed Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Washington, DC, could challenge Gomez for the presidency.
As it stands, though, electing Gregory seems a very remote possibility. In the first place is, again, the sheer force of custom. For Gregory’s supporters to overcome that force would require a great deal of organization, and a good amount of time spent convincing bishops to make a change.
Making their task especially difficult is that Gregory was conference president from 2001 to 2004, and presided over the bishops’ conference response to the sex abuse crisis of 2002. Gregory was the bishop who ushered into being the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” and the accompanying “Essential Norms.”
While the Charter is widely thought to have changed ecclesial culture for the better with regard to child and youth protection, it has been panned during the last year because it is understood to pertain to priests and deacons only, using language that explicitly delineates the exclusion of bishops from some norms.
The shortcomings of the “Dallas Charter,” are not Gregory’s fault, but bishops who want to convey that the Church is moving on from “business as usual” may be reticent to elect as president someone so directly connected to the Charter.
There is also Gregory’s task in Washington. The archbishop is 71, and is largely understood to have only a four-year mandate to begin the process of restoring trust among Catholics in the Archdiocese of Washington, which has been the epicenter of the McCarrick affair, through which Gregory’s predecessor, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, lost a great deal of trust among his priests, and among ordinary Washington Catholics. This task, Gregory is known to understand, will require a considerable investment of personal and pastoral time, and for that reason, the archbishop may not find the prospect of running the bishops’ conference a temptation.
But if he does want the job, there is at least one thing Gregory could do to improve his chances of being elected: He could release from the Archdiocese of Washington’s files on Theodore McCarrick as many records as possible, and encourage other diocesan bishops to do the same. Gregory has the opportunity in Washington to establish a new paradigm of transparency in Church governance – a paradigm much discussed but not yet much demonstrated – by releasing as much as possible on McCarrick, his finances, his friends and protectors, and then encouraging the other dioceses where McCarrick served to do the same.
While Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark told CNA this week that he is precluded from issuing a full report on McCarrick by an attorney general’s investigation in the state, Gregory has not indicated that he is under any similar restriction. A comprehensive release of information from his archdiocese would do a great deal to restore confidence in Church leadership among practicing Catholics, and it would likely raise esteem for him considerably among the younger bishops in the conference, who have been calling for just such a release from Rome.
If that does happen, Gomez could face more of a challenge for election as conference president than expected.
Who will be elected vice president?
Some bishops have mentioned to CNA that Tobin could be a natural candidate for the position.
The Archbishop of Newark is affable and friendly to other bishops, well-known, and articulate. He has the experience of leading his own religious community, the Redemptorists, of a senior leadership position at the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life at the Vatican, and has led archdiocesan sees in both the Midwest and on the East Coast. As chairman of the USCCB Committee on Consecrated Life, Clergy, and Vocations, Tobin has played a prominent role in the Church’s response to the McCarrick crisis, and he presented one of the major policy documents on sexual abuse approved by the bishops at their November meeting.
The cardinal, in short, has considerable experience and qualifications that seem relevant to a leadership position at the conference.
But even if he were nominated as a candidate, Tobin might not accept the nomination. The cardinal withdrew from participating in the October 2018 synod on youth, which came just a few months after the McCarrick scandal began. At the time, Tobin recognized the havoc wrought by the McCarrick revelations on his archdiocese, which McCarrick led for more than a decade, and he explained the priority he placed on being present to the people of his own archdiocese, and especially to his priests.
Tobin is a cardinal, which means that he already has responsibilities taking him to Rome with regularity. Given his clear aversion to becoming an “airport bishop,” the cardinal might decline the possibility of adding even more frequent trips to Washington, DC to his schedule, especially as his archdiocese will soon grapple with fallout from the New Jersey attorney general’s investigation, and from the eventual release of Rome’s report on McCarrick.
If he were to stand for election, Tobin would face both episcopal support and criticism for his endorsement of “Building a Bridge”, a 2017 book by Fr. James Martin, SJ, who is a frequent writer and speaker on the topic of Church engagement with those who identify themselves as LGBT or LGBT activists. Bishops are divided on how best to approach that kind of engagement, and Martin’s work is at the center of that divide, because some bishops say that Martin’s work is not faithful to the teachings of the Church, while others actively promote it. While some bishops might be reticent to support a Tobin candidacy because of this, others would take Tobin’s position as a positive sign in the conference.
Tobin’s work on the U.S. implementation of Vos estis lux mundi is appreciated by bishops, as is his work on revisions to the national directory for deacons. But during the last year, Tobin has been the subject of rumors and questions about his personal life from some blogs and websites. The cardinal has denied rumors of misconduct, and scant evidence has turned up to support conjectures made about him. It is unlikely that Tobin would allow such rumors to keep him from serving the Church in whatever way he thinks himself to be called, but there are likely some members of the bishops’ conference who, given the sensitivities surrounding McCarrick and the Archdiocese of Newark, might judge this an inopportune time for the cardinal to stand for election.
Another frequently named possibility for conference vice president is Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City. Coakley has been a bishop for 15 years, and served a term as chairman of Catholic Relief Services, the bishops’ international humanitarian aid apostolate.
In his role at CRS, he is generally regarded as having addressed lingering issues pertaining to the Catholic identity of the institution and its partners, in part by bringing together a coalition of moral theologians and international development experts to work through thorny issues. Coakley is also thought to have capably overseen leadership transitions amid a complex period of expansion during his term as CRS board chairman.
Bishops also noted to CNA that Coakley’s archdiocese, Oklahoma City, is perceived to have handled safe-environment related matters well, and that Coakley is perceived to have prioritized recruiting lay collaborators for the administration of his archdiocese.
Though he has a relatively low public profile, some bishops told CNA that Coakley has a moderating voice, is calm under pressure, a clear teacher and an organized administrator. And Coakley is already set to begin in November 2019 a term as chair of the bishops’ influential Domestic Justice and Human Development committee.
While some bishops might prefer a bishop with more name recognition beyond the conference, others told CNA that because he is not seen to carry any “baggage” into the election, the choice of Coakley for vice president could be exactly the right move after the bishops’ year of scandal.
Other names that have been mentioned as candidates for conference vice president are Archbishop Gregory Aymond, Archbishop Allen Vigneron, and Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul-Minneapolis, who is well regarded for his work to heal an archdiocese deeply wounded by grave clerical abuse scandals.
Of course, none of these figures have yet been nominated to the slate. Nomination requires that diocesan bishops propose the names of the candidates they would like to see considered for the post; a process that will take place over the next few months. But bishops have already begun talking about the needs of the Church, and the needs of their conference. The results of their discussion will be clear in November.
[…]
Our pastor actually leads the faithful in praying St. Michael and memorare.
Ours, too, along with a prayer for St. Joseph to intercede for us.
What’s going on with you Catholic media you – CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT – people that you show NO OUTRAGE at the damage this Cdl. Cup-sick has done to our beloved Church?. Why are you not shaming him for the heretic he is? When I asked this same question of one of our ‘better’ bishops his answer: ” You don’t understand Michael, they have all the power.” I told him (and Archbishop Chaput before him, of Saint John Vianney’s response:” Anyone who is tolerant of evil when there is cause for holy anger is an immoral man” You Catholic World Report media -types are acting immorally in your lack of HOLY ANGER. Are you not aware ( you E.W.T.N , you Relevant Radio folk and all of you in the Catholic main-stream media.) how faithful, informed, catholic’s everywhere are seething at your lack of action in this regard? Your good Father Fessio said years ago; ” When I die I want there to be blood on my sword.” Hear, Hear! ! But that won’t ever happen unless you take the sword out of it’s sheath. ” If the bugle sound isn’t clear then how can the troops know to prepare for battle? ” You can’t just leave it all to Michael Voris ( God bless him ) and Fr. James Altman, our hero .and the model priest of our times.
Apparently you’re not familiar with CWR…
Blaise setting things a-blaze… Micro-management – – mitres 30 yrs behind…
Dominus flevit!
Father Zuhlsdorf has posted the original video and an update with a message from the Pastor, Father John Trout. The realist in me thinks that this might be more damage control for the diminutive Cardinal Archbishop since the Lightfoot debacle.
UPDATED – VIDEO: Priest announces he and people have been forbidden to say St. Michael Prayer and Hail Mary after Mass.
Seems like micromanagement to me. Why prohibit or discourage heartfelt prayers after Mass? It’s useless because it just alienates parishioners and reflects poorly on diocesan leadership.
Why doesn’t Cardinal Cupich lead the prayers himself, or make any effort to pray the rosary publicly with his parishioners at the Cathecral?
St. Paul teaches that Christians have “the mind of Christ.”
His Eminence Cupich has “the mind of McCarrick.”
It certainly stands to reason that a lot of the current Catholic hierarchy wouldn’t much like parishioners praying to St. Michael. As for poor Mr. Love who wonders what those who recite this prayer are asking to be protected from, apparently he has never heard the prayer, because it is self-explanatory.
That’s what I was thinking; also, EWTN does this after most masses – “protect against wickedness and snares of the devil.” etc..
(Sigh.)
Cupich’s approach to building unity is unbelievable. Absolutely comical.
It reminds me of the old satirical comment on corporate management…
“Notice to all employees: The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
This article concerned me deeply. First, Mr. Love asked, “what are they praying for?” when reciting the prayer to St. Michael. When Pope Leo XIII directed this prayer at the end of Mass, it was because God had showed him a vision of a conversation God had with the devil asking for more time to gather souls. The devil is running out of time and he knows it. The Church is in a crisis and the world is in the worse state it has ever been. The devil is a real threat to the Church and to each individual. In addition, we as Catholics are encouraged to pray for global catastrophes and problems as a parish and as an individual. However, we all should have our own personal relationship with our Lord and Savior and should be encouraged to pray to Him for personal reasons at ant time…in church or at home. In addition, the Mass was over when the two prayers were being prayed, so why all the concern? After Mass is over there is the soft “hustle-bustle” of people leaving the church, talking, cleaning up pews, etc, and people still are able to have the mind-set for personal prayers. Also the Church has taught me my whole life to have a special devotion to Our Blessed Mother. Even Jesus thought highly enough of her to take time while He was dying on the cross for us, to give His mother to us for protection and source of multiple graces. She has been sent by God multiple times in apparitions to warn us that God is displeased about the state of mankind, while she has been giving us directions on how to change…prayer, penance, sacrifice, fasting, and saying the rosary. I personally feel that one Hail Mary prayer at the end of Mass to ask Our Lady’s help is pleasing to her Son, Jesus.
Parsing is the fallback of the disingenuous. It is grievously evident in the statements recorded in this report. It serves no purpose but to magnify the theological disorder current in our Church, a disorder magnified frequently by the Cardinal himself and by his confreres in the school of deconstructionism. This is exactly where the reputation of episcopal untrustworthiness is generated. A Catholicism which articulates “…what are they praying for protection from?” is in the deepest sense clueless and fraudulent. It is not only tragic but scandalous that we find ourselves in this condition.
CWR – Nice job of creating more division., making a volcano out of a fly speck. I would expect this article from the Washington Post . Now you too?
You’re either willingly dismissing or are willfully ignorant of the fact that the diminutive Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago has a lengthy, well documented dossier of creating division, Jerry. Which is it?
Jerry –
I think that the point being made is that “His Eminence” is the divisive figure.
It’s a healthy thing to talk about Bishops who behave improperly.
The following, which Carl Olson wrote back in 2015, might prove to be edifying:
A Tale of Two Bishops
One Mad Mom weighs in as well:
Cardinal Sit-It-Out Cupich
This is just consistent with a lot of the nonsense during the “pandemic” if you don’t have your pass you can;t come to mass etc…
a little confusion at the end of a parish mass over supplication prayers is not the end of the world – the Bishop should not even comment on it – don’t we want priests who can think on their feet?
My parish in Alexandria VA began saying the prayer to Saint Michael after Mass during the time of the 2002 DC sniper. For several weeks during that time, I recall saying the prayer every time I was out in the open – putting gas in my car, walking a zigzag line into the grocery store, not letting my child out in public. The prayer to Saint Michael comforted me then and even though I no longer live in VA, I continue to recite the prayer almost every day.
Cupich. Enough said.
The same rightist conservative CNA -and also CWR, making a mountain out of a molehill if it concerns Pope Francis and his loyal cardinals and bishops. If those pro-pre-Vatican II mass who criticize the Vatican II mass as celebrated without regard for the rubrics, they should applaud the Cardinal for he is simply upholding the liturgical rules. Prayers like these are not part of the liturgical celebration and can be recited only privately and after the mass itself. Damn if you do, damn if you don’t.
Any idea what “Ite, missa est” means, Charles?
Charles Panata, I am one of those “rightest conservatives” who is fed up with the Vatican Church. They created a different religion that sickens me. Before, during, and after Mass, it’s a free for all for Modernists. Except for Trads. This new one, that of forbidding to pray a prayer considered pre-Vatican ll. It is asked what it is we are praying for deliverance from. We pray for the deliverance of the likes of Cardinal Cupich, and all those who are out to do away with the true Church. We have been coerced to follow and obey their heretical ways and accept the banal ways of the New Church. Doesn’t the Vatican ll prohibit this type of coercion? Yet that’s what has been done for 60 years. Didn’t you know that we are living in the days of the worse major problems in the Church right now? Do you imagine that we Traditionalists are stupid? Think again. We are supposed to follow Vatican ll when those giving us this order are the ones who reject the whole of Vatican ll and make up their own Council as they go along. One of the Major principles of the Council being violated against Trads is “Religious Freedom”.
Charles Pinata, As a Trad I proclaim according to Vatican ll, Religious Freedom! We are ordered to accept the whole of the Council.” What the Council said has now backfired on them.
Independent of whatever the facts are in this case, there is no such thing as a “rubric” that mandates Catholic anti-Catholic bigotry.
I don’t understand what the Cardinal’s issue might be?? Both of these prayers are quite short and would not interfere with anyone’s wish to pray quietly once completed. Gabby parishioners might be the bigger issue following Mass. At my parish the Rosary society prays immediately following a weekday Mass. So here you won’t have any quiet for 25 minutes at least. My guess is someone with an “in” complained to the Cardinal. But I can’t imagine anything stranger than a Cardinal asking the faithful NOT to pray. Especially in this day and age when the country is falling apart. Maybe the Cardinal cannot think of things to pray for, but I sure can!!
Cupich knows who his real boss is. Satan is not happy with the St. Michael Prayer and the Ave Maria.
…And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls
Anen.
“Hatred of the traditional Holy Mass is inspired by the Devil who seeks our spiritual death”-Cardinal Robert Sarah
I would add the same applies to those seeking to ban traditional Catholic prayers and devotionals like the Rosary, Ave Maria and St. Michael prayer. Since these prayers (especially the last one) are designed to protect us from the Evil One, only those who are in service of the Evil One would be opposed to their continued use.
What an incendiary headline! I wonder what is inside the article!?
“The pastor of the church, Father John Trout, issued a statement saying this is not true.”
“CNA asked Torres-Fuentes in an email who gave him the directive to cease the Prayer to St. Michael and the Hail Mary after Mass, but received no response.”
“After contacting other priests in the diocese, CNA found that there was no directive sent to all parishes in the diocese referring to the recitation of the Prayer to Saint Michael or the Hail Mary following Mass.”
What a sham of a website you guys run, LOL! **Almost** makes me feel sorry for ol’ Blase. Can you excise the ‘report’ from your URL?
Blase will gladly sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, Joseph and I’d wager that you’d eagerly write him a check.
“The mass is complete in itself. It does not need additional prayers added to it.” This statement was made by the Bishop of Hamilton, New Zealand in the 1980’s when a similar controversy broke out in my parish there. He also stated people that if people wished, they could have a prayer service 15 minutes after the end of mass thus allowing those who wished to leave to leave and not “force” them to attend a prayer service they didn’t want to attend.
It is really not clear what this article is attempting to report. At this point there is no evidence the Cardinal did in fact do what is being claimed or alleged. The priest responsible for the initial claim will not respond to CWR … How about wait for his response or at least gather more facts on this incident before reporting? Rather than a litany of he said, she said …
“The priest responsible for the initial claim will not respond to CWR.”
No, to Catholic News Agency. This is a news brief, produced by CNA, published by CWR.
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like the pagans, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Mt 6.5-8
So David, based on your remark you obviously reject the Ordinary Form with all of its accompanying vocal participation from the laity and prefer the Extraordinary Form where the laity is almost entirely silent for the entire Mass, correct?
Where two or more are gathered in My name…