Crossroads Podcast: Bishops’ Election Highlights Division Over Culture Wars
Once again, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops gathered for debates and votes with serious implications for the current occupant of the White House and his supporters.
It certainly appeared that topic was on the agenda, since journalists gathered in Baltimore looked at the proceedings through a lens that detected politics much quicker than discussions of doctrines in the Catholic Catechism. As you would expect, this produced several hooks for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast.
https://www.getreligion.org/podcast/here-we-go-again-good-bishops-vs-bad-bishops-in-catholic-news
For starters, let’s turn to the authoritative pages of The New York Times, looking for crucial terms and phrases that offered windows into what happened. There was an important election, so we will start here: “U.S. Bishops Elect New Leader as Concerns Mount Over Treatment of Migrants.” The overture:
As the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign continues, and Pope Leo XIV urges support for migrant families, America’s Roman Catholic bishops redoubled their focus on immigration while electing new leaders at their annual meeting. …
In a hotel ballroom in Baltimore addressing the first major gathering of American bishops in the Leo pontificate, the outgoing bishops’ conference president opened with pointed remarks. Bible teaching, he noted, is to have “special care for strangers, aliens and sojourners.”
“It is not rocket science, but the Word of God,” Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio said.
The bishops elected Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City to be their next president, to serve for a three-year term. An institutionalist with ties to the church’s right wing, Archbishop Coakley issued a statement two days after President Trump’s inauguration calling on Catholics to remember that Jesus was once a refugee, and to support immigrant families.
We will come back to one or two specifics in the major immigration statement that was overwhelmingly approved by the bishops. But, first, let’s stop and unpack the implications of the next USCCB president having “ties to the church’s right wing.”
For starters, what is the difference between a “right wing” bishop and a “left wing” bishop, if the latter exists in news reports.
Over at the Associated Press, the Oklahoma City archbishop earned this vivid headline: “US Catholic bishops select conservative culture warrior to lead them during Trump’s second term.” This news report added this qualifier: “In choosing Coakley, they are doubling down on their conservative bent, even as they push for more humane immigration policies from the Trump administration.”
Writing at the Catholic Culture website, Phil Lawler noted that the “conservative culture warrior” label was also used at The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, ABC News, MSN.com and PBS. Perhaps there was a handout by USCCB insiders?
Once again, it’s interesting to ask: If Coakley is a “conservative culture warrior,” what would it take, host Todd Wilken asked, for a bishop to be labeled as a “liberal culture warrior”? Do bishops of that political or doctrinal ilk exist?
One thing is certain, Coakley can be “right wing” and a “conservative culture warrior” while also being a vocal supporter of Catholic teachings and Vatican statements that — in news reports — are viewed as biting criticisms of President Donald Trump. So, what makes the new USCCB leader a culture warrior in this familiar “good bishops” (hello Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago) vs. “bad bishops” news drama?
Years of elite-newsroom coverage has established the basics. Good bishops are supportive or quiet when progressive teams hold the White House, especially when led by President Joe Biden, a pro-abortion-rights Catholic who voiced — in word and deed — his opposition to his church’s doctrines on marriage and sexuality.
Bad bishops are the opposite: They consistently speak out on “culture war” issues linked to Sexual Revolution doctrines and probably encourage or tolerate traditional rites for the Mass. They may have been critical of some actions of the late Pope Francis on “culture war” doctrines.
The Times noted that Coakley:
… is an adviser to the Napa Institute, a conservative Catholic-oriented network, and has been known nationally for his opposition to the death penalty. He praised Oklahoma’s governor for signing a near-total abortion ban in 2021, and supported an effort in Oklahoma, blocked by the Supreme Court in May, to create the nation’s first chartered religious school, which would have used government funds to teach Catholic doctrine.
Oh, and he also opposed efforts to remove Bishop Joseph Strickland (remember that name) from his post as Bishop of Tyler (Texas) after he was highly critical of Pope Francis. Strickland even said the pope should resign because of issues linked to clergy sexual abuse, same-sex blessings and other hot-button issues.
Of course, immigration was the other top-shelf issue during the meetings. The New York Times report noted:
America’s Roman Catholic bishops on Wednesday rebuked the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign in a rare and near-unanimous statement that framed the immigration crisis in starkly moral terms.
The statement, passed at the bishops’ annual conference in Baltimore, did not call out President Trump by name, but the context was clear. The bishops said they “oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and “pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement.”
The statement passed with 216 bishops in favor, five opposed and with three abstaining.
I was struck by this strategic word in the document — “indiscriminate.” I asked the Grok AI program for “the opposite of indiscriminate” and received this:
The opposite of indiscriminate (meaning random, haphazard, or without careful selection) is discriminate or discriminating (meaning selective, careful, or discerning in judgment). Key Distinctions:
— Indiscriminate: Lacking discrimination; e.g., “indiscriminate violence” affects everyone without distinction.
— Discriminate (as an adjective): Showing good judgment or selectivity; e.g., “a discriminating palate” chooses finely.
Other near-opposites include selective, particular, choosy, or targeted, depending on context.
The implication is that the vast majority of the bishops believe Trump administration actions are, let’s say, “random, haphazard, or without careful selection.” Thus, would that mean that some of the bishops could accept policies enforcing U.S. immigration laws that are not “random, haphazard, or without careful selection”?
It helps to note that, the day before passing the immigration statement, the bishops also approved a letter to Pope Leo XIV noting:
“As shepherds in the United States, we face a growing worldview that is so often at odds with the Gospel mandate to love thy neighbor,” they told him.
“We support secure and orderly borders and law enforcement actions in response to dangerous criminal activity, but we cannot remain silent in this challenging hour while the right to worship and the right to due process are undermined,” the letter continued.
OK, so this statement does not support open borders — even if some bishops may take that stance. During the Biden years, it certainly appeared that many bishops supported, or did not want to openly oppose, policies that allowed a near-open border.
It’s safe to say that a vast majority of bishops want to see immigration laws that present a more welcoming approach to migrants sincerely seeking citizenship. Also, in light of decades of Catholic support for labor unions, it’s hard to imagine that many bishops support the use of open borders as a corporate strategy to undercut jobs and wages for U.S. workers.
The statement also backs “law enforcement actions in response to dangerous criminal activity” by immigrants — with the word”dangerous” serving as a qualifier. Was the point to oppose the deportation of immigrants who crossed the border illegally, but want to become peaceful U.S. citizens? That’s an issue worthy of follow-up coverage. Could the bishops be more specific, while remaining united?
One final point: There has been little press coverage of a well-timed Catholic rite in a New York City parish. The gossipy People magazine offered: “Gio Benitez, Openly Gay ABC News Weekend Anchor, Joins Catholic Church and Reaffirms Faith with Husband by His Side.”
The headline says plenty, but here is a bit more information from this People public-relations statement:
On Monday, Nov. 10, the Good Morning America co-anchor shared a moving video of his confirmation mass at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in Manhattan with his husband, Tommy DiDario, serving as his sponsor — a special moment partly inspired by the late Pope Francis’ “legacy of inclusivity.”
“I found the Ark of the Covenant in my heart, stored there by the one who created me… exactly as I am,” wrote Benitez, 40, on Instagram.
Twenty-five years ago, Benitez was baptized with his mother when he was 15. But he was grappling with a big question.
“If God created me, how could he not love me?” wrote the transportation correspondent for ABC News. “I went on to study religion in college, searching for proof of God. But maybe I was just searching for proof of God’s love.”
Was there any discussion of this rite among the U.S. bishops?
Apparently, no one discussed it near a microphone — with one exception. The one voice raised was that of the former leader of the Diocese of Tyler, the aforementioned Bishop Strickland who was sacked by Pope Francis.
The Catholic Herald noted a short Strickland interjection into the day’s discussions of Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (the bishops, addressing trans issues, officially affirmed a ban on “gender-affirming care” in Catholic hospitals). Strickland said:
Bishop Strickland spoke briefly and drew attention to images widely circulated online of a recent liturgy involving a well-known American broadcaster. “Since we’re in the area of doctrine,” he said, “I don’t know how many of us have seen on social media, priests and others gathered celebrating the confirmation of a man living with a man openly. And it just needs to be addressed.”
Bishop Strickland continued, stating, “Father James Martin once again involved. Great pictures of all of them smiling. Here we are talking about doctrine. I just thought I needed to raise that issue. I know it’s not part of any agenda, but with this body gathered, we need to address it. Thank you.”
There was no discussion of this symbolic bishop’s request.
Enjoy the podcast and, please, share it with others.