Anonymous Bishops Speaking Their Mind

Over at First Things, Francis X Maier conducted several off the record interviews with over 31 bishops in the United States, where they discussed a broad range of topics.  Most commentary is focused on the fact that apparently a lot of US Bishops are annoyed with Wilton Gregory (and by implication, Blase Cupich.)  That will draw headlines, but it is nothing new.  Annoyance with Gregory has been well known, especially of late.  Part of it is political, but a lot of it also personal:  Gregory is viewed as a gloryhound who is trying to inject himself into conversation for notoriety and influence at the expense of his brother bishops.  (This view is not inaccurate.)

Others are also focusing on the fact that these bishops like Pope Francis, but are occasionally annoyed by things he does.  Not only is this well known, it is true of every single pope.  It is the very nature of governance that those at the top will annoy some of those they either govern or govern with.  I'd say this was what was most revealing:

When pressed, none of the bishops I queried could report a single diocesan seminarian inspired to pursue priestly life by the current pope. None took any pleasure in acknowledging this. 

I think this is a sign of a broken system.  Many will read this as "see, that's why this pope sucks, he doesn't inspire anybody to the priesthood."  Thing is, they are probably right.  In this country, for better or worse, men are not flocking to the priesthood over Pope Francis the way they did over John Paul II or, to a lesser extent, Benedict XVI.  These were towering men who dominated the discussion.  The former by his charisma, the latter by his towering intellect.  Francis lack of charisma has its own charm, and while not a fool, he is not primarily a theologian.

This sounds like a criticism, but it isn't.  On the list of responsibilities the Roman Pontiff has, inspiring vocations is extremely low on the list.  That isn't his job.  Unfortunately, we make it his job.  Over the last 50 years, as with so many other things, Catholics have invested in the Roman Pontiff not just final authority in matters of doctrine and a primary of doctrine, but as the Chief Brand Ambassador of Jesus Christ.  It is not enough to say he has the primacy of jurisdiction and the final say on doctrinal matters.  We view the effectiveness of a Pope by how many lives he personally transforms, and by transform, we mean how happy he makes them.  In this process, a lot of the very difficult work of cultivating vocations has been outsourced to Rome, something that even the best cannot sustain, and we are not currently served by the best.

A better question would be to ask how many seminarians view their bishop as someone who inspired them to pursue the priestly life.  The reality is that most seminarians will, when asked about their bishop, would respond "who?"  One might find a few who say their parish priest inspired them, which is all well and good.  Yet I feel we should honestly challenge this with "who cares who inspired them to become a priest?"  The issue isn't so much with inspiring someone at a particular moment in time.  With respect to our Charismatic brethren, a vocation is not about a sentiment you feel in a given moment.  Its hard work that requires a pretty substantial support network that cultivates these vocations towards the seminaries.  They involve friends, parents, support groups, and yes, individual priests overseen by a Bishop who places the formation of these individuals as among his top priorities.  The sad reality is that for the majority of US Bishops (not just Gregory or Cupich), the formation of priests is extremely low on their list of priorities.  It low on a lot of ours as well.  Let the Pope's towering presence handle that.

How has that worked out for us the last 40-50 years, as vocations have continued to plummet? In the interview, the Bishops told on themselves.