The Real Story Behind the USCCB Elections

The USCCB gathered this week to decide who would lead the conference for the next few years.  As always, The Pillar has a decent rundown.  One thing that is clear this week:  the media courtiers who style themselves as the Magisterium of Pope Francis are very mad online this week.  For them, the USSCB elections represent a slap in the face of the Pope, as the current crop of picks are not bishops in his image.

This is, of course, a bunch of nonsense.  Yet I submit it is nonsense in ways that normally aren't pondered, and I'd like to do so here.

What is the Point of a Bishops Conference?

This sounds like a simple question, but it really isn't.  Episcopal Conferences are not something inherent to the authority of the Church.  Nor do they have any inherent authority in them by their existence.  It is sometimes envisioned that in the Church, there is a hierarchy:

- Laity

- Priest

- Bishop

- Bishops Conference

- Pope

If one looks at the various magisterial texts, of course this view is absent. Vatican II established some norms for these conferences, but if one were looking for the point of an episcopal conference, Christus Dominus in paragraph 37 works as well as anything else:

In these days especially bishops frequently are unable to fulfill their office effectively and fruitfully unless they develop a common effort involving constant growth in harmony and closeness of ties with other bishops. Episcopal conferences already established in many nations-have furnished outstanding proofs of a more fruitful apostolate. Therefore, this sacred synod considers it to be supremely fitting that everywhere bishops belonging to the same nation or region form an association which would meet at fixed times. Thus, when the insights of prudence and experience have been shared and views exchanged, there will emerge a holy union of energies in the service of the common good of the churches.

Episcopal conferences are formed as a way to remind individual Bishops that while they have real sovereignty within their diocese, they are still part of a wider body, and they should work with their neighbor bishops as much as possible.  When someone says "the USCCB should just be disbanded", that's silly talk.  Given the means of modern communication and transportation, a bishop who makes decisions with no understanding of the wider Church surrounding him is bound to do something stupid.

What we do not see is any discussion about if the point of an episcopal conference is to shape a bureaucratic body to the mind and priorities of the Pope.  The only way you arrive at that conclusion is if you believe it is the job of the Bishop to be the visible representative and vicar of the Pope within his diocese.  Christus dominus makes clear they have all the "immediate, proper and ordinary" authority to carry out shepherding the Church of God, in the area entrusted to them.  Bishops are not there as vassals of the pope, but as their own men, entrusted by the Roman Pontiff to govern their flocks.  

Are the US Bishops "Anti-Francis?"

If the US Bishops were really hardcore opponents of Francis, it would probably warm the heart of trads like myself and others.  (Whether my heart being warmed is good policy for the Church is something we are bypassing.)  Yet are they?  Where are the statements of collective resistance to his will?  What is undeniable is that the US Bishops do not wish their leadership to be perceived as flacks of the Pope, men who ask permission from Rome to take a leak.  This was the position of previous USCCB leadership during the McCarrick scandal, where the Bishops pathetically spiked any discussion regarding action taken in the wake of the abuse scandal until Rome gave them instructions on what to do.  The only thing that came was the motu proprio Vos estis lux mundi, which established a process for investigating bishops accused of abuse.  Everything else was promptly ignored.  (Vos estis has had questionable, at best, efficacy.)  It was at this moment the episcopal body lost a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of the faithful.

The USSCB wants to achieve a careful balance where they are seen as in communion with the Pope, but not utterly dependent upon him for the basics of Christian governance.  As a result, certain Bishops perceived as "Pope Francis Bishops" probably aren't going to find  everyone running up to them.  This includes men like Joseph Tobin (generally seen as a pragmatist who tries to be the Pope's representative in America but also seen as a friend of all bishops) and Blase Cupich (the insufferable teachers pet who owes his very existence to being liked by the Pope, something he annoys the hell out of everyone by reminding you of every five seconds).  This doesn't mean men like Joseph Strickland (Bishop of Tyler, Texas and one you could genuinely identify as Anti-Francis) are suddenly the face of the Church in America.

How Much Does this Matter?

The answer to this question probably isn't going to be very satisfying to anyone who frequents this type of online discourse.  Yet we should consider it a bit more carefully nonetheless.  Let us assume that one of two things happened.  Either:

- The United States Episcopate became reflexively "Anti-Francis"

- The United States Episcopate became reflexively "Pro-Francis"

How much does the Church change?  I don't think its a given we see dramatic change.  I'd even propose that for the average Catholic in the US, not much would change.  Most of the problems facing the Catholic Church in America would remain.  Every Bishop could follow the dreams of liberal Catholics everywhere and say nobody can be refused communion under any circumstance.  You could bet that many priests would simply say that isn't the Bishops call to make, and correctly point out canon law has far more to say about individual priests governing their parishes that isn't being discussed in such a scenario.  Every TLM could be banned, and not a single problem would be solved.  (While a thousand new problems would then be created.)

For better or worse, individual everyday Catholics do not care what their bishop thinks about the Pope.  They have spiritual needs Bishops need to attend to.  If they are attended to, they will follow their Bishop.  If they are neglected, that Bishop is ignored.  If ecclesial politics and a race to be (or not be) teachers pet in Rome take precedence over those spiritual needs, you get a culture of indifference towards the Bishops.  To the extent we focus on this element of the USSCB elections (and Church relations in general) the Bishops demean not only their authority, but the dignity and legitimacy of the Church as a relevant institution to respond to people's needs and desires.

Clericalist Nonsense

Finally, it looks at the Church in an overly clerical manner.  It assumes that all reform starts, carried out by, and ends with clerics.  Specifically Bishops.  Finally, it says that the most important element of reform is the Roman Pontiff.  Reform is carried out by a variety of individuals within the Church, each within their own sphere, and supporting the spheres of others.  That we continue to talk about which "direction" the Church takes under this or that bishop being a stand in for this or that pope does not serve the Church.

I think these are far more interesting questions:

- Why is the USSCB here?

- Why is the Pope finding it so hard to find bishops who want to be seen as his men?  (This is part of a far larger trend of people passing the receiving of episcopal consecration in record numbers during the era of Francis)

- Why does the constitution of the USSCB leadership have such little relevance on the wider Church in the United States?

- In what way is debating over the election of clerics interacting with the role that everyone else plays in reforming the Church?

That the past week considered none of these questions honestly or openly is a far bigger indictment of the USCCB than if its president/vice president are partisans enough of this or that particular man.

Church Life Journal: Getting The Band Back Together

Since the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes (and its subsequent ignoring), trads have had a lot of field to play on. The likes of WPI and the various liberal organizations have more or less ceded the entire playing field to traditionalists, instead just trying to frame their position as one of raw papal power politics: the pope commands it, therefore it must be right, proper, and obeyed. To which trads have been able (quite adpetly I might add) to point out that in the eyes of Church law (and Traditionis Custodes itself) it is actually up to the local bishop to determine what is right, proper, and to be obeyed when it comes to most liturgical law. To which liberals have responded: t he pope commands it, therefore it must be right, proper, and obeyed. Having decisively won the argument (for now), most bishops ignored it, the Pope has backtracked (at least in public) his rationale for TC, and even the Synod on Synodality has been forced to admit its a very unpopular decision with the people of God.

Faced with this problem, Notre Dame's Church Life Journal is attempting to meet critics of Traditionis Custodes head on. In doing so, they are attempting to revive the old conservative consensus of the days of John Paul II. I think their attempt to do so is a bit instructive, and suggests a growing problem a lot of the anti-traditionalist polemics have: it demands conformity to a world which no longer exists.

To set the table, let us briefly recap the "conservative consensus". I covered this a lot more in my narrative history surrounding Traditionis Custodes, which I encourage you to read. If the conservative consensus could be defined as anything, it is the following marks:

- Doctrinal Orthodoxy

- A fierce devotion to the pontificate of John Paul II

- A fierce defense of the necessity and robust success of the Second Vatican Council

- A tension (and often outright hostility) towards traditionalists, whom you would think they have much in common with.

The consensus established during the JPII era (sometimes not necessarily what JPII had in mind) was not people attempting to change church teaching. They were people trying to uphold Church teaching, but also uphold the pastoral approach of Vatican II, which included the hostility the Church had towards traditionalists. They were sons of the Church: they just changed their disposition with whatever they perceived to be the popular disposition of the parental figures at the time.

One sees this outlook permeated through the words of the essay in Church Life Journal. Whatever you may say about this or that author, Thomas Weinandy is not a liberal. In just about every other context, a lot of the defenders of Pope Francis would be (and have) branded him as a dissident reactionary for his pointed criticisms of the Pope's (failed) attempt to change John Paul II's teaching regarding divorce and communion. While their argument is more or less the argument of the left on the Latin Mass, it doesn't root the argument in the mind of Pope Francis, but in the mind of the Council Fathers and the teaching authority of John Paul II and the numerous dicasteries that treated this question.

To this the traditionalist has one retort: you have listed a lot of facts which are true. Yes, the Council Fathers didn't envision a world in which the liturgy before 1965 survived. John Paul II didn't envision a world in which people would still cling to the Latin Mass. One could even add to this by noting that Pope Benedict didn't envision a world in which the Latin Mass became the domain of the young. His own accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum said people shouldn't worry about this, because it would be mostly old people who would make use of it, something to which Benedict was 100% wrong about.

There is a lot of talk in the article about "spirit anointed liturgical reform" (whatever that means), and how sensible and uniform the approach to the Latin Mass was. So what? The reality is that even as far back as the 1970's, it was understood that the Catholic Churches attempt to suppress the Latin Mass was not just a crime, it was a mistake. It was realized (rather quickly) that the original intent of Paul VI (an immediate suppression of every Latin Mass) was not going to work, so a carve out was made for "aged and infirmed priests" to say the Mass in private. This was then expanded on in 1971 with the "Agatha Christie Indult" which allowed the Latin Mass to be celebrated in Britain/Wales with the permission of the local bishop for any priest, not just aged and infirm. By 1980, there was a growing realization: the Latin Mass wasn't going to die. Therefore, the matter was sent to the Congregation of Divine Worship to study. This was ultimately decided by John Paul II in 1984 with Quattuor Abhinc Annos, which erected a formal legal regime by which the Latin Mass could be celebrated anywhere within the Latin Church, subject to certain conditions.  It was also during this time that John Paul II wanted to get a better understanding of his options here:  what was the status of the Old Missal?  Was it abrogated?  Suppressed? Could it be?  He asked a commission of cardinals to study the matter.  They reported their findings to the Pope:  The Old Rite was never abrogated, and a priest did not need permission to celebrate the Old Rite, at least privately.  Given the role of the local Bishop in liturgical affairs, the existing legal situation had a clear tension between a bishops rights and the rights of the priest, to say nothing of the desires/obligations/rights of individual lay Catholics.  This was sent to the Holy Father who.... did nothing, for various reasons, understandable and inexplicable.

In the meantime, the Latin Mass continued to grow, and the position of the Church became more incoherent.  A can of gasoline was thrown on this fire with the illicit episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve of four priests, meant as a way to perpetuate the survival of the Latin Mass.  In announcing that the bishop had incurred canonical penalties, John Paul II nonetheless admitted that the Church's approach to the Latin Mass played a part in creating the schism.  He commanded the worlds bishops to be more generous in allowing the Latin Mass, and over time even erected infrastructure in the Church (such as the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei and the creation of new religious orders for the Old Rite) to facilitate the growth of the Old Rite under the auspices of the Church.

All of this happened before Pope Benedict ascended the throne.  As he ascended the throne, the question was not if the Latin Mass would be further liberalized, but rather the terms under which it would take place.  Would it be a "universal indult", where the Pope simply granted the authority for every priest?  Or would the entire Indult die and be replaced by something new, trying to learn the lessons of the last 35 years?  This is what our friends in Church Life Journal completely ignore.  The path to Summorum Pontificum was slow, but it was organic, and rooted first and foremost in pastoral reality:  even if it was a reality the Church had to be dragged to, sometimes kicking and screaming.  Summorum Pontificum didn't change the Church.  It was simply an acknowledgement of how much things had changed.

The authors don't grapple with this problem.  It isn't fair to say they ignore it.  It is probably better to say they aren't even aware of its existence.  Why?  Because they are still operating as if its the 1980's, when most of the conservative polemics against the TLM came into fruition.  Its apologetics are rooted in the 1990s, when there was a considerable following within orthodox circles that attacked the Latin Mass, and viewed itself (under the guise of John Paul II) as true custodians of the revolution of Vatican II, protecting the revolution from both the Jacobins and the monarchists.  If this world doesn't make sense to the reader of today, tell that to the authors.  

All these things happened.   You cannot wish them away.  It makes no sense responding to the past 40 years by talking about legislation promulgated in 1974 that tells a bishops conference how to act in 1974.  Subsequent legislation revoked that old legislation.  That legislation in itself rested not on raw force of will by the legislator, but a reality on the ground that legislation was trying to properly channel, not impose.  The rest of the article is full of the same anachronisms regarding liturigcal debates:  they make sense in the era of the liturgy wars from 1980-2007.  They have zero relevance in todays world.

That is what I think is ultimately behind the failed attempt to impose Traditionis Custodes, and more generally why the conservative consensus collapsed during the years of Francis.  Whatever one thinks of that world:  it no longer exists.  The infrastructure for it is crumbled.  The will to implement it isn't there.  Far more pressing problems have taken its place.  The arguments of Professors Wienandy, Healy and Cavadini aren't just wrong:  they are alien to people who live outside of academic towers and practice their faith in the real world.  It is a crusty self-referential consensus that shouldn't just be returned to its cage, it should (and will) be put out of its misery.