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.