By CHRISTOPHER MANION
The annual meeting of the USCCB, winding down as we go to press, will long be regarded as the bishops’ most important meeting since 2002, when the bishops met in Dallas under the guidance of then-Cardinal McCarrick to pass their “child protection” charter. At that meeting, they exempted themselves from that charter’s onerous provisions, and that decision came back to haunt them this week in Baltimore.
This meeting, its issues, and its divisions will resonate for years. The profound problems facing our bishops and the faithful will not likely go away in our lifetimes. The perversion is too deep, the faithfulness too shallow, to expect otherwise. Nonetheless, the meeting drew into sharp focus the battle lines that have been developing for years among the bishops.
To address those, we begin with some truly shocking testimony by one Jayd Henricks, whom The Wanderer identified last year as a key player in the USCCB’s Deep State. Mr. Henricks served for years as the conference’s executive director of government relations before leaving last December.
In candor his letter to his former employers ranks right up there with Archbishop Viganò’s letter of this past summer. Unlike Viganò, Henricks doesn’t name names, but he doesn’t have to. We excerpt here his penetrating analysis, published last week in First Things magazine.
A Voice From
The USCCB’s Deep State
After briefly thanking and praising the bishops, Mr. Henricks gets right to the point: “There is, however, something wrong with how the body of bishops functions as an assembly and how bishops relate to and interact with one another. Far too often, fear appears to govern what is done or not done by you as a body. There is the fear of disunity, fear of conflict, fear of disrupting a superficial collegiality, and today, more than ever, fear of Rome . . . the bottom line is that it sometimes appears that many of you are governed by fear of each other and of the institutional order more than by the fear of God.
“It has also been my observation that your work as an association of bishops leads many of you to value the appearance of unity over adherence to principle. This habit, in turn, leads to patterns of conflict avoidance. In some instances, this is the path of charity. Conflict and division are not good things. Far too often, however, I watched good men back away from conflict when what was needed was confrontation and forthright debate. This culture of fear enabled the likes of Theodore McCarrick to attain power and to scheme and maneuver at the highest ecclesial and political levels.
“All serious observers of the Church see that the current ecclesiastical situation stands on the edge of a cliff. It seems to me that there are two dominant camps among the bishops in the United States, and perhaps worldwide. One regards the Church as a platform for political interests. My professional experience taught me that this group includes key authorities in Rome. The other regards the Church as a pastoral reality. This second group, while genuinely desiring to serve, is reluctant to address critical issues if doing so would entail conflict with Rome.”
Regarding McCarrick, Henricks added, “I urge you to petition forcefully for an open investigation led by the laity. Do not allow a false notion of unity to prevail, a false unity in which your integrity as bishops is sacrificed to expediency. . . . Please govern as fathers, stay true to Jesus Christ, and proclaim the truth, in season and out of season, regardless of the cost.”
Echoing Henricks’ last line, at the outset of their meeting, Archbishop Viganò sent a letter to the bishops, saying, “I am writing to remind you of the sacred mandate you were given on the day of your episcopal ordination: to lead the flock to Christ. Meditate on Proverbs 9:10: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom! Do not behave like frightened sheep, but as courageous shepherds. Do not be afraid of standing up and doing the right thing for the victims, for the faithful and for your own salvation. The Lord will render to every one of us according to our actions and omissions.”
Choosing Up Sides
As the meeting began, the great divide became clear. Conference President Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of Houston stunned his brother bishops when he opened the meeting, announcing the Vatican’s demand that they take no action on their proposed wide-ranging reforms until after the Pope’s meeting with prelates from around the world in Rome next February.
While DiNardo was visibly dismayed — he had received the edict only the day before, he said — Blase Cupich of Chicago quickly made his move. He jumped to the microphone to assure those present that “it is clear that the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously.” He had been obviously been informed by the Vatican long before DiNardo, and his message to the bishops was clear: In the eyes of Pope Francis, Cupich, not DiNardo, is the de facto leader of U.S. bishops.
And Cupich has many supporters. We recall that, last year, 44 percent of the bishops had supported Cupich to head the USCCB’s pro-life office — fully aware that for years he had put Humanae Vitae, the pro-life movement, and traditional marriage on the bottom shelf, while he vigorously welcomed active homosexuals and, more recently, demanded that the bishops avoid the “rabbit hole” of an investigation into McCarrick and his sodomite network.
Visibly siding with Cupich in Baltimore were the Papal Nuncio Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Archbishops Thomas Wenski and John Wester, and Bishops Robert Conlon, Robert McElroy, our old friend Mark Seitz, and, to top it off, the rebuked and disgraced Roger Mahony of Los Angeles.
No one applauded after Mahony rambled on, but no one stood to demand that he leave the building, either. In fact, one bishop noted for the record that former Cardinal McCarrick could have attended the meeting, had he cared to.
Fear
To counter the Cupich faction, National Review Board chair Francesco Cesareo stunned bishops with his blunt observation that many of them had “escaped the consequences of their actions” regarding their handling of abusers. “More than 130 bishops — or nearly 1/3 of those still living — have been accused during their careers of failing to respond to sexual misconduct in their dioceses….Few have faced real consequences. This must change,” he reported to the assembly.
“The depth of anger, pain, and disappointment expressed by the members of the NAC cannot begin to be expressed adequately in words,” said Fr. David A. Whitestone, chair of the U.S. bishops’ National Advisory Council (NAC). True repentance “includes not only an acknowledgment of the precise nature of past sins, but a firm purpose of amendment,” he said.
Archbishops Charles Chaput, Joseph Naumann, Alexander Sample, and Bishops Thomas Paprocki, Earl Boyea, Andrew Cozzens, and Joseph Strickland made powerful statements demanding transparency, accountability, and clarity on moral teaching. But the advocates of decisive action have no clear leader. Cardinal DiNardo is trying to herd shepherds, a daunting task, since about half of them appear to be quite happy being lost.
But DiNardo did attempt to find unanimity on at least the bare minimum. He had read thousands of letters received by the USCCB, he said. “If there’s one thing that nags at everyone, it’s the Archbishop McCarrick thing. It seems to be ubiquitous. This is the one that I think has to be addressed, it’s just bad for our people.”
In coming months, we will take a closer look at the fault lines. Were the scandals caused by clericalism (Cupich) or homosexuality (Cordileone)? Shall we preach social justice (McElroy) or Humanae Vitae (Chaput)? Will we pursue true justice (Strickland), or keep on kicking the can down the road (Wenski)?
“And this, and so much more,” says Prufrock.
Pray.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress