Copyright ncregister
It may not be an official agenda item. But a top priority for the U.S. bishops at their fall meeting next week in Baltimore may well be to get off on the right foot with Pope Leo XIV. Elected in May, Leo’s papacy comes after a complicated 12-year relationship between his predecessor, Pope Francis, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The two parties were widely viewed to be out of sync, with the USCCB facing criticism for downplaying papal priorities and Francis regularly bypassing conference leadership for key appointments. The Nov. 10-13 gathering will be the first business meeting for the bishops' conference under the first American pope, and it may offer something of a reset for U.S.-Vatican relations — but also new dynamics. For one, Pope Leo has signaled that he views the USCCB as a key part of his American approach. In September, he told Elise Allen of Crux that rather than directly confronting elected officials (a hallmark of Pope Francis’), he hopes to impact U.S. society by engaging “with the bishops primarily.” At the same time, the Chicago native has said his familiarity with America won’t allow anyone to say, “He doesn’t understand the United States, he just doesn’t see what’s going on,” as some said about Francis. During his first six months as Pope, Leo has shown a keen interest in U.S. political matters, especially immigration enforcement. Just this week, the Pope expressed concerns over the targeting of people who have been in the country for years without issue, family separation, and the lack of spiritual care for detainees. The Pope urged “deep reflection” on Christ’s teaching in Matthew 25 that Christians will be judged based on how they have cared for the stranger. While the U.S. bishops certainly might feel pressure to be perceived as in harmony with the first American pope, it’s also true that Rome is likely desirous of improved relations. Notably, the disconnect between Francis and American Catholic leadership coincided with a significant drop-off in U.S. funding of the Vatican, which is strapped for cash. A pope having a special influence over his homeland’s bishops' conference is certainly nothing new. Pope St. John Paul II’s strong support for Cardinal Józef Glemp likely contributed to the Warsaw archbishop’s 23-year tenure as the president of the Polish bishops' conference. And during Francis’ papacy, the episcopal conference of Argentina was often viewed as a model implementer of his vision, most notably for its interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Then again, Benedict XVI’s relationship with his German confreres was notably strained, as his longstanding differences with much of Germany’s episcopacy on doctrinal matters were amplified on a bigger stage. Leo’s connection with the U.S. is uniquely nuanced, given that most of his time as a clergyman has been spent in Rome and Peru (where he is also a citizen); he has never been a member of the USCCB. But he still has an unprecedented relationship with the states, and both the American pope and the U.S. bishops likely view establishing a productive relationship as a top priority. And with the USCCB set to elect new leadership and discuss controversial issues, it will be worth monitoring whether there is a “Leo effect” on the proceedings in Baltimore. Electing a “Pope Leo” President? On Nov. 11, the conference will elect the successor of outgoing USCCB president Archbishop Timothy Broglio to a new three-year term. There seems to be a favorite, but it remains to be seen if the Pope Leo factor reshuffles the deck. Although the social influence of the U.S. bishops has diminished in recent decades, the conference still has a role in everything from lobbying the U.S. government to coordinating Vatican-requested initiatives to issuing thematic documents on national issues. In all of this, the USCCB president has significant discretionary power, including the ability to make key appointments, speak out on behalf of the bishops, and serve as the de facto liaison between the U.S. bishops and Rome. The apparent frontrunner is the USCCB’s current secretary, Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City. In addition to his leadership experience, including past chairmanships of the board of Catholic Relief Services and the USCCB’s domestic policy committee, Archbishop Coakley appears to have recent history working in his favor. Typically, the bishops elect the sitting vice president to succeed the president. But because Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, the current vice president, will turn 75 within the next three years, he isn’t eligible for the top spot. A similar scenario played out in 2022, when then-vice president Archbishop Allen Vigneron was also ineligible due to age. So, who did the U.S. bishops pick? The conference’s then-secretary, Archbishop Broglio. If that “next man up” precedent is followed, Archbishop Coakley will be the pick. But it’s worth asking how solid a “precedent” the 2022 vote was. And if there were ever a good reason to hit the “reset” button on USCCB norms, the election of the first American pope — and the perceived need to find an ideal counterpart in the U.S. — would be at the top of the list. So, if the U.S. bishops go with an alternative, who might they pick? It doesn’t seem likely that they’d bypass Archbishop Coakley to pick someone with a similar “conservative” profile (unless the “secretary precedent” really isn’t one). Remember that when the USCCB broke protocol in 2010 by skipping over vice president Bishop Gerald Kicanas, a more liberal prelate, they did so to pick the more conservative Archbishop Timothy Dolan. It seems unlikely that the U.S. bishops would change procedure, so to speak, without changing direction. Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, for instance, has serious qualifications for the top job, and was nearly elected USCCB vice president in 2022. But it may be more likely that the 67-year-old is tapped to serve in that role next week than it is that he leapfrogs Archbishop Coakley. Similarly, Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, and Bishop David Malloy of Rockford, Illinois, are also on the more conservative side of the USCCB ledger, and are unlikely to eclipse Archbishop Coakley for that reason. At the same time, it seems unlikely that the bishops would swing to the opposite end and elect Archbishop Edward Weisenburger, the presumptive nominee of the USCCB’s liberal minority. The Detroit archbishop is an outspoken advocate for immigrants, an important priority for Pope Leo, but he’s also seen as a controversial figure in the American Catholic landscape for liturgical restrictions and a seminary shakeup he’s carried out in the Motor City. The last presidential nominee from the liberal bloc, Archbishop Paul Etienne of Seattle, mustered less than 16% support in 2022. Thus, while Archbishop Weisenburger’s candidacy may be an important bellwether for the strength of the more theologically progressive bishops at the start of the Leo papacy, it’s unlikely that he has the support to be elected. Instead, the most likely alternatives to Archbishop Coakley include two prelates with pre-existing connections to Pope Leo and Hispanic heritage — an element that could be symbolically significant amid Trump’s immigration crackdown. Archbishop Nelson Pérez is the current chair of CRS, which has one of the more active boards in the USCCB orbit. The Philadelphia leader knows Pope Leo from their days working together on the Pontifical Commission for Latin America and helped secure the pontiff’s upcoming digital Q&A at the National Catholic Youth Conference, which will be broadcast by EWTN. If any candidate has already proven to be an effective collaborator with the Pope, it may be Archbishop Pérez. Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville, Texas, is another possibility. The border bishop is a strong proponent of the rights of migrants and has also gained a reputation as an orthodox expositor of synodality — a feat some might call rare. Given that Leo has indicated synodality will continue to be a hallmark of his pontificate, will the USCCB consider electing his tablemate from the 2024 synod session in Rome to lead the conference? Archbishop Richard Henning of Boston and Archbishop Charles Thompson of Indianapolis are two other figures who could be popular on election day, especially if there is a sense that Pope Leo’s election calls for a USCCB president with a moderate profile, a focus on evangelization, and administrative chops. Then again, it’s worth asking: Do the U.S. bishops need to break precedent or seek out a moderate to elect a “Pope Leo-friendly” president? While issues like synodality and immigration can easily be pointed to as Pope Leo's priorities, there’s another important one to keep in mind: unity. What Pope Leo might value most in the next USCCB president is not necessarily thinking the same way on every issue, but the ability to lead the conference effectively. On that front, Archbishop Coakley, who secured over 75% of the vote in the 2023 secretary election, has already demonstrated that he has broad support among the U.S. bishops. The archbishop’s long experience within the inner-workings of the conference also suggests an ability to work collaboratively, including across the ecclesial aisle. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that the Oklahoma City ordinary, like Pope Leo, sees being pro-life as requiring more than just opposing abortion. Archbishop Coakley has criticized Trump’s “mass deportation” plan and has been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty in the state that carries out the most executions per capita. In the end, the “Leo effect” on the USCCB’s presidential election might be less about who the bishops pick, and more about how that man leads the conference. In which case, the most interesting race to watch may be the wide-open one for the vice presidency. Immigration, AI, and the Rest of the Agenda Even if Pope Leo’s priorities don’t necessarily dictate who the next USCCB president will be, they may influence how the conference chooses to respond on other agenda items. For some issues, such as a vote on the USCCB’s 2026 budget or deciding whether to consecrate the U.S. to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on the upcoming 250-year anniversary of the nation’s founding, it’s unclear what a “Leo effect” might even be. The same can be said for some of the six committee chairman elections. But that’s not the case with immigration. The U.S. bishops, both individually and as a conference, have made strong statements on the issue since the start of Trump’s second administration. But it’s clear that Pope Leo is looking for more. At a recent meeting in Rome with Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, the USCCB’s immigration point man, the Pope said the “Church cannot be silent” in the face of Trump’s deportations. He added that “even within the [bishops] conference, there are challenges.” “I wish they were stronger in their own voice,” Pope Leo said of the U.S. bishops. It’s unclear exactly what “challenges” in this context means, or who in the conference is posing them. But the comment has likely circulated among the bishops. And it will be interesting to see if there is any noticeable “Leo effect” during their scheduled public “discussion and response on the evolving situation impacting migrants and refugees” in Baltimore. Believe it or not, there may be another issue on the agenda where Pope Leo and the Trump administration may be just as far apart: artificial intelligence. In his remarks, Pope Leo has consistently stressed the need for ethical reflection on and “responsible governance” of AI. He has warned not only of AI’s threats to human labor, but also its ability to eclipse “the sense of what is human.” The U.S. government, on the other hand, has embraced a position of radical deregulation. In fact, “removing red tape and onerous regulation” is the first policy goal listed in the Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan,” which includes no consideration of ethical risks posed by AI. Thus far, U.S. episcopal responses to the challenges posed by AI have been rather milquetoast. And while it’s true that the bishops may be waiting for the Vatican to address the topic comprehensively before making a splash, the fact that Leo has signaled that the “digital revolution” is a central concern of his papacy (and even inspired his choice of papal name) could be seen as an invitation to take a proactive approach. A presentation of the topic in Baltimore will indicate how the bishops plan to respond. Whatever the case, we can certainly expect Pope Leo to be frequently invoked throughout discussions at the Baltimore meeting — the first major milestone of what both the first American pope and the U.S. bishops likely hope is a long and fruitful relationship.
