Washington – Catherine Hoegeman follows the changes in the US Catholic Church hierarchy in real time. The sociologist at Missouri State University keeps a list of all 434 pastors of the US Bishops’ Conference. Hoegeman is particularly interested in the 266 active bishops who determine the course of the US church. And even ten years after Pope Francis took office, he continues to deviate from his pastoral approach.
According to Hoegeman’s count, the “Francis” bishops are still in a minority at 46 percent. But that could change drastically in the next two years. In at least thirteen archdioceses and 21 dioceses, incumbents must offer their resignation to the pope for reasons of age. This limit is reached when a bishop has reached the age of 75.
“If he appoints new bishops in all these local churches,” calculates the sociologist in the National Catholic Reporter, “Francis will have appointed 64 percent of American bishops.” That would be almost two-thirds of the Bishops’ Conference instead of less than half. “It will bring about a noticeable change.”
Particular attention is paid to possible vacancies in the heavyweights among the dioceses in New York, Hartford, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Omaha, Houston, Mobile and New Orleans. Theoretically, Pope Francis also has a free hand in Washington and Boston, where Cardinals Wilton Gregory (75) and Sean O’Malley (78) have so far remained in office with the Holy Father’s approval.
The fact that a third of the personnel changes affect archdioceses enables the pope to appoint successors who are less interested in pure doctrine than in pastoral practice. Connoisseurs of the US Church, such as Mark Massa of Boston College, point out that this is the common denominator of the previous bishop appointments by Francis. “He seems to favor pastorally oriented candidates over others. But ideologically, they come from all sorts of corners.”
A prominent example of this observation would be the appointment of Robert Barron in the Diocese of Winona-Rochester, who is innovative in dealing with new media, but theologically rather conservative. Also falling short of the reformers’ expectations were Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, Texas, Earl Fernandes of Columbus, Ohio, and Andrew Cozzens of Crookston, Minnesota.
Church historian Massimo Faggioli of Villanova University expresses the expectation that Francis will try to seize the opportunity to reorient the bishops’ conference. “He has done this very strategically and intentionally in his choice of cardinals and promotions.” Faggioli refers, among other things, to the appointment of the three cardinals Blase Cupich in Chicago, Joseph Tobin in Newark and Robert McElroy in San Diego.
According to analysts, the fact that less prominent personal details were sometimes disappointing has to do with the pool of applicants. They were trained in the seminaries under the pontificates of Benedict XVI. and John Paul II have been shaped much more conservatively. Many of them are more interested in America’s culture wars than, say, in pastoral care for minorities and immigrants.
“But there is definitely a group of more liberal candidates,” sociologist Hoegeman contradicts the assessment that the pope only has a limited choice in the US Church. Bishops John Wester from Santa Fe, New Mexico, Mark Seitz from El Paso, Texas and John Stowe from Lexington, Kentucky recommended themselves as candidates for promotion to important places such as New York, Boston or Houston. All of them shepherds with the pastoral sensitivity that Francis appreciates.
