The following is a response to the remarks on Nov. 2 by Cardinal Christophe Pierre on the U.S. Church.
….It is simply false that there are bishops who use Pope Francis as a scapegoat for the ills of our culture, as Cardinal Pierre alleges. I don’t know of a single bishop who claims this. The cultural crisis we face is not one of the pope’s making. To suggest that there are bishops who claim this, much less state it explicitly, is unfair to the U.S. bishops. How disheartening it must be to read what their representative from the Holy See thinks of them.
The claim that most young priests are enthusiastic about the cassock is also plainly false; it is the exception, not the lived experience of the typical young priest. It is odd to focus on this when there are more pressing concerns facing the Church (like the clericalism that still protects predator priests or expensive meetings that deplete limited Church resources, to name just two).
His Eminence states that “almost no one comes to church anymore” in the United States. This is also disconnected from reality. Yes, numbers are down, but there are many vibrant parishes around the country that are growing. I have seen it, and I don’t know why the nuncio seems unaware of this. It makes me sad, especially since in his backyard the Archdiocese of Washington and the Diocese of Arlington have plenty of examples of thriving churches. Perhaps he should go to fewer meetings and more parishes. I’d be happy to have him accompany me incognito.
These comments from His Eminence come with more than a little irony, considering the mass exodus from pews in Europe and South America — notably France and Argentina, to say nothing of Germany. If the evangelization efforts inspired by the Aparecida meeting, which in turn inspired the synodal way, is the path forward, then why are the local churches in South America doing worse than those in the United States? (Curiously, shortly after the 2007 Aparecida meeting, the number of priests in South America began to decline sharply, a trend that continues today.) By many metrics, the Church in South America, including in Argentina, is sclerotic and doing dramatically worse than the Church in the United States. Your Eminence, please explain.
Here in the United States, there has been a measurable increase in vocations over the last twenty years. We have evangelization initiatives that exist nowhere else in the world, like the Fellowship of Catholic University Students, Christ in the City, and Creatio, among a dozen others just in my home archdiocese of Denver. We have small Catholic colleges and universities that are actually forming students in the faith, as well as vibrant student centers on secular campuses. The bishops have largely reformed the seminaries, cleaning up the theological and moral dissent that was common for a generation. We have charitable organizations that take care of the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society, with tens or maybe hundreds of millions of non-government dollars and countless living saints driving this charitable work. We have Catholic schools serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike, providing an alternative to the woke education now common in public schools. We have a vibrant Catholic press that is forming the faithful through books and media that simply doesn’t exist anywhere else. I am tempted to go on, but I think I’ve made my point. The Church in the U.S. is far from ideal, but it is not the arid, dying institution Cardinal Pierre portrays.
With respect to the question of immigration, I don’t know of any country more generous than the United States. Our arms (and borders) are open to the refugees, immigrants (legal or otherwise), and those who are seeking a better life. It is a calumny to suggest we are a closed society or a closed Church. Take a walk around any major city and it is a melting pot of cultures with Catholic churches welcoming everyone. The bishops themselves run major immigration and refugee services and partner with others. They should be celebrated for this, not belittled.
And this notion that American bishops are fixated on sexuality is also false. It is the leaders of the Synod on Synodality and many of the papally-appointed delegates who are focused on homosexuality, marriage, and priestly orders. The major priority of the USCCB is the Eucharistic Revival, which seeks to draw Catholics back to the very heart of Catholicism. Hardly a fixation on sex….
From First Things
Cardinal Pierre is more right than wrong.
It depends on your forest or trees perspective, as to what you see.
The author of this article is looking at a small number of healthy trees and saying, “What’s the problem?”
Cardinal Pierre is looking at the forest, at least 80% of whose trees are sickly or dying and saying, “There’s the problem.”
My diocese’s tracking numbers show double-digit percentage drops in Mass attendance, infant baptisms, first Communions, and confirmations over the past five years. In many parishes, Masses have noticeable empty sections of pews and a dearth of people under the age of 40. That’s similar to what nearly every diocese in the country is experiencing. That is not sustainable, and it’s a picture of doom and gloom that corresponds more with what Cardinal Pierre said than what the article’s author wrote.
Without denying the problems, let’s be honest. The Church in America is healthier than the Church in Europe.
As long as German, Italian and French bishops are at least as, if not more, critical of their own churches; then they deserve being listened to.
Sometimes an anti-American bias can affect worldwide Church leaders, just as our American bias can affect our perceptions of the world.
We are Catholics, part of a worldwide community that holds to the faith that comes to us from Christ and the Apostles. Christians, by the grace of God, need to change the culture, not be changed by it.
When this site copies articles from publications it would be helpful and time-saving if it listed the author and the group, if any, that s/he represents. In this case, the article is written by Jayd Henricks the president of Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal. His group is well known for tracking priest activities on the internet to identify those who might be gay.
Not to identify those who might be gay… to expose those who are secretly living a double life by having accounts on gay hookup apps.
Anyway, what difference does it make? Agree or disagree with an author on the merits of his writing, not on the basis of his irrelevant associations.
https://eppc.org/publication/inside-the-usccb-an-interview-with-jayd-henricks/
An interview with this author
All priests, young and old, should be enthusiastic about wearing a cassock. It is a humble garment symbolic of the priestly character. The black color symbolizes the poverty of Christ as He walked the Earth. The 33 buttons in the front symbolize the 33 years Christ walked the Earth (and whose body a priest represents as an “alter Christus”). The five buttons on each cuff represent the five glorious wounds on His sacred body. The cassock should be worn with JOY by every priest. St. Charles Borromeo and St. John Vianney, ora pro nobis.
From the National Catholic Reporter: “Pope Francis’ ambassador to the United States admonished Catholic bishops who claim to adhere to papal authority, while at the same time openly criticizing the current pontiff. ” And again: “Pierre has largely sought to encourage the U.S. hierarchy to embrace Francis’ reforms and his years-long process to reinvigorate the Synod of Bishops. In a remarkable turn of phrase during an address to the U.S. bishops’ June 2023 assembly, Pierre told the prelates that “maybe we are still struggling to understand” the pope’s intentions.”
So Cardinal Christophe Pierre’s criticisms of the U.S. church is all about getting on board with Pope Francis’ agenda of synodality. Booming parishes, many vocations, great acts of mercy? These count for little if they are not at the service of synodality and the pope’s evolving expression of it. And this is the point: Francis is unfolding his view of synodality one step at a time; is it any wonder “we are still struggling to understand the pope’s intentions?” And what does Francis offer the Church as it engages synodal-ly, that is, this experience of listening? All the while the Church hemorrhages in losing people, vocations and influence in society. Consider this: this pope has been hard on the United States but very, very soft on Communist China. How does the pope hope to engender support here in America when standing for such a travesty? How much does China pay the Vatican for its silence? I think the American Church wants to see a brave orthodoxy in the face of a hostile culture; Francis does not appear to have a stomach for the culture wars. If Francis wants the American church in his pocket, he must inspire, inspire, inspire, IMHO.
Francis said himself that he welcomes fair and honest criticism. He’s received plenty of it, just like Popes Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI. Francis has alienated many American Catholics, though, due to his statement that we’re a “reactionary obstacle” to the Church, guilty of stubborn orthodoxy. This statement would be laughable coming from a disbeliever, but from the Pope? Those orthodox Americans that he disdains are the most generous donors to Peter’s Pence ($13 Million in 2022) as well as being the largest financial donors to the Holy See in general. It’s the ingratitude to American Catholics that irks me the most.
He is not talking about the Catholic laity in America.
I heard him say it, so you need to prove that he didn’t.
Red Herring.
Does anyone know how to get the text of what the Cardinal said, not the Jesuits’ America version?
It seems to have been an interview with America magazine. I cannot read the article without hitting the paywall.
Generally speaking, the Vatican understands this country about as well as I understand Botswanaland.
I could read the article now. Thank you if you worked something out so that we did not hit the paywall when we clicked the link.
It is an excellent article and interview with a 77 year old cleric.
” I’ve served four popes, so I’m not just a fan of one pope. All the popes I have served, I’ve served them with the same enthusiasm as I do Francis.”
“We cannot say there are bishops who are on the left and ones that are on the right. This is a false analysis. I say that because I know the bishops. They are all struggling. They are all struggling in their own corner. They are all good people. Their desire is to evangelize.”
He did not say that the bishops were focused on sex.
“The problem is that journalists, even in the States, continue to speak about divergent doctrine, they speak just about homosexuality and the marriage of priests, and so maintain the ambiguity. But this is not what we are talking about. I’ve said that for seven years to the bishops.” He found it hard to believe that even today “somebody could say the synod is a Pandora’s box.”