by Serre Verweij
The USCCB has elected its new leaders. A new president, vice-president, secretary and committee heads. There have been spins and interpretations on both sides, as usual, with the typical questions of what it says or does not say about President Trump and whether the elections reflect any influence of Pope Leo XIV.
It might be best to take inspiration from the Pope to reject fake news, search for the truth, and approach the recent developments through a mathematical lens.
Archbishop Coakley was elected on the third ballot, just as Broglio was in 2022. Coakley won against bishop Flores in the final round with 128 votes to 109. This shows that the hardline conservatives managed to retain their majority till the end of Francis’ pontificate.
The hardliners are generally culture warriors. Willing to strongly condemn the Democratic Party on matters such as abortion, or support for gay marriage and transgenderism, specifically treating abortion as a pre-eminent priority. Furthermore, they were the most inclined to outright dislike documents such as Amoris Laetitia, which threatened to muddle traditional moral doctrine.
Flores was instantly elected vice-president on the first ballot after failing to become president. Some are worried that as Flores will be young enough to run to become USCCB president in 2028, he’s likely to win next time with the norm being that eligible vice-presidents are elected. If these fears prove correct, this could see the USCCB eventually moving away from its recent hardline stance.
Flores, however, is no liberal. Many find him hard to pin down, but centre-right might be the best label over all. He kept TLM masses in parishes even after Traditionis Custodes, has never supported radical LGBT ministries or communion for the divorced remarried based on Amoris Laetitia, was trusted years earlier by conservatives, to head the commission of doctrine, provided instructions against trans surgeries in that role and has been consistently strongly anti-abortion and a supporter of Eucharistic coherence.
Yet, the fact that Coakley defeated his moderate conservative opponent, while Archbishop Broglio won with 138 votes against 99 in 2022, suggests that conservatives lost 10 votes in the last 3 years, while moderates gained 10. The removal of Strickland and the retirement of a few prominent orthodox prelates in the last few years are likely a key factor. The future of the American episcopacy hangs in the balance.
Though, in the end, Conservatives secured power overall once again. Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, a strong voice of orthodoxy was elected the new secretary of the conference. Archbishop Alexander became chairman of the religious liberty committee and Archbishop Jeffrey Grob, the recently appointed archbishop of Milwaukee who allows the TLM, was elected to head the Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance.
In comparison, the now infamous Archbishop Weisenburger of Detroit, the candidate for the far left, won only 14 votes on the first ballot and less in subsequent rounds.
Similarly, even when he tried to become Justice and Peace chairman he lost to Archbishop Gudziak with a 154-68 vote, the biggest loss margin of any of the committee elections. As such, radical and moderate liberals together only make up 68 bishops, assuming absolutely no moderates whatsoever voted for Weisenburger (which seems unlikely).
Whether the hardline block will shrink and lose its dominance to the moderates, or whether they will remain in charge, will in big part depend on the appointment of fresh American bishops in the coming years under Leo. The Pope’s appointment pattern in the coming years will tell us a lot about his vision for the US church.
The narrative shift on the left
Archbishop Coakley’s candidacy was opposed by the left before the election. They constantly tried to use the fact against him that he had vouched for retired nuncio Archbishop Vigano’s credibility in 2018, after Vigano had accused Francis and certain ultra-liberal prelates of having enabled, and sometimes covered up, abuse by McCarrick. Vigano later went on to say increasingly radical and controversial things. This was spun by liberals as a vindication of their defense of Francis and how he handled the McCarrick case.
Even in 2025, Coakley’s vouching for Vigano and unwillingness to be a Francis yes-man caused progressives to frame him as an enemy of Francis and a radical who should not be elected. Yet, now that Coakley won anyways, left ‘Catholic’ media are boasting about how he opposes (some of) Trump’s migration policies and how the USCCB came out with a near unanimous declaration on the matter. There was an attempted narrative that this showed the influence of Pope Leo who’d want the bishops to speak out against Trump, and that Pope Leo is hereby continuing the progressive course of Pope Francis.
The near unanimity of the statement and the fact that it was made with Coakley elected completely demolished the Manichean anti-American and anti-conservative narrative which was peddled under Francis, where mean conservative bishops in the US, who were critical of Francis and supportive of the TLM, were supposedly the same as MAGA and in the pockets of organizations linked to the GOP. US bishops have (unfortunately) taken the more leftist position on migration for decades, already in the days of Benedict XVI and John Paul II. This was not enough for the progressive pro-Francis club.
They wanted migration, the environment and semi-socialist economics to be the pre-eminent issues, while abortion and defense of the natural family were to be relegated to the background. The divorced and remarried get communion, traditionalists have their TLM taken or exiled to tiny reservoirs and if doctrine on homosexuality is not changed it’s at least de facto watered down.
This agenda was clearly rejected at the USCCB once again. Francis as the ultimate Pope, the game changer, has not taken hold. The same pro-life, pro-family, synod sceptic and TLM-friendly leaning yet pro-migrant and pro-welfare state leadership has been re-elected, only now it’s framed as in line with the Pope.
And on the issue of Trump, it means very little. It means the USCCB is inclined to take the same stances on social issues it, and the Vatican, have taken for decades without aligning themselves firmly with either party. That it takes a pro-migrant stance while prioritizing abortion. Same old as always.
A very important sign came shortly after the USCCB election, when Pope Leo was asked about the statement of the conference on migration. He praised it without taking credit for it and crucially, gave a very moderate and almost semi-conservative interpretation to it. In what may be the most right-wing statement on migration since at least the resignation of Pope Benedict, Pope Leo XIV stated:
“No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter.”
It was only with illegals who had been in the country for ten or more years without causing problems, that he had an issue with them being treated disrespectfully and sometimes with violence. He did not condemn mass deportations themselves as evil and noted that the USA had a justice system that could deal with illegal residents.
When speaking to Catholic youth during the digital encounter Pope Leo rejected the partisan frame pushed by figures such as Democrat activist Christopher Hale and his controversial LettersforLeo project, specifically telling the youth that:
"Please be careful not to use political categories to speak about faith, to speak about the Church."
“The Church doesn't belong to any political party," he said. "Rather, she helps form your conscience … so you can think and act with wisdom and love."
A little background: Vatican and USCCB diplomacy
When Pope Leo was interviewed by CruxNow, he was asked about what difference it might make that he is the first Pope from the USA. His response will likely prove very important for his future interactions with the USCCB.
“First of all, I hope that it will make a difference eventually with the bishops in the United States. Without going into recent history and reasons which I don’t even pretend to understand fully, of some of the things that have been said about the episcopacy in the United States and the relationship between church and politics. The fact that I am American means, among other things, people can’t say, like they did about Francis, ‘he doesn’t understand the United States, he just doesn’t see what’s going on’. I think that’s significant in this case.”
Soon after the interview was made public, the American bishops met with Pope Leo and outgoing conservative president Archbishop Broglio said that Pope Leo understands the Church in the USA.
Pope Leo’s words appears to be a polite and political message that translates to: I am not taking sides in the conflict between my predecessor (Pope Francis) and the USCCB leadership, but you won’t be able to justify similar resistance to me.
After this, at the USCCB meeting Broglio emphasized Pope Leo’s message of unity, supporting one of the conservative themes of Pope Leo’s papacy, the theme touted by the conservative cardinal block at the last conclave. Do Broglio and now Coackley represent Pope Leo in the USA. Will he appoint more bishops like them?
Cardinal Pierre’s speech: The past, or a horrid future?
One figure who will be crucial to future US episcopal appointments is the apostolic nuncio for the USA. The current nuncio Cardinal Pierre, is nearly 80 and has already served for nearly 10 years (twice the length of a normal full term) meaning a successor will have to be appointed very soon. Pope Leo will have no choice but to tip his hand both regarding how he’ll deal with USCCB and with President Trump when he appoints a new nuncio.
This will also help to answer the question, how fully Cardinal Pierre speaks for the current Pope. In his address to the USCCB, Pierre came with the same typical focus on Vatican II and synodality as further building on Vatican II. He mentioned Francis nearly ten times, even though he has left this Earth and generally touted somewhat outdated talking points.
Did Pierre speak or Pope Leo XIV when he did so, or did he interpret the new Pope? Pierre spent nearly ten years trying to interpret and represent Francis towards an episcopate that was lukewarm at best regarding the Argentinian pontiff and who were disliked by Francis in turn. He tried all that time to square circles and downplay or deny tensions. In many ways he was more conservative than Francis (even though he was eventually made to pressure bishops to enforce Traditionis Custodes) and he tried to counter lobbying by radicals such as Cupich, who were often more the true representatives of Francis in the USA.
Yet, now he was emphasizing Leo as firmly in continuity with Francis, and the two Popes as an important development of Vatican II, seemingly marginalizing John Paul II and Benedict XVI. This is especially ironic as he started as a nuncio under John Paul II, served him and Benedict XVI faithfully and defended their orthodox defense of the faith.
For a long time he served as a semi-conservative popesplainer who tried to preserve continuity between Francis and the previous Popes. Now, he is suddenly emphasizing Leo as in continuity with Francis while giving significantly less attention to what came before.
Is he popesplaining in a different direction? Is he more liberal than Pope Leo the way he was more conservative than Pope Francis? Or did his address perfectly reflect the new Pope. Did he perfectly understand Leo after six months or is he pushing the understanding of Francis he pushed for nine years? Again, Pope Leo’s choice for a successor will likely tell all.
The recent elections mean that the conservative USCCB status quo is alive and well. Whether Pope Leo now suppresses it or will let it flourish will be indicative for the future of the Church for the next ten, if not twenty or more, years,
