Cardinal DiNardo, of Galveston-Houston, was born in 1949. He retired and was replaced by his coadjutor, named by Francis, in 2025.
Cardinal Dolan, of New York, was born in 1950. He was replaced by Leo XIV very shortly after turning 75, in 2025.
There is one Cardinal who is older than both of them, and who is still in charge. And not just any cardinal: a horrible administrator, a lousy shepherd, and an ideological nightmare, who, though a native of Nebraska, has been the Archbishop of the pope's own birthplace: Chicago. A formerly exemplary American Catholic town, whose diocese is falling apart.
One would think this useless bishop of nefarious influence would have been retired immediately. But Francis knew his presence irked his imagined "enemies" in America, so he kept him. With Leo XIV, it's different. He knows he's lousy. He is aware. Why has he kept him?... Our contributor Serre Verweij tries to understand it.
***
Why Is Cupich Still in Office?
by Serre Verweij
Arch-modernist Cardinal Cupich remains archbishop of Chicago. Nearly a year after Pope Leo XIV's election, Cupich is still running the city where Leo grew up. Since Cupich recently turned 77, the obvious question arises: why has he not been replaced, given that he is two years past retirement age? Keeping Cupich on past retirement risks reflecting very badly on the new Pope. Cupich keeps causing scandal — and yet stays in office.
Cupich has persecuted traditional Catholics for years, served as a partisan defender of the Democratic Party, and championed the LGBT movement within the Church. Worse still, he attempted last year to give an award to Senator Durbin, a pro-abortion Democrat. Pope Leo's somewhat vague and ambiguous response left more than a few people upset, but behind the scenes his Nuncio made sure Cupich called off the award. At least that marks a change from Francis.
Perhaps Cupich will be replaced very soon. It is possible his intended successor became unavailable. Perhaps Pope Leo wants to ensure that a truly outstanding archbishop takes charge of his hometown. It may simply be that Pope Leo is taking his time, trying to be prudent as is his habit. If Cupich is replaced within roughly the next six months by a solid conservative, all of these concerns will have proven unnecessary. But what if he is not? What if Cupich stays on for a year or more?
If that happens, the obvious question will be why. Progressives will be quick to read it as a sign of favor — proof of friendship and closeness. However, then-Bishop Prevost did not know Cupich before Cupich became Archbishop of Chicago in late 2014. Their interactions were infrequent and appear to have been largely professional in nature. Prevost seems to have cared about who succeeded him in Chicago, tried to stay on good terms, and interacted with him in connection with missionary work in the United States. Prevost managed to get on Cupich's good side — which may have helped his career under Francis — and after becoming Cupich's colleague on the Congregation for Bishops, he followed him on Twitter. Yet inside sources suggest Prevost grew to dislike Cupich's overreach once he became Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops. Apparently Prevost did not appreciate Cupich going over his head to recommend radical progressives as bishops in the U.S. directly to Francis. As soon as he was elected, Pope Leo put an end to that practice. So an extremely close friendship does not appear to have existed, and if it ever did, it was over by the time Prevost became Prefect.
Cupich did support Prevost's candidacy for Pope early on — one of only a handful of progressives to do so. Ironically, his nemesis Cardinal Pierre, who clashed with Cupich even more often than with traditionalists, did as well. Is allowing Cupich to stay on a little longer the one bone Pope Leo is willing to throw him for that support — perhaps because he has no intention of appointing a successor Cupich will like? Much depends, again, on who exactly the next Archbishop of Chicago turns out to be. Appointing a truly orthodox prelate could go a long way toward offsetting whatever scandal Cupich's continued presence causes, though it might not fully cancel it out.
Perhaps this is less a favor to Cupich than part of a deliberate strategy for reshaping the American episcopal landscape. If Pope Leo does not replace Cupich — and later Tobin and McElroy — with archbishops who are at least center to center-left, then the small but high-profile partisan left wing of the hierarchy will likely age out on its own in about five years, given that Tobin and McElroy are also approaching retirement. Replacing Cupich might be the first move in that broader transition — one that could tip Pope Leo's hand while simultaneously shifting the ideological balance in the U.S. episcopate. He may simply be waiting for the right moment.
Cupich's continued tenure also raises questions about why conservative Cardinal Dolan was retired more quickly. A handful of fringe progressives tried to spin Dolan's retirement — accepted at age 75 and nine months — as evidence of papal bias, but that narrative has gone nowhere. Dolan's retirement had actually been under consideration even under Francis, but Dolan appears to have been content to step down once he could finalize a settlement for abuse victims. Pope Leo replaced him right after that was resolved. Unlike Cupich, Dolan does not appear to have had any desire to stay on longer. More importantly, his replacement — Archbishop Hicks — was not a radical departure at all. Though Hicks had served as an auxiliary under Cupich for a couple of years, like several of Cupich's other auxiliaries (Grob, Casey), he was considerably more orthodox. As Bishop of Joliet he ignored Traditionis Custodes and even actively supported the Tridentine Mass; he was strongly pro-life; he was among the group of conservative bishops who published strict guidelines on transgender issues in line with Church doctrine; and he backed orthodox ministries such as Courage International for homosexual pastoral care rather than James Martin's dissident organization. He was not a progressive heir to Dolan, and New York was not handed a radical makeover.
Another factor that may be contributing to the delay with Cupich is the sheer number of prelates past retirement age and the resulting backlog of appointments. Several archdioceses are currently in need of new leadership. Still, the question remains: why does replacing Cupich not appear to be a priority? The fact that Cupich is the oldest active cardinal in the United States simply looks bad, and one can only hope Pope Leo addresses it soon — especially since, while Cupich has toned down some of his more outrageous behavior and adopted a somewhat more critical stance toward abortion under Leo, he still regularly stirs up trouble. That includes retaliating against those who opposed his plan to honor Durbin, and threatening to frame opposition to the war with Iran as a partisan political fight against Trump.
Replacing Cupich before the midterm elections could also help puncture the manufactured narrative that Pope Leo is trying to give Democrats a boost. It would likewise reassure Catholics who fear that the scandals that became routine under Francis will simply continue under new management.
In the end, while prudence and patience are genuine virtues, many orthodox Catholics will keep asking why Pope Leo has not moved against a prelate who has done so much damage. If Pope Leo waits too long, he risks squandering the goodwill and trust he has built.
