The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has reportedly selected its four delegates to the October 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family.According to Crux, Father Thomas Reese …
According to Crux, Father Thomas Reese said that the bishops selected
Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston,
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia,
Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, and
Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville as their delegates,
with Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago and
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco selected as alternates.
Vatican confirmation is required for the synod delegates.
Archbishop Kurtz stated in an EWTN interview this week:
“If you hear rumors that someone’s a delegate, ask them ‘has this person been appointed by the Pope?’ because that’s really the litmus test.”
starting at 15.50
But there are some good names there; I wonder when we’ll know the final selection?
If this is true, this is fantastic
Not living in US, I am interested where the archbishops might stand on the issues raised by the synod.
I aware that Caput is considered conservative and the new Archbishop of Chicago not. Can anyone help me with understanding where the rest are coming from?
I am personally happy about it because IMO they tend towards the conservative side more than I was expecting.
It’s all a matter of perspective of course, but in my personal opinion Archbp Kurtz, Card DiNardo, and Archbp Gomez I’d say are generally considered somewhat conservative. Archbp Chaput and Archbp Cordileone (head of the USCCB defense of marriage committee) I’d say are generally considered strong conservatives.
Archbp Cupich is the only one that I think would generally be considered progressive.
(No one beat me up if you have different takes on them, this is just IMO ;))
I’m not sure what ‘somewhat’ conservative means. They are all Catholic, but ‘conservative’? For example, archbishop Gomez is strongly pro immigration reform which a lot of American conservatives would be against. Frankly, I don’t think terms like ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ fit well with Catholicism.
“Somewhat conservative” means leaning to the conservative side without being strongly conservative :shrug:
I hear what you’re saying, the terms are not ideal because there’s crossover, but if someone asked you the difference between Hans Kung and Bp Fellay, and you said “they’re both Catholic”, that wouldn’t exactly convey the intended information.
Youre right that the Catholic meaning of conservative and progressive is different than the American political meaning (like you say a conservative Bishop is pro-imigration, a liberal Bishop is pro-life etc) so it doesn’t translate over well, but if we’re only talking about within the Catholic context, I think these words are generally useful.
McCall1981, thank you so much for clarifying this for me.
I am definitely encouraged by your report and think that whilst the conservative’liberal labels can be problematic, they may be necessary as a shorthand at least.
So thank you very much - and if anyone else has thoughts about these prelates, I would be most grateful to hear them.