On Oct. 22, a group of 12 U.S. Catholic bishops who had been meeting with the White House Faith Office were ushered into the Oval Office, where they briefly met and prayed with President Donald J. Trump. Most of what followed—the video being posted by a White House staffer, the storm of online criticism and countercriticism, and a White House spokesperson boasting “there has never been a greater president for Catholic Americans”—was entirely predictable.
It could have been scripted, given that the blessing took place less than two weeks before a highly polarized midterm election: a cycle of justifiable anger overlapping with partisan outrage, responded to with both defensive and combative explanations. Both because it was predictable and because most of it was designed to appeal to those who were already ideologically aligned with the various players, it also did not do much, I would argue, to change anyone’s mind about Mr. Trump or the candidates he endorses.
Rather, those who already supported him likely felt affirmed, while those who opposed him were given a reason to be scandalized by the appearance of bishops endorsing him. (Given the recent polls showing a significant drop in approval for Mr. Trump among Catholics, publicizing the moment likely adds up to a tactical error for the White House, as the negative reaction has been more pronounced, unless they were primarily aiming to shore up support among those Catholics still firmly in Mr. Trump’s base.)
Archbishop James Golka of Denver, who led the prayer, defended his participation in both the meeting and the prayer, but he expressed regret “that there are people intentionally using this moment to sow disunity” and said Christians are “called to look beyond the headlines, which are often crafted to provoke.”
This reminded me of a moment in 2020, when Cardinal Timothy Dolan participated in a call about Catholic education with Mr. Trump and then praised him shortly thereafter in a TV interview. After the predictable negative reactions began, he responded that engaging with political leaders “risk[s] criticism on both sides.” At the time, I wrote that while the cardinal’s commitment to engagement and dialogue was important, he made the pastoral error of responding as if people had criticized him simply for engaging a political leader they disliked, rather than understanding that they were hurt and frustrated by his apparent willingness to praise that leader in order to get on his good side. Very few Catholics, after all, are opposed to their bishops speaking respectfully with political leaders; many are rightly offended, however, by their bishops allowing themselves to be manipulated into appearing to endorse those politicians.
What was less predictable this time, and more hopeful, was that some of the bishops who were involved in the White House meeting responded with full and forthright apologies.
Bishop William Joensen of Des Moines acknowledged that “there are many things tied to this present administration that are blatantly at odds with our Catholic faith” and said that he wished he “had been more shrewd and less simple, like those who exploited our meeting for partisan political purposes.” Archbishop Jeffrey Grob of Milwaukee posted a lengthy statement headlined “A Public Apology,” in which he explained that the video of the prayer had been publicized without the bishops’ consent and concluded, “Please know that I have heard these concerns, understand how I caused them, and I apologize for any damage my actions have done.”
I wrote in the October issue of America about the U.S. bishops finding their voice and speaking out in a new and forceful way, especially in response to the mass deportation policies of the administration and in opposition to the Iran war. I argued that there was a new pattern of bishops being willing to claim the megaphone to make sure the church’s teaching is heard clearly, and to push back strongly against attempts to minimize or dismiss the church’s moral voice.
These apologies are a different kind of example of pushing back—in this case, against an attempt to misuse the church and its leaders for partisan advantage. Even more importantly, they are an example of church teachers listening to their flock and responding quickly, clearly and with humility to the real hurt that they have caused by allowing themselves to be put in a position where they could be misused.
Both Bishop Joensen and Archbishop Grob acknowledged that they wished they had made better judgments. Indeed, prudence about the possibility of manipulation should be part of any bishop’s efforts to engage in dialogue with political leaders. But we should not dwell only on what, in hindsight, clearly went wrong. We should spend as much or more attention on the freedom some bishops have shown in naming their failure and resolving to learn from it.
We should also pray that more political leaders might learn the same lesson and embrace the same freedom.
Politics
Faith
Culture
Vatican
Scripture
Podcasts