sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bernard Francis Law, Daniel DiNardo, Dicastery, Donald Wuerl, James Michael Harvey, James Stafford

DOI 10.1515/for-2014-0011 The Forum 2014; 11(4): 603–621

Sean M. Theriault* The American Church as a Political Institution

Abstract: In this article, I place the American into a broader his- torical and global perspective, giving context to both the world in which it oper- ates and the decisions it makes. I argue that several of the decisions that were made by the earliest Church leaders continue to reverberate today. Furthermore, the circumstances under which Catholicism made its way to the New World not only gives meaning to its past path, but provides clues about its future direction. These historical and geopolitical angles must be assessed when evaluating Francis’s challenge to the Vatican, the American Church, and Catholicism around the globe.

*Corresponding author: Sean M. Theriault, University of , Austin, TX, USA, e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

As traveled the literal and figurative road to his passion, death, and res- urrection in Jerusalem, the authorities tried on numerous occasions to trip him up. On one noted attempt, they asked him: “Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” (Matthew 22:17).1 Jesus, after chastising them for trying to trap him, responds: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21).2 The questioners were hoping to elicit an answer from Jesus that would either run him afoul of the civil authorities or have him slight his own Father. Jesus, in doing neither, proffers an early rationale that would ultimately safeguard religious expression from the authority of the state. While most thinkers toil over Jesus’ meaning in the division between political and religious authorities, I think his brilliant political response underlies an even more interesting dynamic about the internal politics of religious institutions. Jesus, of course, could speak with the authority that his divine birthright and own crucifixion and resurrection fulfilled. When he walked the earth, he was both the body and the institutions of the church. But upon his ascension into heaven, he

1 Similar passages also exist in the other two synoptic gospels. 2 Again, similar passages can be found in Mark and Luke. 604 Sean M. Theriault left behind a human – Peter – on whom he aimed to build his church. Since that , human beings, with all their foibles and intricacies, and only occasionally with the help of the Holy Spirit, have had to manage a Godly institu- tion while only possessing human abilities. In this essay, I examine the Catholic Church as a political institution. While my main purpose is to probe the political nature of the American Catholic Church, a historical and global perspective is a prerequisite. As such, the development of my understanding of the institutional Catholic Church is accomplished in a number of steps. First, I recount some early political decisions that had a conse- quence on the present shape of the Church. Second, I briefly describe the Ameri- can origins and development of the Catholic Church. Third, I outline the current structure of this Church as a political institution. Finally, I speculate about the future of the institution under the Papacy of Francis. Before continuing with my essay, it is necessary to offer a brief but important caveat. I am not a religious scholar, nor even a religious historian. I am a politi- cal scientist whose primary research focus is the US Congress. Like the House and Senate, the Vatican makes decisions that follow, more or less, a particular process. I find myself trying to understand how individuals within institutions come to make decisions that shape their organizations. The only private knowl- edge that I bring to this essay’s particular topic comes from my infant and lifelong dedication to the Church. While I am a practicing Catholic, who can count missing my Sunday obliga- tion on one hand, I am not an uncritical observer of my church.3 I have taught an undergraduate course on “The Politics of the Catholic Church” five times, so I have done a fair amount of thinking and reading on the subject. My students would probably say that I lean too heavily toward being an apologist for the Church. I would say that I am assuming the role of the devil’s advocate in a class- room where church skepticism is pervasive.4

3 My partner can vouch for me on both accounts. He is a Buddhist but has been dragged to masses all over the globe: France, Aruba, Thailand, Colombia, and Vietnam to name just a few. The “Sunday obligation,” incidentally, has resulted in some of our most interesting travel experi- ences. 4 “Devil’s advocate” is an interesting , is it not? It, of course, has its origins in the Catholic Church. In the deliberations of making someone a , the church, beginning with Sixtus V in 1587, always appointed a “devil’s advocate” who would view the person skeptically in order to save the church any future embarrassment. Sixtus’s 5-year reign was one of the most important in the institutional life of the church. In addition to limiting the size of the , Sixtus doubled the existing church bureaucracy and gave its more control over the daily operations of the church. Incidentally, the position of a “devil’s advocate” existed until Pope Paul II abolished it in 1983. The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 605

Early Origins of Political Decisions

As with any institution, the earliest decisions are often the most crucial. Choos- ing option A over option B has consequences not only at the time that decision is made, but also for future decisions that become contingent upon the initial decision. A proper understanding of the institutional Church today requires an appreciation for two crucial events in the first 400 years of the Church’s life: the promotion of Matthias and the vision at the Milvian Bridge.

The Promotion of Matthias

The first reading assignment I give my students in the course on the Politics of the Catholic Church is the Acts of the Apostles. I have them read Acts not for its religious content, but for its political content. I believe the most important action in Acts is when the apostles replace Judas, who reputedly used the money he had been given to betray Jesus to buy a field in which “he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out” (Acts 1:18). Peter, who was fulfilling the great commission Jesus bestowed on him, legitimized the replacement of Judas through Psalms, which instructed, “Let another take his office” (Psalm 109:8). From among the 120 followers who had been a witness to Jesus’ resurrection, the 11 remaining apostles nominated (sometimes called Barsabbas) and Mat- thias. After the nominations were announced, all 120 prayed and asked for the Lord’s guidance. In “casting lots,” Matthias was chosen.5 The naming of a replacement was critically important for church develop- ment for two reasons. First, the replacement signaled that the Church would be an organic institution that aimed to perpetuate itself. By naming another to fill Judas’ spot, the apostles implicitly decided that the continuation of the church was more important than maintaining the integrity of having only Jesus make promotions among his followers. Second, the apostles fortified the structure of the church. Upon Judas’s betrayal, they could have decided to consolidate their

5 Casting lots, of course, is nothing more than permitting random chance to determine the “­winner.” The process of being chosen “,” which is the equivalent of Matthias’s elevation­ to being an apostle, has changed many times throughout history. In the early church, ­ were chosen from local with the consent of neighboring bishops. The First Council of ­Nicaea (325 AD) centralized that power in the . Over time, political authorities­ reserved the right to name bishops. In 1917, the Code of Law gave that right exclusively to the Pope. In modern times, the naming of bishops has created tension between China, which from time to time names its own bishops, and the Pope. Few other civil governments, even those of overwhelmingly Catholic populations, weigh in on the decisions today. 606 Sean M. Theriault power and split it among the 11 remaining apostles, rather than promote a new apostle whose very presence would dilute their power. Again, the structure of the church trumped integrity; continuation won out over being called directly by Jesus. Jesus’ 3-year public ministry was roughly contained in the 100 miles from the Sea of Galilee to Jerusalem and the 50 miles from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.6 The apostles ventured far outside this area. Based on tradition, the apostles dispersed after Jesus’ ascension to spread the Good News. Thomas, for example, went to India, Jude to Armenia, James to Spain, and Peter, of course, to . This early decision meant that the Church was interested in both structure and growth, which are two characteristics that equally describe the Church 2000 years later. The combination of these two interests precipitated an addi- tional important decision: to permit local variation. It was this latter decision that brought about the first great debate in the Church. As Paul took Jesus’ message to the Gentiles, he preached through Jesus’ death and resur- rection. Belief in Him, according to Paul, was crucial; circumcision was not. Some of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church believed that Paul’s recent converts could not be true believers because they had not first become Jewish. The two sides eventually presented their case at the first great council of the Church – the Council at Jerusalem. Resting his argument upon a message he received in a dream, Peter welcomed the Gentiles without any intervening steps into the Church. The interplay among the doctrinaire leaders in Jerusalem, Peter, and Paul underscores the three competing ideologies that the Church has wrestled with for two millennia. The first is an institution with heavy reliance upon rules and regulations. When the Church hands down dictates to be followed by members in good standing, this ideology is being articulated. In the second, as typified in his role as the most prominent, most charismatic, and closest friend to Jesus, Peter offers a human face and a compassionate side to Jesus. When the Church is concerned for “the least of these,” Peter’s views are being made manifest. Paul, who never met Jesus, presents the final ideology, which is that of Jesus as savior. When the Church emphasizes Jesus’ God qualities, the Jesus presentation by Paul is being expressed. Throughout time and in any given time, these ideologies of Jesus’ Church compete. The balance that is required among the three helps explain the development, the institutionalization, and the decision-making pro- cesses in the Church – even today.

6 The following website nicely describes the geography of his ministry: http://www.ccel.org/ bible/phillips/CN160-TRAVELS.htm; accessed on November 22, 2013. The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 607

The Vision at the Milvian Bridge

Apart from Jesus, no historical figure is more important for understanding the political role of the Church today than Constantine. As he was waging war to con- solidate his power in the Roman Empire, he received a vision at the Milvian Bridge that he would conquer in the sign of Christ. Afterward, he had his mostly pagan soldiers place Christ’s monogram on their shields. He won the battle at the bridge and, eventually, the war. In 313, he, along with the ruler of the Balkans, Licinius, issued the Edict of Milan, which not only ended the persecution of the Chris- tians, but also for the first time put the state on the side of the Christians. Many of the most important churches throughout southern Europe and the Middle East, including St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, can trace their foundations to Constantine. During Constantine’s lifetime, the Church went from being persecuted to becoming the religion of the state. Imagine how the Church’s relationship with its society changed in a relatively short period of time. to Constan- tine, converts were risking their livelihoods, their familial relationships, and even their very lives. When Constantine put the of the state on it, the Church went from being a band of social outcasts who would meet in the shadows of society to a major political player that had the coercive power of the state behind it. A proper understanding of this transformation is necessary for appreciating the , the , and, eventually, the reforma- tion. Furthermore, Constantine’s decision makes Jesus’ answer to the question about paying taxes more relevant to the 4th-century Christians than to Jesus’ earlier followers when the church was severely – often deathly – separated from the state.

American Origins and Mainstreaming

Understanding the early development of the institutional Church and its attach- ments to political power underscores its history in Europe for the next 1000 years. A religion without the authority of the state behind it could have carried out neither the crusades nor the . It could not have fostered the environ- ment that led to the and the enlightenment. The role of the Church during the Dark and Middle Ages could not be understood without an apprecia- tion for the first 350 years of Church history. To move our story of the political nature of the church along, however, I shall fast forward to its origins in the New World. 608 Sean M. Theriault

The American Founding

The same history that explains the crusades, inquisition, reformation, and enlightenment helps explain the European migration to and the early establishment of self-rule in the colonies. Indeed, the very inception of this country has the Church at its roots. An American founding mythology has devel- oped that those who were religiously persecuted in Europe aimed to establish a government where religious tolerance could flourish in the New World. The reality is quite the opposite. The Pilgrims aimed to replace the religious perse- cution they suffered in Europe with a society and government structure that implemented their own particular government based on their own religious will (Morone 2004). As early as the mid-17th century, and despite no evidence of any Catholics even living in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Puritans passed a law that threatened death to “all and every Jesuit, priest, missionary, or other spiritual or ecclesiastical person made or ordained by any authority, power or jurisdiction, derived, challenged, or pretended from the Pope or See of Rome” (Ray 1936, p. 27). While the colonies that followed Massachusetts Bay varied in their tolerance of religious minorities, they were united in their intolerance toward the Church. Because the anti-Catholic Puritans dominated the New England states and the broken-away Catholic Anglican Church dominated the southern states, Catholics had little refuge in the New World. Most of New England and the Carolinas forbade Catholics from holding office. Catholic schools were banned in all but . And only three of the colonies even permitted Catholics to vote.7 , of course, was established in 1632 as a haven for Catholics by Lord , who himself was Catholic. This early Catholic tie would eventually lead to the establishment of Baltimore as the first center of the American Catholic Church, as indicated by it becoming the seat of the first in the in 1789; within 20 years it became an archdiocese. But before Catholics could celebrate the history of their faith in the New World, they had to endure ­persecution in Mary­land that rivaled the harshest in North America. Within 20 years of the Maryland charter being granted, the Catholics lost firm control

7 This brief history, of course, ignores the important role that Catholicism played in the upper ­Midwest, , Texas, and California, in all of which Catholics had a prominent role. In fact, the language spoken by the first Catholics in the land what would become the United States was ­Spanish. The names of large cities throughout the West – Los Angeles, , and San ­Antonio to name a few – honors that history. The Catholic Church started as a Spanish-speaking institution in the United States. The influx of Hispanics into the United States invigorates that history today. The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 609 on the colony’s politics. By the end of the century, Catholics were restricted from public worship and forbidden from holding office or even voting.8 By the time of the Revolutionary War and the ratification of the Constitution, anti-Catholic fervor had tempered. In fact, one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence (Charles Carroll) and two of the 39 signers of the Constitution (Thomas Fitzsimons and Daniel Carroll) were Catholic. These percentages were similar to the population percentages. Then and as late as the mid 1800s, the Catholic population had not reached even 5%. The proportion of Catholics in the United States began to grow with an influx of immigrants, first from Ireland and later from southern and eastern Europe. These new immigrants brought their faith with them to their new country. In spite of their growing numbers, Catholics kept to themselves because of the discrimination they faced since they first showed up in North America. Crews (2004) paints a picture of Catholics at the turn of the 20th century as being highly devotional, morally rigid, intellectual but ambivalent, institution building, and insular. Given such a meager picture, how is that the Catholic Church came to be one of the most important political organizations in the United States within a century? I argue that this transformation happened largely because of three big issues: immigration, healthcare, and education.

Immigration

In 1790, roughly two-thirds of the US population was British and, as such, not Catholic. The other one-third, made up mostly of either African or northern Euro- pean descent, was also non-Catholic. By most estimates, Catholic accounted for about 1% of the American population at the turn of the 18th century. After that, for reasons quite unrelated to their Catholic faith, immigration from Catholic countries began to increase rapidly. The Irish potato famine and the promise of a new start brought thousands of Irish and southern European immigrants to the United States in the 19th century. At the end of that century, a wave of newcomers from Central Europe reinforced the Catholic flavor of immigration. Unlike other European immigrants, the ones from Catholic countries were in general neither highly educated nor in possession of prized skills. Upon reaching the American shore, they hoped only for wage that would come from back-breaking labor. Even though the Constitution put the final nail in the coffin of de jure ­discrimination against Catholics in the United States, de facto discrimination

8 For more on colonial anti-Catholicism, see http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_001_ Colonies.html; accessed on November 23, 2013. 610 Sean M. Theriault continued. Nativism and the Know-Nothing Party had anti-immigration policies and anti-Catholicism at their very core. In 1856, former president Millard Fillmore headed a Know-Nothing Party that had in its platform severe limits on immigra- tion, especially from Catholic countries; restricting the holding of public office to those who were native-born of English or Scottish lineage; a mandate that public school teaching positions be given only to Protestants; and a manda- tory waiting period of 21 years before immigrants were naturalized. Fillmore won 21.5% of the vote nationwide, including a plurality of the vote in, ironically, Mary- land. While the existing laws may have been hospitable to Catholics, the fabric of the power structures in society was not. In time, the increasing immigration rate, blue-collar jobs, and the industrial­ revolution went hand in hand in hand to propel Catholics into America’s emerging middle class. The tremendous population and economic growth in the United States, along with poor conditions in the factories, created an envi- ronment ripe for labor unions, which fought for the workers’ share of economic prosperity. Since labor unions defended the rights of the workers, their agenda was closely linked to the agenda of Catholics who were coming in droves to America. The strong ties among labor unions, immigration, and the Catholic Church continue to exist today. While the early history of American Catho- lics predisposes the Church to be sympathetic to the undocumented, the 21st century immigration experience further binds the Church to the issue. Most of the undocumented residents in the United States today come from the strongly Catholic American countries. These new immigrants continue to enliven and embolden the Catholic Church, just as they had in the 19th century.

Healthcare

Since the Apostles walked the earth, the Catholic Church has had a strong health- care mission, which the new Catholic settlers in the New World carried with them. In 1727, John Louis established the first Catholic hospital in the United States, when he provided a bequest for the building of what would become known as Charity Hospital in New Orleans (Niebuhr 1994). While it ravaged the United States, the Civil War created the conditions that helped weave Catholics into the emerging American fabric. By making manifest the Church’s strong commitment to healthcare, Catholic from 12 differ- ent orders catered to the sick and dying on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Approximately 100 nuns serviced the Confederate wounded, and five times as many catered to the wounds of those from the North (Maher 1989). Furthermore, as the war dead remained where they had fallen, the Catholic nuns, primarily The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 611 the Sisters of St. Joseph and the Sisters of Providence, honored their sacrifice by giving them a proper battlefield burial. Through these acts of kindness and mercy, the Catholic nuns presented a compassionate picture of Catholicism that helped to soften the anti-Papist picture that had come to the non-Catholic view of the Church. After the war, the link between healthcare and the nuns became even more pronounced. In the years immediately following the war, the Sisters of Saint Francis established among the earliest general hospitals in the United States. Unsurprisingly, to anyone who has entered a classroom taught by a , they were also among the first healthcare providers to mandate cleanliness as a pro- tection from the spread of disease. As early as 1919, the American bishops called for universal healthcare coverage for all residents in the United States. The strong healthcare mission of the Catholic Church persists today. The Catholic Church is responsible “for more than 600 hospitals and 1400 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states.”9 According to Morrissey (2012), the Church operates nearly 13% of hospitals that account for nearly 16% of all hospital admissions. These data make it far and away the largest private health- care provider in the United States.

Education

Because of the discrimination they faced in pre-Revolutionary times, Catholics bore the responsibility of providing an education, informal as it may have been, to their children in many different parts of the colonies. It was not until 1782 that the first , St. Mary’s School in Philadelphia, was established, but numerous others quickly opened in its wake. Within 10 years, the first Ameri- can bishop, John Carroll ( to Constitution signer Daniel and first cousin to Declaration signer Charles), established the first American Catholic institution of higher education, Georgetown College in Washington, D.C. The hostility of the nativists thus had the perverse result of spreading the reach of the Church through its educational institutions, which flourished. Wher- ever the population was great enough, a neighborhood would have a Catholic church and a Catholic school to provide social services in an environment free from de jure discrimination. With such institutions providing spiritual and edu- cational nourishment to young Catholics, and because of the pervasiveness of discrimination outside these Catholic institutions, it is easy to imagine why

9 These data are from the Catholic Health Association (http://www.chausa.org/about/about; accessed on December 12, 2013). 612 Sean M. Theriault

Catholics between the Civil War and World War I were insulated and isolated from the larger American society. At the peak of Catholic education in the 1960s, nearly half of all Catholics (including the author of this article a decade and a half later) were educated in more than 12,000 elementary Catholic schools throughout the nation. Today, the Catholic Church runs 5472 elementary schools, 1213 secondary schools, and more than 200 colleges and universities.10 The Catholic Church, because of the strong force of immigration, its long- standing healthcare mission, and the hostility it faced in society, has been and remains strongly committed to ensuring workplace fairness, providing health- care, and educating the masses. While the cultural issues of gay marriage, abor- tion, and contraception may get the headlines, the issues of workplace fairness, healthcare, and education are much more closely and deeply connected to the history and the work of the Church even today. When Al Smith became the first Catholic to be nominated for president by a major political party in 1928, Catholics were just beginning to exercise their politi- cal muscle. Between 1900 and World War II, Catholics accounted for 15–20% of the American public. After the war, the Catholic percentage increased by about 5%, where it remains today. When John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic president – a feat that has not yet seen a second – Catholics comprised 19% of the Congress, approximately equal to the Catholic percentage in the population. Today, Catholics are slightly overrepresented in Congress. Usually about 30% of the members profess a Catholic faith, while slightly less than a quarter of the American population does likewise. Catholics have famously become the swing voters in presidential elections. While the Democrats enjoyed as much as a 30-point advantage among Catho- lic voters in the 1960s, the Catholic vote since the 1980 election has always been within five percentage points of the nationwide vote, even in 2004 when attempted to become the second Catholic president. As it turns out, Catholicism is felt even more on the third branch of our government. Catho- lics comprise a majority on the US Supreme Court, and a Catholic, Kennedy, frequently provides the crucial swing vote on the court’s most impor- tant cases. In the section that follows, I describe the nuts and bolts of the Cath- olic Church structure in the United States and the role that the Church plays in our politics.

10 The data for elementary and secondary schools is for the 2012–2013 school year (http://www. ncea.org/data-information/catholic-school-data; accessed on December 12, 2013). The data for institutions of higher education come from the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (http://www.accunet.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3789; accessed on December 12, 2013). The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 613

The American Catholic Church as a Political System

Twenty-four percent of Americans self-profess their Catholicism. While American- born citizens have disaffiliated from the Church, the influx of new immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries more than makes up for that deficit. While His- panics only account for 16% of the population in the United States, they account for 40% of the growth in the Church.11 So, while the bishops in the Northeast are combining and closing churches, bishops in the Southwest are regularly hosting groundbreaking ceremonies for the establishment of new . Managing a historical institution amid the dynamics of migration and the challenges of contemporary politics is not easily accomplished. The leadership of the American Catholic Church is shared between the and the American bishops. Of course the Pope, as successor to St. Peter, has final authority, but has rarely exercised a heavy hand in either the American hierarchy or any other country’s hierarchy except in the direst of circumstances.

National Leadership

The Pope’s emissary in the United States is the apostolic , who can be thought of as the Holy See’s Ambassador to the United States.12 While he (and yes, by virtue of the position, all of them have been and will be men) plays the traditional role of an ambassador, the nuncio also plays a critical role in running the Catholic Church inside the United States. The nuncio is charged with being the clearinghouse for all information that goes into the naming of American bishops. The nuncio acts in consultation with the bishops to forward a report (called a terna) with three names – and his recommendation – to the Vatican, which then conducts its own investigation and makes its recommen- dation to the Pope, who then makes his own decision. No other ambassador to the United States plays such an important role in the internal mechanics of his or her host country.13 Because of the power and prestige of the job, apostolic

11 Data from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/ho- ly-see/benedict-xvi/upload/Papal-Transition-2013-Hispanics.pdf; accessed on December 13, 2013). 12 The United States and the Holy See have had full diplomatic relations since 1984. Since 1893 the Pope has had emissaries and delegates in Washington, DC, for both diplomatic relations between countries and ensuring a papal presence in the deliberation of the American Church. 13 See the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for more information on how bishops are appointed (http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/appointing-bishops.cfm; accessed on December 13, 2013). 614 Sean M. Theriault to the United States are usually rewarded with the red hat (worn by cardinals) and key Vatican positions at the conclusion of their service in the United States. While the apostolic nuncio oversees the Pope’s Church in the United States, it is the American bishops who exercise most of the power. They organize themselves into a body called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which meets annually in Baltimore as a general assembly to set the basic policies for the American Church. The national conference is headed by a president, who is elected to a 3-year term. The vice president, who also serves a concurrent 3-year term, is typically elevated to president at the conclusion of his term.14 In the year prior to a presidential election in the United States, the USCCB publishes “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a document that the bishops hope all Catholics will consult prior to casting their ballots. The docu- ment, of course, does not make candidate endorsements, but rather discusses the important issues that should inform a Catholic’s vote. While the issues rarely vary from election cycle to election cycle, the attention they receive does. The relationship among the Pope, the national conferences of bishops, and individual bishops is fluid. The Pope, of course, is head of the Universal Church, but only by virtue of his being the Bishop of Rome. In this sense, the Pope is first among equals. Jorge Bergoglio, when he was first presented as Pope to the crowds in St. Peter’s Square, mentioned that the cardinals were tasked with electing a new Bishop of Rome; commentators noted his humility that was subsequently borne out by his early actions. Local bishops, mirroring the decisions of the early apostles, remain fairly autonomous in running their churches. The bishop is the head legal authority in a diocese. This structure has stymied lawyers representing those abused by priests in their efforts to make the Pope and the Vatican culpable in the pedo- philia scandal. Brother bishops, except in the direst of circumstances, do not interfere in outside their own. The Pope will do so only under great duress. While the office of bishop has roots extending back to the apostles, the national bishops’ conferences came into existence only after the revolutionary changes made by the (1962–1965). The national confer- ences were made responsible for choosing the particular language to be used in the newly approved vernacular masses, which took effect around the globe on

14 This norm was broken in 2010, when Cardinal Timothy Dolan of was elected presi- dent over the current vice president, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson. In 2013, the norm was reestablished (for more, see http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/usccb-elects-new-president- vice-president; accessed December 13, 2013). The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 615

November 29, 1964.15 The Second Vatican Council also encouraged the bishops to form relationships with their fellow bishops as a way of solving national prob- lems and issues. In so doing, though, the Pope and the Roman remained the final authority, and the bishops did not give up any of their individual rights or responsibilities over their own dioceses. During the hierarchy’s retrenchment after the Second Vatican Council (Wills 2003), Pope John Paul II and his head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger (who would become Pope Benedict XVI), diminished the individual authority of the national conferences. Instead of consulting with fellow brother bishops in their home country, the Vatican mandated that a bish- op’s primary relationship would be with Rome, and only secondarily with his fellow brother bishops.

Organization of the American Church

All 441 active and retired bishops in the USCCB come from 197 dioceses in the United States.16 These dioceses are organized into 32 ecclesiastical provinces, each of which contains an archdiocese that is headed by an and other dioceses that are headed by suffragan bishops. Texas, for example, has two ecclesiastical provinces (San Antonio and Galveston-); the Galves- ton-Houston province includes the archdiocese of Galveston-Houston (which has 149 churches) and the dioceses of Austin (103), Beaumont (44), Brownsville (68), Corpus Christi (68), Tyler (43), and Victoria (50). The distinction between and bishops has more to do with the importance of their dioceses than the powers that separate them. Even within ecclesiastical provinces, the archbishop exercises only nominal powers that are barred from other bishops in the province. The Pope usually rewards the most important American archdioceses by giving their archbishops the cardinal’s red hat. The first archdiocese to receive this distinction was New York in 1875; others that now enjoy it are Baltimore (1886), Boston (1911), Philadelphia (1921), Chicago (1924), Detroit (1946), Los Angeles (1953), Washington, D.C. (1967), and Galveston-Houston (2007). Some suspect that when Houston was added to the list, Detroit was removed, because

15 For more, see http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9377; accessed December 13, 2013. 16 These include dioceses and archdioceses of the Latin and Eastern Catholic Church. This num- ber also includes bishops from the Apostolic Exarchate for Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and the of the Chair of St. Peter (for more, see http://www.usccb.org/about/ bishops-and-dioceses/index.cfm; accessed on December 13, 2013). 616 Sean M. Theriault its archbishop has now been waiting for more than 3 years for the red hat phone- call from the Vatican. When bishops become 75 years old, they are asked to submit their resigna- tions to the Pope, which more often than not he accepts. Those retired archbish- ops who became cardinals can still participate in the conclave to elect a new Pope until they reach 80 years of age. Except in the most extraordinary of circum- stances, the Pope will not name a new archbishop as cardinal until the retired archbishop can no longer participate in the conclave, so that the same jurisdic- tion does not receive double representation. Pope Benedict broke this tradition in 2012 when he gave Timothy Dolan of New York the red hat despite the fact that his predecessor had not yet turned 80. This gesture was reputed to be a sign of his great affection for Dolan, who statisticians calculated had the longest embrace with the Pope during the consistory that elevated him to the rank of cardinal.

Americans in the Global Church

The American Church has influenced the Universal Church less than the Univer- sal Church has influenced the American Church. Americans, on occasion, have achieved high positions in the Vatican. When Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he named an American, San Francisco’s then-Archbishop , to his own former position as – or head – of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Most observers consider this one of the two most important positions – aside from Pope – in the Vatican, the other being . One other American has had an influential role in the Church, though this one was in a more advisory role. Exactly 1 month after becoming Pope, Francis asked eight cardinals “to advise him in the government of the universal church and to study a plan for revising the on the .”17 Because of his service on this council, Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston is probably the most powerful American Catholic in the Church today. In the day-to-day operations of the church, cardinals have no more power than archbishops or bishops. That is certainly true among the heads of dioceses. The only reason that cardinals have more power in the Vatican is by virtue of the office they hold. The head of each of the – think of “dicasteries” as the equivalent of the departments in the American national government – is a

17 Quote from the document establishing the council (see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ francesco/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130928_chirografo-consiglio-cardinali_ en.html; accessed on December 13, 2013). The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 617 cardinal. The secretary, the number two person in the , holds the title of archbishop. It is the office that grants the man – and yes, they are all men – the title. The man does not get the office because he has the title. Cardinals only exercise two powers not given to other bishops. First, they are collectively responsible for running the Church in the period between the death (or resignation, in the case of Pope Benedict) of one Pope and the election of a new Pope. Second, so long as they have not yet turned 80 years old, they partici- pate in the conclave that is responsible for electing a new Pope. Interestingly, the conclave can elect any celibate Catholic male as Pope. A candidate need not be a cardinal first. As it turns out, if the Pope-elect is not a bishop prior to his selec- tion, he must first be consecrated a bishop, which continues the apostolic succes- sion first introduced by Matthias, before he can become Pope. In addition to the American cardinals who have archdioceses, a number of other Americans are currently cardinals due to the positions that they hold (or have held), including (Major Penitentiary emeritus of the ), (Prefect of the Supreme of the ), ( of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls), (Archpriest emeritus of the Basilica di ), William Levada (Prefect emeritus of the Con- gregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Edwin Frederick O’Brien ( of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem), (Major Penitentiary emeritus of the Apostolic Penitentiary), and Edmund Szoka (Presi- dent emeritus of the for State). Only Burke, Harvey, Levada, O’Brien, and seven heads of archdioceses (Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, Timothy Dolan of New York, of Chicago, Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston, Justin Francis Rigali of Philadelphia, and of Washington, D.C.) are under 80 years old. Given that the conclave normally has around 120 cardinals, the Americans are responsible for nearly 10% of the total number of votes – the largest of any country except for , which had 28 electors. Table 1 offers a history of the American cardinals’ participation in the conclaves since John McCloskey became the first American cardinal in 1875. The country of origin for the cardinals in the various conclaves underscores two key features that help put Church decision-making into context. First, although cardinals from the United States are the second largest country ­contingent, the Church continues to have a strong Italian flavor, as witnessed by Italy’s having almost three time as many cardinal electors as the United States. This distinction is important in understanding the way different cultures view the observance of the Church’s rules. Italian laws, by their very nature, prescribe ideal behavior but do not necessarily enforce it (Allen 2003). While living “la dolce vita” in Italy, a 618 Sean M. Theriault

Table 1 Participation in Conclaves by American Catholics.

Year Pope American Total Percentage Missing Elected Cardinals in Cardinals in of American Attendance Attendance Americans Cardinals

1878 Leo XIII 0 61 0.0 1 1903 Pius X 1 62 1.6 0 1914 Benedict XV 1 57 1.8 2 1922 Pius XI 0 53 0.0 2 1939 Pius XII 3 62 4.8 0 1958 John XXIII 3 51 5.9 0 1963 Paul VI 5 78 6.4 0 1978 John Paul I 8 111 7.2 1 1978 John Paul II 8 111 7.2 0 2005 Benedict XVI 11 115 9.6 0 2013 Francis 11 115 9.6 0 citizen respectful of the laws would be excused for speeding if, for example, she were late for a meeting. Double parking in Rome is forbidden – unless you are only running into the store for a minute, or all the parking spots are taken, or it is raining outside. Americans, on the other hand, adhere to a more Germanic understanding of the law, which prescribes minimally acceptable behavior that must be obeyed. A speed limit of 75 miles per hour is not to be broken under penalty of law. Double parking is grounds for towing and impoundment. In the German and American cultures, a pronouncement against contraception will be received very differently than it will be in the Italian culture, even among those who consider themselves Catholics in good standing. Second, although Italy and the United States comprised 39 of the 115 cardinal electors in the last conclave, their aggregate proportion is still roughly just one- third. Forty-eight different countries sent cardinals to the conclave. In contrast, the conclave that elected Leo XIII (1878) had 40 Italian cardinals and the remain- ing 21 all came from Europe. While the Church continues to have an Italian flavor, it is now much more completely living up to its billing as “Universal.” While some decisions from the Vatican may not make sense in an American context, they may make sense to Catholics in Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Honduras, and Vietnam, all of which sent cardinals to the conclave that produced . The Vatican is not filled with many Americans and does not adhere to the standards established by American culture. Understanding the place of Ameri- cans within the Church goes a long way toward understanding the decisions made by both the Universal and the American Church. The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 619

The Future under Pope Francis

The year 2013 has been an important one in the life of the church. In February, Pope Benedict became the first Pope since the 13th century to resign. A month later, Pope Francis became the first non-European Pope since the 13th century. Since his election, the Church has garnered unprecedented coverage – and most of it, for the first time in my lifetime, has been positive. Being named “Man of the Year” by Time is an indication of the influence Pope Francis has had on his Church and the world. Several of his actions have gone “viral” on the web, including when he kissed a disabled man during his inaugural ;18 when he washed the feet of non- Christian, non-male, young prisoners on Holy Thursday;19 when he welcomed a little boy to the stage when he was giving a speech;20 and when he hugged a deformed man.21 Such actions were praised by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.22 Close Church observers, however, are well aware that these actions are more a change in focus or a change in attention than a change in doctrine. At this point, it is also unclear if the Pope’s personal popularity will reflect on the Church. Currently, the Catholic Church as an institution is no more popular than it was under Pope Benedict. Church attendance has not grown. Financial con- tributions to the Church have remained flat. Furthermore, the Church continues to wrestle with the scandals of corruption, pedophilia, and financial improprieties.

Testing the “Francis Effect”

I conclude this article by outlining two ways to test if the “Francis Effect” extends beyond the anecdotes that in the first year of his Papacy have made all – well, most – Catholics proud (which is, incidentally, no easy feat). The best test to see if the “Francis Effect” is real among the people in the pews is the amount given to Pope Francis through the Peter’s Pence Collection that takes place each year

18 See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/pope-francis-disabled-man_n_2907234.html; accessed on December 13, 2013. 19 See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/vatican-defends-pope-francis-washing-of- womens-feet_n_2985784.html; accessed on December 13, 2013. 20 See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/pope-francis-boy – stage-yellow-_n_4175486. html; accessed on December 14, 2013. 21 See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/pope-francis-sick-man-boils_n_4227595.html; accessed on December 13, 2013. 22 See the latest polling numbers at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/11/wsj-poll-ameri- cans-like-pope-francis/; accessed on December 13, 2013. 620 Sean M. Theriault on the Sunday closest to June 29, which is the Feast Day of Peter and Paul Berry (2012). This special collection is for the expressed purpose of providing the “Holy Father with the financial means to respond to those who are suffering as a result of war, oppression, natural disaster, and disease.”23 As Table 2 shows, the Peter’s Pence collection suffered under the Papacy of Benedict XVI. As the table makes clear, the collection during Pope Benedict’s reign decreased in both nominal and real dollars. In fairness to Benedict, these were the same years that the church paid out some of the largest settlements in world history for the institution’s negligence in the priest pedophilia debacle. While the collection has already taken place in 2013, the Vatican has not yet released its amount. Future collections will indicate the manner in which Catholics in the pews continue to respond to Pope Francis’s message. Perhaps the best test for the manifestation of the Francis Effect among those in the pulpit, however, will come in the 2015 release of the USCCB’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” The 2011 version certainly included state- ments on the poor, but that was far from the focus of the document. The first four paragraphs of the “Major Issues” section of the document were dedicated to abor- tion and its primacy among the “life” issues. Poverty was mentioned as one in a string of issues before it got its own paragraph after the issues of peace, weapons, the death penalty, marriage, contraception, education, censorship, concentra- tion of the media, pornography, and worker rights all had their paragraphs. To be fair, the document did put poverty in the top half of the issues. (A total of 29 issues received full paragraph descriptions, while a number of other issues received cov- erage only as part of a list.)

Table 2 Peter’s Pence Collection, 2007–2011.

Year Pope Collected Collected (Real Percent Changes in (Nominal USDs) 2006 USDs) Real USDs from 2006

2006 Benedict XVI $101.9 $101.9 0 2007 Benedict XVI 79.8 77.6 –23.8 2008 Benedict XVI 75.8 71.0 –30.3 2009 Benedict XVI 82.5 77.5 –23.9 2010 Benedict XVI 67.7 62.6 –38.6 2011 Benedict XVI 69.7 62.5 –38.7 2012 Benedict XVI n/a n/a n/a 2013 Francis n/a n/a n/a

Source: Cotterill (2012).

23 Quote from USCCB (see http://www.usccb.org/catholic-giving/opportunities-for-giving/pe- ters-pence/index.cfm; accessed on December 14, 2013). The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 621

No one doubts that Francis has blown a breath of fresh air into the global and American Church. This fresh air is not without recent precedent. Pope John XXIII (1958–1963), who convened the Second Vatican Council, had a prominent effect not only on the people in the pews but also in the internal mechanics and struc- ture of the Church. The personal charisma and dynamic public persona of Pope John Paul II (1978–2005) also blew fresh air into the Church, though its effect was much more tied to the Pope himself and not the Church he was leading. By the time that he finally succumbed to his lengthy illness, the fresh air had turned to a deep personal commitment to the man, but not necessarily to the Church he was leaving behind. Only time will tell if Pope Francis’s fresh air will have a sustained impact on the Church similar to John XXIII’s, or if it will lead to a more personal commitment to him that will last only as long as his Papacy.

References

Allen, John L., Jr. 2003. All the Pope’s Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks. New York: Random House. Berry, Jason. 2012. Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church. New York: Random House. Cotterill, Joseph. 2012. “Angels and debtors,” Financial Times, July 5. Crews, Clyde F. 2004. American And Catholic: A Popular History of Catholicism in the United States. Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press. Maher, Sr. Mary Denis, CSA. 1989. To Bind Up the Wounds: Catholic Sister Nurses in the U.S. Civil War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Morone, James A. 2004. Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Morrissey, Edward. 2012. “Obama Risks $100 Billion If Catholic Hospitals Close.” The Fiscal Times, February 2. Accessed on December 14, 2013. http://www.thefiscaltimes. com/Columns/2012/03/01/Obama-Risks-$100-Billion-if-Catholic-Hospitals- Close#duHJcO1ezw65J8s8.99. Niebuhr, Gustav. 1994. “The Health Care Debate: The Catholic Church; Catholic Leaders’ Dilemma: Abortion vs. Universal Care.” , August 25. Accessed December 12, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/25/us/health-care-debate- catholic-church-catholic-leaders-dilemma-abortion-vs.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Ray, Sister Mary Augustina. 1936. American Opinion of Roman Catholicism in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Wills, Garry. 2003. Why I am a Catholic. New York: Mariner Books.

Sean M. Theriault is an Associate Professor in the Government Department at the University of Texas at Austin. He has written three books on the US Congress, most recently, The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress (Oxford University Press, 2013).