I'm surprised who isn't on this list, namely those who would be left-of-center in the conference. I'm thinking +Biegler, +Stowe, +Weisenberger. Perhaps they aren't distinguishing themselves in their current sees, but it would seem this is an opportunity for Cardinals Cupich and Tobin to shape the bench with those who share their theological outlook. Which raises the question of how much weight they carry versus Cardinal Pierre when names are presented to the Pope. Also, it's interesting that, given one prominent Vatican watcher who has had uncanny success in breaking appointments has put forward +Etienne's name for Boston, his name doesn't make the list. I guess we'll know within the next 50 or so days.
Okay, I would love to see you write a "not likely to move" piece also!!
My thoughts on other possible moves:
- +Thomas (of Toledo) to Cinncinnati
- +Bonnar (of Youngstown) to Pittsburgh (his home Diocese)
- +Woost (Auxiliary of Cleveland) to Youngstown (if we aren't re-absorbed back into Cleveland first)
- +Caggiano (of Bridgeport) to Baltimore
- +Fernandes (of Columus) to New York
- +Hying (of Madison) to Milwauke
- +Toups (of Beaumont) to St. Paul & Minneapolis
D.C and Chicago are a little too hard to predict, currently. +Baron would make sense to move up to Chicago one day, except he only just got his current See. D.C has no clear frontrunner, at least not now.
Probably gonna be wrong on most of these, but none would surprise me.
Yeah, I think this list is missing a few obvious candidates, though when it's all said and done who knows where people will end up so these picks might end up being more accurate than people think. Though I find it hard to believe that none of the more "progressive" bishops will be getting a promotion in the coming months, while this list is comprised of basically all center/right bishops (except for maybe McKnight though I don't know much about him). Maybe the Pillar's sources know something we don't but this seems like very wishful thinking to me given how bad some of these upcoming choices could potentially be.
And just for fun, despite me knowing very little about these men and even less about the situations within the archdioceses, let's make some predictions:
Boston = +O'Connell (he was my pick to a friend back in February)
Washington = +McElroy (regardless of who is President in 2025, he would be not be shy in entering the fray)
Cincinnati = +Stowe (not sure how the Steubenville merger, if it's still ongoing, would impact this)
Detroit = +Bambera*
Milwaukee = +Haines*
Chicago = (Come talk to me in three or four years with a different nuncio and, perhaps, a different pope.)
Mobile = +Wack* (or some leader of a religious order)
Galveston-Houston = +Flores
Kansas City = +McKnight
Omaha = +Kemme (A priest of Springfield under +Lucas, said to be on good terms with +Cupich)
*denotes a total shot in the dark
You can all dunk on me when I go 0 for 10.
And since I mentioned +Weisenberger and +Biegler but left them off the list, I'd bet on them going to Las Vegas and Denver, respectively.
As if I know. Nathan, to take the proverbial bait, here I go:
Boston: +O’Connell
Washington DC: +Coakley
Cincinnati: Fernandez
Detroit: Hying
Milwaukee: Too Personal
Chicago: Auxiliary or an auxiliary he recently made bishop here local//Longshot would be San Diego
Mobile: A priest of Louisiana or Florida
Houston: One of the largest growing dioceses in the country. Big footprint, and will have one of the largest and important implications in the 5-10 years…more than we’re expecting. Not sure whom they will be sending right now, probably need to be proactively praying with poverty of spirit that all of these moves, particularly this one will be of the Spirit.
Kanas City: Probably not +McKnight, to his and our surprise.
Omaha: Should be a priest from the region, but Kemme should or probably would stay.
I really enjoyed knowing him in his time at St Rita in Dallas. I have fond memories of him chanting psalm 27 as part of morning prayer with the sisters who lived nearby after the 6a daily Mass. If he's not changed too much since then, then I'd welcome him to a larger diocese!
Bishop Stowe knows how to make a mess, and I fear some Romans might see that as very positive. I hope you are right though I would not be at all surprised to see him as an archbishop somewhere soon.
I have from the Salina Diocese who raves about +Vincke. I pondered him for Detroit since he's a Michigan native, but I think he would be a great candidate for KCK, too. Is he "well connected" enough?
I think that also makes sense. Why a guy from Michigan was moved to Kansas made little sense. He's doing okay there, but being so far from family and friends must be a challenge. He was also thrown under the bus by agreeing to let McCarrick stay in his diocese (with the Capuchins) when the heat was turned up on the then-cardinal. The powers that be will see that in a positive light.
Good point on having McCarrick dropped in his lap. And for whatever it may be worth, he was named Apostolic Administrator of Dodge City when +Brungardt took leave. I don't know how much that's an indication of favor.
As a Salinian, I am surprised to see Vinke make an appearance in this comment section. That being said, I’m not really a big bishop-watcher. He’s a well-liked bishop here, though!
I will give credit to the current Pope, now gloriously reigning, that he has moved modestly in the direction of making these appointments based on pastoral missions and not promotions on a corporate ladder. * To the degree he does so, it does make guessing the appointments difficult. It might be decided that Flores and Seitz's Christian witness and pastoral work on the border is right where they are needed.
* I remember when Charles Chaput became Archbishop of Philadelphia for the Latins. He went on at some length about his ministry as Archbishop was like a marriage to the archdiocese. I thought, so you're telling us you just divorced Denver and are marrying Philadelphia.
There's something not quite fair about this comment ... Archbishop Chaput never expected to leave Denver. When he was sent there after just a few years in Rapid City he spoke directly about how it was careerism to move bishops around like that. Up until then he was considered a rising star. Afterwards he was left in Denver without being made Cardinal for about twenty years. He was ripped out of Denver and sent to Philadelphia to clean up a mess, rather than as a matter of promotion up the "corporate ladder" and I expect it did feel as though he was divorced from his flock in Denver. I heard another priest talk about this after a move. He said he had to learn how to be married to all of Christ's church, wherever he was sent. It is unbelievable that you would associate Archbishop Chaput with careerism.
I did not mean my comment so much as a slam against him, but that is maybe well reasoned thinking is at odds with the Church's actual practice. I think it is best to either change the practice or drop the emotional language.
So you characterize Pope Francis' reign as "glorious", but advise +Chaput, one of the great persons (and minds) of the American episcopate, to "drop the emotional language." How funny.
I was using the traditionalist (and dated) verbiage for popes. I thought you would like that! Trust me, I think the papacy needs to be understood as a pastoral ministry rather than a high monarchy and generally don't object when such trapping are dropped.
I prefer tradition in part because it permits much less room for the anthropocentric form of "worship" championed by my progressive brothers and sisters in Christ - such as any call to reject the grand titles each pope wields as Christ's vicar on earth.
I know that the Church is very human. But at the same time, I find it kind of sad that so many decisions are political. I guess we can't do anything but trust that the Holy Spirit really will get His way in the end.
Awwww the poor missions of Alaska, do not wish such things on them. They suffer enough in the faith and access to sacraments, they deserve the most charitable and fraternal of shepherds 💚
I’m just little old lady who loves her church. However, I do realize that finding capable men to become bishops is more political than religious. I have one question, given the fact that we are in short supply of priests. Why are priests who have never been a pastor of a parish given the job of bishop? How can a bishop effectively run his diocese if he’s never run a parish. It’s like giving the flock to a (use your imagination on this one).
I'm a parish priest of only two years and I can already see how having some level of parish experience is desirable in a diocesan bishop. I am inclined to believe any combination of three things:
(1) I can imagine diocesan bishops who are putting forward the names of priests to be considered for episcopal consecration will tend to avoid their best pastors as then they would be without them.
(2) I can imagine diocesan bishops who are putting forward the names of priests for nomination will tend to nominate the priests that they are most familiar with and with whom they have worked most closely.
(3) HUGE numbers of priests who are nominated for the episcopacy (I've heard something like 40%) have declined the Holy Father's nomination. I'm leaning toward thinking that some of them are in the category of strong and solid pastors who are uncomfortable with chancery life or the prospect of having to deal with conference politics.
Father, you are right for most part. I used to work for an archbishop, helping to assemble the terna for regional meetings. I can say that bishops do put forward their most capable and beloved pastors as candidates, out of esteem for their ability and concern for the whole Church. Yes, the names tend to be those who "play well with others" and not those pastors (who although successful) are more independent. And yes, better than 30% of those asked decline the episcopacy.
Father, that's a great point. I've often wondered how Catholic priests understand obedience towards the Pope same/different from their own Bishop. I know the difference between the Pope and the local Ordinary from an eccelesial standpoint. But if you (ordained priest) make a promise of obedience to your Bishop and his successors, and if that Bishop has authority from the Church (led by the Pope), and if the Pope is first among equals, then shouldn't that promise also extend to the Pope?
I'm not saying that Catholic priests should have no free will and are compelled to say yes to the nuncio when he calls, but is there an expectation to say yes, unless there is some grave reason for declining the Holy Father's call? Or is there no such expectation to obedience? I have the impression that it is like declining some chaplaincy request: "No thanks, I really don't have the time."
I have to proceed very carefully here because I wouldn't want someone who has declined to see this and think I am passing some kind of judgement. But I will say this:
When I was a young seminarian (this was something like ten or eleven years ago now), a bishop who was somewhat recently consecrated came to the seminary and gave a little talk and had a Q&A. One of my fellow seminarians asked him if he had ever considered declining the nomination. He said something that stuck with me and I think about a lot. He started talking about how the Church Fathers often wrote of an understanding that, though imperfect, the voice of our superior is the voice of God. And then he said, "If your legitimate superior makes a legitimate request of your ministry, you should be confident that it is God's will for your life. So do it."
According to my understanding, there is no hard check on one's reasons for saying 'no'. If he declines, he declines. Seems to me, though, that when the Pope calls, we ought to answer. We didn't talk about this seriously much in the seminary, but we were reminded from time to time: "Some of you will be bishops...remember that!", and that usually came with a digression about being open to that possibility if it becomes real, which usually came with a digression about ambition and keeping that tame... well, now I'm digressing!
I would think that unless a man were in poor health or knew of something from his past that could cause scandal or something, seems to me that we should be saying yes. I know this is an old-ish thread and perhaps outside of the viewing interest of @JD, but an explainer on the nomination process and how priests and bishops are feeling about this in particular would be super insightful. Just the kind of interesting church-niche reporting The Pillar is so good at!
This world and our Catholic faith is in a lot of trouble if these are the candidates for Archbishops. It's like our political climate where we vote for the less harmful. Also we elect not from fasting and prayer but instead from popularity and conformity. We are in need of a great reset. Please Lord Jesus come to help us now.
Would really hate to see the Archbishop of Indianapolis leave. Really great guy to have in a prominent place in the Midwest and really nice guy every time I've seen him travelling through Indianapolis.
I pray that McElroy doesn’t come to Boston. The speculation about episcopal appointments is thrilling stuff!
I'm surprised who isn't on this list, namely those who would be left-of-center in the conference. I'm thinking +Biegler, +Stowe, +Weisenberger. Perhaps they aren't distinguishing themselves in their current sees, but it would seem this is an opportunity for Cardinals Cupich and Tobin to shape the bench with those who share their theological outlook. Which raises the question of how much weight they carry versus Cardinal Pierre when names are presented to the Pope. Also, it's interesting that, given one prominent Vatican watcher who has had uncanny success in breaking appointments has put forward +Etienne's name for Boston, his name doesn't make the list. I guess we'll know within the next 50 or so days.
I regard one of the ones you've named as likely to move (Biegler) but I decided to keep it at 5.
I don't see Etienne getting Boston. If I write a "not likely to move" piece, I'll explain why.
Who do you think are the odds favorite for Boston?
Please write that piece too!
Okay, I would love to see you write a "not likely to move" piece also!!
My thoughts on other possible moves:
- +Thomas (of Toledo) to Cinncinnati
- +Bonnar (of Youngstown) to Pittsburgh (his home Diocese)
- +Woost (Auxiliary of Cleveland) to Youngstown (if we aren't re-absorbed back into Cleveland first)
- +Caggiano (of Bridgeport) to Baltimore
- +Fernandes (of Columus) to New York
- +Hying (of Madison) to Milwauke
- +Toups (of Beaumont) to St. Paul & Minneapolis
D.C and Chicago are a little too hard to predict, currently. +Baron would make sense to move up to Chicago one day, except he only just got his current See. D.C has no clear frontrunner, at least not now.
Probably gonna be wrong on most of these, but none would surprise me.
Yeah, I think this list is missing a few obvious candidates, though when it's all said and done who knows where people will end up so these picks might end up being more accurate than people think. Though I find it hard to believe that none of the more "progressive" bishops will be getting a promotion in the coming months, while this list is comprised of basically all center/right bishops (except for maybe McKnight though I don't know much about him). Maybe the Pillar's sources know something we don't but this seems like very wishful thinking to me given how bad some of these upcoming choices could potentially be.
And just for fun, despite me knowing very little about these men and even less about the situations within the archdioceses, let's make some predictions:
Boston = +O'Connell (he was my pick to a friend back in February)
Washington = +McElroy (regardless of who is President in 2025, he would be not be shy in entering the fray)
Cincinnati = +Stowe (not sure how the Steubenville merger, if it's still ongoing, would impact this)
Detroit = +Bambera*
Milwaukee = +Haines*
Chicago = (Come talk to me in three or four years with a different nuncio and, perhaps, a different pope.)
Mobile = +Wack* (or some leader of a religious order)
Galveston-Houston = +Flores
Kansas City = +McKnight
Omaha = +Kemme (A priest of Springfield under +Lucas, said to be on good terms with +Cupich)
*denotes a total shot in the dark
You can all dunk on me when I go 0 for 10.
And since I mentioned +Weisenberger and +Biegler but left them off the list, I'd bet on them going to Las Vegas and Denver, respectively.
O’Connell as in the current VG/ Aux Bishop?
Yes. Apologies to our friends in Trenton!
"Omaha = +Kemme (A priest of Springfield under +Lucas, said to be on good terms with +Cupich)"
-Talk about damning with faint praise...
My money is on +Cozzens for Cincy.
As if I know. Nathan, to take the proverbial bait, here I go:
Boston: +O’Connell
Washington DC: +Coakley
Cincinnati: Fernandez
Detroit: Hying
Milwaukee: Too Personal
Chicago: Auxiliary or an auxiliary he recently made bishop here local//Longshot would be San Diego
Mobile: A priest of Louisiana or Florida
Houston: One of the largest growing dioceses in the country. Big footprint, and will have one of the largest and important implications in the 5-10 years…more than we’re expecting. Not sure whom they will be sending right now, probably need to be proactively praying with poverty of spirit that all of these moves, particularly this one will be of the Spirit.
Kanas City: Probably not +McKnight, to his and our surprise.
Omaha: Should be a priest from the region, but Kemme should or probably would stay.
Bunch of libs, for the most part.
Yeah, wonderful, isn't it!!
Well, no.
Before he became a Bishop +Seitz was the pastor at my grandma's parish and donated a kidney to a parishioner. (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/17695/)
He may not be everyone's cup of tea (politically) but I have mad respect for him.
I really enjoyed knowing him in his time at St Rita in Dallas. I have fond memories of him chanting psalm 27 as part of morning prayer with the sisters who lived nearby after the 6a daily Mass. If he's not changed too much since then, then I'd welcome him to a larger diocese!
I knew O'Connell briefly before he was a bishop. I had great respect for him then.
The current Aux Bishop/ VG or the Bishop of Trenton?
Mark O'Connell, in Boston.
Great article and solid reporting.
I'll check back in six months but here is what I bet:
McKnight: Detroit
Flores: Galveston Houston
O'Connell: Boston
McElroy: DC
Kemme: Omaha
Venke: KCK (Could be another year though)
Biegler: Denver
Cincinnati is a total toss up. Maybe Thomas in Toledo? McKnight could go there but not likely. No one really knows.
No way Stowe goes anywhere. The other bishops know he is a wildcard outlier.
Bishop Stowe knows how to make a mess, and I fear some Romans might see that as very positive. I hope you are right though I would not be at all surprised to see him as an archbishop somewhere soon.
I have from the Salina Diocese who raves about +Vincke. I pondered him for Detroit since he's a Michigan native, but I think he would be a great candidate for KCK, too. Is he "well connected" enough?
*I have a friend from Salina
I must be too dumb to locate where the edited button is that so many others are able to utilize!
Three little dots bottom and to the right of your comment. It will pull up the Edit and Delete options for your comment and Report for other's.
I think that also makes sense. Why a guy from Michigan was moved to Kansas made little sense. He's doing okay there, but being so far from family and friends must be a challenge. He was also thrown under the bus by agreeing to let McCarrick stay in his diocese (with the Capuchins) when the heat was turned up on the then-cardinal. The powers that be will see that in a positive light.
Good point on having McCarrick dropped in his lap. And for whatever it may be worth, he was named Apostolic Administrator of Dodge City when +Brungardt took leave. I don't know how much that's an indication of favor.
As a Salinian, I am surprised to see Vinke make an appearance in this comment section. That being said, I’m not really a big bishop-watcher. He’s a well-liked bishop here, though!
That's a good predition, Nathan, for KCK. He was a vocations powerhouse in Lansing, so he would be excellent in continuing that in KCK.
Also doing well on that front in Salina, too. Three new priests, God willing, next year!
No mention of Archbishop Thomas Zinkula in Dubuque? Good! Maybe that means we get to keep him!
First, he’s a wonderful bishop, and, second, if the Dubuque Archdiocese and the Diocese of Davenport merge, he would be the ideal unifying figure!
I will give credit to the current Pope, now gloriously reigning, that he has moved modestly in the direction of making these appointments based on pastoral missions and not promotions on a corporate ladder. * To the degree he does so, it does make guessing the appointments difficult. It might be decided that Flores and Seitz's Christian witness and pastoral work on the border is right where they are needed.
* I remember when Charles Chaput became Archbishop of Philadelphia for the Latins. He went on at some length about his ministry as Archbishop was like a marriage to the archdiocese. I thought, so you're telling us you just divorced Denver and are marrying Philadelphia.
There's something not quite fair about this comment ... Archbishop Chaput never expected to leave Denver. When he was sent there after just a few years in Rapid City he spoke directly about how it was careerism to move bishops around like that. Up until then he was considered a rising star. Afterwards he was left in Denver without being made Cardinal for about twenty years. He was ripped out of Denver and sent to Philadelphia to clean up a mess, rather than as a matter of promotion up the "corporate ladder" and I expect it did feel as though he was divorced from his flock in Denver. I heard another priest talk about this after a move. He said he had to learn how to be married to all of Christ's church, wherever he was sent. It is unbelievable that you would associate Archbishop Chaput with careerism.
I did not mean my comment so much as a slam against him, but that is maybe well reasoned thinking is at odds with the Church's actual practice. I think it is best to either change the practice or drop the emotional language.
So you characterize Pope Francis' reign as "glorious", but advise +Chaput, one of the great persons (and minds) of the American episcopate, to "drop the emotional language." How funny.
I was using the traditionalist (and dated) verbiage for popes. I thought you would like that! Trust me, I think the papacy needs to be understood as a pastoral ministry rather than a high monarchy and generally don't object when such trapping are dropped.
I prefer tradition in part because it permits much less room for the anthropocentric form of "worship" championed by my progressive brothers and sisters in Christ - such as any call to reject the grand titles each pope wields as Christ's vicar on earth.
And it was to please you that I used the grand title traditionally applied to the incumbent popes "now gloriously reigning"
I do appreciate that! I'm sure we both love the Holy Father and wish him all blessings. Thanks for the banter!
I know that the Church is very human. But at the same time, I find it kind of sad that so many decisions are political. I guess we can't do anything but trust that the Holy Spirit really will get His way in the end.
An endorsement from Cardinal Cupich AND Mr. Winters? I would say that warrants a move to Ketchikan, Alaska.
Ouch, don't throw the poor folks at Holy Name under the bus like that. What have they done to deserve such a fate? ;)
Awwww the poor missions of Alaska, do not wish such things on them. They suffer enough in the faith and access to sacraments, they deserve the most charitable and fraternal of shepherds 💚
I’m just little old lady who loves her church. However, I do realize that finding capable men to become bishops is more political than religious. I have one question, given the fact that we are in short supply of priests. Why are priests who have never been a pastor of a parish given the job of bishop? How can a bishop effectively run his diocese if he’s never run a parish. It’s like giving the flock to a (use your imagination on this one).
That's a great question, Veronica!
I'm a parish priest of only two years and I can already see how having some level of parish experience is desirable in a diocesan bishop. I am inclined to believe any combination of three things:
(1) I can imagine diocesan bishops who are putting forward the names of priests to be considered for episcopal consecration will tend to avoid their best pastors as then they would be without them.
(2) I can imagine diocesan bishops who are putting forward the names of priests for nomination will tend to nominate the priests that they are most familiar with and with whom they have worked most closely.
(3) HUGE numbers of priests who are nominated for the episcopacy (I've heard something like 40%) have declined the Holy Father's nomination. I'm leaning toward thinking that some of them are in the category of strong and solid pastors who are uncomfortable with chancery life or the prospect of having to deal with conference politics.
Father, you are right for most part. I used to work for an archbishop, helping to assemble the terna for regional meetings. I can say that bishops do put forward their most capable and beloved pastors as candidates, out of esteem for their ability and concern for the whole Church. Yes, the names tend to be those who "play well with others" and not those pastors (who although successful) are more independent. And yes, better than 30% of those asked decline the episcopacy.
Very glad to hear that, in your experience, good pastors are being put forward even though bishops would stand to lose them as pastors.
As for those who decline, I would love to see some more discourse on it...seems an unsustainable pattern to me!
Father, that's a great point. I've often wondered how Catholic priests understand obedience towards the Pope same/different from their own Bishop. I know the difference between the Pope and the local Ordinary from an eccelesial standpoint. But if you (ordained priest) make a promise of obedience to your Bishop and his successors, and if that Bishop has authority from the Church (led by the Pope), and if the Pope is first among equals, then shouldn't that promise also extend to the Pope?
I'm not saying that Catholic priests should have no free will and are compelled to say yes to the nuncio when he calls, but is there an expectation to say yes, unless there is some grave reason for declining the Holy Father's call? Or is there no such expectation to obedience? I have the impression that it is like declining some chaplaincy request: "No thanks, I really don't have the time."
I have to proceed very carefully here because I wouldn't want someone who has declined to see this and think I am passing some kind of judgement. But I will say this:
When I was a young seminarian (this was something like ten or eleven years ago now), a bishop who was somewhat recently consecrated came to the seminary and gave a little talk and had a Q&A. One of my fellow seminarians asked him if he had ever considered declining the nomination. He said something that stuck with me and I think about a lot. He started talking about how the Church Fathers often wrote of an understanding that, though imperfect, the voice of our superior is the voice of God. And then he said, "If your legitimate superior makes a legitimate request of your ministry, you should be confident that it is God's will for your life. So do it."
According to my understanding, there is no hard check on one's reasons for saying 'no'. If he declines, he declines. Seems to me, though, that when the Pope calls, we ought to answer. We didn't talk about this seriously much in the seminary, but we were reminded from time to time: "Some of you will be bishops...remember that!", and that usually came with a digression about being open to that possibility if it becomes real, which usually came with a digression about ambition and keeping that tame... well, now I'm digressing!
I would think that unless a man were in poor health or knew of something from his past that could cause scandal or something, seems to me that we should be saying yes. I know this is an old-ish thread and perhaps outside of the viewing interest of @JD, but an explainer on the nomination process and how priests and bishops are feeling about this in particular would be super insightful. Just the kind of interesting church-niche reporting The Pillar is so good at!
We love to bishops/priests that were accountants before entering seminary! Our Church is in such a need of good administrators
I am totally grateful that my bishop isn't on this list. Thank you.
Is Bp. Earl Fernandes not on anyone's radar? Solid resume and served as Secretary for the Nuncio?
This world and our Catholic faith is in a lot of trouble if these are the candidates for Archbishops. It's like our political climate where we vote for the less harmful. Also we elect not from fasting and prayer but instead from popularity and conformity. We are in need of a great reset. Please Lord Jesus come to help us now.
Would really hate to see the Archbishop of Indianapolis leave. Really great guy to have in a prominent place in the Midwest and really nice guy every time I've seen him travelling through Indianapolis.