A Divide in the USCCB on Immigration?
Bishop Barron's Strategy of Quiet Engagement
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is holding its fall meeting this week, and the Catholic Church’s response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies will certainly be one of the main topics of discussion. Although on the whole the US Catholic bishops have spoken out forcefully against these policies, a rift does seem to be emerging amongst the bishops on how to approach the issue. And for once the split is not that between “pro-Francis” prelates like Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago and Cardinal Robert McElroy of Washington, DC on the one hand and those bishops who over the years took a more lukewarm approach to Pope Francis’s pastoral priorities on the other.
On the contrary, as I’ve noted in the past, relatively conservative bishops like Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles and Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the current President of the USCCB, have delivered clear statements criticizing the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts and the violation of the rights of those who have been detained by immigration enforcement agencies. And Cardinal Cupich has likewise spoken out repeatedly on the issue, most recently a statement declaring that the Archdiocese of Chicago “stands with migrants” in the midst of the ongoing immigration raids and detentions in that city.
Despite this common ground, a small group of bishops—including influential figures like Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota—have taken a more muted approach to the immigration issue, rarely if ever directly criticizing Trump administration immigration policy. Although the majority of US bishops seem to be supportive of a more critical approach, given the prominence of some of the members of this smaller group, it will be crucial to watch how the conversation on immigration unfolds at the bishops’ meeting.
Ironically, the salience of this divide among the bishops became clear last week when Bishop Barron publicly expressed concern about the refusal of the Department of Homeland Security to permit detainees in the Broadview immigration detention center in Chicago to receive the Eucharist. A delegation of Catholic priests, religious, and laity bringing the Eucharist has twice been turned away from the facility, despite requesting access in advance to distribute communion to those being held inside. Barron’s statement was noteworthy not least because of his relative silence on the immigration issue. Barron also serves as a member of the Religious Liberty Commission established by President Donald Trump earlier this year, and so his raising religious liberty concerns about the treatment of immigrants perhaps signaled a change of heart on Barron’s part.
Three days later, however, in a critical response to the characterization of these events by New York Times journalist Ruth Graham, Bishop Barron stated that his earlier comments were not intended as a criticism of the Trump administration. Rather, he insisted that he had “simply asked that detained Catholics have access to the sacraments,” a request that had been met with “openness” by administration officials. Barron’s clarification that he had not intended to criticize the Trump administration is unusual, particularly when contrasted with the highly critical statements of several other US bishops (not to mention the criticisms of former President Joe Biden made by many bishops, including Barron himself!). His explanations for his stance, I think, give us insight into his views on the role of the Church, and the bishops in particular, in American politics.
For one, in his earlier statement, Barron says that “I feel that maintaining open lines of communication and engaging in dialogue with the Administration constitute the most constructive way forward.” One might read this as suggesting that Barron believes the more openly critical statements of other bishops like Cardinal Cupich or Archbishop Gomez are counterproductive, or at the very least are unlikely to lead to changes in Trump administration policy. A non-confrontational approach, he seems to suggest, may lead to more constructive results.
Bishop Barron and the other four Catholic bishops appointed to the Religious Liberty Commission—Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, and Bishop Kevin Rhoads of South Bend, Indiana—have been criticized by some for working too closely with the Trump administration or for creating the appearance of support for aspects of the administration’s agenda that clash with the Church’s teachings. Barron’s stance, however, seems to be that a collaborative or dialogical approach, particularly on areas of shared concern, will in the end lead to greater success in achieving the Church’s goals than a more confrontational approach.
The US bishops have wrestled with balancing collaboration and criticism in their relationship with the presidency over the past few decades. In some situations, there may be pragmatic reasons for holding back on criticism in pursuit of a worthy goal. What remains to be seen, however, is how much room Bishop Barron has left himself for criticism of the administration when it is warranted. And similarly, it is not at all clear that a quieter, dialogical approach will work. For example, although the Archdiocese of Miami was finally able to celebrate Mass at the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz” detention facility in Florida in August “after months of dialogue,” according to a statement from the archdiocese, this breakthrough only came after Miami’s Archbishop Thomas Wenski and 25 Knights of Columbus rode on motorcycles to publicly pray the rosary at the gates of the facility as a protest of clergy’s lack of access. Archbishop Wenski has also not hesitated to criticize the administration’s immigration policies. And despite the “openness” Bishop Barron encountered among Homeland Security officials, the Broadview facility is yet to open its doors to religious ministers.
Bishop Barron’s second explanation for his refusal to criticize the Trump administration is more concerning, however. In his second social media post, responding to Graham, Barron states, “My comments were pastoral, not political.” Certainly, it is not the place of bishops to wade into partisan politics, nor is it their responsibility to make proclamations about the details of public policy. It’s the vocation of the laity to be fully engaged in democratic politics and policy debate. On the other hand, a sharp line can’t be drawn between the pastoral and the political. As the most recent edition of the USCCB’s voting guide Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship puts it:
We bishops have the primary responsibility to hand on the Church’s moral and social teaching. Together with priests and deacons, assisted by religious and lay leaders of the Church, we are to teach fundamental moral principles that help Catholics form their consciences correctly, to provide guidance on the moral dimensions of public decisions, and to encourage the faithful to carry out their responsibilities in political life. (#15)
Precisely in fulfillment of their pastoral duties, the bishops have a responsibility to speak on political matters, including criticizing political leaders and their policies when appropriate.
Barron’s emphasis on the pastoral nature of his concerns also seems to suggest that the Church’s engagement with the political realm is primarily called for when the spiritual welfare of the faithful is at stake. This could justify the participation of Barron and the other previous mentioned bishops on the Religious Liberty Commission, in order to protect the Church’s freedom to worship and live out its moral teachings. But again, one can too starkly divide the pastoral and the political, the spiritual and the temporal. After all, through its social teaching, the Church continuously speaks on a host of political issues, including immigration.
The day before Bishop Barron issued his statement clarifying that he had not intended to criticize Trump administration policy, US District Judge Robert Gettleman issued a ruling in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit alleging that the detainees in the Broadview detention center were subject to inhuman conditions, including lack of adequate food and water, extreme temperatures, and a lack of soap, hygiene items, and menstrual products. The rooms are overcrowded, with people forced to sleep without bedding, in some cases sleeping next to clogged and overflowing toilets. Detainees also report being forced to sign documents consenting to their deportation. Judging these allegations credible, Judge Gettleman issued a temporary restraining order requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to rectify the conditions in the facility. Given these conditions, Bishop Barron’s decision to withhold criticism of the Trump administration seems unconscionable. If anything, “Eucharistic coherence” means that you can’t insist on providing access to the Body of Christ for detainees while ignoring that the dignity of the detainees, who themselves are members of the Body of Christ, is being violated.
To be fair, Bishop Barron has spoken on occasion about the Church’s social teaching, including on the question of immigration. As I noted in an earlier article, however, Barron often repeats that the principles of Catholic social teaching transcend our partisan political divides. I wrote:
Over the years, Barron has rarely weighed in on particular matters of political debate, and when he has—for example, on the debate on the budget and government spending centering around then vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan in 2012—he typically focuses on the broader principles derived from Catholic social teaching without making concrete political judgments.
One might add that Barron often strives to demonstrate that Catholic social teaching allows for a range of interpretations from different political perspectives. This is certainly true as far as it goes, but I would argue that overemphasizing the capaciousness of Catholic social teaching leads Barron to a certain naïveté regarding concrete political reality and ends up undermining the truths expressed in that teaching.
Here’s an illustrative example. In a 2024 interview with Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) and in a more recent episode of the Word on Fire Show, Barron explains Catholic teaching on immigration as an attempt to balance two principles: what he calls the right of nations to “define and defend their borders” and an “openness to the poor and to the marginalized.” He argues that these principles allow for different perspectives but also ought to be a source of unity.
Barron’s framing appears to mirror a passage from Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the 2003 pastoral letter on immigration by the Catholic bishops of the United States and Mexico:
The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good. It also recognizes the right of human persons to migrate so that they can realize their God-given rights. These teachings complement each other. (#39)
That being said, although in the 2000s it may have been possible to describe the immigration debate as an effort to find the right balance between these two principles, that is certainly not the case today. For example, Barron explains that efforts to “define and defend borders” cannot be motivated by xenophobia, but how else could one describe the Trump administration’s hyperbolic claims about an immigrant “invasion” devastating the nation’s cities or repeated false assertions about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs? Likewise, how could the administration’s suspension of the US refugee resettlement program be consistent with a commitment to what Barron calls “generosity . . . to those who are suffering from persecution or in grave danger”? Barron’s one-sided commitment to making Catholic social teaching a broad tent makes it difficult for him to recognize that the Trump administration is undermining core tenets of the Church’s teaching.
I also think that, despite the similarity between Barron’s framing of the issue and the passage from Strangers No Longer cited above, Barron’s thinking subtly departs from the Church’s official teaching on immigration in consequential ways, but I will have to leave that for another day. My point here is simply that Barron’s insistence on being pastoral but not political leads him to both an unwillingness to criticize the Trump administration and a disconnect from concrete realities that end up being quite political.
The bishops’ discussion over how to respond to the Trump administration’s immigration policy at their fall meeting will be important to watch. Clearly many of the bishops have felt compelled to openly criticize the administration’s policies, so how will they respond to the more accommodating approach of bishops like Barron? The question has added salience because Barron is among the candidates for the presidency of the USCCB, although likely not a top contender. The direction of the USCCB on the immigration issue may be at stake.
I am indebted to Bishop Barron's work in my conversion from Evangelical to Catholic a few years ago. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Word on Fire Institute, I supported the Bible Projects etc. But leading up to the election, I started getting uneasy. A number of articles, not specifically by Barron, but nonetheless from the staff, openly criticized the Biden administration and the constant assault on Wokeism became tedious. I am not a Progressive and call myself a "Catechism Catholic " vs "Cafeteria Catholic. " I personally sensed a shift when Matthew Petrusek came on board. Things got snarkier. I finally quit the Institute and told them why. The dangers of a Trump presidency were obvious from the start. Just the meanness, the demonizing, the crudeness the vindictiveness and the outright lies were enough for decent people to be alarmed. Simply put, I feel personally disappointed in Barron. This could have been his hour to be a champion. It's hard for me to express the degree of my disappointment. It's been heartbreaking. It rattled me.
Fortunately, Pope Leo seems to be on a good tack.
Bishop Barron's approach presumes that the Trump administration has values beyond cupidity and power-lust that are needed for any influence of the type that Bishop Barron tries to have. Combined with his tone-deaf valorization of Charlie Kirk (arguably a henotheist) he deserves stronger critique and deeper suspicion. Like another commentator, I learned much from him once upon a time, and have been very disappointed by his work, especially over the last decade.