On the replacement of Cardinal Burke, panic and celebration are premature

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Dec 20, 2013

Once again Catholics on both ends of the ideological spectrum are telling us that by shuffling the membership of the Congregation for Bishops, Pope Francis has done something revolutionary. Since I don’t think that the Holy Father is a revolutionary—I think that one group of pundits is fretting unnecessarily, while another is celebrating prematurely—I’d like to introduce a more balanced perspective.

Is it significant that the Pope removed Cardinal Burke from the Congregation that helps choose new bishops, and in effect replaced him with Cardinal Wuerl? Yes, absolutely.

But what did it signify? That’s not quite so obvious. Certainly not as obvious as many commentators have suggested.

Did Pope Francis make the switch because Cardinal Burke has called for enforcement of Canon 915? Or because he is fond of the Latin liturgy? Some people have jumped to one (or both) of those conclusions. Maybe they’re right. But surely there could be other reasons.

As John Allen has pointed out, there is no question that Pope Francis was deliberately changing the composition of the Congregation for Bishops, choosing members who would favor a different sort of candidate for episcopal office. As Allen put it, he “shifted the center of gravity” on the Congregation—“not just with the American members, as it turns out, but across the board.”

However it is simplistic to see the change as simply a matter of replacing ‘conservative’ prelates with ‘liberals.’ The Pope confirmed Cardinal Ouellet, a friend and former student of Benedict XVI, as the prefect of the Congregation. If he had wanted a revolutionary hierarchy, Pope Francis would certainly not have left the Canadian cardinal at the helm. Cardinal Pell remains a member, as does Cardinal Cañizares Llovera. If he meant to undertake a purge of ‘conservatives,’ the Pope was not very thorough.

So what do the changes mean? My own theory is that the Pope hopes for a more “collegial” approach to the selection of bishops, and he chose cardinals who were likely to reflect the views of other prelates in their countries. Although I admire Cardinal Burke greatly, I cannot pretend that he represents the mainstream within the American hierarchy. (I wish he did!) Cardinal Wuerl is more likely to favor candidates that other American bishops would support.

What evidence do I have to support that theory? None. That is, exactly the same amount of evidence that anyone else has to support any other explanation. As time passes, and new bishops are appointed, we’ll probably discern a trend. Until then, let’s not mourn a loss—or celebrate a victory—when we actually don't know the score.