Cardinal Issue: Selective Urgency & Problematic Credibility

Last updated on: January 23, 2026 at 6:19 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

Cardinal Issue: Selective Urgency & Problematic Credibility 2026-01-23T18:19:14-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

AI image created by the author.

Recently, three highly influential American cardinals released a joint statement titled Charting a Moral Vision of American Foreign Policy, calling out U.S. foreign policy. The statement rightly appeals to Catholic moral language and affirms the Church’s consistent and perennial teaching on war, peace, human dignity, and religious liberty. As a Catholic, I welcome it when Church leaders speak publicly in support of moral principles, even in the realm of prudential judgment. I reject nothing in the document itself.

My concern does not lie with the substance of the statement, but with the strong, coordinated episcopal urgency it directs toward largely prudential political matters—especially when these same three cardinals did not exercise comparable public urgency during the previous administration, led by a practicing Catholic, which advanced policies in direct conflict with non-prudential moral teaching.

When Church leaders speak forcefully on prudential issues while remaining silent on non-prudential ones, they create a serious problem of credibility. At minimum, such asymmetry inevitably raises the appearance of political selectivity, if not outright partisanship.

The Catholic faithful deserve better.

The Core Tension: Silence on Non-Prudential Moral Evils vs. Urgency on Prudential Policy

When I refer to non-prudential Church teaching, I mean those doctrines all Catholics must accept—teachings that admit of no legitimate exception or political balancing. Abortion and euthanasia, for example, stand as intrinsically evil. The same holds true for the Church’s teaching on human nature, sexual anthropology, and religious liberty. These are not mere policy preferences. They concern moral absolutes and the very structure of the human person.

Yet, and this is both striking and concerning, the three cardinals in question—Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert W. McElroy of San Diego, and Joseph W. Tobin of Newark—remained consistently silent when the Biden administration, headed by a self-described practicing Catholic, issued executive orders and supported legislation that directly opposed Catholic teaching on these non-prudential moral matters. That silence persisted even as other bishops and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops publicly raised objections. In fact, Cardinals Cupich and Tobin went further: both criticized the USCCB’s January 20, 2021 statement that challenged President Biden’s support for abortion rights.

What, then, are the faithful to make of this pattern? Three cardinals now issue a rare joint statement, employ strong moral language, adopt urgent framing, and pledge ongoing advocacy on prudential foreign-policy questions—yet they did not unite in comparable public witness when non-prudential moral evils stood at the center of national policy. Indeed, in two cases, they publicly criticized their brother bishops for speaking against intrinsic moral evil.

Why This Inevitably Appears Partisan

Because Cardinals Cupich, McElroy, and Tobin are widely known for their progressive theological emphases and alignment with left-leaning political narratives—not to mention their past resistance to prioritizing non-negotiable moral issues in political discourse—the attempt to avoid the appearance of partisanship quickly collapses. Once again, these same progressive cardinals unite forcefully against a Republican administration on prudential foreign-policy questions, yet they did not unite comparably when a Catholic Democratic president advanced policies that directly contradicted non-prudential Church teaching.

Here credibility emerges as a serious pastoral concern. Episcopal authority depends not only on the correctness of what is said, but on consistency, visible impartiality, and a demonstrated willingness to confront allies as well as opponents. Without that consistency, statements like this one come across less as moral teaching and more as ideological positioning.

Clarifying the Real Concern

The concern of this article is not that three progressive cardinals criticized the foreign policy of a Republican administration under Donald Trump. The concern is why unified moral urgency appears most readily where Catholic language overlaps with progressive politics, and not where Catholic doctrine most directly contradicts them. Are we really to believe this is mere coincidence?

Final Thoughts: The Question of Pastoral Integrity

To reiterate, a faithful Catholic may accept much of the cardinals’ foreign-policy statement and still reasonably question the pattern and timing of their episcopal interventions. When strong collective urgency follows years of silence and even direct criticism of brother bishops, it raises serious concerns about the integrity of that collective witness. Such a pattern suggests that the cardinals risk subordinating the hierarchy of moral truths to cultural and political alignment.

Ultimately, the Church’s credibility depends less on how often she speaks and more on whether she speaks with the same clarity, courage, and unity—whether the world applauds her or resists her words.