After election, who else is headed to DC?

When will Washington get an archbishop?

Even before this week’s presidential election, senior Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic had Washington DC on their minds, with the selection of a new archbishop foremost in their thoughts.

Archbishop’s cathedra in St. Matthew’s Cathedral, Washington, D.C. Image credit: Fr. Lawrence Lew, O.P. | Flickr CC by NC ND 2.0

Following the election of Donald Trump this week, that conversation has fallen into sharper focus, with officials close to the Dicastery for Bishops and Secretariat of State privately stressing the Vatican’s desire to minimize potential turmoil with the incoming administration.

And, according to those close to the process, selecting an eventual successor for the current capital archbishop, Cardinal Wilton Gregory, has become every bit as closely fought and as political as the recent presidential contest.

—
Picking an archbishop for the national capital is always a complicated weighing exercise. 

Although the archdiocese itself is not large in territory or population — by the numbers it has fewer parishes and fewer Catholics than Trenton, New Jersey — it does encompass a demographic gamut, running from some of the most deprived urban communities out to rural farming communities. 

And, obviously, the incumbent has to serve as the local bishop for the entire federal government, and plot a course between the pastoral and prophetic concerns which come with such a high-powered and canonically transient group.

Balancing the two sides to the job is not easy, and recent incumbents cast long shadows. Cardinal Gregory’s appointment in 2019 followed the scandal of Theodore McCarrick, and the departure under duress of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose own obfuscations and dissembling about McCarrick forced his retirement.  

Gregory was, according to those close to the appointment process at the time, a reluctant arrival in Washington, already 73 and then looking forward to retirement as Archbishop of Atlanta. But he was persuaded to step into the role at a time of acute scandal for the Church in America, and in the Archdiocese of Washington in particular. 

Since then, Gregory has opted for a very different approach to his two immediate predecessors — both of whom appeared to relish high profiles and playing at high politics, ecclesiastical and secular — opting for a “local bishop” approach, steering mostly clear of Capitol Hill and flying below the radar of national news.

Now approaching his 77th birthday, Gregory is again said to be looking forward to retirement. 

With that on the horizon, Roman sources have told The Pillar that both senior American cardinals and the apostolic nuncio have made securing Gregory’s replacement a top-tier priority, amid a slate of archepiscopal appointments due in the coming months.

But while everyone is in agreement on the need to identify Washington’s next archbishop, there is no such consensus on who it should be, or from whom the recommendation should come.

Sources familiar with the meeting have told The Pillar that during a private audience with Pope Francis last month, Cardinals Joseph Tobin, Blase Cupich, and Robert McElroy lobbied the pope about major American appointments — Washington key among them — and the process by which candidates are put forward.

Cardinals McElroy, Tobin and Cupich meet with Pope Francis, Oct. 11. Image credit: Vatican Media.

None of the cardinals have offered detail about the subject of the meeting. 

While Cardinal Tobin later told media that the meeting was “to discuss challenges in the United States,"  there was one particular “challenge” under serious discussion at the meeting, one Roman source close to the Dicastery for Bishops told The Pillar.

“They came to talk about appointments, specifically Washington,” the official said, “and they came to complain about the nuncio.” 

The Vatican official told The Pillar that the cardinals accused apostolic nuncio Cardinal Christoph Pierre of “dragging his feet” over recommendations for major appointments, especially Washington. 

Pierre has previously been known to be at loggerheads with Cardinals Cupich and Tobin, the American members of the Dicastery for Bishops, responsible for compiling and approving the final list of candidates from which the pope makes episcopal appointments — candidates meant to be drawn from a list of options vetted and recommended by the nuncio.

The Pillar has previously reported that the same dynamic played out during the process of appointing a new Archbishop of Boston earlier this year. when Pierre, with the support of Cardinal Sean O’Malley, successfully recommended Archbishop Richard Henning for the role — over Cupich and Tobin’s preferred candidate Cardinal McElroy, who also enjoyed the support of Cardinal Wuerl, who flew to Rome to press McElroy’s case to the pope personally. 

Indeed, sources close to the Secretariat of State and the Dicastery for Bishops all described a very similar version of events playing out again over the Washington archdiocese.

The three cardinals met with Francis on Oct. 11 during the synod on synodality last month, an event at which Cardinal Gregory was also present, though he was not included in the audience.

“It was not by accident, and it was not unnoticed that Cardinal Gregory was not included in the group,” the secretariat official noted. 

“Of course, the pope didn’t ‘invite’ anyone, some cardinals requested the meeting and he agreed to see them, but it became clear they were there to discuss Cardinal Gregory’s retirement and successor behind his back. It was a little brutal that way.”

McElroy’s inclusion in the meeting, one source told The Pillar, was to present him to the pope as a potential candidate for the job.

“If you want to call it thinly veiled, it was transparent-thin” said one official familiar with the meeting.

In another echo of the Boston appointment process, the audience for Cupich, Tobin, and McElroy was followed two weeks later by another audience for Cardinal Wuerl, who flew from Washington to meet the pope on Oct. 25.

However, while the American cardinals reportedly accused the Washington nuncio of “dragging his feet” over a new archbishop for the capital, sources close to the Dicastery for Bishops told The Pillar that Cardinal Pierre has been active in compiling and vetting candidates.

“Diligence is not delay,” one official told The Pillar. “It is an obviously important role and [Cardinal Pierre] has been very active in the discussions.”

“Just because he does not defer immediately to some members [of the dicastery] does not mean he is being obstructive. You might say he’s doing his job.”

The same source confirmed to The Pillar that, while no final short-list of names had been set, Louisville Archbishop Shelton Fabre continues to be discussed among those involved in the decision.

Fabre has become something of a rising star in the U.S. episcopate in recent months and, in addition to his reputation as a pastoral diocesan bishop, popular with local Catholics and clergy alike, sources close to the conversations around the Washington appointment told The Pillar, he is increasingly seen as a potentially uniquely suitable candidate.

“There is a strong desire for some stability with the next appointment,” one Roman official told The Pillar. “It is always a sensitive appointment and the hope is not to have to go through it all again in another five years.”

Fabre, 61, is considerably younger than was Archbishop Gregory at the time of his appointment in 2019, and is younger than Cardinal McElroy, 70, by nearly a decade. 

And, at least according to some, political sensitivities around the appointment have only increased following this week’s election.

One Roman official close to the  Secretariat of State  told The Pillar that the Vatican was “concerned” that the next archbishop would be able to deal with the next administration on a “working” basis. “What is not needed is a rival personality who creates conflicts,” the official said. “Things will be tense enough already.”

The same official pointed to other ongoing Vatican initiatives which involve the United States at a diplomatic level, like papal peace envoy Cardinal Mario Zuppi’s work on the war in Ukraine. 

“There were tensions [with the previous Trump administration] last time at the diplomatic level, and what is needed is dialogue from the beginning,” the official said. “[The next archbishop of Washington] cannot be a political figure.”

“If [Cardinal Gregory] could continue for another four years, that would be one thing,” the official said. “But we have to accept the realities we have.”

A key part of the appointment process is likely to be how long Cardinal Gregory can, or is willing, to continue in office, with several sources close to the cardinal in Washington describing him as “tired.”

“He accepted this role as a service,” one senior Washington priest told The Pillar, “and he is serving and will keep serving as long as he can and is needed to.”

Asked about the maneuvering to name a successor, another DC priest told The Pillar that “the cardinal doesn’t play these games, and he doesn’t really pay attention to them either.”

“He trusted the Holy Father’s judgment when he was appointed, and he will trust it again over whoever he names next, whenever.”

Asked about Gregory’s own ideas and preferences for a successor, the priest said “Like I said, the cardinal doesn’t play these games. He has his opinions, and if he’s asked for them he’ll give them. But he isn’t going around booking meetings with the pope to campaign for anything.”

If and when Gregory might be asked to weigh into the discussion — and by whom — remains to be seen. But with another logjam forming over a crucial episcopal appointment, his voice could eventually prove a crucial factor in what happens next.