Cupich steps out on immigration - will bishops follow?

Long before streaming video games became an $8 billion dollar industry, a group of World of Warcraft players in 2005 created probably the first online viral video to feature a hilarious video game scenario.

Way back then, the world met Leeroy Jenkins.

Leeroy Jenkins

In the viral video, a clean-language version of which is embedded here, a team of World of Warcraft players stood virtually together to craft exactingly a battle plan, which would enable them to procure a piece of in-game armor, for a teammate named Leeroy Jenkins.

In a highly detailed discussion, teammates planned exactly how they’d attack a position, even crunching numbers to assess their probability of success.

While they talked, Leeroy was apparently away from his computer preparing a snack. When he returned, apparently impervious to his teammates’ detailed work, he told them with enthusiasm: “Alright, let’s do this!”

With that, Leeroy charged his character into the battle, shouting “Leeeeeroy Jenkinnnns” as a battle cry.

His teammates reluctantly followed, the plans were never used, and all were mowed down by the in-game monsters.

Leeroy Jenkins became a meme, and a metaphor for anyone who levels carefully laid plans, rushing headlong into a situation, and assuring almost certain failure for those following behind him.

—

Cardinal Blase Cupich. Pillar file photo.

To some Catholics this week, Cardinal Blase Cupich may be on the verge of becoming the Leeroy Jenkins of the U.S. episcopal conference — at least when it comes to dealing with the Trump administration, on the volatile issue of immigration.

On Inauguration Day, four years ago, Cupich found himself at odds with the leadership of the USCCB, when conference president Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles issued a statement warning that the incoming administration’s agenda would advance “moral evils” on several fronts.

The statement was controversial even before it was published. The Holy See’s Secretariat of State attempted to curtail it before release, and Cupich led a small group of bishops opposing the “ill-considered statement” and criticizing alleged “internal institutional failures” which saw the statement go out at all.

At the heart of Cupich’s concern was that it would set a tone of negativity between the bishops and Biden, effectively preemptively preventing collaboration on the issues where it was possible, and effective advocacy where it could be accomplished.

But while Cupich had a few supporters, a much larger number of bishops expressed support for Gomez’ efforts to speak as the leader of their conference.

Despite that, Cupich explained in subsequent statements that a univocal statement, as he saw it, undermined the good of episcopal collegiality in dealing with the administration as a body.

Later on in Biden’s administration, Cupich and his close collaborators urged an approach to politicians that focused on building common ground, finding areas of common cause, and building from them. That, Cupich and collaborators argued, could most effectively allow the Church’s voice to be effectively heard, and the teachings of the Gospel to impact policy.

It does not appear Cupich is taking the same approach with regard to the incoming Trump administration, and especially the president’s plans for broadening deportation targets beyond the groups Biden’s administration focused on, mainly people with criminal records or deemed national security threats.

In Jan. 19 remarks at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, Cupich took big swings at the administration, calling Trump’s plans “profoundly disturbing,” and “an affront to the dignity of all people and communities … deny[ing] the legacy of what it means to be an American.”

The cardinal seems keen to take the lead on the issue, and has already been framed in the media as the Church’s American point person on immigration.

Rhetorical considerations aside, few American bishops are likely to disagree with Cupich on the substance of the issue.

Immigration occupies a strange place among the American episcopate, because bishops tend to be in public broad agreement about the set of elements defining their approach to U.S. immigration policy, with little of the division found on other social and political issues. The most substantial parts of Cupich’s remarks seemed to be drawn from those talking points, even while the rhetoric was quite sharp.

In fact, during the first Trump administration, the bishops’ conference was outspoken about its opposition to Trump’s immigration policies, and frequently so — issuing dozens of statements on the matter during Trump’s term of office.

But for many bishops, Cupich is likely the wrong standard-bearer on the issue.

First, because the cardinal was so outspoken about collegial statements during the last administration, if he flies solo in this presidential term, his approach risks ringing hollow by the appearance of partisanship.

Second, when Cupich is involved, lockstep agreement with his approach tends to be a cast as a referendum on whether a bishop is “anti-Francis” — and many bishops have expressed being tired of that particular line of rhetoric.

And third, Cupich is not especially popular among the conference, and bishops tend to grumble already about his perceived penchant for finding a spotlight or a microphone, even at their own plenary meetings. And with Cupich publicly lamenting the “institutional failures” of the conference — and not holding a leadership position there — it seems unlikely that he will take pains to coordinate with the USCCB on priorities, messaging, and rhetoric.

Finally, some bishops may be concerned that Cupich’s interventions simply won’t gain a hearing with the Trump administration — that however they’re intended, they’ll be perceived as acrimonious and incindiary, rather than an attempt at constructive engagement on a pressing national issue.

Ironically, that was the very complaint Cupich waged about episcopal statements during the Biden administration.

In short, where Cupich rushes in, a swath of bishops may be reluctant to follow, especially if his approach is be unilaterally devised, absent the collegial decision-making he has previously championed.

While a bishop with a broad consensus of support among his brothers would likely spur others to speak out on the issue, Cupich leading the charge might leave bishops unsure of their roles, or how to contribute towards a positive outcome.

The danger is that, for bishops, that might lead to their own Leeroy Jenkins situation.

And when the issue is as important as immigration — where speaking the complicated elements of the Church’s teaching is tough enough already — the results could have real consequences.