There are a number of good bishops in the USA. The bishops in the Nebraska, Abp. Finn in Kansas City, Cardinal George in Chicago, Abp. Chaput in Denver, Bishop Vasa in Baker Oregon and several others.
The reason why these bishops are well liked is simple, they promote the faith, the whole faith and nothing but the faith. No equivocation, no winks to abortionist politicians, etc. But I think what is most important is that they know and use five very important words.
“Yes” and “No", “Right” and “Wrong” and most important of all “Sin”. They even make occasional references to “Hell”.
Most of these bishops also make accommodations for the Traditional Latin Mass, also known as the Tridentine Mass. This is the Mass that was said throughout nearly all of long history of Christianity, until 1968 when the Novus Ordo Mass was promulgated.
Unfortunately, not all bishops seem as to support the teachings of the Church as firmly as others. Perhaps what annoys people most frequently is bishops who can write lengthy missives and artcles with actually saying a thing. Nothing definite, nothing firm, “everything depends…”
Some make controversial architectural changes to churches, removing sacred art from churches, creating a “Mass in the round”. Some build churches that look like anything except a church. This is particularly offensive to many.
Other complaints have more to do with lack of action. A bishop, for example, who does not come our squarely opposed to abortion or gay marriage often loses respect of the faithful. Others who fail to reign in heretical organizations like Call for Action or Catholic for Choice also loose the respect of those they are charged to serve. Some bishops even support these organizations.
These same bishops, interestingly enough, are also the same ones who generally do not make any reasonable accommodations for those who prefer to attend the Tridentine rite, many ban it altogether in their diocese.
Many of these bishops who are not liked as well seem to embrace a very liberal theology so liberal as to not only be indistinguishable from secular humanism, but sometimes appears to run contrary to Church doctrine.
There is also a feeling that some of the bishops do not take action against public heretics. Particularly galling for many is who is often employed by the diocese. A “peace and justice” coordinator who is more Communist than Catholic. An aide to a bishop with a ciminal record who steals from the diocese. A vocations director who will not permit a young man who favours a celibate priesthood and opposed to women’s ordination, gay marriage or abortion into the seminary.
They fear the five words I mentioned earlier.
But I think what really influenced many people was the way bishops responded to the clergy sex abuse scandal. Some seem to pretend it did not exist. Others claim they did all they could, yet nothing tangible could be seen. Some appear to hide the problem by shuffling abusers around at the cost of the lives and souls of children abused, mostly boys. Not to mention the soul of the abusers by not getting them help or contacting authorities. Some bishops when forced into public testimony left many people scratching their heads and muttering “isn’t perjury a mortal sin?” Some just threw up their hand and declared bankruptcy. In fact, the current president of the USCCB, Bishop Skystad, has been accused of sex abuse of a male teen. Although an investigator the bishop himself hired “cleared” him, the matter is still to be decided in court. He is also one of the three bishops who declared bankruptcy.
On the other hand, some bishops have always called the police first, so to speak (not literally, but pretty close). Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the diocese with these bishops have the lowest number of claimants/parishioner ratio. Many of these have even had a “no homosexuals” policy in their own seminaries for many years. There seems to be a direct correlation with seminaries with these policies and a low number of sex-abuse claims. It was this type of reaction that resulted in parishioners being disappointed, but not scandalized and sickened.
In short, the sex-abuse scandal has probably been the tipping point for many of the faithful.
If they look at their bishop and see someone who handled a difficult problem well, they are disappointed (that abuse happened at all) but relieved. In those diocese where the bishop is perceived to have not done much, exacerbated or even committed these horrific acts, the reaction is, well, less charitable and more angry. The anger, at least in some cases, may even be morally justified.
I know this is a long answer, but it is a complicated problem. I could have made this very short by using cheap shots. In fact I almost did. But those kinds of statements are neither charitable nor informative. Instead, I decided a contrast between respected and not so respected bishops would be better.
