In the past 24 hours, breathless accounts in the secular press have heralded the election of Archbishop Paul S. Coakley as president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) as a triumph of arch-conservatism.
The Independent rhapsodised that American bishops have “doubled down on their conservative bent” by choosing Coakley to lead the conference. The Guardian (via the AP) likewise declared a case of “conservative” bishops electing a like-minded leader, dubbing the archbishop a “culture warrior” chosen to steer the flock during President Trump’s term, all of this presumably because of his audacious decision to uphold Catholic morality.
These headlines might lead the casual reader to assume that the US hierarchy has suddenly embraced a radically right-wing agenda, but this interpretation misunderstands both the man and the nature of Catholic episcopal life. In fact, Archbishop Coakley is far from an extremist, and the very notion that his basic doctrinal fidelity makes him an “ultra-conservative” is at odds with Catholic self-understanding.
One begins by recalling a simple truth of Catholic ecclesiology: all Catholic bishops should uphold the Church’s magisterial teaching on marriage, human life, and sexual ethics. To defend the unborn, to uphold marriage as between one man and one woman, to teach that certain actions are morally disordered, none of this marks a bishop as a radical deviation from the norm.
On the contrary, it is what every faithful bishop must teach. The Catechism itself, and papal teaching throughout the ages, has remained clear that abortion is gravely wrong and that marriage is rightly reserved to a man and woman.
Thus, when secular commentators harp on Coakley’s “conservatism” regarding abortion or “opposition to LGBTQ+ rights”, they are really describing the baseline Catholic position, which has been held by successive bishops for millennia. It is hardly news that an American bishop would echo Pope Francis’s declaration that a baby in the womb is “a human life, period”, or that he would exhort the faithful to choose candidates who “promote a policy that respects innocent life”.
In short, if one treats pro-life and pro-family teaching as “conservative”, then one would hope all US bishops are conservatives.
To secular ears, accustomed to Anglican or Protestant churches where some clerics openly dissent on these points, any repetition of the Catholic line sounds “extreme”. But inside the Church, fidelity to the Magisterium is the expected norm. Calling Coakley an “ultra-conservative” for being a Catholic bishop is like calling the Archbishop of Canterbury an “ultra-liberal” for not opposing female ordinations in the Church of England. It simply uses the wrong standards.
Neither is Archbishop Coakley’s record one of partisan firebrandry or doctrinal upheaval. A closer look at his tenure in Oklahoma and his behaviour at the USCCB assembly reveals a man focused on balance and unity. Online media outlet Religion Unplugged tracked his election at the Baltimore meeting and observed that Coakley “brings to his new role a record that blends doctrinal orthodoxy and compassion for the poor”.
His leadership style has been described as “steady” and “theologically grounded”, rather than a radical change of direction. Consider his actions on issues where Catholic teaching allows for a variety of responses. On immigration, a politically charged subject where US bishops differ, Coakley has struck a moderate balance. He affirmed that illegal immigration is “wrong” and that borders do need protection, but he simultaneously warned that aggressive deportations were “creating fear and even distress for our immigrant, migrant, and refugee neighbours”.
In other words, Coakley is firmly pro-life in totality, defending life from conception through natural death, including respect for migrants. His position is not extreme. His remarks about human dignity are measured, not bombastic. It is telling of the ignorance of secular voices that The New York Times termed him “an institutionalist with ties to the Church’s right wing”, and then immediately noted how he urged Catholics to recall that Christ was a refugee.
On liturgy and internal Church unity, the hot-button issues that truly divide conservatives from moderates, Coakley’s stance is hardly fanatical. He has not sought to root out the Traditional Latin Mass from his diocese, nor has he joined the ranks of bishops seeking to nullify the liturgical guidelines of Traditionis Custodes, the motu proprio which restricted its use.
In fact, when Traditionis Custodes was issued, Archbishop Coakley took a cautious line. He granted “temporary permission” for the Latin Mass in Oklahoma, pending further study and clarification of the Vatican’s directives. This approach, respecting Rome’s authority while ensuring the faithful are not suddenly cut off, is characteristic of a moderate episcopal posture.
By contrast, the true TLM champion remains Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland. A consummate defender of the Traditional Latin Mass alongside his doctrinal activism, he would be the “conservative” the media should be talking about.
Beyond liturgy, Coakley has shown himself a pastor more than a politician. His tenure in Oklahoma saw a slight growth in the Catholic population despite declines elsewhere, suggesting he has been a diligent shepherd rather than a sectarian agitator. He co-authored a pastoral letter in 2023 on human anthropology, focusing on the challenges of gender ideology but in a tone of concern for the afflicted soul. None of this screams “culture war despot”; it portrays a bishop attentive to both doctrine and decency.
The loose use of “liberal” and “conservative” obscures more than it clarifies. In fact, these Enlightenment, French Revolutionary-era labels are almost meaningless in a theological context. It might be more illuminating, for example, to speak of the old Italian curial terms zelanti (zealots for tradition) versus politicani (churchly pragmatists), vocabulary that long preceded the French Revolution’s partisanships.
But Coakley is neither an intransigent zelante pushing every traditionalist programme nor a politicano bending to secular pressures. He is a Catholic bishop, beholden to and obliged to teach the Catholic faith with a moderate outlook.
A man able to court the conservative right and the progressive left, he is reminiscent of another American Catholic leader who turned out to be an inspired choice. The secular press may conclude a partisan victory for the right, but Catholics can be assured that they have a bishop leading the USCCB who is, shockingly, Catholic.
.jpg)
.jpg)
