BALTIMORE — In a closely contested vote at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) fall plenary assembly in Baltimore on November 11, 2025, Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City was elected as the new president of the USCCB. Coakley, who previously served as the conference’s secretary, edged out Bishop Daniel E. Flores of Brownsville, Texas, in the third round of balloting with a 128–109 margin. He will succeed Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the Military Services archdiocese, beginning his three-year term as the leading voice of the American episcopate amid ongoing challenges such as the Trump administration’s deportation policies and treatment of immigrants, continuing challenges in safeguarding and the clerical-abuse crisis, and the increasing polarization in the U.S. Church and American society.

While Coakley’s election has been hailed by some as “a great result for Catholic orthodoxy,” it raises significant concerns for those committed to transparency, accountability, and fidelity to the vision of the Church championed by Popes Francis and Leo. Two key issues stand out: Coakley’s 2018 public endorsement of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s “integrity” — a figure now excommunicated for schism — without any subsequent retraction or apology; and his longstanding affiliation with businessman Timothy R. Busch and the Napa Institute, a network often criticized for its alignment with wealthy conservative donors and anti-Francis sentiments.

Unretracted Support for Viganò: A Lingering Shadow

Archbishop Coakley’s handling (or lack thereof) of his 2018 statement in support of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has lingered as part of his legacy for over seven years. In August 2018, Viganò released a bombshell “testimony” accusing Pope Francis of covering up sexual abuse by former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and calling for the pope’s resignation. The document was riddled with unsubstantiated claims, many of which were quickly debunked and challenged by professional journalists, including Gerard O’Connell and Michael O’Loughlin of America, John L. Allen Jr. of Crux, Joshua McElwee of National Catholic Reporter, La Croix International, and Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press.

Coakley was among two dozen U.S. bishops who just as quickly endorsed Viganò, not only calling for an investigation, but vouching for his “integrity” — without a word in defense of Pope Francis’s own integrity or reputation. In his statement, Coakley wrote, “I have the deepest respect for Archbishop Viganó and his personal integrity.” This endorsement came at a moment of crisis for the Church, amplifying Viganò’s attack and contributing to a narrative that harmed Francis’s pontificate.

It was later revealed that Viganò himself had been complicit in aspects of the McCarrick cover-up, and his rhetoric in the years that followed devolved into the endless promotion of wild conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated attacks on Church leaders, and open sedevacantism — leading to his excommunication in 2024 for schism.

In an article for OSV News last week that attempted to justify Coakley’s praise for Viganò, Michael Heinlein claimed that Viganò “had an impeccable record” before releasing his 2018 manifesto. In reality, Viganò’s record was already marred by serious controversies. As nuncio, he orchestrated the politicized 2015 meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis — an encounter the Vatican quickly distanced itself from and which prompted Francis to remark, “I fired that nuncio,” as reported by the New York Times. Internal correspondence later showed that in 2014 he attempted to halt and restrict the investigation into Archbishop John Nienstedt’s misconduct, even directing that evidence be destroyed — actions documented by the National Catholic Reporter.

In the time following his retirement and prior to his testimony, Viganò had already publicly aligned himself with anti-Francis agitation. For example, he attached his name to an open letter initially published by the bishops of Kazakhstan against Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia and similar efforts aimed at resisting the pope’s reforms. The Boston Pilot and National Catholic Reporter noted Viganò’s personal appearance at a 2017 Rome conference organized by the strongly anti-Francis group Voice of the Family, where he was photographed alongside dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmüller. Taken together, these episodes make it difficult to sustain the claim that Viganò entered the public stage in August 2018 as a neutral whistleblower with an “impeccable” record.

Seven years later, despite Viganò’s descent into extremism, Coakley has never publicly retracted his support or apologized for his complicity in the damage caused. In an OSV News interview following his election (also conducted by Heinlein), Coakley downplayed the issue, claiming that he didn’t know “Viganò other than what I knew of him from walking these halls here at bishops’ meetings. He was always a gentleman, he was always supportive, he always showed an interest in how things are going in our dioceses.” Coakley then complained about the criticism he has received due to his statement, which still appears on his archdiocese’s website, saying, “I didn’t know him in that way, what his views were, when I made those comments, which have been thrown back in my face numerous times subsequently and used against me. I was simply trying to protect the reputation of a man who I knew to be a churchman who had served the conference of Catholic bishops here in the United States admirably and faithfully. I didn’t know him in any other way.”

This response sidesteps accountability: Viganò’s extremism was evident in 2018 to those who scrutinized his claims, and the McCarrick investigation proceeded independently of Viganò’s interference, which in fact delayed real reforms. Why would a bishop seek to “protect the reputation” of a man he says he barely knew who had just launched a hostile attack on the Roman Pontiff? At the very least, the new USCCB president could admit that he regrets having been taken in by Viganò and said he was sorry for unwittingly contributing to such a malicious attack on Pope Francis. To do so would be a step toward healing a deeply divided U.S. Church.

For the record, Viganò’s “testimony” did nothing to aid abuse victims or advance justice; it was an attempted putsch that deepened division. McCarrick’s laicization and changes to Church law happened in spite of it, not because of it. One only has to look at the timeline. The announcement of McCarrick’s abuse allegations and his suspension from ministry happened in June 2018. He was removed from the College of Cardinals the following month, on July 28. By the time Viganò’s attack was published nearly a month later, the canonical process that led to McCarrick’s laicization was well underway. Perhaps some Catholics swept up in the litany of scandals exposed during that summer of shame can be excused for seeing Viganò’s intervention as yet another blow to the Church’s credibility. But they have had seven years to reevaluate Viganò’s actions in light of what we know today. Coakley’s continued evasion suggests he still views his 2018 stance as defensible, even as Viganò remains a toxic figure poisoning the Church.

Affiliation with the Napa Institute: A Network of Influence

Archbishop Coakley serves as the ecclesiastical advisor to the Napa Institute, a California-based organization founded by businessman Tim Busch. The institute hosts high-profile retreats, conferences, and events that bring together affluent Catholic laypeople, clergy, and bishops to discuss faith, culture, and politics. While it bills itself as a forum for evangelization and orthodoxy, critics argue it functions as a hub for conservative Catholic powerbrokers who prioritize cultural warfare over pastoral mercy.

The Napa Institute has been linked to efforts that undermine Pope Francis’s reforms, including support for traditionalist causes and skepticism toward synodality. Its events have featured speakers who have openly defied the priorities of Popes Francis and Leo. Coakley’s role as advisor places him at the center of this ecosystem, raising questions about whether his leadership of the USCCB will prioritize the interests of elite donors over the broader needs of the faithful, particularly the poor and marginalized whom Francis has consistently championed. Recently, Coakley and several other Napa-affiliated bishops found themselves at the center of an effort to publish a rebuke in the name of the USCCB against Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, who decided to give Illinois Senator Dick Durbin an award for his work defending the rights of migrants and refugees — which would have been a historically unprecedented act against an individual bishop by the national conference.

Coakley’s connection to the Napa Institute raises additional questions about his unwillingness to make a clear retraction of his 2018 endorsement of Viganò.

According to the New York Times, Archbishop Viganò notified Busch of his plans to publish the attack on Francis with Napa Institute founder Tim Busch two weeks before its August 26 publication. A report by journalists Elizabeth Dias and Laurie Goodstein said that the disgraced archbishop “privately shared his plan to speak out with” Busch (Busch would later deny this). In a telephone interview with the Times, Busch said, “Archbishop Viganò has done us a great service… He decided to come forward because if he didn’t, he realized he would be perpetuating the cover-up.” Busch added his belief that the testimony’s claims were “credible,” and also claimed that “leaders of the publication had personally assured him that the former pope, Benedict XVI, had confirmed Archbishop Viganò’s account.”

The claims of Benedict’s confirmation ultimately turned out to be untrue. In his “testimony”, Viganò claimed that in 2008 or 2009, “Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis.” Shortly after the testimony’s release, National Catholic Register journalist Edward Pentin reported that Pope Benedict “remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.”

The next day, Pentin published further details from “a reliable source close to Benedict,” who said the Pope Emeritus was “unable to remember very well” how the matter had been handled. As far as Benedict could recall, the instruction was essentially that McCarrick should keep “a low profile.” There had been “no formal decree, just a private request.”

The subsequent McCarrick Report confirmed this recollection and clarified the picture. It revealed that the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops at the time, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, had been the one to convey these informal instructions to McCarrick. Acting on information about McCarrick’s inappropriate behavior with adult seminarians, Re privately urged him to withdraw from public life, reduce travel, and avoid high-visibility appearances. These were not canonical sanctions and were never issued as a papal decree. According to the McCarrick Report, Benedict was briefed and agreed with Re’s course of action, but there was never a canonically binding decree. Instead, the instructions were pastoral indications meant to minimize scandal — quiet guidance that McCarrick frequently ignored.

Viganò’s central charge against Pope Francis — that the late pope had “lifted” formal sanctions against McCarrick that had been imposed by Benedict — was false because there were no sanctions to lift. Although one might question the handling of McCarrick in the years leading up to the public revelations in 2018, Pope Francis can only be faulted for maintaining the Church’s status quo that he inherited upon his election in 2013.

Like Archbishop Coakley, Tim Busch has never retracted his praise for Viganò. The speaker lineups for his annual Napa Institute Summer Conferences are typically filled with figures who are open critics of Pope Francis (the 2019 event featured outspoken anti-Francis speakers Cardinal Raymond Burke, Archbishop Charles Chaput, Bishop Joseph Strickland, and author George Weigel). Last summer, businessman Frank Hanna III delivered a shocking speech at the annual event that might be described as the antithesis of Pope Leo XIV’s first apostolic exhortation Dilexi Te.

At a time when the U.S. Church is grappling with declining trust and relevance, electing a president with such ties risks deepening divisions rather than fostering unity. Observers note that the Napa Institute’s influence could steer the conference toward a more confrontational stance on social issues, potentially alienating progressive Catholics and those seeking dialogue in a post-Trump era.

Why This Matters for the USCCB’s Future

Archbishop Coakley’s election comes at a pivotal moment. With immigration policies under scrutiny in a second Trump administration, the USCCB has emphasized support for migrants — a stance Coakley has thankfully echoed. Coakley has also been vocal in his opposition to the death penalty, another area of doctrine where many U.S. Catholics strongly dissent. Even so, his affiliations and unresolved past raise doubts about his ability to lead impartially. The Napa Institute’s ideological bent could influence priorities, while the Viganò shadow undermines his moral authority.

Nevertheless, for Catholics committed to Pope Francis’s merciful, synodal Church, this leadership choice feels like a step backward. Coakley’s failure to apologize is not merely a personal oversight; it is a leadership failure. True renewal requires bishops who confront errors head-on, not those who dodge accountability. Until Coakley addresses these concerns with humility and honesty, his presidency risks deepening the very divisions the USCCB should heal.

---

Image: Archbishop Coakley, USCCB YouTube feed from 2025 Plenary Assembly in Baltimore.