The Case of Bishop Stowe (2024)

The Catholic bishops of the United States have been a prophetic voice in defense of the faith and the dignity of the human person. The bishops are attuned to the events that matter most to American Catholics—some policy, some pastoral—and are a unified force.

As the governing body of bishops, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), exercises its public influence, however, one bishop has proved himself to be more and more out of step.

Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, goes his own way. He regularly steps into the most delicate and highly-charged cultural and political issues with none of the painstaking care his brother bishops show. He seems determined, in fact, to follow his own blundering impulses, and to kick against the other bishops’ pastoral approach whenever it might rein him in.

Promoting ‘transgenderism’ and ‘gay’ lifestyle

During the celebration of the Feast of Pentecost last month, a diocesan-approved hermit under Stowe’s jurisdiction “came out” as “transgender.” The controversial event immediately made headlines, and Stowe’s role gradually came into focus.

The Diocese of Lexington revealed, “On Pentecost Sunday, Brother Christian Matson, a professed hermit in the Diocese of Lexington, has made it public that he is a transgender person,” the diocese stated—using male pronouns in reference to the gender-confused woman in question. “Bishop John Stowe, OFM Conv., accepted his profession [as a religious hermit] and is grateful to Brother Christian for his witness….” Additionally, Matson’s application to become a diocesan hermit was “repeatedly rejected” by other bishops in a ten-year search that ultimately found support from Stowe.

Here Stowe broke ranks with his brother bishops who condemned sex-change interventions “intended to transform the body so as to make it take on as much as possible the form of the opposite sex, contrary to the natural form of the body,” as well as Pope Francis, who wrote, “It needs to be emphasized that ‘biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.’”

The use of the Mass on a high feast day to promote transgenderism was jarring, but it was far from the first time Stowe had publicly rejected the Church’s guidance on sexual morality.

In comments last year to Time, Stowe responded to the Vatican document Fiducia Supplicans by suggesting that “a blessing can still hold great significance to queer couples because they act as prayers for God’s presence and help,” according to the publication. “It almost signifies God’s approval,” he said.

As the dissident pro-LGBTQ Catholic organization New Ways Ministry reported at the time,

Stowe emphasized that the negative appraisal of hom*osexuality found in current church teaching may be dated, as Catholics consider a new set of sexual ethics to meet today’s world. The bishop commented, “we have to explore how we best understand [theology] and best apply that in light of what we now know about anthropology, about human development, [and] about sexual orientation not being something that one freely chooses.”

“LGBT persons,” Stowe wrote in a 2022 essay, “did not choose their identity, but are certain it is an essential part of who they are.” Such people “cannot and should not change,” he wrote.

Stowe’s statements on questions of sexual morality and identity contradict the Church’s timeless teachings—principles reiterated in increasing frequency both by the Vatican and the USCCB as the LGBTQ movement’s aggression against the Church escalates.

The Kentucky bishop’s pro-LGBTQ principles don’t stop at doctrinal opinion, however. He has also repeatedly pushed for policy and law to reflect his rejection of the Church’s guidance.

In 2021, Stowe signed a statement shopped around by progressive groups in order to advance the LGBTQ movement among schoolchildren in Catholic institutions such as schools.

Also in 2021, Stowe went so far as to publicly endorse the pro-LGBTQ Equality Act, which was an act of almost unprecedented rebellion from the clear policy of the USCCB. Writing to the heads of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Stowe adopted the language of the legislation’s backers to frame it as an effort to make sure “harmful discrimination” would no longer be “protected by law” so that “LGBTQ people have the protection they need.”

The U.S. bishops, meanwhile, have almost unanimously condemned and warned against the Equality Act as a threat to religious freedom and the sanctity of life.

Unanimously, that is, except for Bishop Stowe.

In his letter to lawmakers, Stowe wrote that he disagreed with the USCCB’s warnings. “I do not believe that the Equality Act would compromise our beliefs,” he argued, adding “it’s a difficult thing to take a stance against what the U.S.C.C.B. published” but, “How can we take a position against equality?” Here he implies that his brother bishops do not support the dignity of every person.

His remarks stand in contrast to the Vatican’s: “‘Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, hom*osexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.” In proclaiming and defending God’s plan for sexual desires and human fulfillment, the Church “does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.”

Throwing a wrench in the USCCB’s pro-life witness

The USCCB’s opposition to the Equality Act is not only a matter of the LGBTQ movement’s rejection of sexual morality. The bishops have also consistently pointed out the threat the legislation poses to unborn life.

In their statements on the Equality Act, the U.S. bishops held the line to build on a coalition that took years to establish—representing a Catholic pro-life cause that has come to be one of the most cohesive and wide-ranging movements in public life.

Stowe’s heated political rhetoric, however, often gives the impression that he wants no part of that movement.

In September 2021, for example, Stowe lashed out at pro-life Catholics in the wake of a successful piece of pro-life legislation being signed into law that protected unborn babies from abortion after six weeks of gestation.

“Those who vehemently fight legal abortion,” Stowe stated, “but are uninterested in providing basic healthcare for pregnant mothers or needy children, who are unconcerned about refugee children or those lacking quality education with no hope of escaping poverty cannot really claim to respect life.” This is partisan talk that has little reference to the reality of what pro-lifers pursue legislatively.

Perhaps this is unsurprising given that Stowe’s words seem to give a free pass to Catholic politicians who support pro-choice legislation. He says about abortion, “[I]t is a complex issue for a responsible Catholic officeholder who recognizes the law of the land and must survive within the dynamics of a political party, believing what the Church teaches, but unclear as to how that should relate to the law.” Unclear? The USCCB disagrees. “Having been entrusted with special

responsibility for the common good,… Catholic politicians and legislators must recognize their grave responsibility in society to support laws shaped by these fundamental human values and oppose laws and policies that violate life and dignity at any stage from conception to natural death.”

Making misleading claims to directly encourage rejection of the USCCB

In 2022, Stowe gave an interview in which he suggested Catholics have reason to distrust their bishops and ought to view their pronouncements as biased and disingenuous.

The interview came just after the bishops elected Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services as their new president. Stowe openly stated that he viewed Broglio and the rest of the bishops with suspicion, suggested they held priorities at odds with the pope’s, and criticized them for focusing on cultural issues while neglecting to focus on social justice to the degree Stowe would prefer.

As an eleven-year veteran of the USCCB’s policy work (my time at the USCCB included six years as the bishops’ executive director of government relations), I felt compelled to correct the record in response to Stowe’s comments.

“Contrary to Bishop Stowe’s claim,” I wrote at the time,

every year the majority of our statements came from the social justice wing of the conference…. It is worth noting that in 2017 a Jesuit priest and journalist, Thomas Reese, S.J., came to a similar conclusion in the pages of the National Catholic Reporter, where he wrote that “the strong language of the bishops on immigration, refugees and health care for the poor does not get the attention it deserves.”

The public work of the USCCB reflects as much a commitment to social justice issues as it does to issues around sexuality. It is simply wrong to suggest otherwise.

Trying to pit U.S. bishops against the Vatican through Eucharistic Revival

In a 2023 essay, Stowe attempted to pit the U.S. bishops’ Eucharistic Revival against the Vatican, portraying the former as a “pre-conciliar” conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of the Synod on Synodality.

His brother bishops’ plans for “a mega-event featuring plenty of pre-conciliar piety and theology” are secretly meant to “replace” the “focus on the Synod for a Synodal Church in the USCCB.” He continued:

It does not strike me as coincidental that much of the Eucharistic Revival focuses on eucharistic adoration, passive in nature, and so offers an easy alternative to the active engagement of walking together synodally.

Stirring disunity in a time of increasing unity among bishops

It’s all but a Scriptural guarantee that online critics we will always have with us. But social media chatter notwithstanding, the USCCB unmistakably witnesses to the dignity of every person.

General Assembly after General Assembly has led to election after election of men who “know the smell of their sheep,” to borrow a phrase from the current pontiff.

Bishop Thomas Paprocki, for example, has been entrusted by his brother bishops with upholding canon law as chair of the Committee for Canonical Affairs and Church Governance.

Paprocki has shown himself unafraid to promote the truth of the Catholic faith even in the face of the most powerful public figures rather than cede it to their false interpretation. He recently confronted the president for using the Sign of the Cross at a rally for abortion.

Bishop Kevin Rhoades, chair of the USCCB’s committee on religious liberty, has similarly stood his ground against the Department of Health and Human Services.

The agency, he publicly warned just weeks ago, is attempting to implement pro-LGBTQ rules that would force Catholics to conform to an “ideological view of sex.”

Or take Bishop Robert Barron, elected to chair the USCCB’s Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth. In his role, Barron regularly looks out for the Catholic family, insisting on the Church’s teachings over and against the demeaning anthropology presented by cultural and political power brokers from Hollywood to Washington, DC.

As mentioned above, Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services currently serves as president of the USCCB. In that position, Broglio consistently advances the mission of the U.S. bishops on behalf of the faithful. It should be noted that Archbishop Broglio is a seasoned church diplomat, a polyglot, and a man of renowned reputation who is clearly trusted by his brother bishops. Bishop Stowe’s disparaging remarks towards him are both uncharitable and ill-informed.

In just one recent example of Archbishop Broglio’s prophetic voice, he publicly confronted the Department of Veterans Affairs for imposing a new permanent policy allowing taxpayer-funded military medical centers to perform abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. The new rule “is at odds with the notion that the military protects the innocent,” Broglio stated:

The notion that killing an unborn child can somehow be considered “medical or surgical care” certainly violates the dignity of the human person and suggests that some lives are more important than others… I deplore this decision that once more removes the right to life for the defenseless and inflicts untold physical and psychological trauma on mothers.

This echoes similar comments the Holy Father has made many times relative to abortion.

The time has come to question Stowe

Surely Stowe’s behavior—so gratingly at odds with the good work of his brother bishops—can only serve to embarrass the USCCB and will continue to hamper their pastoral witness if left unaddressed by the Holy See.

The future of the Church in the United States—and in particular the peace and unity of the lay Catholic flock—would greatly benefit from such an intervention.