Even the most cursory social media survey in the past 24 hours suggests Vice President J.D. Vance’s comment about the money that flows through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for “immigrant” services touched a nerve among the bishops, who managed to react in the middle of a Sunday afternoon. It touched an even greater nerve among folks using social media, many of whom sided with the Vice President.

Some of the criticism is not justified. Much of that money funds actual social programs that do provide nonprofit services to “immigrants,” while avoiding the question of the alien’s legality. But given the share of money that goes through the USCCB for “immigrant and refugee services,” it’s not illegitimate to ask whether there’s some vested interest in keeping the funds flowing — and not just out of “charitable concern for neighbor.”

Whatever one thinks of the finances question, one hopes at least some of our bishops (especially those in leadership roles in the Conference) have realized: “Fourth Street (home of the USCCB in D.C.), we have a problem!” And it’s not just a comms problem.

The U.S. Senate failed January 22 to advance legislation to ban infanticide. Although it garnered a majority, it lacked the 60 votes necessary to break a Democratic filibuster. The majority of Catholics in the Senate voted FOR infanticide. Yes, that elicited a response from the chairman of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Committee. But, in Washington, protocol and precedence matter. The President of the USCCB critiqued President Donald Trump’s executive orders. The chairman of a bishops’ committee wrung his hands over the Senate failing to shut down infanticide. Last time I checked, Vatican II called abortion and infanticide “unspeakable crimes” against God and man. Methinks that might upgrade the rank of the episcopal critic.

But when we’ve seen a flurry of bishops’ statements in the past week about immigration, one has to ask: What really is their “pre-eminent issue”? What did those actions, all set in broader context, say?

As I said, I hope the bishops do some self-assessment, because their credibility (and not just their moral authority) has grown thin. The popular reaction to their immigration politics is not some isolated response by Trump supporters. Sure, those folks ask about the incongruence of statements in which lip service is theoretically paid to rights of countries to control their borders and exercise national sovereignty over foreigners on their territories before pivoting to de facto open border policies that render the theoretical commitment nugatory.

But the apparent decline of episcopal credibility is not a function of immigration statements that make illogical leaps. Those roots run deeper.

It’s been six-and-a-half years since the Uncle Teddy scandal burst. Since then, the drip-drip-drip of reports about pervert priests — mostly homosexual — has almost become normative. “Another one?!” is not so much surprise as resignation. When some members of the USCCB tried to demand answers a few years back, a certain leading prelate otherwise known for his “dialogue” credentials shut that discussion down. Instead, we eventually got a Vatican report that can be summarized as “anybody who knew anything is dead and everybody who is alive knew nothing.”

It’s not just national. Francis talks a good talk about “zero tolerance,” but Marko Rupnik doesn’t seem particularly fazed while the Vatican apparatus acts as if his abuses are so novel they require new investigations and procedures — maybe even new penal canon law — to grapple with them. Those who share a hermeneutic of suspicion might ask: “can you spell d-i-l-a-t-o-r-y?

It’s hard for the Church to address pressing moral issues — and there are plenty of contemporary pressing moral issues — until it lances that predator boil. While no doubt some will mention this or that fact to demonstrate episcopal resolve, the bishops cannot deny: most people don’t believe or trust them on this.

It’s been almost five years since the bishops all closed down Sunday Mass for nearly a year. Other institutions have since conducted post-mortems about that policy or at least reckoned with it. The fact that Dr. Fauci remains a controversial figure at least tells you that the matter is not settled. Debate still ensues about how the long-term shutdown of schools adversely affected a generation of students. When will a review of what the Church did happen? In the approximately eight plenary meetings of bishops since 2020, when has that item been on the agenda? I know the agenda is crowded but just maybe the topic might be squeezed in between approving the revised translation of the proper for some new saint and advancing the next beatification (the blessed ain’t going nowhere in terms of the state of blessedness that matters). Has there been no interest in all our synodal whisperings to explore that question? Has the Spirit been studiously unconversant about the mass closure of Mass?

Speaking of closures, how many of the remaining Catholics still going to church are alienated by bishops who, applauding themselves as “good and faithful stewards,” engage in Orwellian blather and canonical fiat about “renewing” and “rebuilding” their local churches by closing them down?

So, if people seem to be questioning the bishops’ interests in immigration policy (and grants), their graces might just entertain the notion that the topic exposes deeper problems about their overall credibility.

In April, we’ll mark the 250^th anniversaries of Lexington and Concord. The American Revolution did not have to begin there. There were plenty of prior grievances. If General Gage decided to stay in Boston, Lexington would be just another pretty New England village green. The Revolution might have started at Bunker Hill, or someplace unknown. But the constellation of events that came together with the straw that broke the camel’s back just happened at North Bridge Concord. And thence came “the shot heard round the world.”

Some may criticize my reference to social media, claiming it or my read of what’s trending as biased. Perhaps. I’d observe, however, that Pope Francis spent the past few days at Rome’s “Jubilee of Communications” talking about the role of the media. What struck me was his somewhat anachronistic perception of media, focused mostly on legacy media. Yes, journalist is a noble profession and the old media has a place. But, like it or not, social media has at least competed with that legacy media as a place not just for shaping but actually sharing news that the legacy media either won’t cover or affords slanted coverage. Like it or not, social media is part of our media landscape — and the bishops ignore perceptions shaped there at their own peril.

Justified or not, fair or not, let the bishops be faithful to Vatican II and “read the signs of the times.” The ferment about your credibility does not lie primarily in refugee assistance grants. But the larger credibility question cannot for the good of the Church be ignored. And I say that as a son of the Church who wants the Church and her bishops to be credible.