USCCB Meetings and Bishops' Conference

[Crumpy]

We see that the USCCB meeting agendas are so packed. And, recently, one of the meetings was largely in executive session, so they they could turn off the cameras.

I think that’s a mistake.

I think their first mistake for a lot of their agenda items is that they know it all. It seems that there should be a lay group actively observing the meeting and perhaps evaluating it publicly.

And, at the discretion of that lay group, other lay groups should be involved in the proceedings.

Yes, it’s a Bishops conference, but they are not bishops in a vacuum.

Another matter is money. It seems to take a large amount of money to fund the USCCB, and I’m not sure why. It’s hard to imagine that their internal work could eclipse the budget of the Vatican (if I’m not mistaken).

And, I’m puzzled by the absence of coverage on EWTN of other national bishops’ conferences. Are the U.S. bishops re-inventing the wheel? Are they simply always working from scratch on issues?

It’s hard for me to follow, whether their decisions are actually binding on all the dioceses? If not, then what’s the point of the meeting and the voting? Hmmm.

 

[gelsbern]

Personally I think the laity’s involvment has been detrimental to the church in the last 40 years. They complained about latin, Mass got changed, they women complained about veiling, the biblical practice is no longer enforced, people complained about not enough stuff for women/girls to do and we get EMHCs’ and girl altar boys. People complained about the old drafty churches, so they get torn down, new ones get built with no space for the tabernacle to be in the center.

Unfortunately the damage has been done, so there’s no way of having the laity back off. So in a way I agree with your premise, but it should be laity who are looking for orthodoxy and holiness in the church, not the bunch of wackos who ran thing over the last 40 years.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I think it is a good thing. Let them get the business done without the interference of the laity.

PF

 

[frommi]

WanderAimlessly:

I think it is a good thing. Let them get the business done without the interference of the laity.

PF

Yeah, after that stellar performance with the sexual abuse crisis…I can see why we’d want them taking care of things on their own.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Church is not a democracy. If you want that then go to the Episcopalian Church and get all that nonsense.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Yeah, after that stellar performance with the sexual abuse crisis…I can see why we’d want them taking care of things on their own.

As sickening as that crisis was and still is, I doubt there was widespread conspiracy among the Bishops at the Conference meetings. Whether or not there was presence of laymen at the meetings, the outcome would arguably be similar to what we have today. Are laymen incapable of such abuse?

With that said, I do think the Episcopate is just as culpable as the laity (if not moreso) when it comes to the problems we experience today. Therefore, I see little reason why outside observers could not be appointed. After all, we have seen this in the recent Synod. There is no obligation to heed the advice offered, but perhaps it should still be welcomed.

The USCCB does seem to have a lot more “going on” than other Bishops’ Conferences. Its website offers more resources than most others, in my experience. One may often find outdated, confusing, and even disagreeable information, but nevertheless there is A LOT of it!

 

[frommi]

msproule:

As sickening as that crisis was and still is, I doubt there was widespread conspiracy among the Bishops at the Conference meetings. Whether or not there was presence of laymen at the meetings, the outcome would arguably be similar to what we have today. Are laymen incapable of such abuse?

Laymen arent incapable…all I was saying was that I have a hard time when people make it sound like we should leave the bishops to their own devices to make key decisions. They are the ultimate decision makers, I’m not suggesting the laity have a ‘vote’, but I think having all the bishops lock themselves away is a bad plan…for a variety of issues, not just sexual abuse.

 

[chicago]

Actually, the USCCB does have a lot of lay involvement and used to have even more. It was previously called the N.ational C.onference of C.atholic B.ishops/U.nited S.tates C.atholic C.onference (NCCB/USCC). The NCCB was the bishops’ conference and the USCC was their public policy arm. This was combined under the restructuring leadership plan of Cardinal Bernardin before his death in order to streamline things and ensure that it was more of a truly united bishop’s conference rather than only one which the bishops had a say in. Basically, the purpose of a national bishop’s conference is to ensure that the episcopate of a country better work together to address concerns of interest to their area of service. In a country as large and diverse as the United States, this creates particular challenges. The conference, itself, has many committees which work to address various needs and particular areas of concern. These committees are made up of both bishops, priests, religious, and lay advisors. You don’t see them at the big meetings (save for a few staffers who are sitting around in the background). But they are highly involved in the discussions away from the plenary and summer major meetings of bishops. The bishops use a parliamentary system of voting on matters at these meetings whereby discussion is pretty limited and they are often merely passing or declining proposals as a whole. The real work gets done at the lower levels and in the private meetings. (It should be noted that at one point the plenary meetings were not open to the public at all, and even once they were initially opened, all discussion was conducted in Latin). The USCCB also has offices in D.C. where their staff deals with matters of concern to the U.S. and it’s dioceses. (Perhaps the most well known of these is the Pro-Life Secretariat). Further, the bishop’s conference has Regional meetings where bishops of various geographical areas of the U.S. gather to meet about concerns which are of note to their area of the country.