THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS: Part Three

Thus far, we have examined the history and the structure of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  In Part Three, we shall consider the essential mission of the USCCB as defined by Vatican II and embodied in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, as we make a critical assessment of the authority which the USCCB exercises versus the authority of a Bishop within his own diocese.

The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 contains eighty-four canons that call for or permit legislative action by the episcopal conference.  It is important to note that only in these specific precepts does any conference of Bishops have jurisdictional authority over all the Bishops within the conference and only after the Holy See has affirmed in writing (recognitio) the conference's proposed legislation.

The USCCB (designated the National Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to July 1, 2001) has taken action on twenty-nine canons, thereby establishing particular legislation for all dioceses of the United States and the Virgin Islands.   In some instances the conference voted to retain existing norms or regulations, with due regard for any change or modification warranted by changes in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  In other instances they revised existing norms or created new norms where necessary. Those actions requiring recognitio or review by the Apostolic See, in accord with canon 455, §2, have been reviewed by the appropriate Roman dicastery.

With regard to all other actions taken by the USCCB or documents and statements issued by the conference,  no bishop has an obligation to adopt the conference’s documents or implement their initiatives within his own diocese.  Such actions or statements of the USCCB have no authority for an individual diocese unless the Bishop of that diocese prescribes or implements them either explicitly or implicitly.

The Father of Vatican Council II made clear that episcopal conferences are both practical and desirable for communication and joint legislative action where permitted by law.  Yet, over time with the increasingly tendency of the USCCB to issue document upon document and institute a massive bureaucracy of social welfare programs, a reasonable question might be raised as to whether or not the USCCB has taken on a role never intended.  Has the USCCB begun to replace or displace the authority of individual Bishops, even within their own dioceses?

Another question may be raised as to whether there is a growing tendency on the part of the Bishops to abdicate to the conference a portion of their episcopal role and duties.

Put more precisely, the concern is this: is the leadership of individual Bishops being undermined by the USCCB habitually speaking with a common voice and creating a complex and costly pastoral ministry composed of manifold social welfare programs?

In other words, is the voice of the USCCB drowning out the voices of Bishops within their own dioceses?  Who exercises more influence on  individual Catholics?  The USCCB or the Bishop who lives among them, experiencing their concerns and ministering to them by way of word and personal example?

 Or, on the contrary, is it possible that the stronger the voice of the USCCB, the stronger the voice of most bishops individually and locally?  

Does the work of the USCCB enhance an individual Bishop's credibility, moral authority, effective leadership? And how does one gauge whether it increases or decreases—not just for a few prominent bishops but for the great majority of the several hundred bishops, especially the heads of the nearly 200 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States?

Tempted as I am to provide answers to these questions, I defer to Divine Providence and the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete Whom Jesus bestowed to guide and inspire the Church until He comes again.

The inherent tensions between the collective initiatives of the USCCB and the authority of an individual Bishop within his own diocese will require much time and patience before an effective equilibrium can be fully established.

In the meantime, it is most helpful to consistently reiterate and reinforce the proper understanding the exact nature and mission of the Conference as mandated by the Universal Church and respecting the distinctive role of the local Bishop within his diocese.  Such an effort is and remains the duty and obligation of the USCCB collectively and the Bishops individually.