Bishops Changing Stuff

While bureaucracies, committees and other organizational structures are often regarded as obstacles to change and flexibility, this week's meeting of the U.S. Catholic bishops in San Antonio showed that this is not necessarily the case.

First came the early intervention in the meeting when USCCB President Cardinal George asked if there were any amendments to the proposed agenda and Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles stood up and said yes, as a matter of fact, there were. Mahony proposed that, meeting in a border state, perhaps the meeting would be a good opportunity for the bishops' to reiterate their support for comprehensive immigration reform. After approval both for the motion and then, the next day, for a text adapted by Cardinal George from a proposed text by Cardinal Mahony, this was the quick end result.

Cardinal Mahony's intervention on the agenda wasn't the only example of a single bishop causing the proceedings to seemingly turn on a dime this week. Even more striking was the change that grew out of a question/comment by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska during the debate on the liturgical items before the body of bishops.

Up to this point in the meeting, the bishops had been cruising along nicely with their electronic voting system, approving the long-gestating Mass in Thanksgiving for the Gift of Human Life and its subsequent adaptation into the U.S. missal.

But when the next action item, Masses and Prayer for Various Needs and Intentions -- part of the ongoing work of completing a new English translation of the Mass -- came up for a vote, the screen that had projected the earlier vote totals, complete with colorful bars, remained blank.

The vote, it was announced, had been inconclusive. That is, the item had failed to achieve the necessary approval of two thirds of the Latin church bishops and would therefore be sent to the bishops absent from the meeting to complete the ballotting by mail.

It was at that moment that Bishop Bruskewitz stood and, even admitting that this was probably an exercise in futility, asked why it was that the bishops were not permitted to see the inconclusive vote totals. He included the observation that the USCCB staff get to see the results (though this writer is certainly not one of those special few). Were they somehow trustworthy, he speculated, while the bishops themselves were not?

Msgr. David Malloy, General Secretary of the USCCB, noted that there had never been a leak from the USCCB staff on a vote total and that the policy of not releasing an inconclusive vote was done to preserve the integrity of the balloting process. The bishops present at the meeting vote on a measure without knowing its prospects for passing or not passing. Bishops absent from the meeting should receive the same treatment, lest they be swayed by the knowledge that their vote might be critical or futile, one way or the other, whatever the case may be. If memory serves, he also suggested that there was a fear of inappropriate lobbying for the votes of absentee bishops, should it be public knowledge that a vote is very close.

From there, a lively debate ensued, with it quickly becoming apparent that more than a couple bishops were also interested in knowing the inconclusive total. Questions were raised as to whether absent bishops would receive minutes of the meeting or summary of the debate preceding the vote -- such as Bishop Donald Trautman's unambiguous declaration that he felt the new translation was unproclaimable and not ready. Msgr. Malloy said absent bishops receive documentation but not minutes.

Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, after discouraging the cumbersome prospect of sending whole debate transcripts to absentees, said he saw Bishop Bruskewitz's point and moved that the inconclusive total be made known. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia seconded the motion.

Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit then stood up and said that he didn't favor such a sudden and sweeping change in Conference procedure without its going through the proper channels. On those grounds, he opposed the motion.

At this point, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, Vice President of the USCCB, asked if this motion applied to all inconclusive vote totals or merely the one currently before the bishops. Archbishop Pilarczyk clarified and said his motion would be for all of them from here forward.

With that, Bishop Blaise Cupich of Rapid City, S.D. opposed the motion on the earlier grounds of making the mail vote different from the original vote.

Other points that were raised included Cardinal Mahony citing that he had absent auxiliaries who would find the vote count helpful and Bishop Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo noting that essentially all bishops have cell phones, e-mail, etc., that they weren't somehow disconnected from what was going on with the conference simply by missing a meeting or not being provided with a vote count.

Ultimately, the motion passed, 122 to 65. From there, each liturgy vote, all but one of them inconclusive, splashed across the screen, providing an erstwhile unseen perspective on where the bishops as a whole stand on the particular issue of liturgical translations.

And while this whole affair could be chalked up to mere procedural matters, voting on voting, as it were, it still offers an interesting glimpse of one bishop expressing a sentiment that, by his own admission, might have gone nowhere, but instead ended up changing the protocols of the organization on the spot. Bolder people would make comments about the Spirit, but this writer will stop at saying this is yet another instance of the U.S. bishops wrestling with that mysterious concept talked about at Vatican II called collegiality, that is, the collaborative and collective exercise of their authority in governing and ministering to the church.

And We're Done

With the bishop going into executive session for the remainder of their meeting, Media Relations is pretty much folding up shop. A few reporters are lingering, filing their stories, grabbing interviews, etc. An overcast day in San Antonio has just turned to rain, and we'll be headed back home tonight.

Thanks to all who loved our Twittering this meeting to death. Apologies to all who found it incessant. Hopefully, once we've recovered, the activity on the blog will pick up, and the Twitter feed will return to its usual two or three items a day ... that is, until the fall general meeting in Baltimore.

On the Ground in San Antonio

Pardon the sparse posting. USCCB Media Relations, along with much of the Conference, has been in San Antonio since Monday. The Hyatt Regency Riverwalk -- a beautifully cavernous hotel with a fun layout -- is crawling with bishops and their staff.

The last couple days have featured blistering San Antonio heat outside the hotel, which subsides into pleasantly warm nighttime temperatures, just perfect for strolling the Riverwalk and searching out Texas barbecue.

Tech people are currently working on the video feed that will link the EWTN camera to several monitors throughout the hotel. Their coverage is to be "partial" this time, with a one-camera setup.

The first public session of the meeting is slated to begin in about two hours (1:30 p.m. Central Time). We'll be active on Twitter as events unfold.

U.S. Bishops' Meeting to be a'Twitter

The content of this post probably could've been handled in 140 characters, but I just wanted to announce ahead of time the intention of the USCCB's Office of Media Relations to Twitter the U.S. bishops' annual spring meeting, which will be June 17-19 in San Antonio.

The public sessions of the meeting are June 17 in the afternoon and June 18 in the morning, and hopefully during the time, the Twitter handle usccbmedia will provide regular updates of the proceedings.

In meetings past, reporters have filed their stories live from the site of the meeting, bloggers have blogged, and USCCB Media Relations has moved quickly to put out releases on major votes and other pivotal decisions by the bishops. But now the information will be coming much more quickly, consistently, and in smaller pieces. It's unclear at this time what sort of coverage this meeting will be receiving from other live news outlets, so our Twitter feed may be the only source of its kind.

Hope you follow us in San Antonio!