Episcopal Decision Making
From Archbishop: Inside the Power Structure of the American Catholic Church (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989) No one seems to worry about who ministers to the bishops. My mistakes have always happened in the cases where I did not really consult. Episcopal governance is the product of a number of factors: the personality and style
of the archbishop, the makeup and needs of his archdiocese, and the governing structures
of the church. Who is appointed archbishop makes a tremendous difference. His talents,
values, style, and preferences have an impact on his archdiocese. But he does not write on
a clean slate with complete freedom. Canon law gives him power but also restricts him. The
demographic and financial condition of his archdiocese as well as its history provides him
with opportunities and restraints. And it is through the structures of governance that he
must interact with other actors in the archdiocese and attempt to influence its direction. Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 examined how archbishops govern their parishes, deal with
finances, and personnel and oversee the operations of their education and social service
programs. A number of themes were common to all of these situations, which give us a
picture of the episcopal decision-making process. A characteristic of episcopal governance is that it is primarily reactive and not
proactive. Like other leaders of organizations, archbishops respond to problems by
searching for solutions./1 An archbishop's time and
attention is predominantly controlled by what hits him in the mail and on his schedule.
Thus the mail brings in information, requests, and complaints. People desiring to see him
do the same. His confirmation schedule forces him out among the people. His regularly
scheduled meetings with various boards and councils force him to go over agenda material
and to listen to the advice and opinions of others. The annual budgetary cycle forces him
to review expenditures and budgetary projections. Crises, especially those that might reach the press, also focus the archbishop's
attention. A potential scandal, demonstration, or protest will consume his energy. A labor
dispute or the closing of a school will always be controversial and require the
archbishop's attention. Archbishops do not like surprises, but, in fact, they must spend a
good amount of time responding to crises. Being in a reactive mode is not necessarily a negative pattern. By reacting to crises
and stimuli, an archbishop responds to the needs and the desires of the people in his
local church. In fact, this reactive management style helps him to be pastoral in
orientation. On the other hand, these concrete events can easily consume his time so that
he does not have time to update himself theologically or to deal with broader issues. He
fails to scan the environment for opportunities. But while responding to immediate concerns is necessary and good, many archdiocesan
officials, including archbishops, complain of the lack of long-range planning. Programs
and policies are made in response to requests and perceived needs, but when limited
resources demand selectivity, there is no sense of priorities to guide choices. Where some
long-range planning is taking place, it is usually in response to a perceived crisis such
as the decline in the number of priests. Some archdioceses have developed mission statements and pastoral plans. Some even have
an office of planning and research. These offices are concerned with goal setting and the
planning process within the diocesan structure. They also act as consultants./2 But often the planners complain that their advice is
not taken or they are ignored by the real decision makers. Their critics reply that the
planners have biases and that their opinions are no more weighty than those of other
participants. Despite attempts at planning, setting priorities, and mission statements, most
episcopal decision making is incremental./3
Archdioceses have tried management by objectives, PPBS (program, planning, budgeting
system), zero-based budgeting, and other management techniques. But when the final
decisions are made, they are almost always only incrementally different from what was done
in the past. This should not be surprising, since these management techniques have proven
less than perfect when applied to government programs. In archdioceses, when money is
tight, choices are rarely made among programs. Rather budgets are frozen or
across-the-board cuts are made. When money is available, most budgets are expanded
incrementally. Recognizing that programs are rarely closed down and that employees are
rarely let go, archbishops place high thresholds in front of new programs or hirings. Incremental change since the Vatican Council has meant mostly expansion--more programs,
more offices, more lay personnel, more money. These many incremental changes have added up
to substantial expansion on the part of archdioceses. This expansion together with a more
rapidly changing environment has made the job of the archbishop more difficult. The
creation of secretariat structures and budgetary systems have been attempts by archbishops
to find means of governing these new programs and agencies. One difficulty archbishops face in governing is that there are few empirical ways of
measuring whether a program is successful or not. In a business, there are a number of
indices: profit, market share, efficiency, growth. Like any nonprofit organization, the
church lacks a bottom-line criteria of success. The Catholic church has for many years
counted baptisms, Mass attendance, communions, collections, etc. All of these can be used
as measurable criteria. But theologically, the church is interested not only in quantity
but quality. Measuring quality of a liturgy or a sacramental experience is much more
difficult. In addition, the archbishops' lack of sophistication in social sciences makes it
difficult for them to think in these terms. Those, like Andrew Greeley, who have been
involved in empirical research on Catholic questions, complain that the bishops do not pay
attention to their work. While no one argues that empirical research will answer every
question, the church funds far less research than any other complex organization of
comparable size. Nor do many Catholic foundations fund research. One empirical measure most archbishops do understand is money. Some people are shocked
and disappointed at the amount of time that bishops must devote to finances. Archbishops,
however, recognize that they can do little without money. Their agencies and programs are
bottomless pits that can always use more money. If an archbishop gives them all they want,
the archdiocesan budget will be permanently in the red. Every archbishop knows of dioceses
that overspent and were heavily in debt. They have heard from their friends how difficult
and painful it was to turn those dioceses around and pay off the debts. None of them wants
that problem. Nor do many enjoy raising money. As a result, most insist that the
archdiocesan budget be balanced. Finances are also important to some archbishops because they recognize the power of the
purse. He who controls the funds, controls the organization. When my father presented the
articles of incorporation for the Los Angeles Catholic Big Brothers to Cardinal James
McIntyre, the cardinal said, "I only want to know one thing: How do I control the
funds in this organization?" He was very angry when told he did not control the
funds. The power of the purse is seen at budget time. Funding determines what new programs are
started. And the budgetary process is usually the only mechanism for reviewing existing
archdiocesan programs. It is a time when questions are asked and programs must be
defended. It is a time when an archbishop is guaranteed an agency's undivided attention. On the other hand, extensive involvement in financial administration is also a
temptation for bishops. Organizational theorists call this displacement of goals thorough
overcommitment to means./4 But this danger is not
simply present in financial administration but in all kinds of administrative procedures:
planning, meetings, newsletters, rules, and procedures. Archbishops are also concerned about the Catholicity of archdiocesan programs,
especially the Catholic character of their schools and social programs. Having programs
that are professional and efficient is not enough; archbishops want something
distinctively Catholic about these programs. This can be controversial if there is
disagreement over what is "Catholic." While a certain amount of legitimate
pluralism is acknowledged by most bishops, they also recognize their responsibility for
the Catholic character of their agencies and programs. It is within the role of bishops as
institutional leaders (rather than simply managers or technocrats) to be concerned about
"meaning," legitimation, and higher level support, which makes the achievement
of goals possible./5 The difficulty comes when
"Catholic" is defined in a legalistic way as to eliminate creativity in
responding to a changing environment. Because they are dealing with so many uncertainties, few archbishops are willing to
make decisions without consulting others. Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco admits that
his "mistakes have always happened in the case where I did not really consult, where
I just made my own decision without discussing or consulting with anybody. I don't usually
do that. I usually do consult with wise people. But when I haven't, then I see that it has
very often been the wrong decision." Archbishops consult many people, including other bishops. Many archbishops find out
what other bishops are doing before making a decision. Smart diocesan administrators know
that if they can show that a program or policy has been adopted in a number of other
dioceses, especially by bishops whom their archbishop respects, they will have an easier
time selling their proposal. At a cabinet meeting discussing when and how often to allow
Tridentine Masses, one archbishop reported calling Archbishop Kelly in Louisville to find
out what he was doing. Consulting other dioceses often gains valuable information and advice by profiting from
their experience. Such a strategy helps an archbishop avoid making mistakes or at least
avoid being alone in the mistake. One of the reasons Renew was adopted by so many dioceses
was the high marks it received from bishops who had tried it. Likewise, when Archbishop
Roach of St. Paul wanted to reorganize his diocesan agencies, he sent his moderator of the
curia to Chicago to learn about their reorganization. Most archbishops are not afraid to make decisions, but they realize that they need the
advice of others. Who they consult is important. Some consult widely; others tend to
consult those they consider expert on the issue in question. Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia explains: In arriving at decisions, an archbishop must be well informed, must consult with people
who know and have something to offer. It is a popular tendency today to have so-called
grass-roots input, which is valid if the grass roots know what the issues are, what the
problems are, what the goals are. [Government officials in a democracy] do not go to grass roots every time they have to
make a decision. They have to consult, they call the experts and the people who are in the
know, and they do have hearings. But that town hall kind of a syndrome, which was valid
with very small communities, is not applicable when you have a country such as ours or a
diocese which exceeds 1.3 million Catholics. Limiting consultation to experts is efficient, but it sometimes prevents the archbishop
from getting advice from people who will be affected by the decision. In addition, if
their support is necessary to carry out the policy, consultation is a method of fostering
ownership over the decision. For example, while an archbishop might think RCIA or Renew
would be good for the parishes, he should recognize that adopting them without consulting
the priests would be a disaster. Bishops who follow a consultative style realize their
dependence on others and the necessity of cooperative strategies to reduce uncertainty,
gain commitments, and make goals more easily achievable./6 Sometimes the consultation process is in form only because those consulted know the
archbishop has already made up his mind. For example, the priests' council in New York
voted to have a archdiocesan synod because they knew Cardinal O'Connor wanted one, but
there was little enthusiasm among the priests for the idea. On the other hand, in some
situations the archbishop can be embarrassed when a consultative body flatly turns down
his recommendation. The St. Paul council of priests in 1985 told Archbishop Roach that
they did not support his plan to renovate the seminary. He postponed the project until he
could win over their support. When working with consultative bodies, archbishops look not only for advice, they are
also attempting to form consensus. A majority vote in favor of a proposal is rarely
sufficient. If 49 percent of the council opposes the proposal, the archbishop will rarely
proceed. Rather he will call for more discussion and perhaps modifications to take into
consideration the views of those opposed. This frequently means that the final decision is
postponed. The archbishop also wants consensus among his consultative groups. He would not want
his priests' council and pastoral council in conflict like an upper and lower house./7 If the pastoral council has one view and the priests'
council has another, he is in trouble./8 He or his
staff will have to broker a compromise and work for consensus. The desire for consensus is
one example of the high priority archbishops place on unity. Some archbishops (for example, Cardinal Bernardin) go through wide consultations in an
attempt to reach a consensus before making a decision. They are reluctant to do anything
without wide support. Here, frequently the complaint is that decisions take too long to
make. Similarly, while Archbishop Quinn wanted some kind of renewal program for his
archdiocese, he wanted the priests' council to recommend which program should be adopted.
They, on the other hand, wanted him to make a recommendation. The result was no program. Other archbishops are accused of giving the appearance of consultation while really
manipulating the group to agree with their preordained decision. Some priests believe
their archbishop does not take their council seriously. One member of an executive
committee described a meeting where liturgy and personnel were chosen as priority topics
for the year. The archbishop was invited to discuss these with the executive committee. This was his
chance to influence the proceedings. He saw Liturgy and Personnel on the
blackboard, and he said, "They just want a gripe session. They want more money for
the liturgy committee. Personnel? Gripe session! Priests are never happy with personnel
decisions." Later when the archbishop addressed the entire council, he told them their choice of
issues was wonderful. "Liturgy and personnel, these are my concerns, too." As
soon as there was a coffee break, everyone learned what he had said to the executive
committee. Few archbishops are comfortable with group decision making in large consultative
councils, such as a pastoral council or priests' council. These bodies tend to be
uninformed and slow in coming to a consensus on a course of action. The archbishops find
these councils most useful as feedback mechanisms where they can hear the reactions of
people about what is happening in the archdiocese. Smaller specialized boards whose
members are familiar with particular agencies are more successful. Despite these problems, few archbishops will move on a major decision until after wide
consultation leads to a consensus. While recognizing that they always have the last word,
the archbishops also recognize that forcing a program on the archdiocese, and especially
on the diocesan priests, can be counterproductive. Without enthusiastic support of the
priests and archdiocesan lay leaders, most archdiocesan programs will not work anyway. In the decision-making process, archbishops place a priority on unity and charity,
which take precedence over efficiency and effectiveness. This can be seen not only in the
consultative process, but in other decision-making situations. For example, almost all
archbishops pointed to personnel as their most difficult area. Most archbishops want to be
loving fathers; they do not like to confront or fire people. As a result, people are not
challenged, they are not dealt with honestly, and personnel problems are unresolved. For
example, computerizing the business office will wait for the retirement of an elderly
bookkeeper. Reductions in personnel can only be made through not replacing retiring
personnel. The resulting inefficiencies can cause staff morale problems and
ineffectiveness in archdiocesan programs. The primacy of charity over efficiency can also be seen in the desire of archbishops to
keep open inner-city parishes with declining congregations. While retailers and services
flee to the suburbs, Catholic churches remain open and staffed. Inner-city schools for
blacks are another example of charity outweighing efficiency. Although black children are
helped tremendously by these schools, few are Catholic and few become Catholics. The primacy of unity and charity encourages archbishops to avoid conflict whenever
possible. Few archbishops are combative by nature or enjoy a fight. Planning has been
ineffective in most archdioceses because planning means making choices, and choices bring
conflict with those who prefer the status quo. Plans are invariably postponed until a
consensus supports them or until lack of resources (either money or personnel) forces a
decision. Archbishops also avoid conflict by delegating decisions. Department budgets might be
cut and then the department heads told to make the necessary cuts among their offices. The biggest problems for archbishops come when the interests of one group conflict with
another. For example, most archbishops would like to raise teachers' salaries, but this
would require raising tuitions. Or on an individual basis, there can be a conflict when
two priests want the same pastorate. Or conflict can occur between the needs of a pastor
and the needs of a parish. In secular society, such conflicts would be resolved in favor of the strongest; in the
church, they are just as apt to be resolved in favor of the weaker party. Priests in
Chicago joke that priests who do well in a difficult assignment are rewarded with an even
more difficult job, whereas those who fail are given a soft job. Charity takes priority
over merit. When making decisions, the most important constituency for the archbishop is his
priests, especially the pastors. Keeping his priests happy is a high priority. Because of
their permanent commitment to the archdiocese, they are like members of a family in a
family business. This "clerical club" is based on extended relationships that
have grown over time, beginning in the seminary. The large exodus of priests also made
bishops sensitive to priestly needs. With the decline in the number of priests, each
diocesan priest becomes an irreplaceable employee. All of this means that keeping the priests happy is good for the archdiocese and the
archbishop. Practically every archbishop, for example, tells his secretary that he is
available for any priest who wants to see him at any time. Even cardinals and archbishops
involved in national or international work will come under criticism if they become
unavailable to their priests. Keeping the priests happy has important ramifications on archdiocesan governance. For
example, one favorite pastime of the clerical club is complaining about the chancery,
especially that it is wasting money. Whether or not this is true, their attitude puts
pressure on the archdiocesan budget because of an unwillingness of archbishops to raise
parish assessments or diocesan appeal goals. The archbishops would usually rather cut or
freeze budgets than face the wrath of pastors by proposing a tax increase. Priests also complain that the chancery and archdiocesan agencies are not doing
anything to serve the parishes. Archbishops have responded by asking agencies at budget
time what they are doing for the parishes. Agencies, like Catholic Charities, that for
many years operated independently from the parishes, are now developing programs aimed at
fulfilling parish needs. Agencies that the pastors think are wasteful tend to be the ones
that get cut at budget time because they have lost the support of this important
constituency. Another example of this attitude toward pastors is the reluctance of archbishops to
mandate any policies or programs. Most archbishops want to respect the autonomy of the
local pastor as much as possible. In addition, they do not want to place additional
burdens on pastors who are already overworked. As long as there are not too many
complaints from the parishioners, pastors can pretty much get away with almost anything. The priests' personnel board and priests' personnel directors can be understood in this
light also. By using a board and following its recommendations, the archbishop can
distance himself from possible conflict with his priests. Rather than telling a priest
that he is not fit to be a pastor, he can say, "The personnel board does not think
you are ready to be a pastor. This is the way they see you...." He can even have the
personnel director convey the bad news. In one archdiocese, the archbishop notifies the
priest who gets a parish, while the clergy personnel director notifies those who were
passed over. One of the most important functions of an organization's leadership is to deal with the
constraints and contingencies imposed by its environment and its technology. For a pencil
factory, this means organizing the capital, raw materials, workers, and equipment as well
as marketing the output. The simpler the technology, the more benign and stable the
environment, the easier the job. The more complex the technology, the more unstable the
environment, the more difficult the leader's task. Complexity and instability introduces
uncertainty into the decision-making process. Especially since Vatican II, bishops have had to face a more complex and constantly
changing environment. Old ministries (technologies) have not produced the desired effects
(e.g., Mass attendance and vocations have gone down). New ministries have been developed,
but the effectiveness of these ministries has been uncertain. In addition, lack of
agreement has existed over the desirable outcomes of various ministries. Lacking consensus
on goals and lacking certainty on effectiveness, bishops have found themselves in the
worst possible position to make what has been traditionally considered a
"rational" decision: choosing the most efficient and effective means to obtain a
goal. Bishops have followed strategies that would be expected in such a situation. 1.They have created new units (liturgy office, social ministries, Renew, ecumenical
commission, personnel office, family life office) within the organization that employ
people trained in the new ministries (technologies). Sometimes the units (like minority
offices, personnel offices) will be buffers or communication channels between the
environment and the rest of the organization. The danger here is creating a multitude of
uncoordinated units. 2.Rationality has been imposed on those parts of the system where it is possible both
technically and politically. Thus, computers and modern business methods are making
headway in financial administration but only where inertia is overcome by political means.
Personnel procedures have been professionalized. The danger here is attempting to impose
rules and standardization where it is not appropriate. 3.Where there is lack of consensus on goals or where the effectiveness of new
technologies (ministries) is uncertain, social or political or ideological (theological)
criteria are used in decision making. And decision making is incremental. Church leaders in the face of uncertainty use social and political criteria in decision
making: peer group evaluation, wide consultation, consensus decision making, appeals to
higher authority, appeals to experts, and limiting the number of variables examined
because of ideological reasons. Thus, while a bishop may not understand what his Catholic
Charities is doing, he will be satisfied if (1) it is accredited through peer evaluation,
(2) government and private agencies have enough confidence in it to give it money, (3)
those it serves are pleased, (4) the board of directors approves the programs, and (5)
little negative feedback comes from important constituencies, like the pastors. Ideological (theological) premises that ignore or deny the validity of environmental
signals also ease decision making. Altars are turned around despite complaints of some
parishioners. The requirement of priestly celibacy is retained despite the decline in
vocations. Or uncertainty can also be resolved by appeals to higher authority or by
eliminating any experimentation until it is mandated from above. Fear of exercising
discretion is especially high when the consequences of error are considered great. What is
started as an experiment is sometimes difficult to stop. And no one wants to be accused by
the Vatican of being unorthodox. The primacy given to unity and charity reflect the use of social and political criteria
in decision making. Concern for unity and charity give a special orientation to ecclesial
decision making. Keeping important constituencies happy, especially priests and chancery
employees, encourages delegation, consultation, and consensus decision making. Extensive
consultation has become an accepted part of contemporary American ecclesial life. It is a
time-consuming process, but few archbishops would try to govern their archdioceses without
it. Consultation is not simply a means of gaining information; it is also a method of
developing support and consensus for a program or policy. But an archbishop cannot simply respond to local constituencies. While their desires
and opinions are important, he also is constrained by finances, church law, and the views
of Roman officials, as was seen in the last chapter. He must see to it that programs are
solvent and truly Catholic. There is no such thing as an ideal archdiocesan organization. The organizational
structure must be tailored to meet the personality and desires of the archbishop and the
needs of the archdiocese within the constraints imposed by the environment. In large
archdioceses, secretariat-level administrators have become necessary because of the
proliferation and growth of archdiocesan agencies. The archbishop needs help if agencies
and offices are going to be supervised and coordinated. Regional vicars also make the
archbishop's presence felt in the parishes, especially if the archdiocese is large and he
is busy with administration. The danger of these new structures is that they will become bureaucratic and
unresponsive either to the archbishop or to his people. Thomas F. O'Dea explained this
well in looking at the pre-Vatican II church, but the dilemmas of institutionalization
also exist for the post-Vatican church: It is characteristic of bureaucratic structure to elaborate new offices and new
networks of communications and command in the face of new problems. Precedents are
established which lead to the precipitation of new rules and procedures. One result may
indeed be that the structure tends to complicate itself. This state of affairs evolves in
order to cope with new situations and new problems effectively. Yet such self-complication
can overextend itself and produce an unwieldy organization with blocks and breakdowns in
communication, overlapping of spheres of competence, and ambiguous definitions of
authority and related functions. In short, developments to meet functional needs can
become dysfunctional in later situations.... The tendency of organization to complicate
itself to meet new situations often transforms it into an awkward and confusing mechanism
within whose context it is difficult to accomplish anything./9 Although structures are important, the key to successful governance is not so much an
ideal structure as the ability of the archbishop to find people who can do the things he
cannot do and give them the resources they need. Thus, an archbishop who has difficulties
relating to his priests would be wise to seek out a vicar for priests who is well liked
and trusted by the priests. An archbishop who dislikes administration needs to look for a
competent vicar general to take care of as much administration as possible. Archbishops
who spend much time on administration need their auxiliaries to be an episcopal, pastoral
presence in the parishes. Rather than trying to turn themselves into something they are
not, wise archbishops lead with their strengths and find others to cover their weaknesses.
But he must be willing to give them real authority and not just a title. But there are some things that the archbishop simply cannot delegate to others: dealing
with the Vatican, with the NCCB, with other bishops (including his auxiliaries), with
priest personnel problems, with budget deficits, with the closing (or opening) of parishes
and schools, with problems that will make the front page of the local newspaper, and with
the appointment of pastors and cabinet-level administrators. He can get help from others
on these matters, but they are too important for him to ignore. In addition, he must be
sensitive to the long-range good of the archdiocese and the church as a whole since others
in the diocese will be focused only on parts. Finally, the archbishop must take care of himself. He is responsible for ministering to
his priests, but there is no one to minister to him. There are few with whom he can share
his problems. If he has close friends among the diocesan clergy, he will be accused of
preferring them over others. Even these priest friends are under him in authority, which
is why many bishops seek out religious priests as spiritual directors. One archbishop
reported that he had a hard time finding any priest who was willing to be his spiritual
director. Bishops can become isolated with no one supporting them, as Archbishop Weakland of
Milwaukee explains: I'm finding that more and more bishops are isolated. We religious had our own support
groups, and we had superiors who were interested in us. I find that more and more bishops
somehow don't get any support groups and they get isolated. They come to the bishops'
meetings, they smile and greet people, and they go home, and no one seems to worry about
who ministers to the bishops. As a church leader, the archbishop must also nourish his spiritual life. Archbishop
Kelly of Louisville speaks of the need of a bishop to be "sustained and nurtured by
prayer." He says, All of this stuff, the programmatic stuff, the financial, the management, none of it
can hold a candle to my responsibility to preach and therefore to pray. I am to be the best preacher in the diocese. I am to be the best celebrant, and that
means a deep spirituality. I haven't got it there yet, but I want to be there. That is
very, very important to me. This book has been about the archbishop's role in the governance of his archdiocese. As
a result, I have not been able to devote much space to his role as liturgist, teacher, or
spiritual leader. Nor have I been able to examine the theological views or spiritual lives
of archbishops. All these aspects of episcopal life are very important, but they are less
susceptible to analysis by social scientists. What this book has shown is the way archbishops respond to their environment, organize
their archdioceses, and make decisions dealing with such important matters as personnel,
finances, parish life, social services, and education. These are all vital to the life of
the local church that is his archdiocese. The archbishops have a tremendous impact on the
lives of their local churches. The decisions they make today will determine the shape of
the church in the United States in the next century. 1. James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967), 151. 2. Ruth N. Doyle, Eugene F. Hemrick, and Patrick Hughes, National
Pastoral Planning in the 1980s (Newark, NJ: National Pastoral Planners Conference,
1983). See also Eugene F. Hemrick, "The Evolving Church and Church Governance,"
in The Ministry of Governance, ed. James K. Mallet (Washington, DC: Canon Law
Society of America, 1986), 140-59. 3. On incrementalism, see Charles E. Lindblom, The
Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986); Charles E.
Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through," Public Administration Review
19 (Spring 1958): 79-88; Thomas J. Reese, S.J., and Paul J. Roy, S.J., "Discernment
as Muddling Through," Jurist 38 (1978): 82-117. 4. Thompson, Organizations in Action, 79. 6. For a discussion of cooperative strategies, see Thompson, Organizations
in Action, 34-36. 7. Rembert G. Weakland, "Local Implementation--Ecclesial
Life Under the 1983 Code," CLSA Proceedings 46 (1985): 19. 8. James H. Provost, "The Working Together of Consultative
Bodies--Great Expectations?" Jurist 40 (1980): 257-81; Robert Kennedy,
"Shared Responsibility in Ecclesial Decision Making," Studia Canonica 14
(1980): 5-23. 9. Thomas F. O'Dea, "Five Dilemmas in the
Institutionalization of Religion," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
1 (1961): 35-36.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Copyright © 1989 by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
All rights reserved
For the previous chapter and table of contents, see Chapter 8
and Contents.
Archbishop Weakland.
Archbishop Quinn.Reactive and Crisis Management
Incrementalism vs. Comprehensive Planning
Finances
Catholicity
Consultation
Primacy of Charity
Keeping the Pastors Happy
Coping with Uncertainty
Footnotes
See also: