Conflict
and Consensus in the National Conference of Catholic Bishops / U.S. Catholic Conference
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Senior fellow of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University
From Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical & Theological Studies,
edited by Thomas J. Reese, S.J. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1989)
Copyright © 1989 Georgetown University Press
All rights reserved
Introduction
Much of the theological and canonical writing on episcopal conferences urges bishops to
make decisions by consensus rather than by a majority vote. Whereas a decision by a simple
majority may alienate a sizeable minority within the conference, decision by consensus, it
is hoped, reflects and furthers unity within the faith community. Imposing a decision
opposed by 49 percent of the bishops could be harmful to unity.
The instrumentum laboris on the theological and juridical status of episcopal
conferences, for example, urges the conferences to have "in possible cases, the
indication of the goal of pursuing a morally unanimous consensus, without making this a
juridical norm, which would seem too paralyzing."(1)
Canon law does not normally require unanimity before a juridic body can act. Although
the Code of Canon Law, quoting Justinian, states that "what touches all as
individuals must be approved by all,"(2)
the code rarely indicates where this rule applies. Furthermore, the meaning of the terms
"touches" and "approved" is much debated by canonists.(3)
Normally, what is required of juridic bodies is less demanding than consensus:
"that action will have the force of law which, when a majority of those who must be
convoked are present, receives the approval of an absolute majority of those who are
present. . . ."(4) In other words, as
long as a majority of the body is present, a majority of those present may make legally
binding decisions.
For episcopal conferences, however, more than a majority is required for legally
binding decisions. According to canon law, decisions that are binding on the bishops must
be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the conference membership and must be
reviewed (recognita) by the Holy See.(5)
Strictly speaking, this canonical requirement applies only to "decrees,"(6) not to statements or pastoral letters.
In 1968, however, the American bishops decided to require a two-thirds majority vote of
their membership for approval of "joint pastorals" and "statements" by
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) or the United States Catholic
Conference (USCC).(7) This is a self-imposed
restriction which is not required by canon law. "These rules were proposed,"
according to Walter J. Woods, "in order to deal more effectively with problems
related to the number of statements being considered, the priority among them, the need to
assure sufficient consideration of a text before voting on it, and the very process of
amendment and approval."(8) The
"rules facilitate the formation of a consensus among the bishops and insure that they
will have control over the actual text to be adopted or rejected."(9)
In the regulations, the bishops' conference distinguishes among "joint
pastorals," "formal statements," "special messages," and
"resolutions and other brief statements."(10)
The difference between a joint pastoral and a formal statement is procedural, not
substantive. "They seemed to be almost interchangeable," admitted Archbishop
John Roach, then NCCB president, except that a joint pastoral may only be issued by the
NCCB assembly while a formal statement may be approved by either the NCCB or the USCC
assembly.(11)
The bishops have tended to use joint pastorals for more important pronouncements. But
formal statements also carry great weight. "A formal statement is one with an
official character which commits the conference to a particular position."(12) Formal statements by the NCCB require a
two-thirds vote of the membership, but formal statements by the USCC can be approved by
two-thirds of those present and voting at a meeting. Special messages, resolutions and
other brief statements can be approved by two-thirds of the bishops "present and
attending the general meeting."(13) In
addition, less notice to the membership and less review by committees is required of these
latter documents before their consideration by the assembly.
All these regulations apply to both the NCCB and the USCC. Cardinal Lawrence Shehan of
Baltimore, who drafted the 1968 regulations, attempted to distinguish the kinds of
statements that would be issued by each:
The body of U.S. Bishops may speak collectively through either of its two agencies, the
NCCB and the USCC. Which agency is used depends upon the determination of the Bishops and
the subject matter involved. No hard and fast rule can be set for the choice of one agency
as opposed to another. As a practical matter, however, the language of the Booz, Allen
& Hamilton report provides a general guideline.
NCCB shall address itself to "matters pertaining to the canonical rights and
responsibilities and pastoral role of the United States hierarchy functioning as a
national episcopal conference."
USCC shall address itself to "matters in which the Bishops collaborate with others
in social, economic, civic and educational affairs."(14)
Sometimes the bishops, when dealing with "social, economic, civic and educational
affairs," have wanted to issue pastoral letters and not simply "formal
statements," exposing a weakness in Shehan's distinction. Since the USCC cannot issue
pastoral letters, these matters have been dealt with by the NCCB. The result has been a
gradual absorption of USCC responsibilities by the NCCB.
The Record
What in fact has been the record of consensus and conflict within the NCCB/USCC
assembly? Have decisions been made by consensus or have a small majority been able to
impose their will on the rest of the bishops? What issues have divided the bishops and on
what issues has there been consensus?
To answer these questions, I will examine the NCCB/USCC as a legislative assembly using
social science methods that have been applied to political legislatures for many years. No
denial of the spiritual nature of the church or of the NCCB/USCC is intended. Social
science cannot measure the activity of the Holy Spirit. It can, however, be used to
measure and evaluate empirical data, and explain how the conference actually operates.
From the perspective of a social scientist, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
is a legislative assembly that meets periodically, follows parliamentary procedures,
elects officers, and decides matters by votes. Since the teaching role of episcopal
conferences is especially under challenge, I will limit my analysis to the formulation of
major statements issued by the conference. Major statements are here defined as those
printed by the conference itself in Pastoral Letters of the United States Bishops.(15) I will not look at conference elections,
staff, lobbying efforts, budgets, or liturgical and canonical policies.
Consensus Statements
If the only evidence examined is the final vote on documents, the NCCB/USCC seems to
have a high degree of internal consensus. Of the ninety-four NCCB/USCC assembly statements
printed in Pastoral Letters of the United States Bishops for 1966-1983,(16) the minutes(17)
indicate that at least thirty-one (a third) passed unanimously (see table on pages
132-35). These include resolutions on political-ethical issues such as birth control
(1966), race relations and poverty (1966), welfare (1967), aid to parents of Catholic
school students (1971), the environment (1971), population programs (1972 and 1973),
pro-life constitutional amendment (1973), the Middle East (1973), farm labor (1973, 1974,
and 1975), pro-life activities (1975), the economy (1975), housing (1975), Human Life
Foundation (1975), migrants (1976), Cuban and Haitian refugees (1980), hostages in Iran
(1980), and health care (1981).
Total consensus was also shown on church issues like the Dutch Catechism
(1967), "Christians in Our Time" (1970), the Campaign for Human Development
(1970), the foreign missions (1971), Eucharist and hunger (1975), the movie Jesus of
Nazareth (1977), church arbitration procedures (1978), the papal visit (1979), the
laity (1980), and the mission of the conference (1981).
Eighteen other statements received nearly unanimous approval with ten or fewer negative
votes: three statements on Vietnam (1966, 1971, and 1972), "Human Life in Our
Day" (1968), abortion (1970), directives for health facilities (1971), housing
(1972), Catholic-Jewish relations (1975), society and the aged (1976), political
responsibility (1976), American Indians (1977), religious liberty in Eastern Europe
(1977), the bicentennial consultations (1977), justice (1978), the handicapped (1978), the
Middle East (1978), Central America (1981), and peace (1983).
Another twenty-six statements passed on voice votes with no one concerned enough to ask
for a written ballot (only six bishops are needed to require a written ballot): peace
(1967, 1968), clerical celibacy (1967 and April 1969), Catholic schools (1967), the race
crisis (1968), due process in church (1968), farm labor (1968), abortion (1969), poverty
(1969), prisoners of war (1969), ecumenism (1970 and 1974), welfare reform (1970), the
Catholic press (1970), the United Nations (1970), birth control laws (1970), the
declaration of human rights (1973), prisons (1973), the world food crisis (1974),
ecclesiastical archives (1974), guidelines for fund raising (1977), family ministry
(1978), Cambodia (1979), and Iran (1979 and 1980).
Thus of the ninety-four NCCB/USCC statements published in Pastoral Letters,
all but nineteen were passed by voice vote or with ten or fewer bishops in opposition. On
five of the nineteen statements we do not know the vote results except that they received
at least a two-thirds vote.(18) These
seventy-five statements cover issues that have divided American society and the church,
but the bishops were able to find consensus on them. Before examining the statements that
had some opposition, it is important to emphasize how extraordinary this level of
consensus is. It is empirical evidence supporting the view that consensus formation is a
highly prized operation norm of the NCCB/USCC.
Conflict: Capital Punishment 1974 and 1980
No statement of the NCCB/USCC has ever been adopted by a slight majority. Only one
statement was approved by less than two-thirds of those voting: the 1974, one-sentence
USCC "Resolution Against Capital Punishment" passed 108-63.(19) The bishops broke their own regulations in
approving this resolution with less than a two-thirds vote.(20)
But no one made a point of order when Cardinal John Krol, the NCCB/USCC president,
declared the resolution passed with a majority vote.
The one-sentence resolution was drafted by Bishop John L. May, then of Mobile, after a
seven-page statement on capital punishment, written by the Committee on Social Development
and World Peace, was defeated in the assembly on a close vote (103-119). This committee
statement has the distinction of being the only statement ever formally voted down by the
assembly. After the statement's defeat, Bishop May immediately offered his one-sentence
resolution, but debate on it was postponed for two days. After the resolution was debated,
Cardinal Krol ended discussion and called for a vote, commenting that "this matter
had been debated more than any other four or five topics."(21)
Six years later, the 1980 "Statement on Capital Punishment" passed 145 to 31
with 41 abstentions, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded.(22) The bishops once again broke their own
regulations in adopting this statement. Before 1981, "formal statements" needed
a two-thirds approval of the entire membership, not a two-thirds approval of those casting
votes.(23) But since no bishop rose to make a
point of order, the statement became conference policy.
The closeness of the votes indicates that the two capital punishment statements were
the most controversial statements ever issued by the conference. Many bishops were
concerned that a rejection of capital punishment might appear to be a rejection of church
tradition, which long had acknowledged a state's right to capital punishment. On the other
hand, many other bishops wanted to show that the hierarchy held a fully consistent ethic
of life and was opposed not only to abortion but also to capital punishment. Approving
such controversial statements necessitated the breaking or bending of their own
self-imposed regulations requiring a two-thirds vote on statements.
More Conflict
Five other statements approved by the NCCB/USCC had more than thirty negative votes on
final passage: the 1966 "Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence" (156-32),
the November 1969 "Statement on Celibacy" (145-68), the April 1970
"Statement on Abortion" (114-52), the 1976 statement "U.S.-Panama
Relations" (170-61), and the "conclusion" of the 1970 "Statement on
the Implementation of the Apostolic Letter on Mixed Marriages" (172-49).
Penance 1966
The 1966 minutes are not very helpful in describing the conflict over the
"Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence" at the first meeting of the NCCB.
Archbishop John Cody of Chicago introduced the revised text which had taken into
consideration "insofar as possible" the modi (amendments) submitted by
thirty bishops. The statement, which Bishop John J. Wright helped write, announced the
reduction in the number of days of fast and abstinence. At the same time, the bishops
wanted to avoid the impression that they were downgrading penance or that all laws could
change.
After the statement was approved, the bishops added an additional paragraph saying that
Catholics should understand "that fast and abstinence regulations admit change,
unlike the commandments and precepts of that unchanging divine moral law which the church
must today and always defend as immutable."(24)
This final addition may have been an attempt to placate those who originally voted no.
Celibacy 1969
The handling of the November 1969 "Statement on Celibacy" is interesting if
ambiguous. At one point sixty-eight bishops voted against issuing the paper, which
strongly defended clerical celibacy, as a conference document. Can it be inferred from the
vote that sixty-eight bishops favored optional celibacy?(25)
Probably not.
Actually, there were three votes on the celibacy statement. First, the document's
content was approved in substance, subject to modi, with only one negative vote.
Second, the bishops voted 145-68 to issue the document as a conference statement, rather
than merely to make it available to the bishops. Third, a series of modi were
unanimously accepted.
The different results for the first and second votes are interesting. While only one
bishop voted against the document in substance, moments later sixty-eight voted against
issuing it as a conference statement. Why did these sixty-seven additional bishops
suddenly turn against the document?
Some bishops felt the statement was too defensive and apologetic in tone. They observed
it did not relate celibacy to ministry, and they feared that priests would believe the
bishops were not really aware of the problems confronting their clergy. But all of these
points had been made during the debate prior to the first vote. Those who changed their
votes may have felt that the document was good enough for private distribution to the
bishops but not good enough for publication.
Another influence may have been the manner of voting. The first vote was public (by
voice or a show of hands) while the second was secret (by ballot). Some have argued that
public votes coerce the minority into going along with the majority. Others argue that
public votes discourage bishops from voting against Vatican policy. Both factors could
have been at work here if some of the sixty-seven favored optional celibacy but were
afraid to say so publicly. The periti, nonepiscopal experts who had helped
prepare the statement, were less reticent: they indicated before the meeting that they did
not want to be associated with the statement as it was drafted.
Abortion 1970
Issuing the April 1970 "Statement on Abortion" was opposed by fifty-two
bishops. Does this mean that fifty-two bishops favored abortion? Not likely. The bishops
appear to have been objecting to procedure, not substance.
The conference had already issued "Human Life in Our Day" (1968), a pastoral
letter that included four paragraphs on abortion. As more states liberalized their laws,
the NCCB Administrative Committee decided that more needed to be said. The NCCB approved
on a voice vote a short statement on abortion in 1969.
The 1970 statement was presented by the Rev. James T. McHugh, then director of the USCC
Family Life Division. A revised version was prepared by an ad hoc committee headed by
Bishop Raymond J. Gallagher in light of the modi they received during the
meeting. More modi were suggested when the revised version was presented. The
president, Cardinal John Dearden, asked that the committee again revise the draft and
bring it back to the assembly.
Some felt, however, that this procedure would delay the document. Archbishop Philip
Hannan moved that the ad hoc committee be authorized to revise the document in light of
the observations made on the floor and then proceed immediately to the release of the
document in the name of the conference. Most of those who voted in the negative probably
agreed with Cardinal Dearden that the committee should come back to the assembly for final
approval of the revised text. Seven months later, in November 1970, a "Declaration on
Abortion" passed with only eight negative votes. This was the last statement of the
bishops prior to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (January 22, 1973).
U.S.-Panama Relations 1976
In 1976 the NCCB issued a statement supporting the Panama Canal Treaty. Considering how
divided American society at large was over returning the Panama Canal Zone to Panama, it
is surprising that the American bishops were not more divided than the final vote of
170-61 implies. The lobbying efforts of the Panamanian hierarchy led by Archbishop Marcos
McGrath of Panama City played a pivotal role in overcoming the bishops' reluctance to
touch this political controversy. Despite the "heated debate"(26) and the sixty-one negative votes, the
statement had a profound political impact. The Carter Administration identified the
conference as its most important supporter in the Senate ratification of the Panama Canal
Treaty.
Mixed Marriages 1970
Finally, there is the 1970 "Statement on the Implementation of the Apostolic
Letter on Mixed Marriages." This was the third draft of the statement; the second
draft failed to receive a two-thirds vote in a mail ballot. Each section of the third
draft was discussed and amended on the floor in accordance with the discussions. Each
section was voted on separately. The conclusion received the most negative votes (172-49),
and there was no vote on the whole document.
The minutes give no details about the debate or amendments, and the USCC press releases
give very little information. A reading of the text does not reveal anything very
controversial in the conclusion. Perhaps some bishops objected to the idea of the USCC
Family Life Division being instructed to "develop basic pre-marriage and marriage
education programs incorporating the norms and spirit of this document." The NCCB
committee on ecumenism was also asked "to explore the possibility of an ecumenical
form for mixed marriage." Or perhaps the bishops voting in the negative did so
because they wanted something in the conclusion that was not there.
Mostly Consensus
Another six statements received twenty to thirty negative votes: the 1969
"Statement in Protest of U.S. Government Programs against the Right to Life"
(143-20), the 1972 pastoral "To Teach as Jesus Did" (197-29), the 1976 statement
"Teach Them" (153-30), the 1976 statement "Let the Little Children Come to
Me" (201-23), the 1976 statement "To Live in Christ Jesus" (172-25), and
the 1979 pastoral letter "Brothers and Sisters to Us" (215-30).
Thus from 1966 through 1983, only thirteen of the ninety-four NCCB/USCC statements
published in Pastoral Letters of the United States Bishops had more than nineteen
negative votes. The rest were approved by voice vote or received less than twenty negative
votes. As a result, 85 percent(27) of the
NCCB/USCC statements were supported by at least 90 percent of the bishops voting (if one
presumes that on voice votes fewer than 11 percent of the bishops voted in the negative, a
fairly safe presumption since it only takes six bishops to require a written ballot).
Judging from the final votes on documents in Pastoral Letters, the NCCB/USCC
is clearly an assembly that operates by consensus. Although this is a fair judgment, it is
not a complete picture. Judging the NCCB/USCC only by the final votes on documents in Pastoral
Letters would be like judging a restaurant by the food brought to your table. It
would be an accurate judgment, but it would miss all the excitement that goes on in the
kitchen. Thus while the 1983 peace pastoral and the 1986 economic pastoral were both
approved with only nine negative votes, hundreds of amendments were offered and voted on
prior to the final ballots.
Legislative Procedures
Despite what their critics may think, the statements of the American bishops are not
approved with little or no consideration. This may have been true in a few instances when
sessions were closed to the public, but since the press has been admitted in 1972, the
bishops have given statements due consideration before approval.
The conference's 1971 regulations require that joint pastorals and formal statements
"be formally initiated only by the general membership or the Administrative Committee
in consultation with the appropriate committees." In 1981, this was made more
explicit so that a committee had to get the assembly's approval before drafting a major
statement. The regulations indicate that time constraints may not always permit this
ideal, but the assembly must be given the opportunity to say whether or not it wishes to
consider a particular issue before a draft is formally presented.
Before an item (especially a joint pastoral or formal statement) is dealt with by the
assembly, it is normally considered by a NCCB or USCC committee. On each issue, the
committee and its staff may hold hearings, consult widely, and/or prepare a series of
drafts. A final draft must be circulated to all the bishops with requests for suggestions
at least one month before it is considered at a conference meeting. Often a committee will
distribute preliminary drafts for comment.
A series of questions and answers, presented by Cardinal Krol and adopted by the
assembly in 1973, describes the process employed in preparing a conference document:
A statement can be drafted in many different ways. It can be written by one author. It
can be divided into sections and each section can be written by a different person. It can
be written from the start by a bishop or bishops. It can be drafted by a consultant or
consultants and submitted for review to a committee of bishops.
It can be prepared through a process of extremely wide consultation at the national and
local levels; consultation can be restricted to a small number of specialists in the field
being treated; or there can be no consultation at all. Circumstances will dictate the
process--including the time available, the purpose or purposes of the document, the
preexistence (or nonexistence) of widespread consensus in the Catholic community regarding
the subject matter, etc. In so far as possible, a process should be devised and
implemented which is suited to the exigencies of this particular document.
Also, in future it may prove increasingly desirable to provide interested individuals
and organizations outside the bishops' conference with drafts of major documents and
invite them to submit their criticisms and suggestions for revision--without, of course,
guaranteeing that their views will prevail. Among other things, such a procedure is likely
to increase the acceptance of bishops' statements among concerned parties.(28)
When a committee wishes to submit an item to the full assembly, it must first go
through the NCCB Administrative Committee or the USCC Administrative Board which set the
agenda for their respective bodies. The membership of the Administrative Committee and the
Administrative Board is identical. Once presented to the assembly, the item is normally
subject to amendment from the floor. Amendments can be approved by a majority vote, but a
two-thirds vote is necessary for final passage.
I do not have the time or space here to deal with the pre-assembly process involving
staff, committees, and consultation. These are, of course, critical to consensus
formation, but it is more difficult to get information on them. The focus in this paper
will be on the process by which NCCB/USCC statements are amended on the floor by the
bishops. Here consensus and conflict can be measured in votes and in both victories and
defeats.
Conciliar Procedures
When the legislative histories of the seventy-three statements published in Pastoral
Letters are examined, one discovers that some of the statements achieved consensus
almost immediately, while others achieved it only after much debate and many revisions.(29)
How statements were discussed and revised changed over time in the conference. The
procedures followed in the assembly in its early years were modeled on those of the Second
Vatican Council rather than Robert's Rules of Order.(30)
The move from conciliar rules to Robert's Rules of Order began during Cardinal
Krol's presidency (1972-74) and was formalized under NCCB President Joseph Bernardin
(1975-77). Although either set of rules can be used to develop consensus, conciliar rules
give more influence to conference leadership and the drafting committees, while
parliamentary procedures strengthen the assembly vis-Ã -vis the drafting committees and
the conference leadership.
When operating under conciliar rules in the past, the assembly would discuss a draft
and suggest modi, but the amendments were rarely voted on. The drafting committee
was allowed to use its judgment in determining which modi to accept or refuse.
The committee was supposed to accept those that would increase consensus, but without a
vote to show the mood of the assembly, the decision could be subjective.
For example, thirty bishops offered modi to the 1966 "Statement on
Penance and Abstinence," but these were not voted on. Instead the drafting committee
itself, chaired by Archbishop Cody, would either accept the modi, in which case
they were included, or reject them, in which case they were forgotten. Likewise, a draft
of "The Church in Our Day" was mailed to the bishops a month before their
November 1967 meeting. The bishops discussed a revised version that was circulated at the
meeting. Modi on both versions were submitted to the drafting committee headed by
Bishop John J. Wright, but it does not appear that any amendments were actually voted on.
Bishop Wright also made changes, "generally stylistic in nature," after the
document was approved.(31)
If the leadership of the conference is not happy with a draft or its revision, it can
also expand the number of bishops working on the document. Expanding the committee has
usually been a strategy for developing consensus. For example, in 1967, the
"Statement on Celibacy" was first drafted by the Committee on Doctrine chaired
by Bishop Alexander Zaleski. A second draft was presented by Cardinal Krol, the NCCB/USCC
vice president. The final draft, revised in light of the floor discussions, was presented
by Bishop Wright, who was helped by a drafting committee including Cardinal Krol,
Archbishop John Carberry, Archbishop Paul Hallinan, Bishop Loras Lane, and Bishop Zaleski.
A less complicated procedure was used on the 1967 "Statement on Peace."
Cardinal James F. McIntyre simply moved that the statement be accepted with any changes or
additions the drafting committee might wish to make in view of the comments given on the
floor. This motion passed, indicating a high degree of confidence in, or deference to, the
committee.
The process of approving the 1968 pastoral "Human Life in Our Day" proved to
be much more complicated. It is the first statement on which there were a number of
amendments and votes. Prior to the November meeting, Bishop Wright surveyed the membership
to see what kind of pastoral they wanted. The responses indicated that most bishops wanted
to do more than simply quote from Vatican II and Humanae Vitae. They wanted to
discuss abortion and birth control (194-19), to give pastoral guidance to the faithful
(161-17), and to deal with the morality of war (153-44), including the Vietnam War
(121-67). But just over a third of the bishops opposed applying the principles of Vatican
II to the Vietnam War.
The issues of "guiltless" contraception and dissent were considered so
delicate that the bishops voted to have the results of their ballots on these issues kept
confidential even from themselves. A third vote occurred on whether the bishops wished to
indicate that those who are subjectively guiltless in practicing contraception have
nonetheless done something which is objectively evil. Also, regarding the morality of
contraception, several terms were suggested: "sin," "objective
disorder," "objective evil," "disorder." A written ballot
determined that "objective evil" would be used. It appears that the vote counts
in these instances were never revealed to the bishops. As a result, it is impossible to
measure the degree of conflict and consensus on the motions, but the final document had
the support of all but eight bishops.
Likewise at the same meeting, the bishops voted 145 to 65 to omit any reference to the
grape boycott in their 1968 "Statement on Farm Labor," apparently because they
did not want to upset small farmers in the Midwest.(32)
Within five years, in a 1973 statement that passed unanimously, the bishops supported the
boycott until the workers were allowed to choose a union through a secret ballot.
In 1970, the conference tried a new procedure and had separate votes on each of the
eight sections of the "Statement on the Implementation of the Apostolic Letter on
Mixed Marriages." Each section received more than a two-thirds vote, with the
"conclusion" receiving the most negative votes, as described above. Later in the
meeting, after many of the bishops had left, the assembly declared the existence of a
quorum (despite visual evidence to the contrary) and then approved their statement on
population control.
In 1971, the push toward consensus is seen when the bishops worked on their
"Resolution on Southeast Asia." After Cardinal McIntyre had failed to have the
resolution tabled, it passed 158-36. But the bishops appeared to be upset that so many
voted in the negative. One sentence of the text was changed, and the resolution re-passed
with just two no's. The original sentence read: "It is our firm conviction,
therefore, that further prosecution of the war cannot be justified by traditional moral
norms." This was changed to read: "It is our firm conviction, therefore, that
the speedy ending of this war is a moral imperative of the highest priority." By
weakening the statement, the bishops increased consensus.
Open Sessions
With the opening of NCCB/USCC meetings to the press in 1972, the actions of the
conference became more public and the offering of amendments became more frequent. That
year the pastoral letter on education, "To Teach as Jesus Did," received only a
few minor amendments. The major challenges to the document were beaten back, in one case
by the smallest of margins. Bishop Romeo Blanchette, who prided himself as a defender of
orthodoxy, offered an amendment adding the words "which cannot essentially
change" to a section on church teaching. Archbishop John Whealon, chairman of the
Committee on Doctrine, and Bishop John Quinn argued that Bishop Blanchette's concerns were
dealt with elsewhere in the document. A voice vote was inconclusive, and when the ballots
were counted, the amendment lost 102-103. Another motion by Bishop George Lynch "that
any teachings contrary to the Catholic faith should not be permitted under the guise of
academic freedom or for other alleged reasons . . ." lost on a voice vote when it was
opposed by the Committee on Education.
During the same meeting, the 1972 "Resolution on the Imperative of Peace" was
amended by Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle, over the objections of the drafters, to include a
reassertion of the right of self-defense (138-60). This is one of the first instances of a
document being amended in a way that was opposed by the committee that drafted the
statement.
Robert's Rules of Order
With the election of Archbishop Joseph Bernardin as NCCB/USCC president, the conference
completed the move to Robert's Rules of Order and in 1975 even hired as
parliamentarian, Mr. Henry Robert, the grandson of the author. For the most part though,
amendments were few and fairly noncontroversial until May 1977, when the bishops offered
fifty-five amendments to the pastoral letter on moral values, "To Live in Christ
Jesus." Another sixty-one amendments were offered in 1977 to "The Bicentennial
Consultation: A Response to the Call to Action." Clearly by 1977, the NCCB/USCC
assembly procedures allowed individual bishops to challenge and change documents presented
in final draft form by conference committees.
"To Live in Christ Jesus" was drafted by an ad hoc committee chaired by
Bishop John McDowell. Before any amendments were even offered, Bishop Francis Mugavero
tried to send the letter back to committee because he felt it was too harsh in tone. He
lost 65-162. As far as can be determined by the minutes and press releases, the bishops
supported the committee's preferences most of the time in accepting or rejecting
amendments.(33) Of the fifty-five amendments
offered, forty-three were approved. One was close enough to require a standing vote, the
rest were decided by voice votes.
Often the amendments reflect a tension in the conference between those bishops who want
to insist on the obligation to follow church teaching and those who want to show pastoral
concern for people. The assembly has tended both to accept amendments that strengthened
the presentation of church teaching, and to reject amendments that toned down the pastoral
concern. Thus an amendment changing "ask them" to "urge them" in the
section dealing with birth control and the faithful passed, but another amendment to drop
"understanding" as a modifier to "pastoral" was defeated. The assembly
refuses to choose between being sensitive pastors and emphatic teachers. The bishops want
to be both.
The 1977 response to the bicentennial consultation gave the bishops' reply to the
Detroit Call to Action conference which had representatives from dioceses all over the
United States. Here again, the assembly almost always followed the recommendations of the
drafting committee in dealing with amendments.(34)
A little over half the amendments were approved. Again the conflict was often between
those who wanted to clearly articulate the hierarchy's positions on issues and those who
wanted to show sensitivity to the people who participated in the Detroit meeting. Rather
than being confrontational, the bishops tended to treat the Detroit participants with
respect, accepting what they could, while reaffirming the bishops' and Vatican's position
on controversial issues like women priests, celibacy, and birth control. Sometimes the
bishops use parliamentary procedure to dispose discreetly of controversial but perhaps
ancillary issues. For example, several recommendations from the Detroit conference were
simply referred to a NCCB or USCC committee with little comment and never heard of again.
A similar procedure was used on an amendment from twenty-seven bishops calling for more
dialogue with the pope after his 1979 visit. Although many bishops felt there should have
been more opportunities for dialogue between the pope and various groups, including
themselves, few wanted to make a public issue of it in the resolution they passed
following the pope's visit. The amendment was referred to the ad hoc committee on the
papal visit. Although the amendment never reappeared, structured dialogues as well as
papal speeches were scheduled in his 1987 visit. In March 1989, the dialogue continued
with the American archbishops meeting with the pope and curial officials in Rome for
twelve hours of discussions.(35)
Group Amendments
At their November 1977 meeting, the NCCB became clogged with amendments as it
considered the "National Catechetical Directory." Over three-hundred amendments
were proposed, although about half were withdrawn by their authors prior to a vote. In a
few instances, the assembly approved as many as twelve amendments to the directory at
once, but most amendments were voted on individually. This experience convinced the
bishops that some other way had to be devised for handling minor amendments.
After the "National Catechetical Directory," the assembly considered more and
more nonsubstantive and stylistic amendments in groups. Thus when the 1978 "Statement
on the Middle East" was considered, the assembly voted at one time on thirteen
amendments that were found acceptable to the drafting committee. A similar procedure dealt
with thirty-two amendments to the 1978 "Pastoral Statement on the Handicapped."(36) Both motions were approved unanimously by
the bishops. Likewise, sixty-four amendments were accepted in one vote to the 1979
pastoral letter on racism, "Brothers and Sisters to Us."
This grouping of noncontroversial amendments speeded up the assembly process. Often by
accepting these amendments the committee also expanded the support for its document among
the bishops. One staff person reported that he was instructed by his committee to accept
any amendment sent in by a bishop that did not contradict the text.
The committees also continued to turn down amendments that they thought were
detrimental. In 1980, the Committee on Social Development and World Peace opposed an
amendment exempting terrorists from the ban on capital punishment in its document, and the
assembly followed the committee. Likewise, when amendments infringing on academic freedom
were offered to the 1980 document on higher education, the Committee on Education
succeeded in getting the assembly to reject them.
In 1981, on the other hand, when the Committee on Social Development and World Peace
accepted an amendment to delete reference to U.S. arms shipments to El Salvador from their
"Statement on Central America," Archbishop James Hickey objected. He feared that
the deletion would look like a retreat from the conference's long-standing opposition to
U.S. military aid to El Salvador. The assembly agreed and preserved the committee's
original text. Likewise when the same committee agreed to strike a section dealing with
drugs and smoking from "Health and Health Care," the assembly balked. In both
cases, the assembly felt the committee had gone too far in accommodating individual
bishops and their amendments.
The final document in volume 4 of Pastoral Letters is "The Challenge of
Peace," completed in May 1983. For two solid days the bishops considered amendments
and for the most part supported the committee's position.(37)
About 140 votes were taken, and only in about thirteen cases did the assembly go against
the drafting committee. One 115 amendments (Group IV), approved by the committee, were
accepted in one vote. And, for the first time, another vote rejected 111 amendments (Group
III) at once.
The votes going against the committee indicate that the assembly was often more
"liberal" than the committee, which had tried to maintain consensus by pleasing
"conservatives." In three amendments by Archbishop John Quinn the assembly
strengthened the document's position against first use of nuclear weapons. The assembly
also supported the idea of a global body that would have authority to settle international
disputes and impose peace. The assembly, with the approval of the drafting committee, also
went back to an earlier draft calling for a "halt" to nuclear weapons rather
than simply a "curb."
But the most interesting vote placed the assembly on record against any use of nuclear
weapons, a position Cardinal Bernardin, chairman of the drafting committee, was later able
to get the assembly to reverse. He explained that it was difficult to defend the
possession of nuclear weapons for deterrence if any use of them was immoral. Since the
bishops were going to accept deterrence conditionally, they would have to leave the
question on use open, Bernardin argued. It also was hinted that the Vatican did not want
this amendment.
The bishops also wanted to add to the letter the strong statements against nuclear
weapons from the 1976 "To Live in Christ Jesus" and from the congressional
testimony of Cardinal Krol on SALT II. Again Cardinal Bernardin was able to stop them from
going beyond what the drafting committee and the Vatican felt was defensible.
Conclusion
In this analysis I have concentrated on assembly floor votes as a means of measuring
conflict and consensus in the NCCB/USCC. I have purposely avoided basing the study on
quotations from the floor debate because, regardless of the rhetoric of any given
individual speaker, it is difficult to measure whether he speaks only for himself or for a
large number of bishops. For example, the impassioned attacks on the peace pastoral by
Archbishop Hannan had minimal support in the assembly.
An examination of the NCCB/USCC floor votes leads to the following conclusions:
1. USCC/NCCB statements are issued with great consensus. Final votes on major
statements have reflected overwhelming support among the American bishops. Eighty-seven
percent of the statements were supported by at least 90 percent of the bishops. These are
clearly consensus statements. The only statement not having at least a two-thirds majority
was the 1974 "Resolution against Capital Punishment."
2. The amendment process encourages the building of consensus behind the major
statements. Not only do the statements pass with the overwhelming support of the bishops,
amendments are normally decided by voice votes and large majorities. The outstanding
exception is the 1972 Blanchette amendment to the letter on education that lost by one
vote.
3. In most cases, the assembly follows the drafting committee's recommendation on
amendments. This could indicate: a) a high degree of congruence in thought between the
members of committees and the members of the assembly; b) a high level of trust in the
committees by the assembly membership; c) a conflict avoidance strategy whereby the
committees anticipate the desires of the assembly when drafting documents or accepting
amendments (this raises the question of who is following whom); and/or d) a willingness of
most bishops to compromise rather than fight in public.
4. The assembly is not a rubber stamp for the drafting committees. The adoption of Robert's
Rules of Order in place of conciliar procedures has strengthened the power of the
assembly vis-Ã -vis the conference committees and the conference leadership. Any bishop
can offer an amendment, and if he is supported by the assembly, the drafting committee is
overruled. In face of hundreds of amendments the assembly sometimes limits debate, but
this is a self-imposed rule which requires a two-thirds approval.
5. Sometimes the committees are more willing to compromise than the assembly.
Committees have agreed to changes in their texts which the assembly later repudiates. This
occurred in the 1981 "Statement on Central America" and in "Health and
Health Care." Likewise in the peace pastoral "halt" was changed to
"curb" and back to "halt" because the majority of bishops felt the
committee had gone too far in compromising with a small minority of bishops.
6. The bishops are reluctant to back away from positions that they have taken in the
past. Thus they supported including objections to military aid to El Salvador in their
1981 "Statement on Central America" and the inclusions of quotes from their 1976
"To Live in Christ Jesus" in the 1983 peace pastoral. 7. The possibility of
seeming to retreat from traditional church teaching makes the assembly very nervous. The
relaxing of the fast and abstinence laws in 1966 caused concern. The 1972 Blanchette
amendment wanted to emphasize the unchanging nature of church doctrine. Also, the 1972
O'Boyle amendment, reasserting the traditional right of self-defense, was inserted in the
"Resolution on the Imperative of Peace." Objections to capital punishment
encountered similar concerns in 1974 and 1980.
This concern for tradition made the bishops supportive of Humanae Vitae in
1976 and nervous about some of the recommendations of the Detroit Call to Action
conference. The assembly also had difficulty understanding how any use of nuclear weapons
could be justified under the traditional just war theory. At the same time, they did not
want to be branded as consequentialists because of their arguments in conditionally
approving deterrence.
All of this would indicate that a clearer understanding of the development of dogma
would be most helpful to the bishops in their role as teachers in the NCCB/USCC. How do
they distinguish whether a new teaching is a legitimate development or an abandonment of
the traditional teaching of the church? A greater sophistication and consensus in this
area would certainly ease decision making.
8. Finally, this analysis raises theological questions: Should Robert's Rules of
Order or conciliar procedures be the paradigm for episcopal conference procedures?
How should we think theologically about statements constructed through compromise? Is the
authority of a document lessened if it is supported by a majority but not a two-thirds
majority? What is the authority of statements approved while breaking NCCB/USCC rules and
regulations? Does the Spirit work only on the mind of a bishop so that he understands the
argument in a document, or is the Spirit also working when the bishop trusts the judgment
of the drafters? Can episcopal conferences take a leadership role in the development of
dogma or must they be followers?
Social science cannot answer these questions. But an examination of the history and
procedures of the NCCB/USCC shows that they are important.
Table 1: Major NCCB/USCC Statements(38)
| Statement |
Vote(39) |
|
|
| Statement on the Government and Birth Control (1966) |
Vu |
| Peace and Vietnam (1966) |
B 169-5 |
| Statement on Penance and Abstinence (1966) |
B 156-32 |
| Statement on Race Relations & Poverty (1966) |
B 172-0 |
|
|
| Resolution on Antipoverty Legislation (1967) |
Vu |
| Resolution on Peace (1967) |
V |
| Statement on Clerical Celibacy (1967) |
V |
| Statement on Catholic Schools (1967) |
V |
| The Church in Our Day (1967) |
u(40) |
| On the Dutch Catechism (1967) |
Vu |
|
|
| Statement on National Race Crisis (1968) |
V |
| Resolution on Peace (1968) |
V |
| Statement on Due Process (1968) |
V |
| Human Life in Our Day (1968) |
B 180-8 |
| Statement on Farm Labor (1968) |
V |
|
|
| Statement on Abortion (1969) |
V |
| Resolution on Celibacy (April 1969) |
V |
| Statement on Celibacy (Nov. 1969) |
B 145-68 |
| Statement in Protest of U.S. Government Programs against the Right to Life (1969) |
B 143-20 |
|
|
| Resolution on Crusade against Poverty (1969) |
V |
| Statement on Prisoners of War (1969) |
V |
|
|
| Ecumenism (1970) |
V |
| Christians in Our Time (1970) |
Vu |
| Statement on Abortion (1970) |
B 114-52 |
| Resolution on Welfare Reform Legislation (1970) |
V |
| Catholic Press (1970) |
V |
| Statement on 25th Anniversary of the U.N. (1970) |
V |
| Statement on the Implementation of Apostolic Letter on Mixed Marriages |
B(41) |
| Declaration on Abortion (1970) |
B 224-8 |
| Birth Control Laws (1970) |
V |
| Resolution on the Campaign for Human Development (1970) |
Vu |
|
|
| Resolution on Conscientious Objection and Selective Conscientious Objection (1971) |
M 2/3(42) |
| Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities (1971) |
B 232-7-2 |
| Statement on Parental Rights and the Free Exercise of Religion (1971) |
Vu |
| Resolution on Southeast Asia (1971) |
V ???-2 |
| Christian Concern for the Environment (1971) |
Vu |
| Statement on the Missions (1971) |
Vu |
|
|
| Population and the American Future: A Response (1972) |
Vu |
| Where Shall the People Live? (1972) |
B 206-9-1 |
| To Teach as Jesus Did (1972) |
B 197-29-4 |
| Resolution on Imperatives of Peace (1972) |
B 186-4 |
|
|
| Basic Teachings for Catholic Religious Education (1973) |
M 2/3 |
| Statement on Population (1973) |
Vu |
| Resolution on the Pro-life Constitutional Amendment (1973) |
Vu |
| Resolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1973) |
V(43) |
| Resolution towards Peace in the Middle East (1973) |
Vu |
| The Reform of Correctional Institutions (1973) |
V |
| Resolution on Farm Labor (1973) |
Vu |
| Behold Your Mother: Woman of Faith (1973) |
M |
|
|
| Resolution Against Capital Punishment (1974) |
B 108-63 |
| Resolution on Farm Labor Legislation (1974) |
Hu |
| Statement on World Food Crisis (1974) |
V |
| Statement on Ecclesiastical Archives (1974) |
V |
| Resolution concerning the 10th Anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism (1974) |
V |
|
|
| The Eucharist and the Hungers of the Human Family (1975) |
B 177-0 |
| Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities (1975) |
Vu |
| The Economy: Human Dimensions (1975) |
Vu |
| The Right to a Decent Home (1975) |
Vu |
| Statement on Catholic-Jewish Relations (1975) |
B 190-6 |
| Resolution on Farm Labor (1975) |
Vu |
| Resolution on Human Life Foundation (1975) |
Vu |
|
|
| Society and the Aged (1976) |
B 211-8 |
| Political Responsibility (1976) |
B 176-5 |
| Teach Them (1976) |
B 153-30 |
| Let the Little Children Come to Me (1976) |
B 201-23 |
| U.S.-Panama Relations (1976) |
B 170-61 |
| Resolution on the Pastoral Concern of the Church for People on the Move (1976) |
Su |
|
|
| To Live in Christ Jesus (1976) |
B 172-25 |
| Resolution in Honor of Cardinal Krol (1976) |
Vu |
|
|
| Statement on American Indians (1977) |
B 254-8-3 |
| Religious Liberty in Eastern Europe (1977) |
B 252-2-1 |
| The Bicentennial Consultation: A Response to the Call to Action (1977) |
B 179-7-1 |
| Resolution on Jesus of Nazareth (1977) |
Vu |
| Principles and Guidelines for Fund Raising (1977) |
v |
|
|
| To Do the Work of Justice (1978) |
B 236-6 |
| The Plan of Pastoral Action for Family Ministry (1978) |
V |
| Statement on Handicapped People (1978) |
B 216-2 |
| Statement on the Middle East (1978) |
B 213-8 |
|
|
| Procedures on Conciliation and Arbitration (1979) |
Vu |
| Brothers and Sisters to Us (1979) |
B 215-30-2 |
| Resolution on Cambodia (1979) |
V |
| Resolution on Iran (1979) |
V |
| Resolution on the Papal Visit (1979) |
Vu |
|
|
| Resolution on the Iranian Crisis (1980) |
V |
| Resolution on Cuban and Haitian Refugees (1980) |
Vu |
| Pastoral Letter on Marxist Communism (1980) |
B 236-17 |
| Catholic Higher Education (1980) |
B ??? |
| Called and Gifted (1980) |
Vu |
| Statement on Capital Punishment (1980) |
B 145-31-41 |
| Resolution on the Hostages in Iran (1980) |
Vu |
|
|
| Statement on Central America (1981) |
S ???-10 |
| Health and Health Care (1981) |
Vu |
| NCCB/USCC Mission Statement (1981) |
Vu |
| The Challenge of Peace (1983) |
B 238-9 |
Footnotes
1. Translation by Joseph Komonchak. The Vatican translation reads: "possibly, the indication of an aim to
pursue a morally unanimous consensus, without however making this a juridical norm, which
would be too paralyzing. . . ." See "Theological and Juridical Status of
Episcopal Conferences" (Congregation for Bishops, Vatican City, July 1, 1987,
photocopy), 20. Also see Congregation for Bishops, "Draft Statement on Episcopal
Conferences," Origins 17 (April 7, 1988): 736.
2. The Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition
(Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983), Canon 119, 3º.
3. Ellsworth Kneal, "Title VI: Physical and
Juridic Persons," in James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, and Donald E. Heintschel,
eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (New York: Paulist Press,
1985), 84.
4. Canon 119, 2º.
5. Canon 455, §2. What is required is a two-thirds
vote of the de jure members, which in the NCCB includes active diocesan bishops and
auxiliaries but does not include retired bishops.
6. Decrees are laws properly speaking (general decrees)
or determinations of how to observe laws (general executory decrees). See canons 29 and
31. Also see the article by Thomas Green in this volume.
7. In 1968, the regulations said a joint pastoral
letter or statement "shall be adopted only by a two-thirds vote." See Minutes
of the Fourth General Meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (April
23-25, 1968), 50- 56. Revised versions of these regulations were approved in November 1971
and November 1981. The 1971 version reads: joint pastorals and formal statements
"must be approved by two-thirds of the Conference membership. If this becomes
impractical owing to limited attendance at the general meeting, the Conference President
may rule that two-thirds approval of all de jure members is sufficient." See Minutes
of the Eleventh General Meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
(November 15-19, 1971), 81. Because the Holy See objected to the American custom of
allowing retired bishops to vote, the statutes and bylaws were revised. The 1981 version
of the regulations read: joint pastorals and formal statements of the NCCB "require
the approval of two-thirds of the membership," but formal statements of the USCC
"require the votes of two-thirds of the members present and voting for
approval." Handbook: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States
Catholic Conference (Washington, DC: USCC, March 1982), 57-58.
8. Walter J. Woods, "Pastoral Care, Moral Issues,
Basic Approaches: The National Pastoral Texts of the American Bishops from the Perspective
of Fundamental Moral Theology" (S.T.D. diss., Gregorian University, 1979), 222 n. 24.
9. Ibid., 225.
10. "Revised Regulations Regarding NCCB/USCC
Statements," in Minutes of the Eleventh General Meeting of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops (November 15-19, 1971), 80-85. Also see
"Appendix: Revised Regulations Regarding NCCB/USCC Statements" in National
Conference of Catholic Bishops: Statutes and Bylaws (Washington, DC: USCC, July
1976), 41-48.
11. "National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Monday, November 16 [1981], Morning Session, First Part" (USCC Press Release,
Washington, DC, November 16, 1981, photocopy), 6.
12. "Revised Regulations Regarding NCCB/USCC
Statements," in Minutes of the Eleventh General Meeting of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops (November 15-19, 1971), 81. Also see "Appendix:
Revised Regulations Regarding NCCB/USCC Statements," in National Conference of
Catholic Bishops: Statutes and Bylaws (Washington, DC: USCC, July 1976), 43.
13. Ibid.
14. Minutes of the Fourth General Meeting of the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops (April 23-25, 1968), 51.
15. Hugh J. Nolan, ed., Pastoral Letters of the
United States Bishops, vols. 3-4 (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1983).
Volumes 1 and 2 contain statements of the American bishops prior to the creation of the
NCCB/USCC in 1966.
16. Ibid. Volumes 3 and 4 contain 131 NCCB/USCC
statements since 1966, but only ninety-four were passed by the full assembly. The others
were by NCCB/USCC officers or committees.
Of the ninety-four approved by the full assembly, we do not know the final
vote on five: "The Church in Our Day" (November 1967), "Declaration on
Conscientious Objection and Selective Conscientious Objection" (1971), "Basic
Teachings for Catholic Religious Education" (1973), "Behold Your Mother"
(1973), and "Catholic Higher Education and the Pastoral Mission of the Church"
(1980). The 1973 statements were approved on a mail ballot and received at least
two-thirds vote.
Nolan indicates that the 1971 "Declaration on Conscientious Objection
and Selective Conscientious Objection" was issued by the USCC Division of World
Justice and Peace (Nolan, Pastoral Letters, vol. 3, pp. 61 and 228). Woods, who
examined the minutes of the Administrative Committee and Administrative Board, indicates
that the declaration was approved by a two-thirds vote in a mail ballot. See Woods,
"Pastoral Care," 291. I therefore count it as an assembly statement. Of the
nineteen statements Nolan is considering for inclusion in the next volume (1983-87),
thirteen were passed by the full assembly of bishops. Of the thirteen, eight were approved
unanimously. The rest were approved by a voice vote or had less than ten negative votes.
(Nolan correspondence to me, May 19, 1988).
17. The official minutes of the NCCB/USCC assemblies
from November 1966 to June 1988 were examined, except for those held in executive (closed)
session beginning in 1972 when most meetings became open to the press. Also examined were
the press releases issued by the USCC press office which summarized the meetings.
18. See footnote 16 above.
19. "That the USCC goes on record in opposition
to capital punishment." See "Thursday - P.M. Session, NCCB/USCC Annual Meeting,
November 21, 1974" (USCC Press Release, Washington, DC, November 21, 1974,
Mimeographed), 1 and 4.
20. In fact, the resolution may not have even received
a majority vote of those "present" since at one point at least 236 bishops were
attending the meeting. On November 19, 1974, 236 bishops voted on whether there should be
province consultations on the issue of general absolution. The capital punishment motion
was approved on November 21, 1974, the second to the last day of the meeting with only 108
yes votes, less than half of 236.
21. "Thursday - P.M. Session, NCCB/USCC Annual
Meeting, November 21, 1974" (USCC Press Release, Washington, DC, November 21, 1974,
Photocopy), 1.
22. The general secretary, Bishop Thomas Kelly, O.P.,
announced for the chair that in computations "we don't count abstentions, and so the
document has a 2/3 vote and is accepted as a conference statement." See
"NCCB/USCC General Meeting, A.M. Session, Thursday, November 13 [1980]" (USCC
Press Release, Washington, DC, November 13, 1980), 7.
Bishop Kelly appears to have miscalculated and believed that the motion
did not receive a two-thirds vote of those handing in ballots. In fact, the statement just
barely received two-thirds approval from those voting or abstaining: 145/217 = 66.8
percent. As will be seen below, his interpretation of the rules (or the advice he received
from the parliamentarian) appears to have also been inaccurate.
23. "Revised Regulations Regarding NCCB/USCC
Statements," in Minutes of the 11th General Meeting of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops (November 15-19, 1971), 81. Also see "Appendix: Revised
Regulations Regarding NCCB/USCC Statements," in National Conference of Catholic
Bishops: Statutes and Bylaws (Washington, DC: USCC, July 1976), 43. The regulations
were changed in November 1981 so that a formal statement by the USCC could be approved by
a two-thirds vote of those present and voting.
The statement on capital punishment was voted on the last day of the
meeting, November 13, 1980. If this 3,000-word document is considered a "formal
statement," it required a two-thirds approval of the entire membership, not a
two-thirds of those casting votes.
If the document is simply a "resolution or brief statement,"
then it only required a two-thirds approval of those "present and attending the
general meeting." If only those voting or casting abstentions are considered
"present," then as a "brief statement" the document squeaked by.
If there were others "present" who did not cast ballots, the
motion would have required more yes votes. In fact, on an earlier vote (November 12,
1980), thirty-seven more bishops (254) voted on the "Pastoral Letter on Marxist
Communism." If even one of them was still "present and attending the general
meeting" but did not hand in a ballot, then the statement did not receive a
two-thirds vote of those "present."
It is difficult to believe that the "Statement on Capital
Punishment" can be considered a "brief statement." Woods notes that
"resolutions and other brief statements . . . are generally regarded as less
momentous than the other three categories [joint pastorals, formal statements, and special
messages]." Woods, "Pastoral Care," 224.
24. Minutes of the Annual Meeting, National
Conference of Catholic Bishops (November 14-18, 1966), 208.
25. Only one archbishop during the debate said that
one should not rule out the possibility of change or the ordination of mature, stable
married men. The chairman of the drafting committee answered that in his opinion the
statement did not preclude such a possibility. See Minutes of the Seventh General
Meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (November 10-14, 1969), 53.
26. Nolan, Pastoral Letters, vol. 4, p. 26.
27. On five of the ninety-four statements we do not
have a record of the votes (see footnote 16 above). Of the eighty-nine statements for
which we have a record, seventy-six passed with fewer than twenty negative votes: 76/89 =
85 percent.
28. "Appendix II: Questions to be Considered in
Drafting NCCB/USCC Statements," in Minutes of the Thirteenth General Meeting of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (November 12-16, 1973), 100. Also in National
Conference of Catholic Bishops: Statutes and Bylaws (Washington, DC: USCC, July
1976), 50. To improve readability, this quote was broken into three paragraphs.
29. Other than the official minutes and the USCC press
releases, there are few sources of information on the legislative history of the
statements issued by the NCCB/USCC. Nolan has an introduction to each collection of
statements in Pastoral Letters. Another excellent source is Walter J. Woods,
"Pastoral Care, Moral Issues, Basic Approaches: The National Pastoral Texts of the
American Bishops from the Perspective of Fundamental Moral Theology" (S.T.D. diss.,
Gregorian University, 1979). Finally, there are the news stories by the NC News Service.
30. For an excellent analysis of conciliar procedures
and consensus building, see Richard T. Lawrence, "The Building of Consensus: The
Conciliar Rules of Procedure and the Evolution of Dei Verbum," Jurist
46 (1986): 474-510.
31. Woods, "Pastoral Care," 338. The
official minutes are almost totally silent about the 1967 pastoral letter "Church in
Our Day" which Cardinal Krol and Father Nolan refer to as the bishops' "first
purely doctrinal pastoral." Nolan, Pastoral Letters, vol. 3, pp. 1 and 54.
"Behold Your Mother" (1973) is also referred to by Nolan as "one of their
rare completely doctrinal statements." Nolan, Pastoral Letters, vol. 3, p.
243.
32. From the minutes it is unclear what was the
position of the Farm Labor Committee, which drafted the statement, on this amendment. It
appears that the committee supported the boycott and was overturned by the assembly. If
so, this is the first indication of a committee being overruled by an assembly vote.
33. The committee's position on amendments was unclear
in the minutes for more than half the amendments. When the minutes and press releases are
silent, it can probably be presumed that the committee did not object to the amendment.
34. Of the sixty-one amendments offered, the minutes
indicated the position of the task force on thirty-seven. In every case but one, the
assembly followed the task force's recommendation in approving or rejecting the
amendments. Archbishop Peter L. Gerety's amendment to have an ad hoc committee to respond
to the recommendations passed over the objections of the task force.
35. Thomas J. Reese, "Archbishops Go to Rome," America 160 (March
4, 1989): 187-88, and "Discussions in Rome,"
America 160 (March 25, 1989): 260-61.
36. While the "Statement on the Handicapped"
was noncontroversial, whether to spend money to have a national office for the handicapped
divided the bishops.
37. See Thomas J. Reese, "The Bishops' `Challenge
of Peace'," America 148 (May 21, 1983): 392-95, and Jim Castelli, The
Bishops and the Bomb (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983).
38. Based on those printed in Hugh J. Nolan, ed., Pastoral
Letters of the United States Bishops (Washington, DC: USCC, 1983), vols. 3-4.
39. "Vote" indicates how the motion passed:
"V" indicates a voice vote, "B" a written ballot (followed by the
number for, against, and abstaining), "H" a show of hands, "M" a
mailed ballot, "S" indicates a standing vote. A "u" following any of
these indicates the vote was unanimous. When the minutes do not indicate the method of
voting, it is presumed to be a voice vote.
40. There is no record in the minutes of a vote on
this document. Wright said no one voted against it. A. E. P. Wall, "Pastoral Meets
Today's Faith Problems: Wright," National Catholic Reporter 4 (January 24,
1968): 2.
41. Separate votes on eight sections, from 214-9 to
172-49 (conclusion).
42. Nolan indicates that this was a statement by the
USCC Division of World Justice and Peace (Pastoral Letters, vol. 3, pp. 61 and
228). Woods, who examined the minutes of the Administrative Committee and Administrative
Board, indicates that the declaration was approved by a two-thirds vote in a mail ballot
("Pastoral Care," 291).
43. Passed easily, according to press release.
