The biggest problem for any archbishop running a diocese is to get the right people in the right place.
Archbishop Gerety

Priest personnel. Those are the most difficult, the most delicate, the most sensitive decisions I have to make in the course of the year.
Archbishop Salatka

The most important influence a bishop has over his diocese is through the recruitment, training, and assignment of personnel to parishes and diocesan agencies. Most archbishops and chancery officials agree that personnel is their greatest concern. Dedicated and trained laypersons, religious, and priests are necessary to the operation of an archdiocese. They staff the parishes, schools, hospitals, and other archdiocesan institutions. If the personnel are hardworking and creative, these institutions will flourish and provide a structured basis for the religious and spiritual life of the people in the archdiocese.

Although there is some support for a personnel system that treats priests, religious, and lay employees the same, most dioceses have different policies that apply to priests, religious, and lay employees. Priests and religious, for example, usually are paid less than lay employees. In the past, sisters were paid less than priests, although this injustice is becoming less common.

Priests' Personnel

As far as the archbishops are concerned, the key personnel issues relate to the diocesan priests. This is not to denigrate the importance of the religious and laity, but simply to indicate that most of the personnel issues that reach an archbishop concern his priests. Most lay and religious employees of an archdiocese are hired by and report to someone other than the archbishop--a pastor, a school principal, or the administrator of a hospital or of another archdiocesan agency.

On the other hand, all diocesan priests are assigned by the archbishop to their jobs whether it be in a parish or other church institution. In addition, diocesan priests pledge obedience to the bishop and his successor. Their commitment to the diocese is unqualified. Religious normally can serve their orders in other dioceses, and a layperson can seek employment elsewhere. Finally, if the priest has a personal problem, it can become the concern of the bishop. As a result, bishops consider clergy personnel issues special.

In dealing with priest personnel issues, bishops and personnel directors are always trying to balance the good of the priest with the good of the diocese. In a sense, the personnel problems and opportunities faced by a bishop are similar to those faced by any family business. A family business thrives on the dedication and enthusiasm of the family members who are willing to work long hours at low pay. Dean Hoge, for example, found that "Catholics pay much less for religious leadership than Protestants." He estimates that "the institutional cost of a full-time priest averages $26,376 at the local level plus $1,428 at the diocesan level (plus $1,039 for continuing education)." The cost for Episcopalians would be "$45,005, followed by Lutherans, $39,059, and Methodists, $35,308."/1 But in a family business you don't fire Uncle Charlie because he could be replaced by someone more efficient. The head of the family must simultaneously be concerned for the welfare of the business and the members of the family, even when these conflict.

Similarly in the church, the bishop must be concerned about the good of the parishes and also the good of the priests. The dedication and commitment of the vast majority of the clergy gives life to the church. But the less successful priests are not simply replaceable parts in a machine. It is almost impossible for a bishop to fire a priest. And even if he could, there is not a large pool of priests waiting to replace him. As one archbishop explains, "By and large, you do the best you can with what you've got to work with."

Priests' Personnel Office

Dealing with clergy personnel issues is considered by church administrators as the most difficult job in an archdiocese. A comprehensive personnel service would deal with recruitment, screening, selection, assignment, training, development, evaluation, support, counseling, crisis intervention, retirement, and termination./2 A large diocese might have different people working full time on many of these functions, but in smaller dioceses many functions would be performed by one person or by part-time personnel. In most dioceses, for example, recruitment would be taken care of by a part-time director of vocations. Training is done in seminaries either inside or outside the diocese.

In the past, the archbishop usually dealt with postseminary personnel issues directly, with the help of his priest secretary or chancellor. Since Vatican II the number of priests helping a bishop with this work has grown. Today most archdioceses will have a personnel board to help advise the bishop on assignments. Large dioceses might also have a priests' personnel director, vicar for clergy, director of continuing education, and vicar for retired priests./3 In smaller dioceses some of these positions might be held by one person or the jobs might be part time. In Milwaukee, Archbishop Weakland considered the personnel office so important that he placed his two auxiliary bishops in charge of it.

The National Association of Church Personnel Administrators notes that in the business world a rule of thumb "is that one personnel specialist should be on the staff for every 100 persons served."/4 By such standards, church personnel offices are understaffed considering the large numbers employed by an archdiocese.

The creation of personnel offices was overwhelmingly supported by the priests in the mid-1960s./5 Confusion and unrealistic expectations often are present when the creation of a priests' personnel office is considered. Should the priests' personnel director be an administrator, counselor, ombudsman, mediator, or all of the above? Some confusion arises because the bishop and priests sometimes have different expectations for people in the personnel office. For example, are they representatives of the bishop to the priests or of the priests to the bishop? Or both? "I have my own expectations of what I should be doing," reports one personnel director. "The bishop has expectations of what I should be doing, and every priest has expectations. At times there are unreal expectations placed on us."

Bishops usually perceive the personnel director, like his secular counterpart, as someone who can help the chief executive with assignments and personnel problems. Often, however, the personnel office has been created at the instigation of the priests' council because the council feels the bishop is failing to hear the needs and desires of the priests. The priests hope that a good personnel person can act as an intermediary between the priests and the bishop. They may also want him to fulfill other roles. The vicar for clergy in Hartford noted that besides being involved with assignments, "The priests wanted the vicar to be a mediator, advocate, confidant, someone with whom they could share their problems."

In fact, most personnel directors represent the bishop to the priests, but they also conscientiously attempt to look out for the needs of the priests. In all the archdioceses, it is clear that the personnel director works for the bishop even in cases where the bishop allows the director to be nominated by the priests. Even the elected personnel boards see their role more as advising the bishop than as representing the priests.

In an effort to deal with the multiple personnel roles, some archdioceses (Chicago, Newark, Milwaukee) distinguish between the priests' personnel director, who deals with assignments, and the vicar for clergy, who deals with priests' problems. Diocesan priests like this distinction because they do not want the person who deals with their personal problems to have anything to do with their assignments.

But even with this distinction, it is still unclear whether the vicar for clergy should be a counselor helping the priests or an authority figure intervening in the name of the bishop. As a result, they can be caught between the expectations of the priests and the expectations of the bishop if their job description is not clear. For example, how much of what the priests tell the vicar can be passed on to the archbishop? In Chicago, the vicar for priests would not pass on to the archbishop information without the priest's consent if the priest came to him. But if the archbishop initiated the contact because of his concern for the priest, then the priest is told that anything he tells the vicar can be passed on to the archbishop.

Some people working in priests' personnel believe that there is need for at least three persons: a counselor/advocate whose only concern is the priest's welfare, a personnel director concerned about assignments, and a vicar who challenges, evaluates, intervenes, or corrects priests in the name of the bishop. Cardinal Hickey in Washington has his chancellor deal with complaints about priests rather than his vicar for clergy or priests' personnel director. "I would not give it to the secretary for parish life or the secretary for clergy," he says. "I don't want to prejudice the program or the secretary. I don't want his or her credibility chewed up."

On the other hand, priests are biased against any bureaucracy that separates them from their bishop. In Cincinnati at a priests' convocation the men appeared to favor an ombudsman, but when they were later surveyed, the response was negative. "On further reflection they saw it differently," explains the priests' personnel director. "It wouldn't help things that much just sticking another person in the bureaucracy."

But in many dioceses, the priests' personnel director has all these multiple and sometimes conflicting roles. Some of this is inevitable because it reflects the multiple and sometimes conflicting roles of the bishop, who must be simultaneously concerned with the good of his priests and the diocese.

In any case, a priest dealing with personnel is a man in the middle. It has been recommended that he have skills in several fields: theology and pastoral care, church teaching and policy, professional personnel administration, and counseling and behavioral science./6 But most have had little or no training in professional personnel administration or in behavioral science. They tend to be pastoral men with interpersonal skills and good judgment who are respected and trusted both by the bishop and their peers. After they are appointed, they get on-the-job training.

Many have found the job very burdensome. Sister Christine Matthews, O.P., director of the National Association of Church Personnel Administrators, reports:

The personnel directors know it all [the virtues and vices of the priests]. They find it a tremendous burden. They find that their relationships with the other priests changes. I have had one say to me, "I am not invited to the same parties. The whole relationship changes. In six years when this is over, I won't forget all of that stuff, and I will be treated the same way."

One personnel director told how his appointment affected his friendships among the clergy.

I have a priest who is a nervous wreck every time I call. I am not calling except to talk to him about something else. I went by to visit one day because I was nearby. He said, "Why are you here." "I just came to say Hi." "Are you sure?" I said, "Yes, no ulterior motive at all." His term as pastor is nearing its end, so he knows that one of these times I am going to call for that reason.

On the other hand, many priests involved in personnel work experience it as a fulfilling ministry. "I really enjoy the opportunity to be pastor to priests," says Bishop Richard Sklba who is co-vicar for clergy in Milwaukee. "There is something so gratifying about that pastoral ministry. They are very good guys. Almost everybody is praying hard and working hard. The chance to sit down and spend time together is very gratifying."

Despite the ideal of a comprehensive personnel program, the primary concerns of priests' personnel directors are the assignment of priests and crisis intervention. Most of their time is spent on assignments and on priests with problems. Concern for continuing education often takes a back seat to these primary concerns except where a person's sole responsibility is to encourage priests to update their training. What has made all of these personnel issues even more difficult is the shrinking of the personnel pool.

Shrinking Personnel Pool

The decline in the number of priests has church administrators very concerned because it is making clergy personnel issues even more difficult./7 The shortage of priests is only just beginning to affect the church, but already 34 percent of Catholics have personally experienced a shortage of parish priests./8 And it is going to get worse, much worse. One national study estimates that there will be half the number of active priests in the year 2000 as there were in the 1960s./9

Projections on the supply of priests are being done in many archdioceses. Portland, for example, is projecting thirty to fifty priestless parishes by the year 2000. Archbishop Whealon of Hartford reports, "I had a study done by our insurance people that indicates that the 500-plus priests that I had when I came here in 1969 is gradually being reduced so that at the end of the century there will be 360 active priests. At the same time the average age is going up steadily, relentlessly in fact. Priests are fewer, older, having many health problems."

The impact of the shortage in the large urban dioceses (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington) has been lessened by the large numbers of priest students or teachers at educational institutions who help on Sundays. But even in the large urban dioceses, the effects of the shortage are beginning to be felt as there are fewer associate pastors to help in parishes.

"In the last nine months," explained the Philadelphia chancellor in 1986, "we have had fifteen parishes where we could not replace an assistant pastor when he was transferred. We have had a number of priests forty-five and older suffering heart attacks and getting seriously ill. Not so much burnout as unexpected heart attacks."

But some personnel directors do not consider the shortage of priests their biggest problem. "My biggest problem," reports one personnel director, "is that I have people I cannot place. They can't get along with the staff at the parish; they have different ecclesial models of the church or they won't fit in with the lay staff or lay participation. Of the sixty moves this year, there were five or six I can't fit anywhere. I spend 80 percent of my time on these." This problem is not simply with older priests. Some personnel directors complain of newly ordained priests who did not fit in./10

Priests' Problems

Unassignable priests and priests with other problems are a major concern of bishops and personnel directors. Bishops are especially concerned about priests who leave the ministry or get in trouble. "I can ride with almost everything except the priest not taking advantage of the grace that's available to them and this leading to misdirectedness," said Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia. "I can shake off almost anything, but when it comes to things of that nature, you wake up at two o'clock in the morning, and you have been thinking of it all night long."

Cardinal Manning of Los Angeles also admitted worrying about similar problems at four o'clock in the morning. "That's when they surface, the problems of personnel. Our Lord had his disciples around him, and they had their problems, and Jacob had problems with his sons. Those are probably the hardest things to reconcile."

Every archbishop's secretary told me that if a priest telephones and wants to see the archbishop, he gets in as soon as possible. "Any priest who calls can see the archbishop," says the secretary to Archbishop Roach of St. Paul. "I will ask if it is an emergency or whether it can wait. I don't ask for details, although they often give them to me. If it can't wait, I will bounce a staff person, who can see the archbishop later, so that he can see the priest." Archbishop Quinn gives to his priests the numbers of the private lines that ring in his office and residence so that they can reach him without going through a switchboard or secretary.

Most archbishops, even those who on the surface seem gruff, have a reputation for being very good at dealing with a priest who comes to him with a problem such as alcoholism, drugs, gambling, or a failure in celibacy. One personnel director described his archbishop:

He is very formal, demanding, insists on 100 percent obedience. But if a man is in trouble in any way, any kind of trouble, trouble with the law, drinking or drugs, women, boys, anything--he is the most kindly, understanding, helpful man you would ever hope to have on your side.

If he can help you come to terms with whatever the problem is and you come back to active ministry, then the whole thing is off the record like it never happened. There is no grudge held, no "Well, we can't trust him anymore." He is very fair.

The priest with serious moral or legal problems is the rare exception. But when these problems do surface, they take a great deal of the bishop's and personnel director's time. A number of personnel directors felt that, at the time of this study, their work in this area was especially high because they were dealing with problems that had been ignored by bishops in the past. In any case, if the priest approaches the archbishop before there is a public scandal, usually all can be forgiven and dealt with if the priest is willing. Here the bishop is not an employer, but a father or the representative of the forgiving Christ. If the priest reforms (and sometimes even if he does not, as long as it does not become public), he can continue in his ministry.

Many archdioceses also have policies and procedures for intervening to help priests with problems of substance abuse./11 Often the intervention team is headed by priests who are already members of Alcoholics Anonymous. In one archdiocese, the intervention team even talked to the archbishop about his drinking problem.

Programs of counseling and therapy are offered and willingly paid for by the bishop. A variety of treatment options are available in larger archdioceses that would include AA, counseling, and treatment programs such as Guest House, which specializes in alcoholic priests. Bishops willingly spend money for treatment. In New York the personnel director says that any decent program will cost $30,000. He says he has an open-ended budget for this purpose. After treatment, it is common for a priest to return to his ministry.

The major exception today is in cases of child abuse. In the past, because of ignorance, some bishops were lenient in dealing with priests who sexually abused children. There was little understanding of the problem as an illness and a crime or of the archdiocese's liability as an employer. In 1986, however, a jury awarded $1 million in damages to the family of an abused child which had to be paid by the diocese of Lafayette (LA) because the bishop knew the priest had problems and moved him to another parish where he abused more children. Additional payments were made to thirteen other families in out of court settlements. Insurance companies quickly added an exclusion for child abuse to their contracts with churches or at least placed a cap on their liability.

Few bishops will risk that kind of liability in the future. Bishops all across the country, under the guidance of their lawyers, quickly established policies and procedures for reporting and dealing with accusations of child abuse by any church employee. Some lawyers recommended against dealing with the parents lest any sympathy or help be considered an admission of responsibility. Stonewalling, however, often angered the parents into the suits the lawyers were trying to avoid. Most dioceses found that the parents are primarily concerned with getting help for their child and with making sure no other child is abused. When the diocese is forthcoming, the parents usually prefer not to sue lest further damage be done to the child. The Christian response proved to be the smart response.

But getting evidence of child abuse if the children or parents do not come forward is almost impossible. One personnel director describes the problem:

When it blows, it blows all over the place. You think there are two families, then forty families come out of the woods just angry as heck. But you never have concrete data until something like that happens. That is what is so bad about it. You got insinuations, you got kids that will say, this might happen, nothing happened. You really don't know.

The kids are afraid for their parents, afraid of being disloyal to the church or father. They are not going to say anything. We had a kid who came back much later as an adult.

Today we don't know, but there are a lot of red flags. How do you handle those without barging in and ruining somebody's reputation? People find out in a hurry.

We have a couple of possibles, but you don't ever have data on which to really act. We did take two out of circulation and put them into counseling. There was no hard-core evidence, parents or anything, but always insinuations that this happened or that happened.

Psychologically they are hard nuts to crack as far as admitting any need for help. Both of these denied the whole works. I suppose you get a little paranoid when you see a guy with a couple of servers on a trip or in a car. It is dangerous.

Priest Morale

Although they take an inordinate amount of time, priests with serious legal, moral, or psychological problems are the rare exception. The bishop must also be concerned about the rest of his priests. A major concern of the bishops since the early 1970s has been the morale of their priests. Bishops worry about low morale because it is bad for the priests, bad for the church, and bad for the bishop. Priests with low morale are unhappy, they don't work so well, and they are less likely to support and follow the leadership of their bishop. And they may leave the ministry.

In fact, the morale of priests is higher than comparable American males who are married and much higher than unmarried males./12 But low morale among any priests is a concern of bishops. The causes of low morale are many./13 In the past, priest morale problems often centered around conflicts with authoritarian bishops and, for associates, conflicts with authoritarian pastors./14 The appointment of bishops sensitive to priests' concerns under Archbishop Jadot did much to neutralize this area of conflict, so that in 1985 only 9 percent of the diocesan clergy said relationship with their bishop was a problem for them./15 New structures (personnel boards and priests' councils) and new governance styles after Vatican II also have improved relations between bishops and priests. Surveys have shown that priests' "self-esteem, work satisfaction and morale all increased between 1970 and 1985."/16 But feelings of being overworked and lonely remained at the same level as 1970. Recently, however, the appointment of more conservative bishops has led some American priests to fear a return to authoritarian governance. These bishops would more quickly step in to stop experimentation that goes beyond what would be permitted by Rome.

Low morale is also caused by loneliness and the desire to marry. Surveys have found that many priests favor optional celibacy, but most recognize that this option will not be available in their lifetime. Celibacy "is a real problem, especially as we have more priests living alone," says the executive secretary of the Chicago personnel board.

"Priests [are] working longer and longer days and saying, `who really loves me, who really cares about me, or what kind of relationships do I have that really matter?'"

The numbers of men leaving the priesthood and the decline in the number of vocations is also troubling to priests./17 The same Chicago priest notes:

The same number of people [about 9 per year in Chicago] have taken leaves of absence in the last few years, but the quality has changed. In the past, guys would take leaves and you kind of say, "I always thought that would happen. It was obvious that he was not happy; he is struggling with a lot of stuff."

But this year, some of the really best priests have taken leaves of absences. People I really respect; this is really what a priest is. And he says, `I want to take a leave of absence.' That has been very, very hard.

The bishops find this depressing also. "The hardest thing of all is when a priest is leaving," reports Cardinal Hickey of Washington. "I mean, I die a little bit every time. It just saddens me to see this man in whom there is so much promise and so much hope. If it were a thoroughly bad person...but that's so rare. When you see a man leave, you just say, `Did I fail him? Did the church fail him? What happened here?' That's my greatest sorrow."

Recent media attention to pedophilia and homosexuality among the clergy have also contributed to low morale.

Priests' morale is also affected by changing concepts of what it means to be a priest today and by their lifestyle and work. The identity and roles of priests prior to Vatican II were fairly clear and stable. Priests in the past normally lived in a milieu where they received the unquestioning respect and reverence of their parishioners. They administered the sacraments from the church to which people came. The pastor was boss. He knew what was good for his people, and they accepted his leadership. He had a theology that was unquestioned.

Today, the role of the pastor is not clear, because it has changed and is still evolving. While survey data does not support the notion that priests lack a clear idea of what a priest is or have been negatively affected by theological change in the concept of priesthood,/18 the practical implementations of these ideas may be more problematic. How is he supposed to be a leader and at the same time a member of a team? Is he a teacher or a coordinator of ministries? Is he supposed to minister to parishioners or facilitate ministers who do that? And what is the role of the associate pastor in all this?/19 Is his time being wasted in administration? Should he be involved in the school or religious education program? Is he supposed to be sympathetic or prophetic? Should he spend his time in one-on-one counseling or dealing with large groups? Which groups in the parish should he reach out to--school children, teenagers, young singles, engaged, newly married, families in crisis, the sick, elderly, grieving, dying, blacks, Hispanics, ethnics, Yuppies, churched, unchurched, Protestants, Jews, altar guild, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, altar servers, St. Vincent de Paul Society, athletes, the poor, unemployed, homeless, drug addicts, abused women? Since he cannot do everything, how should he budget his time and energies? And how does he say no to those he cannot serve?

Today, the pastor must deal with a parish council, questioning parishioners, and expectations that he be all things to all persons. And all of this is happening at the same time priests' numbers are fewer and their average age is rising. In Chicago, "there is a growing concern over the huge parishes that we have," says a priest working in personnel. "What does it mean when there is just one priest or two priests to run that? You have a funeral every day, three or four weddings on Saturday. How do you revive yourself, keep yourself alive and alert in that kind of situation?" Between 1970 and 1985, the number of priests complaining of too much work increased slightly (9 to 11 percent) as did the number complaining of unrealistic demands and expectations of lay people (8 to 16 percent)./20 This is especially true of younger priests.

While few priests want to go back to the old ways, many experience frustrations their predecessors never dreamed of. Not infrequently they suffer from burnout and stress./21 Part of this stress comes from the inability to have a private life. The expectation is that priests are always on duty. In addition, parish rectories have become less homes for the priests than offices and meeting places for parish activities. Some would prefer to live elsewhere. "Priests under forty are finding it intolerable," explains the personnel director in Chicago. "They live in public buildings. It is living above the store, and they can't stand it anymore. They are not with people they want to live with. It offers neither privacy nor community."

Their morale will be especially low if they think those in authority do not understand or appreciate their problems./22 A number of priests dealing with personnel expressed shock at the pope's speech in France declaring that the priests' identity crisis was over. "I feel really bitter about those kinds of statements coming out of Rome," says one priest. "I have felt so much of the personal pain of really good men who have tried so hard to do a good job, and I see what they are going through. And then to hear that there is no crisis, that is really bad."

Another personnel director says, "What the pope said is just absurd. I am stunned by that remark, because it is just so ignorant. Diocesan priests, we have no idea what our charism is. How we fit in. The morale is abysmal. Bishops are denying it, or they are paralyzed by it. You have some one like the pope saying that it is all over. That is idiotic. Just idiotic. He is just poorly informed."

Some archbishops, especially older ones, admit that they were not sensitive to priests' problems. They grew up in the Depression and the Second World War; they were used to a life of obedience and sacrifice. When they faced problems, they gritted their teeth and bore it. They also began their ministry in a time when most questions had a simple answer. They enjoyed being priests, were successful, and reached the top of their profession.

As a result, some, such as Archbishops Donnellan and Whealon, did not realize until late in their careers how important it was to work at improving priests' morale.

I grew up in a tradition that said, "Here I am Lord, send me." I found the priesthood a wonderfully happy experience, and my classmates have been very close to one another and supported one another so that I was probably not sensitive enough to stress.

I am inclined to say, "Hey, look, the average guy out there with a wife and children and a job has more stress in a week than we have in a month." There is a lot of truth to that, but just because you don't feel that much stress, doesn't mean that it isn't there for other people. Maybe that is an area that I should have been more sensitive to.

Likewise, Archbishop Whealon of Hartford at the conclusion of a 1985 Emmaus, a renewal program for priests, confessed in his homily:

The major lesson which I take from Emmaus is the need, in the 1980s, to affirm priests. That may sound to you younger men like a self-evident truth. Let me explain to you why this is something new. The training of my generation was not to work for or expect human praise. Priests did their best, for Christ and the church, and were not singled out for praise by either their bishop or their fellow priests.

But I now see this situation as not good, because in the 1980s a brother can feel unsupported, isolated, not understood. A bishop needs to be available to his priests, to encourage and thank and love and affirm them. If a bishop only says thanks to his priestly co-workers and encourages them, he has spent a good day. But how to do that, with knowledge and sincerity and without deflating the value of words of gratitude--that is a challenge./23

A similar admission was made by Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee. As a Benedictine, "I thought that the diocesan priests liked that individualism. `Don't touch me, let me alone, let me do my own thing.' I didn't understand soon enough the enormous amount of strokes they need and the care they need. So I mishandled the priests for a few years."

How a bishop is to relate to his priests is a complex problem. He is both their boss and brother. The old style bishop was aloof and clearly the boss. Some bishops avoid having friends among their priests lest they be accused of favoritism or cronyism. Despite his desire to affirm priests, for example, Archbishop Whealon would not attend dinners in honor of priests--"You would have to go to all of them."

Archbishops have tried a number of strategies and programs for improving morale and communications with their priests. Archbishop Whealon was one of the first bishops to support team ministries in the parishes and his primary motivation was improving the morale of younger priests who were not pastors. Workshops and sabbaticals and other forms of continuing education are also seen as helpful in aiding priests' morale and ministry./24 The Emmaus program tries to help the priests' spiritual development and to foster a feeling of solidarity among the priests. In Hartford, three groups of priests did this program, and the archbishop went through the program with all three groups. Another program, "Ministry to Priests," was used in New Orleans, and again the archbishop attended each one.

To improve communications between priests and their archbishop, the Chicago archdiocese had "overnights," jokingly referred to by the priests as pajamas parties, which began at noon and went to noon the next day. At these affairs Cardinal Bernardin invited a group of priests of varied ages (e.g., everyone ordained in a year ending in five). The day involved a "state of the diocese" address by the archbishop together with a no-holds-barred question period. Discussions were also organized to improve communications between priests of various ages. Time also was available for the priests to simply relax together.

A strategy used frequently by bishops when they first come to their dioceses is to go around to the deaneries or vicariates to dialogue with their priests. Archbishop Quinn did this when he first came to San Francisco as did Archbishops Levada of Portland and Law of Boston in their archdioceses. Others have invited small groups of priests to lunch or dinner at the archbishop's house so that they could talk informally.

In New York, Cardinal O'Connor late in 1986 decided to set aside one day a week to see any priest who wanted to see him at his residence. "I'll be available to priests all day long at the house," he explained. "It will be like a barbershop. They can come without appointments."

Priests' morale involves many issues outside of the bishop's control, but he can do much to improve it or make it worse. Sensitive listening and sincere love and respect for his priests is essential. "A bishop's relationship with his priests is all-important," comments one archbishop, "but it is not all that easy to establish a level of trust or understanding [where priests accept] a decision where you can't really share all the reasons for it. A bishop can't do a thing without his priests. You shouldn't do things just to please them, I guess if you wanted to you couldn't. But you should be honest with them, open with them. If they ask a direct question, you give them a direct answer, don't say, `That is none of your business.'"

An area about which priests are especially interested is the assignment of priests to parishes. The appointment of priests to parishes and diocesan offices is a major preoccupation of bishops. "The toughest thing about being a bishop," says Archbishop Sheehan of Omaha, "is making the appointments." In making assignments, bishops want to take into consideration the needs of the priests and the needs of the diocese. Balancing these needs and getting the right man in the right job is the problem.

Another archbishop, for example, recalls the trouble he had finding a priest secretary.

The first man I had as secretary was absolutely hopeless. He was one of the most interesting fellows I ever met in my life, but he was totally hopeless as a secretary. He just couldn't get himself organized, but, boy, could he talk about philosophy or theology or Rahner or Schillebeeckx. I used to love to ride with him, but he was hopeless.

Then I got another secretary to succeed him. But here again he was a very fine pastor subsequently and a very wonderful priest. But as secretary you cannot become emotionally involved in the people who are calling you up all the time. They get hundreds of calls and people are complaining about this and that. And this guy would be falling apart. So he went on to better things. I named him a pastor.

Finally, after three tries I got the best secretary in the world, just perfect for the job.

In order to help them put the right person in the right spot, archbishops have set up various systems and procedures. Many have a priests' personnel director who gathers information on the parishes and interviews priests for various positions. But Archbishop May was reluctant to appoint a full-time priest to personnel work in St. Louis:

I have dealt with personnel matters in three different situations. I was director of the personnel board in Chicago, and then worked on personnel in Mobile and here.

I'm concerned about expectations. Everybody feels that this approach or having certain policies and having a personnel board is going to create a situation in which everybody is going to be satisfied. They've all been consulted, therefore, they're going to be in a place that is fulfilling them, and so on.

You raise expectations, and then it will never, never be that way. There's a greater disillusionment very often when you do all those things and still there is a great deal of disappointment.

Chancery officials consider working on priests' assignments to be the most thankless job in the diocese. It is impossible to give everyone the assignment they want, and suspicions and complaints abound among priests over personnel assignments. In response to these complaints, many members would agree with Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle: "It would be important for every priest in the diocese to have a stint on the personnel board so that they would know how hard it is. It is easy to stand out there and criticize it."

Archbishops feel that priests will complain no matter what the system is. A new priests' personnel director told this story about a conversation with his archbishop:

[I said to the archbishop,] "I really want to run this office in such a way that guys will have no complaint."

Personnel Board

Most archbishops have instituted an elected personnel board (sometimes called committee, commission, or council), consisting of about seven priests, to advise them on the assignment of priests. The establishment of these boards often came in response to requests from the priests, but how well they work depended on the style of the bishop./25 Most bishops have come to depend heavily on these boards in the appointment process. "All that used to be done by the bishop," explains Archbishop Kelly of Louisville. "I don't know what else he could do; he could spend his whole life doing that. What is more, I would make bad judgments if it was all up to me. The priests' personnel board is the greatest invention of Vatican II."

The written procedures usually recognize that the archbishop can bypass the board if he wants. "Anytime I want to I can bypass this process and make an appointment," says Archbishop O'Meara of Indianapolis. "But obviously, if I would do that very often, why have them? Implicit in that is that you can do it, but you really won't."

A few archdioceses do not have elected personnel boards, for example, Philadelphia (under Cardinal Krol), Newark (under Archbishop Gerety), and Kansas City (under Archbishop Strecker). "Our priests will take an appointment from the bishop," explains Cardinal Krol, "but if it's [from] a personnel committee, they are resentful, they are cantankerous, they complain." In Newark and Philadelphia, the auxiliary bishops acted as a personnel board, meeting with the archbishop and the personnel staff. In Kansas City, KS, the board is appointed by the archbishop.

Surveys have indicated that priests, in fact, overwhelmingly favored personnel boards as early as the mid-1960s./26 Although most priests like the idea of personnel boards, some priests bypass them, especially in a small diocese. In Mobile the chairman of the personnel board remarks:

Some priests say, "I made my promise to a bishop, I didn't make it to a board, and I will deal with the bishop." A lot of guys when they have to do with appointments, they talk to the bishop. Sometimes things get settled that the board doesn't have a whole lot of definite input into. But this is a small archdiocese, and after all, we are advisory. There is nothing iron clad about our "rights."

Most priests prefer personnel boards to the old assignment process that was totally dependent on the archbishop and his appointed staff. The old system was attacked for being insensitive to the needs of the priests and for being subject to cronyism.

Personnel boards are seen as being more democratic and more sensitive to the views of the priests. In addition, if a priest does not relate well to the priests' personnel director or the bishop, he can usually find someone on the board he can talk to.

Personnel boards are usually elected directly by the priests. Normally, each age group elects its own representative, but sometimes the age group nominates candidates and the entire presbyterate votes on all the candidates. In a few archdioceses (for example in Los Angeles, and Indianapolis), the members are elected by the priests in particular geographical areas.

The board members serve as volunteers while holding down other full-time jobs. The staff work in a large diocese is done by a full-time personnel director. In a small diocese it might be done by the chairman of the board or by a chancery official who works part-time on personnel.

The archbishops have found boards to be a good source of advice. "We have a personnel board, elected by the priests, that is simply fabulous," reports Archbishop Kucera of Dubuque. "I take no credit for it because it was here when I arrived. It has done a tremendous job in being sensitive to the needs of the priests and the parishes. Working with them is a pleasure." Being new to the archdiocese and not knowing the priests, he found the board especially helpful. "Listening to these people talk filled me in very quickly," he explains. "It gave me a background on who's who, and the nuances were much more easily viewed."

But even when the archbishop is from the archdiocese, he usually finds the board helpful. "The personnel board certainly has brought to me special dimensions of priests' capabilities and priests' weaknesses when we are making appointments that I would not have had knowledge of," explains Archbishop Lipscomb, a native of Mobile.

"Our job is to match the skills and abilities of the priests with the needs of the parish and the diocese," explains the director of personnel for the St. Paul archdiocese. In order to do that, the personnel director and the board must have information on the parishes and the priests.

Desires of the Priests

In 1960, 50 percent of the pastors and 84 percent of the curates said that they were "simply told to report" to their current assignment without being consulted./27 Today, this would be atypical. What the St. Paul personnel board does to gather information about the desires and needs of the priests is more common:

In January we send out a letter asking the priests if they want to move, if they want to be interviewed by the board, how they are getting along with their pastor (or associate). About 80 percent of them answer the questionnaire.

We first interview those who want a change, then those who want to be interviewed simply to keep us informed about what is going on. Then we look at those who did not answer the questionnaire, and, if we have not interviewed them in three years, we do so.

Formally surveying the priests about their interest in moving and the type of parish they are interested in helps personnel boards match up the needs of the diocese with the desires of the priests. Some boards also have interviews with the priests, although this is usually left to the personnel director.

In Milwaukee the personnel office uses an interview procedure constructed by Development Dimensions International to measure skills, especially management skills, of the priests in order to match them up with the right parish. For example, to examine a priest's staff leadership ability, the office might ask him the following:

What approach do you use to work with the parish council when one of its committees is to consider a new idea or policy? What ways have you found to make your associate pastor or parish employees' jobs easier and more rewarding? Tell me about the toughest groups in the parish that you have had to get cooperation from, and what did you do to get that cooperation? Can you think of a parish project or policy (not necessarily your own) that was successfully implemented because of your efforts? What changes have you tried to implement in your own area of responsibility as pastors, and what have you done to get these changes underway?

The Milwaukee personnel director defends using an interview procedure developed by business: "We look at pastors and priests as managers of a lot of things. The skills required in any position are basically the same. It is how you apply them. There is a set of questions for each skill category. It basically measures behavior in given work situations."

Open Listing

In the past, a pastorate would become open if a pastor died, retired, or moved. A pastor's death would be known to all the priests, but often his retirement or transfer was kept secret by the chancery until after a replacement had been found. Priests complained that this system favored "insiders" or people with friends in the chancery. It did not treat priests equally or fairly. In addition, this system was considered paternalistic because it presumed that those in authority knew what was best for a man without even asking him.

Now the trend has been towards open listing, where all the priests of the diocese are informed of an opening through the diocesan newspaper or through a special mailing from the chancery. Any priest may apply for the position if he wishes. A financial and historical profile of the parish is given to anyone interested in the parish so that he can decide whether or not he wants to apply.

The first advantage of this process is that it provides the bishop and personnel board with information on the specific desires of the priests. They do not have to guess whether a priest would be willing to go to a particular parish. Through the applications that they receive in response to the open listing, they know which priests are interested in which parishes.

Second, many personnel directors feel that open listing treats priests as mature adults who should have something to say about their lives. It requires that the priests take initiative rather than waiting to be told what to do. "It has been psychologically healthy for priests to take some responsibility for their own lives," explains a director, "instead of sitting back and waiting to be recognized by authority. Obedience as a genuine call to a difficult service is a very important spiritual part of our lives, but the passive stuff that it frequently creates is very unhealthy."

Or as another personnel director says, "It is very mature because it puts ownership on the men involved. You make your own bed, you lie in it." The Louisville priests' personnel director notes that open listing "takes some of the blame off of the board and the archbishop for making a decision that affects their lives. Now the priests have to make a decision that affects their lives or at least let us know which way they are thinking."

Some archdioceses (Atlanta, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Kansas City, KS, Mobile, Philadelphia, San Francisco) do not have open listing. Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia explains, "We don't advertise vacancies. To me that is a kind of helpless leadership. I think you have to fill places, and unpleasant places."

Some priests object to open listing in principle. "Some of your better people, for spiritual reasons as well as psychological reasons, feel they should not apply," explains the chairman of the Omaha personnel board. "It is a matter of principle or just fear. Sometimes spiritual: `If the Lord wants you to do it, the bishop will ask.' But how is the bishop ever going to know if you don't say something?"

In some small dioceses there is fear that open listing would be destructive to priestly camaraderie. The priests' personnel director in Louisville says that the priests were reluctant to go to open listing. "They are afraid of competition, afraid of dog-eat-dog type stuff." A member of the personnel board in Kansas City, KS, reports:

We are a small archdiocese and guys know each other pretty well. They all know resources are limited and the parishes are limited. To pit guys--have them bid against each other for a parish--could end up being pretty destructive.

But he admits that "some guys would like to know that so-and-so is going to be moving, so they would know some other things might be possible."

But even in those places without formal open listing, a priest can still request an assignment if he knows about it, although this was not common in Philadelphia. In Kansas City, a member of the personnel board notes, "Obviously word gets around about some of the places that are going to be open." In San Francisco, the personnel director explains, "The archbishop has said that people can let him know if they are interested in a particular opening, which means that we, in fact, have a modified open listing."

In places that have open listing, some priests just tell the personnel director that they are open to a variety of assignments. The Seattle personnel director reports:

We had a good number of priests who said, "Yeah, I am interested in a move. I am not committed to any one particular parish. If you see a place where you think I might be good, I want you to know I would be willing to talk about it." That freed us up a lot.

Those dioceses that do not have open listing must face the issue of when in the process a priest should be consulted about a specific assignment. Everyone would agree that it is best to consult the priest as soon as possible about his general preferences and needs. But when it comes to asking him whether he would be interested in going to a particular parish, the key question is, do you consult him before or after conferring with the archbishop?

Some prefer to consult the man first. These personnel directors see no reason to propose to the archbishop an assignment that the priest is going to oppose. In addition, they feel that the archbishop should know what the views of the priest are before he makes up his mind. If this is the procedure followed, then the personnel director must stress to the priest that no decision has been made and that other priests are being consulted for the same position. On the other hand, some personnel directors prefer to get tentative approval from the archbishop before approaching a priest. They do not want to raise false expectations among the priests that may not be fulfilled.

One difficulty with this consultation is that sometimes the appointment falls through. The Atlanta personnel director reports:

It can raise expectations. But it is made clear, and all the priests know that it is only a feeler, only by way of trying to work up a cohesive slate that will work all the way around. They know from past observations that most of the time it doesn't work out the way they were first approached.

A few weeks ago, we approached a young priest about making him a pastor in a small church in the mountains. I called him, he was all gung ho. Then something else happened that did not involve him at all, and we ended up sending someone else. He may be disappointed, but I think it also flattered him and encouraged him because he realized that even in spite of his young age, he is needed and wanted. Obviously, there will be other offers.

Regional Vicars

Another problem of priests' assignments is how to relate the work of the personnel board to the desires of the regional vicars, especially if they are auxiliary bishops. The vicars want the best priests in their regions and would oppose the appointment of a man who would cause problems. As a result, there are fights among the vicars and fights between the vicars and the personnel board over assignments. When there are disagreements, the archbishop has to find a solution or choose sides.

In some archdioceses (Detroit, Miami, and Washington) the regional bishops sit with the personnel boards and participate in their deliberations. The personnel board chairman in Detroit reports that this works well:

The role of the regional bishops is crucial because they are the ones who are actually preparing for the meetings by looking at their region and all their priests, meeting personally, individually with those whose terms are due, getting a sense of what those priests are like, what their own desires are, how they want to be assigned. It is based on that information that we proceed in the assignment process.

The elected priest members of the board have equal say with the bishops at the meetings. They will add or subtract. But what the bishops do is very important. Plus they have the personal element too. They are the ones who are in touch with these priests, to communicate that they did get it or they didn't.

Problems are more frequent where the bishops do not sit in on the personnel board meeting. In one such archdiocese, a regional bishop questioned the appointment of a priest in his region. When the personnel board made the recommendation anyway, he asked, "What is the point in asking us?" The appointment was then put on hold so the auxiliary could review the matter. When the priest asked the personnel director why the decision was taking so long, he was told the vicar had some problems with the appointment. At this the auxiliary exploded and complained to the archbishop, who agreed that the priest should not have been told this since it would cause resentment against the vicar under whom the priest would have to work if the appointment did go through.

Confidentiality

This example raises the question of how much secrecy should surround personnel decisions. Personnel boards have been criticized by some as incapable of keeping secrets. Archbishop Gerety, when he was bishop of Portland, Maine, heard in casual conversation in a rectory the results of the personnel board meeting he had attended earlier that day.

Most boards brag that there are no leaks. One director noted, "You got some guys out there who are good at guessing. Many times they come up with the right answer, and everyone thinks that somebody must have leaked it."

I go home, and one of the associates where I live tells me what we did that day. Often he is either on target or a step ahead. I tell the priests, "I listen closely to the rumors so that we know what to do in the personnel board, because you guys are spending all this energy thinking it up, we might as well take full advantage of it."

Everyone would agree that a priest's personal reputation should be protected in the process, but how much does he have a right to know about who opposed his appointment and why? Most boards keep their internal discussions confidential and tell the man that it is the decision of the board as a whole. But as will be explained later, boards have difficulties explaining why a priest did not get a position.

Many times a pastor wants it kept confidential that he is applying for a new parish. Problems can arise if a priest's parishioners find out that he has applied for another parish--"Why do you want to leave us?"--especially if he does not get the new post. "The man wants to move but doesn't want to put his parish up for open listing until he knows what he is getting," reports the chairman of the Omaha personnel board. "You are in a catch-22. You know that, if you open list his place, you would get all kinds of movement, but you can't do it. We had two of those this year. If you could just get the movement started, you open up a lot of things for a lot of people."

Some priests, after getting a new post, prefer to blame the archbishop for their move. "He gets up in the pulpit and says, `I really don't want to leave, but the archbishop says I have to,'" says the chairman of the Omaha personnel board, "when the buzzard really asked for a change. Then we get all kinds of letters. You can't say he is a liar."

In another archdiocese, the archbishop was rather philosophical about being blamed.

A pastor wrote twice and said, "I might be ready for a change." But when it came time to speak to the people, "Well, the bishop wanted me to move."

The bishop must be willing to take full responsibility for the unpopular decision. That just goes with being the top authority.

If we want to have the authority that enables us to make decisions, even unilateral decisions on occasion, we also have to be willing to accept that perception on the part of the people when you cannot explain all of the reasons that you do what you do. There are times when you have to exert it that way, so we can't play the game both ways.

Secrecy breaks down when the priests begin to be consulted about specific assignments. "Once you start feeling these guys out, then there is no more secrecy," explains the personnel director in Atlanta. "Everybody then knows probably who is going where. Of course, they usually get it wrong. Within twenty-four hours everybody knows what the board is proposing, but they never know why."

Presence of the Archbishop

Another debated issue is whether the archbishop should sit in on the meetings of the personnel board. Whether he does or not depends primarily on his own inclinations, but there are disagreements over which is the best policy. Some people argue that he should not participate so that he can act on appeals from priests who disagree with the board. If he participated in the decision, it would be more difficult for him to be an unbiased judge of an appeal.

Many board members, on the other hand, believe that they can act more efficiently with the bishop present. In Washington, the archbishop and his auxiliaries began meeting with the personnel board in December of 1985. The personnel director reports:

Before, we would meet and we would make recommendations, memos would go to the archbishop and the auxiliaries. Maybe three days or a week would go by, and then we would find out, "No, we are not happy with this suggestion."

By meeting with them, if there is anything that they know that would preclude a certain appointment, we hear it right away. We have done in three hours what would have normally taken us two or three weeks to finally clarify.

One archbishop tried not meeting with the board for a couple of months but found that unsatisfactory. "I felt the need to find out why they were presenting this man for that job or that parish," he says. "I would have to go ask the board and go over these suggestions. I felt that I would be better served if I were part of the discussion so that I would know exactly why they were proposing this person for that location."

The level of participation by archbishops at the meetings varies. Some take an active role and influence the outcome by their questions, comments, and proposals. Others are less active and let the board or the personnel director take the initiative. In describing Archbishop O'Meara's style, the personnel director in Indianapolis reports, "Normally he tries to sit back and listen and let us come to consensus. But if we are going in a direction he is not going to be able to live with, he jumps in. He doesn't feel it is fair to let us agonize over these things when he knows it will not go. He makes an effort to stay out of the discussions until we have come to a consensus."

Sometimes the bishop takes a leadership role and the board reacts to his suggestions. This is common in small dioceses. The chairman of the personnel board in Mobile notes:

Technically, the board handles all the spade work and comes up with a name or two. That is the theory. But in practice very often the initial recommendation of somebody for a particular parish may come from the top [the archbishop]. It is brought to the board and the indication is that this is what the top wants. Unless some real powerful objections can be raised, that ends up being what it is.

It is not like he comes to the well to take water out; he knows what he wants before he gets there. We are a very small archdiocese, and very often he will know some of the people better than the board.

If the archbishop meets with the committee, he can hear their deliberations and know the reasons behind their recommendations. He can respond immediately with questions and comments. "We meet with each other and we change each other's minds," says Archbishop Lipscomb of Mobile, explaining the process. Sometimes, as in Atlanta, the archbishop will attend part of the meeting. "They meet for about two hours," explained Archbishop Donnellan, "and they call me in, and we go over what they have been meeting about."

Attending personnel board meetings is difficult but important work according to Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle:

It's time consuming. It is very, very frustrating, and it's hard work. I don't find it easy to deal with the lives of other people. We are so restricted in what we are able to do. You have so many priests and so many appointments and so many needs. And to try to put the right person in the right place, it's a struggle. It's never easy, and it's never absolutely ideal.

Is it important that I go to that? Yes, I think it is. The only other way is to let them struggle and to come back to me with a package, and then I say yes or no to it. I would be hard pressed to say no to anything that came back unless it was a glaring something or other there. If that were so, I would feel the responsibility of pointing out quite at length to the personnel board that had worked so hard why I would want it to be different. So I feel the need to be part of it.

Some archbishops do not attend the personnel meetings because they don't like that kind of work. Others fear that their presence might be overpowering. "I just think they act better without me," says one archbishop. "I am an inhibiting presence here, not because of me [laughter], but because my predecessors dealt with a strong hand here. If I sat in on such a meeting I just know that they would feel that I was there to tell them what I expected them to endorse. That is the last thing in the world I want."

When an archbishop is present, some board members say they are uncertain whether the archbishop is sometimes playing the devil's advocate or whether he is putting forward his true beliefs. It takes time for board members to figure out the archbishop's style and just how hard they can push him. One St. Louis member admitted, "At first I thought I would be hesitant. Now if he says, `What about Fr. Jones going here?' I wouldn't hesitate to say, `You can't be serious. He has had a problem with this, this, and this.' I never thought I would do that with the archbishop, but he never holds that against you." Another member agreed, "He not only allows it, he welcomes it. He enjoys being challenged. We had one member who was extremely outspoken."

In some archdioceses where the archbishop does not attend the personnel board meetings, he meets with the personnel director before the board meeting so that the director can bounce ideas off him before the meeting. Archbishop Kelly of Louisville says, the personnel director

talks to me before they make their final recommendation. He finds out what I think, but it is just another opinion. I want them to make their judgment. That is very important to me. I don't think I have ever overridden them on anything.

But sometimes when they were surfacing possibilities, I would say "No, not that one and not that one and not that one. He is having trouble." Or "He is too good for that," or something like that. So they take those into account.

Similarly, the Atlanta director noted, "The chairman has already spoken to the archbishop before the meeting. That is where he would rule out the totally impossible or hopeless." Or as the Newark personnel director put it, the archbishop "will let you know even before you come to a meeting that he has some problems. The vicar general will say, `He is having some problems with X as the first choice there.' So we back off or we decide to build a case." Rarely is a board inclined to make a recommendation that it feels the bishop will reject.

Assignment of Associates

In the assignment of priests, it is necessary to distinguish between the assignment of associates and pastors. A newly ordained priest hardly ever is appointed a pastor. He is usually assigned to a parish as an associate or assistant pastor where he works with a pastor. Typically, the associate assignments are all made at the same time in the spring. In the past, having two or three associates in a parish was not uncommon, but today this is becoming rare. Depending on the number of priests and parishes in a diocese, a priest could remain an associate for one and a half (Santa Fe) to 25 years (Boston).

Everyone involved in the process says that special care is taken in the first assignment of a priest to get him a parish where he will have a good working relationship with his pastor. Parishes with serious conflicts among the parishioners or staff will not get a newly ordained priest. "For newly ordained priests," explains the St. Paul personnel director, "we try to find the best situations we can." "A good assignment," explains another personnel director, "is one where there is a good community (or at least a potential for it), a collaborative staff, and a pastor who is not an ogre."

Sometimes this involves moving the current associate to a less desirable parish to make room for the newly ordained priest. "We want the good parishes for new priests," explains the director of priests' personnel in San Francisco, "so after a new priest has been there a few years, we have to move him out to make room for another new priest." This reverse seniority occurs because the archbishops and personnel people believe that a new priest should have a good experience of his priesthood during his first years of ministry. "We see this as an extension of their training," explains one personnel director.

Part of this training also involves working in a variety of situations. In some dioceses this could include working in the inner city, suburbs, and rural areas. "We like to give them a variety of experience," explains the San Francisco personnel director, "so the associates move about every three to five years."

In general, the fewer the number of associates, the greater their voice in determining their assignments. In some archdioceses, an associate has a virtual veto over his placement in a parish. Nor will an associate be sent to a pastor who does not want him. Some associates would find working for certain pastors intolerable, while some pastors would rather hire a lay associate than get a priest who does not fit in. "We try not to put people together who we think would have a conflict," explains the chairman of the personnel board in Miami.

In the past, associates were simply assigned. But many people feel that bad relations between pastors and associates led many associates to leave the priesthood during the l960s and 1970s. In addition, with so few associates today and so many parishes with openings, it is usually not difficult finding one that wants him and that he likes. But one personnel director complained, "We have people going to places where they are not needed, where their skills are not being used. Before they had nothing to say, now they have too much to say."

The solution to that problem in some dioceses is to offer to associates only the parishes that really need help. For example, in Chicago the placement office must approve the open listing of a parish for an associate. "Every parish can't be on the open list," explains the executive secretary of the personnel board. "Otherwise the forty most popular parishes would just pick up another priest. If what the pastor is really saying is `I need a youth minister, therefore I want an associate pastor,' we will suggest he hire a youth minister."

One problem with this approach is that the least attractive parishes tend to be those without money to hire lay ministers. Many inner-city pastors want an associate because he is cheaper than a lay minister. The Hispanic caucus in Chicago complained, for example, that the personnel board was not doing enough to attract men to the Hispanic parishes. In addition, a parish with a "bad" pastor is not going to attract a "good" associate, thus leaving the parishioners with little recourse except transferring parishes.

Assigning associates requires that the personnel director act as a matchmaker first by advertising openings and then by attempting to fit pastors and associates together. This is not always easy. In Newark the personnel director explained,

[If you wanted to be an associate pastor here] I would say to you, "These are twelve places that are open. Here is the data sheet on each one of them. Feel free to go visit and come back to me and tell me what you think. I will check it out to see if they are interested, and if we can strike up the marriage between the two of you, we will move on the recommendation. If there is any problem, we will just have to keep going back to the drawing board until you and they click."

For some priests this is a threatening process. "Some pastors are just not good at attracting personnel," reports the executive secretary of the Chicago personnel board. "Many pastors do not possess the interviewing skills you need for this new system. It is going to be very frightening and create a lot of worry and concern. A lot of associates are like that too."

In the absence of open listing, for the appointment of an associate in San Francisco, the committee would first check with the archbishop. If he approves, they ask the pastor to see if he would accept the associate. "Then we check with the associate to see if it is OK with him. If either says no, the process stops there, and we have to rework it. One such change can have a domino effect on the other assignments."

Footnotes

1. Jackson W. Carroll, Dean R. Hoge, and Francis K. Scheets, O.S.C., "Costs of Professional Parish Leadership: A Cross-Denominational Study," (Washington, DC: Catholic University, January 13, 1988, Mimeographed), to be published in upcoming annual volume of the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches (New York: National Council of Churches). In 1983, total pay (including benefits but not room and board) for priests ranged from $4,512+ to $14,179 for newly ordained priests to $4,512+ to $16,040 for a priest ordained forty years. Also see "...the Laborer is Worthy of His Hire," (Chicago: National Federation of Priests' Councils, 1984).

2. John Kinsella, In Service to Church Ministers: A Brief Introduction to the Ministry of Church Personnel Administration (Cincinnati, OH: National Association of Church Personnel Administrators, 1983), 35.

3. Helen Morrison, O.P., The Third Age: Retirement Concepts for Clergy and Religious (Cincinnati, OH: National Association of Church Personnel Administrators, 1986).

5. In 1966, 86 percent of the priests supported a personnel office to work out clergy assignments. Joseph H. Fichter, S.J., America's Forgotten Priests: What They Are Saying (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 142.

7. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., "Fewer Priests for Better or Worse?" America 149 (September 24, 1983): 149-50.

8. George Gallup, Jr., and Jim Castelli, The American Catholic People (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 53.

9. See Dean Hoge, Future of Catholic Leadership: Responses to the Priest Shortage (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1987); Richard A. Schoenherr and Annemette Sorensen, "From the Second Vatican to the Second Millennium: Decline and Change in the U.S. Catholic Church," Respondent Report 5 (Madison, WI: Comparative Religious Organization Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1981).

10. For description of today's seminarians, see 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), 142, especially footnotes 7-9.

11. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, Recommendations and an Enquiry about Alcoholism among Catholic Clergy (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1978) and Joseph H. Fichter, S.J., Rehabilitation of Clergy Alcoholics (New York: Human Science Press, 1982).

12. Andrew M. Greeley, The Catholic Priest in the United States: Sociological Investigations (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1972), 216.

13. See Fichter, Forgotten Priests, 115-80; Greeley, Catholic Priest, 199-266. For recommendations on improving morale, see The Report of the Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and Ministry (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1974).

14. On conflicts between bishops and priests in the late 1960s, see John Seidler, "Priest-Protest in the Human Catholic Church," National Catholic Reporter, May 3, 1974, 7ff.

15. Dean R. Hoge, Joseph J. Shields, and Mary Jeanne Verdieck, "Attitudes of American Priests in 1970 and 1985 on Church and Priesthood," Study of Future Church Leadership, Report No. 4 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, March 1986, Mimeographed), table 9, p. 1.

16. Hoge, Future of Catholic Leadership, 20. See also Hoge, Shields, and Verdieck, "Attitudes of American Priests."

17. On priest resignations, see John Seidler, "Priest Resignations in a Lazy Monopoly," American Sociological Review 44 (1979): 763-83; John Seidler, "Priest Resignations, Relocation and Passivity," National Catholic Reporter, May 10, 1974, 7ff; and Greeley, Catholic Priest, 275-310.

18. Hoge, Shields, and Verdieck, "Attitudes of American Priests," table 9, p. 1.

19. Paul M. Dudziak, "The Marginalization of Associate Pastors: Some Implications for Seminaries," Jurist 43 (1983): 199-213.

20. Hoge, Shields, and Verdieck, "Attitudes of American Priests," table 9, p. 2.

21. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Priest and Stress (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1982). On other health problems, see Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, The Health of American Catholic Priests: A Report and Study (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1985).

22. In 1960, 44 percent of the priests surveyed reported the degree of their bishop's personal interest in them at "hardly at all" or "not at all." In 1966, the percentage was 61. See Fichter, Forgotten Priests, 54-55.

23. John F. Whealon, "Homily--Closing of Emmaus Convocation," St. Joseph's College, Archdiocese of Hartford, June 15, 1983.

24. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, The Continuing Formation of Priests: Growing in Wisdom, Age and Grace (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1984)

25. Between 1967 and 1972, the number of U.S. dioceses with personnel boards increased from 2 percent to 80 percent. See Robert F. Szafran, "The Effect of Executive and Professional Organizations: Accounting for Organizational Patterns and Individual Perceptions," Sociology of Work and Occupation 7 (May 1980): 188-209, and "Preliminary Conclusions about the Creation of Clergy Personnel Boards in Roman Catholic Dioceses," Respondent Report 2 (Madison, WI: Comparative Religious Organization Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1976). Also see Richard A. Schoenherr and Robert F. Szafran, "Growth and Decline Rates, 1966-1973, and Personnel Operations in the United States Catholic Dioceses," Respondent Report 1 (Madison, WI: Comparative Religious Organization Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1976).

26. In 1966, 89 percent of the priests surveyed said they did not have a personnel board but wanted one. Another 7 percent had boards and approved the idea. Fichter, Forgotten Priests, 64.

Chapter 7: Catholic Education and Social Services

About the only thing I can get on the front page of the local newspaper is the closure of a school.
Archbishop Kelly

Because of federal budget cuts, we are opening shelters, soup kitchens, and we are back to the things we did before the Roosevelt administration.
Director of Charities, Hartford, CT

Archdioceses run many programs, and it is impossible to examine all of them in this book. This chapter will examine the two largest archdiocesan programs: education and social services. The first is primarily a parish-based program, while the second is usually run independently of the parishes. Both programs began as a response to the needs of poor Catholic immigrants in a hostile environment. The programs grew in size and quality and now compare favorably with similar programs run by state or private agencies. They have also expanded their services beyond the Catholic community to the public at large, especially the poor.

Supporting and overseeing Catholic education and Catholic social services is an important responsibility of the archbishop. It is a difficult job because these are large and complex organizations, but it is made easier by the fact that these are usually the most professionally organized and managed programs in the archdiocese. The superintendent of schools and the director of Catholic Charities normally have more management training and experience than other archdiocesan administrators. In addition, the programs have secular counterparts from whom they can learn and to whom they can be compared.

Although these programs are very different, the concerns of the archbishops are focused on similar issues in both programs: governance, finances, and Catholicity.

Education

There are 7,659 Catholic elementary schools, 1,391 high schools, and 233 colleges and universities in the United States. Most of the colleges and universities are run by religious orders independent of the local bishop, but 60 percent of the high schools and practically all of the elementary schools are the responsibility of the bishops. Although the number of schools has declined since its peak in 1966, archdioceses still run some of the largest school systems in the country, sometimes larger than any public school system in their state. The Chicago archdiocese has 12 high schools with 5,409 students and 345 elementary schools with 116,509 students.

While all archbishops view Catholic schools as the ideal, they also recognize that most Catholic children are in public schools. There are almost 2 million children in Catholic elementary schools and 708,000 in Catholic high schools, but there are 3 million elementary students and 804,000 high school students in parish religious education programs (CCD). Most of these students are taught by volunteers. These programs are judged to be ineffective by 37 percent of the religious education directors who run them.

A difficult problem facing any archbishop is how to stress the importance of Catholic schools without seeming to denigrate the importance of religious education, and vice versa. If he constantly harps on the importance of Catholic schools, those involved in religious education will feel slighted. If he puts more resources into religious education, the school people will feel he is getting ready to abandon Catholic schools.

The archbishop is ultimately responsible for the education programs of the archdiocese. He must be particularly concerned about governance (who decides what), finances (how much does it cost and how is it paid for), and the Catholicity of the education programs.

Governance: Archdiocesan Offices

In his concern for governance, the archbishop must structure the archdiocesan offices to deal with both Catholic schools and religious education programs. Most archdioceses have a separate office for each. In some archdioceses (like Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Washington) a vicar or secretary for total education or Christian formation has under him a superintendent of schools and an archdiocesan director of religious education. He might also have under him the seminaries and offices for youth ministry, campus ministry, lay ministry, and family ministry.

The idea of one education department flowed from attempts to implement the bishops' pastoral letter on education, "To Teach as Jesus Did," which stressed that there was one educational mission. Sometimes there is a cooperative atmosphere between the school and religious education offices, but sometimes each office goes its own way until a conflict arises over scheduling, policy, or resources. Cooperation and communication are further inhibited when the offices are in different buildings as in Louisville. The secretary for education or the archbishop attempts to resolve disputes and improve communication and cooperation between the two offices.

Some superintendents of schools complain about the secretariat system because it places someone between them and the archbishop. Because of their size, complexity, and importance, Catholic schools have many problems that require the archbishop's attention. Every superintendent wants direct access to make sure the archbishop understands his position on school issues. "In our system, the schools are but one division of many," complained the superintendent of schools in Newark who later quit. To communicate with the archbishop "you fight up through the secretary of education, then he fights up through the vicar general and chancellor. The layers of bureaucracy can fog some of the thoughts that are given." To alleviate this problem, some secretaries for education will bring along the superintendent when they see the archbishop about a school issue.

In some archdioceses (like Atlanta, Denver, Dubuque, and St. Paul), the secretary may also be the superintendent of schools. In small dioceses with limited resources, the religious education office may simply be one or more persons who also deal with the religion curriculum in the school office. This is unsatisfactory to those involved in religious education who fear they will get short shrift despite the fact that they teach more Catholic children than do the Catholic schools.

None of these organizational structures is ideal. They work only if the people get along with each other and respect their separate ministries. If they don't, someone, either the archbishop or his vicar, will have to bridge the gap or replace the people.

Most archdioceses have a board of education that advises the archbishop on educational policy. Some board promoters want them to be independent like public school boards, but in most cases board proposals cannot take effect without the approval of the archbishop. Although a board is technically only consultative, the archbishop may delegate to it much authority by, in fact, rarely overruling it. Confrontations are rare since the bishop keeps control over board membership and influences board proposals as they are being developed. Some archbishops take an active role as chairman of the board of education, but most do not attend their meetings but leave them to their vicar for education or their superintendent of schools. The education office staffs the board, preparing agenda, reports, and minutes. It also acts as liaison between the board and the archbishop. Archdioceses with successful boards tend to have training programs to educate board members to their role.

Some archdioceses (like Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Denver, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Mobile, Omaha) have one board for both schools and religious education, while others have separate boards for each. While a number of vicars and archbishops praise the joint boards for providing a comprehensive overview of educational policy, superintendents of schools and archdiocesan directors of religious education often complain that they do not get enough time with the joint boards.

After trying boards of total education, the archdioceses of Kansas City and Seattle set up separate school boards. The board of total education "was an unwieldy board," according to the Kansas City superintendent of schools. "You really didn't get a lot accomplished and the schools were always accused of taking all the time."

"The needs were so different," reports the Seattle superintendent. "The time being spent, particularly on school crises, was so out of proportion that they chose to have different boards." Joint boards devote most of their time to school issues because they are constantly pressing.

Boards have been active in drawing up or revising educational policies and procedures. They provide a good sounding board to give community reaction to ideas or questions from the vicar for education or the superintendent of schools. Sometimes they are involved in the opening, consolidating, or closing of schools. Often they are concerned about personnel policies and finances: school office budget, teachers' salaries, tuition, and fund-raising. Some boards also serve as appeal panels for fired teachers or principals.

Religious Education

The religious education office oversees and encourages the religious education program in the parishes. Its small staff usually divides up the archdiocese by regions or by grade levels. One or more persons may be responsible for training catechists and/or supervising directors of religious education in parishes. There are an estimated five thousand professional religious education directors in the United States (defined as a full-time employee with a master's degree in theology or religious education with at least three years experience). Most (83 percent) are women.

In some archdioceses (like Baltimore, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Omaha, Mobile, Washington), the religious education office is responsible for both the parish catechetical program and the school religion program. In other archdioceses, the school office has its own religious education staff. Having the religious education experts in one office is thought to be more efficient, but some school officials do not like this approach. "You isolate religion out of the curriculum, make it something that happens in the schools but not a total part of the school," says Rev. Stephen O'Brien of the National Catholic Education Association. "Secondly, the superintendent of schools doesn't have authority over the religion curriculum, which is bad because that is in his critical area."

In Baltimore, the religious education office develops programs for the schools, but the superintendent implements them. The religious education staff dealing with schools sits in on meetings of the school office and provides lines of communication between the two. The superintendent and principals are responsible for the entire curriculum in the schools, and if they opposed a religious curriculum plan, it would not be adopted. The Baltimore superintendent thinks that their system works well although he was worried at the beginning. "It's the way we relate to each other that makes it work," he says. "We meet every two weeks and share everything. Everyone supports each other. When you have a problem, they are there to help you."

Some archdiocesan offices of religious education (like Washington) have broad authority to determine who can be hired as directors of religious education in parishes, what training is necessary for catechists, and what texts can be used. For example, most archbishops require that the textbooks have imprimaturs in order to ensure their orthodoxy. A few also require that the parish director of religious education have a degree in theology or religious education.

Some also require that catechists go through a training program and become certified. "Unless the catechists are trained," explains the director of religious education in Miami, "you have someone teaching Trent, another teaching Vatican I, and another teaching Vatican II, or Vatican III!" Often there are levels of certification, one for beginners and the last being a master catechist who helps other catechists.

In other archdioceses, the religious education office makes recommendations, but the pastor does what he wants. Sometimes strict requirements are not imposed because so few qualified people are available. In archdioceses with few Catholic colleges, requiring a degree in theology or religious education for parish directors of religious education may be unrealistic. In addition, there is a limit to what can be demanded of volunteer catechists. Training programs and workshops for catechists are provided, but not mandatory.

Most religious education offices act as a clearinghouse or placement service for people interested in getting jobs as parish directors of religious education. Some archdiocesan religious education offices interview and screen people who want to be parish directors of religious education. Most offices have a resource center with books, films, videos, and other teaching materials, or they may share a resource center with the school office. "We have 350 video tapes," reports the director of education in St. Paul. "The smallest parish can have the best speakers, people like [the Scripture scholar] Ray Brown."

Religious education offices constantly try to get pastors and parishes to take religious education more seriously. Some pastors cut corners by hiring young, inexperienced people as youth ministers and directors of religious education. Adult religious education is often nonexistent, although the RCIA program for adult catechumens has been very successful in a number of archdioceses. Some religious education offices also run, or help parishes run, sacramental preparation programs (pre-Cana, pre-Jordan).

A delicate job of archdiocesan religious education offices is to mediate disputes between pastors and directors of religious education. Disputes can occur over the program itself, but also over salaries, benefits, responsibilities, and authority. When the chips are down, the pastor almost always wins, but the office tries to defuse disputes by facilitating communications and understanding. Job descriptions and model contracts are drawn up by the office for use by pastors and parish education committees.

Sometimes conflicts arise between those running the religious education and those running the school. The classrooms may be used after school for the religious education program. The sacramental preparation programs for both groups of children must be coordinated. And if a religion teacher in the school is also the director of religious education in the parish, he may be getting contradictory instructions from different bosses.

Conflict can also occur over parish funds. The director of religious education in Louisville notes that "we have had parishes that were happy with the DRE's [directors of religious education], really profited from them, but it came to the point where they said, `We can't afford it.' I blame it mainly on the financial drain that the schools have put on the parish." Improving religious education usually means spending more money. If the parish is pouring lots of money into the parish school, resources may be limited. The pastor has to referee these disputes, but sometimes the archdiocesan offices get involved.

Religious educators can also be caught in the middle in areas that are disputed in the church today. According to the Denver secretary of education, they "get caught between what parents want to do, what the parents experienced, what the current theology is saying to them, what canon law might be saying, what Rome might be saying, what the bishops might be saying, all of which might be somewhat different."

School Governance

In every archdiocese, schools are one of the largest and most complex ministries. Somehow, policies have to be determined and implemented on a wide range of issues affecting students, faculty, and administrators: admissions, expulsion, tuition, hiring, firing, salaries, textbooks, curriculum, insurance, maintenance. The power of the various actors (archdiocesan board of education, vicar for education, superintendent of schools, unions, principal, pastor, parish council, parish education committee, teachers) are different in different archdioceses. "In spite of its image as a hierarchical organization with universally enforced norms, the church's policies and practices of governance and accountability are neither uniformally defined nor universally practiced in Catholic schools," reports Lourdes Sheehan, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Education at the National Catholic Educational Association. "What really happens in schools depends on personalities, policies and politics at the local level."

The school office, headed by the superintendent of schools, is usually one of the larger offices in the archdiocese, but it is always smaller and less powerful than a comparable public school office. The Denver superintendent of schools has a staff of three people although a local school district of similar size (13,000 students) has a central office staff of fifty.

Normally the office will be divided in two parts, one dealing with primary schools and one with high schools. Some (like Detroit, Los Angeles, New Orleans) have staffs that are responsible for schools in different parts of the archdiocese. In Indianapolis, the superintendent of schools explains that each of her

thirteen staff members has a number of schools under their jurisdiction. They go out and interview the principals of all our schools, go over their goals and objectives for the year, try to establish contact. If the principal needs some consultation, this person is the one that they call on.

In Indianapolis, most of the thirteen staff persons also have a curriculum specialty. A school office may also have persons dealing with finances (although this is usually handled by the finance office), government relations, and staff development. The school office will also act as a clearinghouse or placement service for people seeking jobs as principals or teachers.

Archdiocesan school offices have less power over parish schools than their public school counterparts have over public schools. But some archdiocesan school offices have more power than others. Determining at what level decisions should be made is not easy. "For tuition, teachers' salaries, hiring, selection of books, for the whole range of school issues," explains the Washington superintendent of schools, "there is no magic point where you can draw the line and say, `Everything on this side of the line is parochial and everything on this side is diocesan.'"

Some archdioceses are more centralized than others. When control is decentralized, superintendents speak of a federation or "system of schools" as opposed to a "school system," which is more centralized. In a centralized system, the approval of the superintendent of schools would be required for the hiring of a principal. School policies, procedures, curriculum, textbooks, and testing would be mandated. Officials from the school office would visit and evaluate schools.

In a decentralized system, the school office staff is small. For example, in Cincinnati the office has only two persons. The pastor hires whom he wants as principal, with or without consultation with the parish school board. "Guidelines" might be issued by the school office, but the pastors and principals can ignore them. "It is to their advantage to follow the guidelines," explains the director of education in St. Paul, "because the guidelines can be on very difficult and technical matters, and they need the help."

Various factors push archdioceses toward centralizing power while other factors push toward decentralization. Decentralization is encouraged by the principle of subsidiarity that calls for decisions and work to be done at the lowest possible level. Pastors, principals, and local boards of education are presumed to know their schools and want what is best for them. Without their active involvement, the schools will not survive. Nor are school offices sufficiently staffed to govern schools directly. Normally, the superintendent is not trying to take control away from the parish staff but trying to get them to take their responsibilities more seriously.

The involvement of the laity on local school boards has also been a decentralizing influence. Although these boards are advisory, participation brings a sense of ownership that is hard to override. In addition, to the extent that parish schools are locally financed, they have a great deal of autonomy. Pastors pay the bills and therefore control their schools. Most observers agree "the important decisions regarding personnel and finances are largely made at each individual school; the diocesan superintendent of schools plays a lesser role than the public school counterpart in that position."

On the other hand, many factors, such as the hierarchical structure of the church, encourage centralization. Government laws and regulations (everything from fire regulations to sex discrimination laws) tend to encourage centralization, because the school office will act to make sure the schools comply. If the schools are accredited, policies and procedures are more likely to be uniform and supervised by the school office. Archdioceses also tend to play a larger role in regional or consolidated schools, because there is no one parish to take responsibility. And when faced with difficulties, the pastor or principal often turn to the school office or archbishop for help. Schools with financial problems ask for archdiocesan funds, and outside funding means more outside control. If a number of schools have financial problems, the archdiocese will likely mandate planning and budgetary procedures.

And when conflicts arise, someone often complains to the school office or the archbishop. Angry parents will write the archbishop. A fired teacher or principal will appeal to the archdiocese. School conflicts can also develop into law suits and insurance claims for which the archdiocese may be liable. As a result, archdiocesan policies and procedures are developed to protect the archdiocese on matters like hiring, contract renewal, firing, liability, etc. Often pastors and principals welcome archdiocesan guidelines on complex and controversial issues because they relieve them of the responsibility and the burden of working out their own policies and procedures. The more complex the area, the more likely the central office has more expertise than the local school.

The replacement of religious by laity has also encouraged more centralization. In the past, religious communities saw to the training, selection, and supervision of sisters working as teachers and principals in parish schools. Local pastors and school boards do not usually have the expertise to carry out these responsibilities for their lay faculties. Concern about the qualifications and Catholicity of lay principals and teachers has increased the archdiocesan involvement in their selection, in-service training, and supervision.

Also encouraging greater centralization are archdiocesan school boards. After examining an issue, a board is apt to recommend an archdiocesan program or policy. Superintendents recognize that a recommendation from the board carries more weight than one that simply comes from their office. What superintendents and archbishops might be afraid to do on their own because of local opposition, they can more easily do on the recommendation of the archdiocesan board of education.

Catholicity

The primary function of the school office is to supervise and support the schools' academic and religious programs. Most archdioceses have curriculum experts who can help teachers in curriculum development and the choice of textbooks. The school office primarily works with the principals in the hopes that they will then lead their schools. In some archdioceses, school officials visit and evaluate schools. In others (like Indianapolis, Santa Fe, Washington), the schools are visited by accrediting teams from the state or private school associations as a means of guaranteeing their academic quality. Most superintendents are happy with this arrangement. But in some localities, the relations between the Catholic school office and public school administrators are not good. "We are fighting with the state," reports the Omaha superintendent of schools. "They make life difficult every chance they have. They act like the sooner we close, the better."

Even where the relationship is fairly good, state accreditation means that the Catholic schools must follow the state's philosophy of education. "If you become accredited, you must meet their criteria," explains the superintendent of schools in Denver, "and their criteria don't always fit into what we might perceive to be in the best interest of our schools." For example, a state may require teachers to be locally certified even though they already are certified in another state. This is especially a problem for religious who during their lives teach in a number of states.

The school office pays special attention to the religion curriculum. As with religious education programs, archbishops require that religion textbooks have imprimaturs to ensure their orthodoxy. While one adult text (Christ Among Us) had its imprimatur removed at the insistence of the Vatican, texts for children have been for the most part noncontroversial, except when they deal with human sexuality. Some conservative Catholics have objected to any sex education in Catholic schools.

More problematic are the teachers. In the past, the bishops simply trusted the nuns to teach orthodox doctrine at a time when there was little dissent in the church. Today, many who teach religion in Catholic schools are lay. A few have theological degrees, but others have little or no formal training in theology, especially in archdioceses (like Oklahoma City) with few Catholic colleges. A few archbishops are concerned about the theology the teachers may have learned at some Catholic colleges, but mostly they are concerned about teachers who have limited knowledge. Often the school office or the religious education office will run workshops and training programs for religion teachers. Some archdioceses require teachers to be certified as catechists.

The issue of Catholicity goes beyond a simple concern for orthodoxy. Sometimes it is simple neglect. One religious education official describes visiting a school with the archdiocesan superintendent. After sitting in on classes they met with the principal.

I said to her point blank, "If I didn't see a crucifix in each classroom, I would never know this was a Catholic school." You know what her answer was? "I know it."

She had been principal for five years. She walked into a bad situation facultywise, so her emphasis for five years has been to build up her faculty in everything but religion.

So I looked at her and said, "So you have five groups of children who are not Catholic out in the community now."

"Oh, but I am going to get to it this year."

When we walked out the door, the superintendent and I wondered if we should padlock it.

Religious educators speak of the school as a community of faith. Besides the academic instruction, liturgy, prayer, and Christian service are part of the faith community's life. Since the key person in the school for making this happen is the principal, many archdioceses require that principals be practicing Catholics because to be a leader of a faith community takes more than academic and administrative competence. For the same reason, some superintendents are reluctant to hire as principals qualified persons who have spent all of their lives working in public schools.

Some superintendents also organize workshops to indoctrinate new teachers with the philosophy and theology of Catholic education. A number of dioceses use programs developed by the National Catholic Education Association. "We have 5,500 teachers, and there is always a turnover of teachers," explains the superintendent of schools in New York. "We have to constantly educate them to the purpose of Catholic schools." One archdiocese requires that all teachers be certified catechists even if they do not teach religion.

The Catholicity issue is more complex in inner-city schools where a majority of the black students are non-Catholic. Catholic schools are the most successful evangelizing tool available to the church in the black community. At the same time, the schools try to respect the religious freedom of non-Catholic parents and their children. Most schools teach the Catholic faith to both Catholic and non-Catholic students. Other denominations are treated with respect, and grades are based on knowledge and not belief.

Another recent issue confronting Catholic schools is what to do with unmarried pregnant students and teachers. The traditional response was to throw them out of school because they have been involved in activity unacceptable to Catholic teaching.

According to this view, for the school to do nothing would be to condone the activity. On the other hand, some now argue that such policies encourage abortions by punishing those who do not have an illegitimate child aborted.

Finances

A major problem confronting Catholic schools is financing. Although Catholic schools are run more cheaply than public schools, they constantly have trouble making ends meet. "Our school budget--for parochial schools, twenty-nine diocesan high schools, and the seminary--runs $105 to $110 million each year," explains Cardinal Krol. "So we are a bit busy trying to meet that budget." Some archdiocesan school offices (like New Orleans) review and approve parish school budgets. Usually school budgets are not examined at the archdiocesan level unless the parish or school is requesting archdiocesan funds (see chapter 5).

Once a school is built and paid for, the major cost of running a school is labor: salaries and other personnel costs amount to over 75 percent of a school's budget. Other big items would be insurance and utilities. Catholic schools in the past were heavily subsidized by the low-cost labor of religious women. The decline in the number of sisters has necessitated hiring lay teachers, who cost much more than the sisters ever did. Increased employment opportunities for women also mean schools must pay more to attract good teachers. In addition, the church is becoming aware that it must practice what it preaches about just salaries. But the higher the salaries, the higher the cost of running the schools.

Teachers salaries are sometimes set by the school and sometimes by the archdiocese. In a few archdioceses (like New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco), high school teachers' salaries are set through collective bargaining between the archdiocese and the teachers' union. When the school sets the salary, the archdiocese often offers optional guidelines.

Salaries are set with one eye on public school salaries and one eye on tuition. Catholic school teachers are almost always paid less than public school teachers. Some Catholic schools pay 90 percent or better of the public scale, but others pay much less. In New Orleans, some inner-city schools were paying 50 percent of the city scale. "If we can keep our teachers in this diocese at 75 percent to 80 percent of the public school system," says the New Orleans superintendent of schools, "I think we are in excellent shape." The Washington archdiocese pays teachers only about half of what public school teachers receive. As a result, 40 percent of the lay teachers have less than three years experience as teachers.

Most teachers prefer teaching in parochial schools. But where the pay differential is too wide, the parochial schools lose their more experienced teachers to the public schools. "Unless we do something about the teachers' salaries, we are going to lose all of our schools anyway," says the superintendent of schools in Washington. "The simplest way to handle the teachers' salary issue is to charge the parents more money in tuition."

Tuition is a major revenue source for Catholic schools, accounting for 43 percent of their revenues, up from 39 percent twelve years earlier. To increase revenues, a school must attract more students or raise tuition. There is great reluctance to increase tuition charges. "If we charge the parents more money in tuition," says the Washington superintendent, "we run into the problem of becoming elite and driving people away." If tuition increases cause enrollments to decline, then revenues will fall. "If the enrollment in an eight-room school is less than 150," explains the director of school planning in Washington, "it is going to be in financial trouble."

Proponents of higher tuition point out that some parents pay more for child care than Catholic schools charge for tuition. "People will tell you how when they went to school, tuition was $20 a family," recounts the superintendent of schools in Detroit. "Yet they will pay $1,600 for preschool at commercial day care centers and then complain because the Catholic first grade is $600 or $700."

Many poor parents are willing to pay high tuitions to keep their children in a Catholic school. In the archdiocese of Washington, inner-city parents formed committees to recruit students and to collect tuition from nonpaying parents. They realized that without these measures their schools would close.

Most parishes are able to subsidize their schools with money from the Sunday collection. Nationwide, 46 percent of the school budget is covered by a parish subsidy. A school with children from a neighboring parish will sometimes get help from that parish, too. The parishes with the biggest collections, however, tend to have affluent parishioners who could afford the tuition anyway. The small collection of a poor inner-city parish will be of little help to its school.

How much money a parish should give its school is a debated issue. The more money going to the school, the less money is available for other parish programs. In addition, if a parish charges significantly less tuition than a neighboring parish, families with school children will transfer to that parish. A few archdioceses (like Mobile, Milwaukee, and Newark) put a limit on the percentage of the school budget that can come from the parish or on the percentage of the parish budget that can go to the school. On the other hand, school officials point out that a good portion of this money would not come to the parish if it did not have a school. For example, parents would not run fund-raising activities like bingo if their children were not in the school. And some parishes require parents to "donate" a certain amount to the church if their children are in the school.

The archdiocese, if it has money, can also be a source of funds for parish schools, as was explained in chapter 5. Archdiocesan money can sometimes keep a borderline school open, but a school in serious trouble will eventually close. "We make a huge effort to keep open all of our inner-city schools," says Archbishop Hannan of New Orleans, "because the black ministers and the blacks in general have told us that is the greatest contribution we can make to them." But some archdiocesan officials wonder how long Catholics will be willing to support inner-city schools whose black students are predominantly non-Catholic. Schools with Hispanic students stress the Catholic character of their students when competing with black schools for archdiocesan funds.

In most cases, parish and archdiocesan subsidies are simply given as grants to the school for general operations or capital improvements. Some school finance experts argue that subsidizing operating expenses is inefficient. They believe that the schools should charge full cost for tuition and then use these subsidies for scholarships. Under this system, those who can afford it will pay full cost; those who cannot, would be eligible for scholarships.

Although this may be an intellectually rational system, politically it is hard to sell. "Just the words full cost really can scare a lot of people," explains the superintendent of schools in Baltimore. Wealthier parents, who also contribute to the parish, object to significant increases in tuition. Middle-class parents complain of the humiliation of applying for financial aid. School finance experts note, however, that these same parents have no qualms about applying for financial aid when their children go to college. So far, archdioceses have been more successful implementing such programs on the high school level rather than in elementary schools.

Finally, state and local governments may be sources of funds for parochial schools, although Supreme Court decisions have made this very difficult. Typically the funds have been given for school lunches, secular textbooks, transportation, nurses, guidance counseling, remedial mathematics and English, bilingual education and state-mandated testing programs. In New Mexico, accredited Catholic schools receive about $5,000 each for textbooks from the state. The New York archdiocesan schools received about $3 million a year (mostly for English as a second language and guidance) until the Supreme Court ruled that these programs could not be run in the Catholic schools but had to be done off campus.

Closing and Merging Schools

Schools get into financial trouble when enrollments decline and tuition income falls. "We don't close any schools," explains Archbishop May of St. Louis, "but people do when they no longer send their kids to them. If there is no enrollment, we have to consolidate or close that school. That wasn't our decision, it was the decision of the parents."

Especially hard hit have been rural and inner-city schools where population changes have meant fewer school-age children, fewer Catholics, or fewer parents who can afford the tuition. Sometimes a change in school administration or policy makes the schools less attractive to the parents. Whatever the cause, unless the enrollment decline is reversed, the school will become a bigger drain on parish and archdiocesan finances.

Many archdiocesan school officials believe that with proper leadership no school need close unless there are simply no children in the neighborhood. "Population and enrollment should be the basic reason why schools are closed or merged," says the superintendent of schools in Washington. "But finances and personalities often get tossed into the ring. Even the poorest of schools have created ways to continue where there has been a will and enthusiasm to do it." He found that schools are closed "because a principal comes in who can't deal with people, and the parents decide they are going to switch rather than fight." Others blame school closings on pastors and principals unwilling to deal with the financial and enrollment aspects of the school.

If the enrollment decreases, the financial viability and the academic quality of the school suffers and the school may have to close or merge with a neighboring school. Closing schools is very controversial. Some archdiocesan officials consider it even more traumatic than closing a parish. The decision to close a school very often leads to picketing the archbishop by parents, students, and alumni of the school. If the school is in the inner city, its closure will be decried as another example of the church's lack of concern for blacks and Hispanics. When Archbishop O'Connor arrived in New York, he found a number of schools that were waiting for approval to close. He refused because he did not want to become known as the archbishop who closed schools his first year in office.

No school closes without the approval of the archbishop, but sometimes the situation is so desperate by the time it reaches his desk that the decision is inevitable. In the worst-case scenario, the first sign of trouble comes in the spring when a new pastor requests a subsidy to cover a large deficit for the current school year. This comes as a complete surprise to the archbishop, because the finance office is not monitoring the parish and school finances. An examination of the parish and school books reveals that the previous pastor consumed the parish savings to keep the school open. In addition, he postponed maintenance to cut costs. The school building needs major repairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency wants the asbestos removed from the school at once. Meanwhile, early registration shows a significant decline in enrollment for the coming year. The pastor thinks that the situation is hopeless and wants to cut his losses and close the school immediately. His announcement comes as a surprise to the faculty and parents who were not consulted or kept informed about the situation. If the school is to close, the decision should be made quickly so that students and faculty can make plans for the coming year.

If the school and finance offices are monitoring the parish and the school, the archbishop should not be surprised by a last-minute crisis. Rather he will be faced with a situation that gradually gets worse. If the pastor and principal are consulting and sharing information with the parents and other parish leaders, they too will be aware of the problems. Some archdioceses have an involved process that must be followed before a school can be closed: Open hearings must be held; the pastor, parish council, and school board must concur in the decision; neighboring parishes must agree; the decision must be announced a year in advance; and every effort must be made to find other Catholic schools that will accept the students. Such procedures do not eliminate the pain, but they do make the decision-making process more open.

But an open process can also have negative effects. Publicly discussing the problems of a school and its possible closure discourages donations and encourages parents to put their children in other schools. "The word, `viability study,' uttered no louder than a whisper in the bottom of a cellar in an inner room was enough to kill the enrollment in any school," reports the superintendent of schools in Newark. As a result, she instituted a three-year process requiring all schools to forecast and plan their futures.

Often the decision is not to close a school but to consolidate it with a neighboring school. This strengthens the financial and academic viability of both schools by combining their enrollments. Consolidating or clustering schools (as was done in Baltimore's inner city) requires significant archdiocesan planning. Ideally, the best building at the most central location becomes the consolidated school, but preferences of pastors and parishioners and local finances play an important role.

The problem with consolidated schools, according to the superintendent of schools in Detroit, is that "everybody's school is nobody's school." The governance and financing of a consolidated school requires a clear understanding of the relationship of the two parishes to the school: what students can attend, what do they pay, how much do the parishes subsidize the school, what say do the pastors have in hiring and school policy, and how are disputes settled? Unless there is a clear, written agreement on these issues, problems will arise. For example, the pastor will say that the student may live in his parish, but the parents don't come to church or don't contribute. He therefore refuses to subsidize the student's education. Frequently troubles arise when new pastors arrive on the scene who were not involved in the original consolidation.

Principals and Pastors

Everyone agrees that the principal and pastor are the two key people in a parochial school. The most helpful thing that an archbishop can do for a parish school is appoint as pastor a priest who is sympathetic to Catholic education, as was discussed in chapter 6. "I get really nervous in the spring before the priests' appointments until I know who is going to be in those schools," confesses the superintendent of schools in Omaha. "As the pastor, so goes the school. You can see a turnaround over night, positively or negatively."

The other key person is the principal. "If you have a key administrator," explains the New Orleans superintendent of schools, "a good leader, who knows what Catholic education is about, knows how to work with the finances, knows how to work with the local school board and work with the pastor--if he or she has those qualities, we are off to a good start."

Principals are appointed in many different ways. The principal of a regional school (with students from two or more parishes) will often be hired by the school's board. If a religious community has responsibility for the school, the community will appoint the principal from among its members. If a parish school is not the responsibility of a religious community, the pastor will appoint the principal under whatever guidelines are set by the archdiocese. The restrictions range from practically none to the requirement that the superintendent of schools approve the appointment, as happens in New Orleans. Sometimes the archdiocese requires that the principal have certain credentials or experience. The pastor's choice might be restricted to a list of approved candidates who have been screened by the school office, as is the case in New York. Or the archdiocese may require that the parish board of education be involved in interviewing and selecting the principal.

Even if he is free to select whomever he wants, a pastor will sometimes ask the school office for help in hiring a principal. The school office usually has a list of people looking for positions as principals. In addition, it can advise him on ways of proceeding that will protect him from making a bad choice. However the principal is chosen, he or she and the pastor must be able to work together for the good of the school. If there is conflict between the principal and the pastor, the school office can act as mediator, but ultimately the pastor will win unless he is moved or the archbishop intervenes.

The Archbishop

An archbishop cannot spend a great deal of time running the school system or the religious education programs, but he needs to keep informed on Catholic education because the tough decisions and problems eventually end up on his desk. The religious education director of Miami explains the things he would take the archbishop:

Certainly the opening or closure of any program, the financial status of programs, the trends in programs, the Catholicity part, any problems that might arise, any community involvements. On the other hand, the archbishop might come with various requests for involvement of the department in some area, whether it be in pro-life or in the drug scene.

On the school side, opening, closing, or consolidating schools must always have an archbishop's approval as would any major fund drive or borrowing. Schools with financial difficulties or conflicts will be brought to his attention. Major changes in policy concerning finances, personnel, or the religious character of schools will need his approval. "There is no clear-cut rule as to what goes to the archbishop," explains the St. Louis superintendent of schools. But any problem "that could either cause media attention or an upheaval in the parish would be appropriate for the archbishop to know and not be caught by surprise."

When he does turn his attention to education, an archbishop can have a tremendous impact. Although many schools are closing, some archbishops (Hannan of New Orleans and Strecker of Kansas City, KS) are opening new high schools. Others encourage pastors in new suburban parishes to open elementary schools. But often the initiative must come from the parishioners. "If there are enough people wanting a new school and willing to assume the responsibilities," said one archbishop, "then we will back them up." Even in closing schools, archbishops can help by encouraging planning so that the closure of one school benefits others.

Depending on the funds available to them, archbishops can also help schools financially. "Szoka is very strong for schools," reports the superintendent of schools in Detroit. "He has put a ton of money into schools." A number of archbishops (Bernardin, Hickey, O'Connor, Sheehan) have attempted to raise money for endowments for Catholic schools although these efforts have not yet had a significant impact. Archbishops can also make decisions that will cost schools money. Shortly after arriving in New York, Cardinal O'Connor committed the archdiocese to raising teachers' salaries.

The day-to-day operations of the schools will be left to others, but the archbishop needs to approve questions of policy. For example, although he would not be involved in the hiring of principals (except for diocesan high schools in a small archdiocese), he would approve the policies and procedures governing the hiring and firing of principals. Any change in policy that will be mandated will be approved by him, especially if it affects the relationship of the pastor to the school. Often these policies are recommended by school boards whose meetings the archbishop rarely attends, although he usually controls who is appointed to the board.

One of the most important positions filled by an archbishop is that of superintendent of schools. He needs to find an experienced, hardworking but diplomatic person whose vision of Catholic schools is similar to his. The superintendent is the key person for the archbishop in working with the archdiocesan board of education, pastors, and principals.

The superintendent of schools often comes to the archbishop for help and advice in dealing with pastors, especially if the superintendent is not a priest. The archbishop knows the priests better than the superintendent, and the archbishop's power of persuasion is greater. "If I have a principal problem, I handle it right here," explains the Atlanta superintendent of schools, who is a religious woman.

But if it is a pastor problem, I take it to him because I do not want to get caught in the middle between him and one of his priests. He will ask me some hard questions, and he will say, "I will talk to Father for you." I have had many things cured there--in one instance, the removal of a pastor.

Finally, the archbishop can support Catholic education by his presence at liturgies, graduations, workshops, and conferences. Archdiocesan educators will invite him to speak at important meetings of teachers, catechists, and parents. Articulating a vision of Catholic education in homilies and speeches is seen as part of the teaching role for the archbishop. Simply thanking and encouraging teachers in their work is also important.

Catholic Social Services

The Catholic church runs innumerable social service programs for the poor, sick, hungry, homeless, handicapped, emotionally disturbed, unemployed, teenage runaways, unwed mothers, battered women, abused children, refugees, alcoholics, drug addicts, prisoners, victims of AIDS and others in need. The variety of programs is extraordinary. Some programs occur in large institutions like hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, and low-cost housing units. Others are run out of neighborhood centers, shelters, foster homes, group residences, day care centers, and parishes. Some programs give emergency assistance at a time of crisis, others attempt long-term solutions to problems through counseling, education, and preventive services.

When added together the Catholic church is the biggest nongovernmental provider of social services in the United States. In 1987, the 646 Catholic hospitals treated over 40 million patients. In 1986, Catholic Charities agencies provided services to 8.7 million individuals including 2.6 million families. The largest number of people (5.2 million individuals and 1.4 million families) received emergency and food services. Counseling was provided to over 700,000 individuals and 300,000 families. Over 240,000 individuals and 90,000 families received refugee resettlement and immigration services. Over 100,000 individuals and 50,000 families were helped by pregnancy services, and almost 4,000 adoptions were processed. Support services (day care, respite care, home health care, homemaker services) were provided to over 600,000 individuals and over 200,000 families. The agencies provided housing services to over 180,000 individuals and 119,000 families. Out-of-home care services were provided for 182,000 individuals (of whom almost 150,000 were children) and almost 120,000 families.

Some of these programs are run by professionals, others by volunteers and most by a mix of the two. Of the over 170,000 individuals providing services in Catholic Charities agencies, 79 percent are volunteers and 15 percent are paid staff. Over half the volunteers have some specialized training. Of the paid staff, 60 percent are professional, 12 percent are managerial, and 19 percent are clerical and support staff. Professional expertise is required for refugee resettlement, health care, marriage counseling, psychological counseling and therapy. Often these programs and their staffs are certified by the state or professional associations. "We insist that every Catholic service in the diocese be licensed even though state law exempts them," says the director of Catholic Charities in St. Louis. "If they can't qualify for a license, they ought to be out of business, because it's minimum standards." Certification helps ensure the archbishop and outside funding sources that the programs are being run on a professional basis.

Part-time volunteers also help in numerous programs and are especially active in soup kitchens, shelters, day care, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, various youth programs, shut-ins visitation, crisis centers, and hotlines. Sometimes professionals volunteer their time as in Washington where two hundred doctors and dentist donated their services to the homeless. Renew and other programs since Vatican II have stimulated numerous parishioners to get involved as volunteers in various social ministries. Providing training for these volunteers is an important function of the professional staff. A few volunteers end up working full time, as in St. Louis where a woman volunteer runs a shelter for the homeless.

"One of our roles in Catholic Charities is to provide opportunities for people to serve," explains the St. Louis director. The volunteers are seen, not simply as free workers, but also as people to be influenced. In Baltimore, the director of Catholic Charities found that preaching to parish groups about social justice "bored people to death." Instead, he set up a program for parishes that involves close to three thousand volunteers who prepare and serve one meal a month in their food program. These volunteers are primarily from the suburbs "where they don't come into contact with the poor on a regular basis," he says. "They get to see who they are. They are not evil ogres; they are human beings. They have dignity like everybody else. It gives an understanding of what social justice and social policy is all about in this country."

More than any other church organization, Catholic social services must quickly respond to environmental factors. The programs emphasized in different archdioceses vary, and they also vary over time in a single archdiocese depending on community needs and the funds available. The need for orphanages, for example, has declined with the number of orphans and the rise of alternative programs. At the same time, increased numbers of elderly have called forth a response. "When I first came in, a lot of money went to child care," recalls the director of Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia, "that was reduced each year to more and more services to the elderly."

In 1970, the San Francisco Charities programs were primarily counseling and child welfare. "Now those components represent less than 15 percent of our activity," reports the director. "There was major growth in parish social ministry, aging services, community organizing, immigration services, housing development, prison visitors, and emergency programs like food programs."

Taking care of the immediate needs of the poor, hungry, and homeless has always been a concern of the church. When the government took responsibility for these needs during the New Deal and Great Society, Catholic Charities emphasized professional programs for counseling and child welfare. These programs attempted to go beyond emergency help and tried to provide long-term solutions through counseling, therapy, and training.

But as a result of the Reagan administration budget cuts, "We are seeing increasing numbers of people knocking at our door for alms, for financial help," reports the Hartford director of Catholic Charities. "We are opening shelters, soup kitchens, and we are back to the kinds of things we did before the revolution of the Roosevelt administration." In Philadelphia, a Catholic shelter was opened for bag ladies. "Then women [in psychiatric hospitals] were deinstitutionalized [by the state]," reports the director of Catholic Social Services. "Then we got battered women and children who didn't have anywhere to go."

Besides social service programs, the church has also started or supported advocacy programs aimed at changing unjust social structures through education, community organizing, and lobbying. "It is not enough to take Mrs. Jones and her three kids out knocking on doors trying to find her an apartment," explains the director of Catholic Charities in Hartford. "Housing is a major problem and needs legislative attention."

Sometimes these advocacy groups are parish-based community groups. Some are coordinated out of constituency-oriented offices like an office for black or Hispanic Catholics. Sometimes they are centered in a peace and justice commission whose aim might be "consciousness raising" among the public, especially among Catholics. These programs can be very controversial because they challenge the political and economic status quo. In Mobile, when Catholic Charities "tried to do civil rights work directly, openly, there was a direct effect on fund-raising," recalls the director.

As a result, advocacy agencies are usually kept separate from service agencies like Catholic Charities, lest they endanger the funding of traditional programs. "Charities offices do a lot of begging," explains the San Antonio director. "You can't make people mad and get their money. We're better off separate. If the social justice people raise hell, that's tough. Be mad at them, don't be mad at us." At the same time, the two often work informally together, with the service agencies providing programs for those being represented by the advocacy groups.

When the social programs of an archdiocese are all added together, they often make the church the largest provider of social services in the state, second only to the state government itself. In Chicago, Catholic Charities has 192 services, an $80 million budget, and about 3,200 employees. If the spending of independent Catholic agencies were included, the figure would be higher. The New York director of Catholic Charities estimates that total spending on Catholic social services in the archdiocese exceeds $1 billion a year, $600 million of which would be in hospitals.

The archbishop is ultimately responsible for the social services done by the archdiocese. As with the schools, his primary concern is over governance, finances, and Catholicity. He is also concerned about how the programs fit into the overall priorities of the archdiocese.

Governance

Catholic social services are organized and governed in a variety of ways. Some programs, like hospitals, are separately incorporated with their own boards of directors. In the past, a majority of the board members and the administrators would be religious, but today they are often lay. These independent boards (which may or may not include the archbishop or his representative) set policy, hire personnel, and are legally and financially responsible for the program.

Some archdioceses prefer independent organizations for which they are not legally or financially responsible. Even a program started by an archdiocese might be spun off as an independent entity. In Miami, Catholic Charities started a program for runaway teenagers. "We found that the exposure to liability in that program is so great," explains a Miami official, "that we separated the program from our services. We're now running it independently." On the other hand, if they are Catholic organizations, in the public mind they are often identified with the archdiocese for good or ill.

If an independent organization is self-funding and avoids controversy, the archbishop will usually leave it alone. Although he lacks legal authority over separately incorporated organizations, if they want archdiocesan money or his support in getting outside funding, he can set conditions. For example, in Philadelphia a Hungarian home for the aged was told it would have to accept any Catholics, not just Hungarians, if it received archdiocesan money.

Likewise, in Hartford, the archbishop sent the director of Catholic Charities as a "consultant" to an institution that suddenly ran a $160,000 deficit after having balanced budgets for years. "They view us as intruders giving them advice that they don't necessarily want, like all wages have to be frozen," explains the director of Catholic Charities. "We are not trying to take them over. We try to be as diplomatic as possible. Nobody wants to see them go under, but nobody wants the diocese to suffer a major embarrassment either because of significant indebtedness or poor management or whatever it might be."

There are also social programs under the direct legal control of the archbishop. The boards of directors of these organizations would be advisory to the archbishop, who would appoint their members. They would make recommendations on policy, finances, and personnel, but he would have the final say. The budget of these programs would be reviewed as part of the archdiocesan budgetary process. New programs would need the archbishop's approval, especially if they cost more money. The top administrators would be chosen or approved by him or his representative.

During the 1960s and 1970s there was a tremendous growth in the number and size of social service programs. Greater resources and increased demands from the environment stimulated diversification of services and expansion to new clientele, as would be normal in any organization. Some agencies, especially those that were self-financed, operated without much archdiocesan supervision of their work and finances. As the number and size of these organizations grew, archbishops began to worry about controlling these complex multimillion dollar operations that seemed to be off doing their own thing. They also feared that these organizations were losing their Catholic identity. When government cutbacks forced these agencies to seek more and more archdiocesan money, archbishops became concerned about controlling costs, eliminating duplication, and coordinating services.

When the directors of these programs reported directly to the archbishop, he rarely had time to supervise them. Today, many archbishops have vicars or secretaries for social services to coordinate and supervise all of the social service programs of the archdiocese. Often (as in St. Paul) these secretaries are also the directors of Catholic Charities, usually the largest archdiocesan social service agency.

Catholic Charities often acts as an umbrella for a variety of archdiocesan organizations and programs. The staff of Catholic Charities might be organized by geographical regions (e.g., different counties or vicariates) or it might be organized by services (to children, to elderly, to homeless, to parishes, etc.). It might also include administrative staff, such as a business manager and grants writer.

"The desire of the archbishop," explains one director of Catholic Charities, "is to streamline the human services network of the diocese so that there is a cleaner chain of command and greater accountability and better coordination of services." It is usually through the budgetary process that the archbishop or his delegate asserts control. Thus, if an organization wants money, the archbishop requires them to report their activities and finances to his vicar. Even if an agency is legally independent, its desire for archdiocesan funds will often make it conform.

Besides financial problems, complaints can also bring an organization to the attention of the archbishop. Complaints may come from pastors, donors, employees, or clients of the agency. If the complaints are serious and well founded, he acts on them personally or through his administrators if the organization is under his control. If it is an independent agency, he will try persuasion. If he does not succeed, he may distance the archdiocese from any legal or financial responsibility for the organization.

Finances

Catholic social services is a multimillion dollar operation in all but the smallest dioceses. Across the country, the total income to Catholic Charities agencies (which do not include all Catholic social services) was over $600 million in 1986. The largest amount, 45 percent, comes from government fees and grants. This is followed by church sources (20 percent), program service fees (17 percent), and United Way (10 percent). Of the church money, less than half comes from diocesan grants or the Catholic Charities appeal.

In archdioceses, the pattern is similar. For example, the St. Paul Catholic Charities gets only $800,000 of its $10 million budget from the archdiocese. In Philadelphia, the Catholic Charities drive raises about $6 million from the parishes and United Way provides another $2 million. With third party payers and government contracts, this is parlayed into about $75 million. A few Catholic Charities are almost totally dependent on the archdiocese for funds. The Louisville Catholic Charities, for example, gets 90 percent of its $1 million budget from the church.

Most organizations do some fund-raising. The Catholic Charities in St. Paul raises an additional $350,000 through a membership campaign. Certain programs, like those dealing with children, raise money more easily than others. Food and clothing drives can also receive popular support. If a program has a popular cause and a charismatic leader, like Covenant House in New York and Boys Town in Omaha, fund-raising is easier.

Some programs (hospitals, nursing homes, counseling centers, adoption agencies) receive some money in fees from the beneficiary, his insurance company, Medicare, or Medicaid. Fees for people without insurance are usually based on the person's income. But "there are always people who fall through the cracks," explains the director of Catholic Charities in New York. "If an illegal alien gets sick and goes to the hospital, he has no money or insurance. He can't apply for Medicaid; [the government would] toss him out of the country. So there is always a certain amount of free care or charity care for the poor."

Some programs can get government grants or contracts. Often a government will fund the program because it realizes that the church can do the program more cheaply and efficiently, with less politics. Money for resettling refugees comes from the federal government. "The bishop called me in April of 1975 and said, `Vietnam has fallen. How many refugees can we take?'" recalls the Mobile director of Catholic Charities. "I agreed to 100. We got 3,200."

A number of states purchase services from Catholic Charities for delinquent or handicapped children. "Primarily we get from the state government monies for residential care of children--dependent, neglected, delinquent, abused children," explains the St. Louis director of Catholic Charities. "These are youngsters that the local juvenile court has taken into custody away from their parents." Similarly, after a court case stopped Louisiana from exporting mentally retarded children for treatment in Texas, the state asked Catholic Charities to start a program for them. Also in New Orleans, "We use about fifty of our schools for the federal program of giving hot lunches to the elderly in the neighborhood," reports Archbishop Hannan. "The federal government has asked us to begin a program of feeding 8,000 elderly in their homes."

Low-interest government loans have also financed numerous nursing homes and homes for the aged. Low-cost housing run by the church agencies is also financed through low-interest loans from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In New Orleans the mayor told the archbishop that the city was not going to do anything about housing and that he wanted the archdiocese to take responsibility for it. Similarly, three cities near Seattle asked the archdiocese to run low-income housing for the elderly, "because we understand that you will be here and you won't disappear," they told the director. In New Haven senior citizens asked the archdiocesan office of urban affairs to take over the nutrition project for the elderly because it had been politicized by city politicians.

Sometimes Catholic Charities benefits from government programs because no one else wants them. "We got the first Head Start programs, the first Neighborhood Youth Corps programs going in Alabama," recalls the director of Catholic Charities in Mobile. "We ran these programs when nobody else would touch them." But in other places, Catholic Charities might have to compete with other providers for the funds.

United Way also funds some social programs run by the church, especially programs for children, elderly, and families in need. The level of cooperation with Catholic social services varies from community to community. The more Catholic the area and the more professional the Catholic Charities, the more likely it is to get major funding from United Way. In Indianapolis, the archbishop gives a matching corporate contribution to United Way for contributions from archdiocesan employees. Sometimes, as in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the archdiocese agrees to not have a separate Catholic Charities fund drive when it participates in United Way. Sometimes this money goes to Catholic Charities as a block grant (as in Baltimore), in other cities each program must apply individually.

The type of programs funded varies from area to area because of local needs and the preferences of the people in charge of the local United Way. For example, Catholic Charities in Indianapolis and Omaha could not get United Way funding for family counseling, whereas in Hartford, Catholic Family Services gets about half its money from the sixteen United Ways in the archdiocese.

Some United Ways are having nonprofits bid against each other. For example, a United Way will say, "We have $100,000 for counseling. Who will provide the most hours of counseling?" The competition for United Way money is getting fierce. "Organizations that have traditionally been funded by government sources," explains the director of Catholic Charities in Hartford, "are beating down the doors to get into United Way. But the fund drive is barely adequate to keep pace with inflation for existing members." Sometimes the United Way avoids controversy and supports traditional programs like Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and recreational programs.

Some archdioceses (like St. Louis) have made it clear that if Planned Parenthood gets funding from United Way, they will withdraw from the program. In St. Paul, the archdiocese does not request much United Way money for its unwed mother program because, "if the United Way supports that too much, then the abortion people will want their share," explains the director of Catholic Charities. The Miami archdiocese has no such problem. "They are very receptive to our needs," explains one church official. "The Catholic church has a strong voice in Dade County."

In Philadelphia, United Way and the archdiocese had an agreement that it would not fund anything in conflict with the teaching of the church. "Some feminist-abortion groups screamed that we were controlling United Way," recalls Cardinal Krol. They pushed United Way to adopt "optional giving" whereby the donor can indicate what institution he wants his money to go to.

We wrote to United Way that we did not want the change. But they pressured, so we yielded. The fact of the matter is that the optional funding has benefited no one as much as the Catholics. So they had the nerve to come and ask whether we would want to back away from it.

We said, "Look, this was not part of our agreement. You proposed it, we objected. Finally, for your sake, we agreed. Now you are asking us to damage ourselves by pulling away. We will not do it."

Programs funded by the archdiocese are often programs that no one else will fund. For example, many residents oppose shelters or soup kitchens because they encourage "undesirables" to stay in their neighborhoods. Politicians will back away from such opposition. In addition, advocacy programs that challenge the political and economic status quo are not popular. In Seattle, the Hispanic Legal Action office is funded with money raised by the archbishop.

Sometimes an archdiocese will temporarily finance a program until it gets started and can find other funding. For example, Catholic Charities in St. Louis opened a halfway house for alcoholic women with archdiocesan money in the hope that others would pick up the funding. The San Francisco Catholic Charities opened a shelter for homeless youths. "Public funding wouldn't touch it, they wanted nothing to do with these kids," explains the director. "We ran it for two years on a nickel and a dime. This was a church basement operation, yet every night it sheltered 20 kids who, if they weren't with us, were going to be out in the street turning tricks." After proving that the program could work, they got the state government to fund it. "If we can prove the effectiveness of a program, we get the public sector to buy it," he says. "Then we get to move our limited charity dollars over to whatever the next thing is that needs doing."

An archdiocese will also fund programs with a special Catholic character. In St. Paul, the annual appeal funded a program for unwed mothers, a social justice program, and the divorced and separated center. It is difficult to get nonchurch money to finance parish outreach programs. Offices for black Catholics, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups are usually funded by the archdiocese because they deal with both social and religious concerns. In Newark, the archdiocese funds religious education programs for the handicapped done by Catholic Community Services. Likewise, in Louisville, church funding supported a parish outreach program and a pastoral ministry to the sick and elderly.

Finances determine to some extent what social services are provided by the church. If outside funding can be found for a program, the archbishop will rarely object to it unless he fears being stuck with the program when the funding ceases. Some people complain that some agencies will do programs that can get funded rather than programs that meet needs. One director described an agency that had been providing elderly care for fifteen years. When funding for elderly care was cut, "they started looking around" and found the state was willing to fund a program for latch-key children. "Because they need money to survive, they will go where the money is," he says.

But expensive programs without outside funding are a problem. A number of Catholic Charities have de-emphasized one-on-one counseling. "You just can't afford to do that," explains the St. Paul director. "It is too expensive." On the other hand, some archdioceses, like Baltimore, have been able to keep their counseling programs because of fees and funding through United Way. St. Louis recently opened a family counseling center in an affluent section of the archdiocese that is financed by the local parishes.

Some archdioceses had to admit that they could not afford to provide adequate services to the handicapped. San Antonio Catholic Charities, after funding a one-person office for the disabled for a few years, concluded that an office without supporting staff was "just a front." The position was transferred to the religious education office so it could hire a specialist on religious education of the handicapped. "It is all we can do," explains the director of Catholic Charities. "There are a lot of city, state, and county programs for the handicapped." Programs requiring large professional staffs require money from government and other sources.

Money from government sources is never certain. "Government ideas change," explains Bishop Martin Lohmuller, vicar general of Philadelphia. "If the government decides that it is going to provide these services directly instead of purchasing them from voluntary agencies, then we are just out of business." Most Catholic Charities were hurt by Reagan administration cutbacks. "We have experienced $2 to $3 million in cuts since 1982," reports the director of Catholic Charities in New Orleans. "Before 1982, 90 percent of our money was from the government and about 8 percent from United Way. Now we are running about 70 to 80 percent government, 8 percent United Way, and the rest of the money we raise ourselves."

A reduction in government funding can be devastating for individual programs. The Connecticut department of mental health gave the Hartford Catholic Charities a grant for services to Hispanics. "They cut the grant," reports the director, "we cut the service." Sometimes an archdiocese can keep a program going temporarily. "If we see a deficit and we know six months from now there is going to be another source of revenue," says the Hartford director of Charities, "then we scramble like the dickens to keep that program alive for six months until the other flow starts. But if we look down the pike and don't see anything coming, that program goes."

When the state told the Newark director of Catholic Community Services that it was no longer going to fully fund a residential program for eighteen deinstitutionalized persons, she told them she would close it. "They didn't believe I was going to give up $100,000," she recalls. But keeping the program would require taking $15,000 to $20,000 from other programs that she felt had a higher priority. "We closed the program. The end result was they gave me almost as much money to do other kinds of things and the people have been put into boarding houses."

Similarly in New York, "We have closed six or seven child care centers since the 1970s," says the director of Catholic Charities.

They are just losing money and they are not going to be able to recoup. You can cut staff, but if you cut staff to the point where you are not providing quality service, it doesn't make sense. There are 10,000 children under care today. Fifteen years ago, we had 50,000.

Philadelphia had the same experience where, because of federal block grants to the state, "the money allocated for child care is becoming more limited," reports the director of Catholic Social Services. Despite the needs of battered and abused children, "we closed a lot of specialized programs. Anything that required psychiatric supervision and therapy. They are costly services. I am not going to cut the quality of service, so we end up cutting the number that are served."

Outside funding can also mean outside control. The administrator of Catholic Charities in Chicago describes the typical pattern in dealing with state funding:

They always come in very good the first year, because nobody else has done it and we are willing to take it on. The third year, the government is starting to get finicky with a lot of red tape about it. Then the fifth year, the government wants to run it themselves.

The Chicago Catholic Charities had serious disagreements with the state department of family and children services. "They are underfunded, so they would do a more shallow intervention with children than we would want to do," explains the administrator of Catholic Charities. And "we have a family orientation. Some of our programs return 90 percent of the kids to their families within eighteen months. The state is much more towards severing parents' rights. Unfortunately, it often comes through as a power struggle or a financial struggle, but the root of the thing has been a philosophical struggle."

In New York there was conflict between the city and the archdiocese over Executive Order 50, which prohibited funding to organizations discriminating against homosexuals. "We are not concerned about how many homosexuals are in the program," explained Bishop O'Keefe, then vicar general. "We never ask anybody. The question is, who is going to run these agencies?" Similarly, there have been court challenges to giving preference to Catholic parents in the adoption of Catholic children.

Catholicity

Recently many archbishops have become concerned about the Catholic character of the social services provided by their archdioceses. All archbishops would agree that Catholic agencies should not be involved in activities contrary to church teaching. In a counseling center, for example, Catholic identity requires "that nobody who works there will counsel children in a way that would violate Catholic teaching," explained Bishop O'Keefe. "You don't have to believe, but you can't send kids to an abortion mill." Likewise, in Hartford, the Catholic Charities must check with the archbishop before allowing anyone other than a validly married Catholic couple to adopt a Catholic child.

Some social programs downplayed their religious character or their church connections in order to get outside money. "Because 80 percent of our dollars came from government funding," explains the director of Catholic Community Services in Newark, "people became intimidated or felt that we had an obligation to somehow deny our church orientation. I absolutely disagree. We help people on a nonsectarian basis, we hire people on a nonsectarian basis, but we are a church organization."

Some intimidation can come from government funding sources. One archbishop was asked to sign a statement that his religious faith had nothing to do with the social services provided by the archdiocese. He was also asked to change the name of the St. Vincent de Paul Society to Mr. Vincent de Paul. He refused.

Some programs can remain very professional but lose their Catholic character when the religious staff is replaced by a lay personnel, as occurred in the children's institutions in St. Louis. "There are no religious in them, and they have forgotten about teaching religion," complains the director of Catholic Charities, who recently got the school office to set up a religious education program for these institutions.

Some Catholic social service programs have large numbers of non-Catholic employees (for example, one third of the Catholic Charities employees in Chicago). Questions are being raised about hiring personnel solely on their professional competence without considering their religion and values. For example, in Mobile, when the Catholic Charities board was considering candidates for a counseling position, the Episcopalian chairman of the board asked if they were Christians. Some professionals "would never dream of asking that question of an employee," complains Archbishop Lipscomb. "They tell you, `That's unprofessional.' Well, it is also un-Catholic to do it the other way, and we are first Catholic social services."

Most archbishops support running social service programs under Catholic auspices because they believe that helping people in need is required by the gospel. They also recognize that social programs can present a good image of the church to the community. When Archbishop Hurley arrived in Anchorage, Catholic social services was a one-nun operation. "We were asked to take over the state care of the handicapped because that had failed twice," he recalls. "I was very eager because the church needs to be out in the public as part of the community serving the community. Having shown that we could do it, we were the targets for `Could you do more if you had the money?' I kept saying yes."

But some talk of only doing programs that are "Catholic," although this is never clearly defined. For some it appears to mean programs that flow from the pro-life concerns of the bishops, while for others it means programs that respond to the preferential option for the poor. Sometimes it means programs that are aimed at the parishes. But it rarely would mean that the beneficiaries are only Catholic. In Chicago, for example, Catholic Charities estimates that 65 to 75 percent of its caseload is non-Catholic.

For many involved in social services, their Catholic character comes more from motivation and spirituality than from the mechanics of the programs. As a result, indoctrination and formation of new employees becomes important, as do opportunities to articulate and celebrate shared Christian values. This becomes particularly important when staffs become predominantly lay and when there are large turnovers in personnel.

At the same time they are concerned about the Catholic character of these programs, many archbishops also see social services as an area of ecumenical cooperation. It is not unusual for non-Catholics to be involved with Catholic Charities. The chairman of the board in Mobile is an Episcopalian, as is the director of Catholic Charities in San Francisco. Cooperation also occurs with Protestant and Jewish social service agencies. In Los Angeles, one shelter for the homeless operates as a partnership of twelve different organizations. "The county provided two wings of a hospital; the state and United Way provided some money," explains the director of Catholic Charities. "The southern California ecumenical council provides volunteers, the Disciples of Christ provides transportation, Travelers Aid and Lutheran Social Services provide intake, Jewish Family Services provides job development, and we provide fiscal management and staffing."

Serving the Parishes

Many Catholic social services programs are run independently without any relation to other archdiocesan programs, including the parishes. This is especially true of agencies and institutions run by professionals who get most of their money from fees, contracts, and grants so that they have little financial dependence on the archdiocese. In many archdioceses, these agencies are being challenged and asked what they do for the parishes, especially when they seek archdiocesan money.

Pastors often complain that although millions of dollars are being spent on social services, the programs never help them. "We don't need institutional programs," pastors told the director of Catholic Charities in New Orleans. "We don't know what to do with women and children when they appear at the rectory at night with no place to go." The director responded by installing a 24-hour hotline to meet their needs. "We take the person off the hands of the priest that night and work out some solution the next day."

Many charities directors are responding to complaints from pastors by stressing parish outreach in their programs. In Newark, a parish outreach coordinator, whom pastors could call for information and referrals, was hired for each county. In addition, social concerns coordinators were hired who "spend 90 percent of their time out in the parishes talking to social concerns groups, talking to deaneries, and the like."

The National Conference of Catholic Charities also developed a parish-outreach program. "It does an assessment of the parish, what the strengths and weaknesses are, what are their resources, and what can you do to match these things," explains the St. Paul director who was the president of the National Conference of Catholic Charities. "It works wonderfully well, then they change the pastor. You get some top-down SOB in there who throws it all out. It is frustrating as hell."

Parish outreach involves the education and training of volunteers in parish social concerns committees, St. Vincent de Paul societies, or other groups attempting to help people in need. Outreach coordinators connect these parish groups with archdiocesan agencies that can help them or whom they can help. In New York, for example, the department of aging in Catholic Charities is "working with over 140 parishes in their senior citizens program," says the director. "It is a whole range of programs--nutritional, recreational, transport services."

In addition, many archdioceses, rather than having all of their staffs "downtown," have opened offices in parishes. In Philadelphia, Catholic Social Services pays the salaries of social workers in inner-city parishes. Baltimore has a counseling program based in about sixty parishes that operates mostly in the evening for family counseling.

Archbishop

The archbishop is ultimately responsible for archdiocesan social services, but he usually has no expertise in the area. One Catholic Charities director recalls a conversation he had with an archbishop on the relation between bishops and Catholic Charities. The archbishop said,

The trouble is, a bishop is supposed to be a [expletive deleted] know-it-all. We all went to Catholic schools, we understand that. We all went to Catholic seminaries, and we all understand that. Most of us have worked in tribunals and we understand that.

Most of us have never been inside Catholic Charities. We do not know anything about that, so we are suspicious of it, we are afraid of it, we want to leave it alone, we are benign. If we are not benign, we want to take it over and control it.

Few archbishops (Cooke, Mahony, Stafford) have experience in Catholic social services. A few archbishops, like Archbishop Hannan of New Orleans, are very active in promoting social services. But in most archdioceses, the archbishop pays little attention to the social service programs except when they want money or when they get into controversy. If the archbishop has a secretary for social services or a director of Catholic Charities whom he trusts and a board that does its work responsibly, he will usually let them do what they think best.

The St. Paul director of Catholic Charities, who has the confidence of his archbishop, explains the kinds of things he would take to the archbishop:

Anything that is controversial, we check with him, like the service to gays and lesbians. Or where we need his clout for financial backing. We remodeled the children's home for $3 million. He gave a token $75,000, then we said to the foundations that the diocese is doing what it can.

The day-to-day operation, he doesn't get involved in. He doesn't want to, and he doesn't need to. We alert him to potential PR problems. Some of the stuff we get into can be very controversial in the diocese, just so he is aware of it.

In most archdioceses, if social services wants to start a major new program, it will have to get the archbishop's approval. Frequently he will ask if anyone else is doing it. "We don't want to duplicate services," explains Archbishop Flores of San Antonio. "The first thing we ask is, `Is anyone else doing it? Do we need to get involved? Can we afford to get involved because we are involved in other things?'" The archbishop's permission will also be needed for borrowing money.

Some archbishops, like Archbishop Hannan, are real activists in pushing and developing social service programs. Because the mayor of New Orleans told him that the city was going to do nothing about low-income housing, Archbishop Hannan put the archdiocese heavily into housing, including 6,000 apartments for elderly. In addition, the archdiocese was asked to take over six low-income housing projects that were being poorly run by the local housing authority. On the other hand, Cardinal Krol in Philadelphia opposed involvement in low-income housing lest the church end up looking like a slum landlord.

Other archbishops, after taking office, have changed the directions of social service programs in their archdioceses. For example, Cardinal Hickey found that Catholic Charities was doing little for the blacks in Washington, DC. Its adoption service had not even sponsored any black babies. In addition, the professionals running the agency were more interested in counseling services than in soup kitchens and shelters. He, on the other hand, felt the program should serve the poorest of the poor.

Some archbishops are also important spokesmen on social issues. When American Motors announced the closing of a Milwaukee plant with 6,000 workers, the archdiocesan social concerns delegate came to the archbishop. "He asked, `Would you be willing to make a statement with the governor asking American Motors to sit down with the employees?'" recalls Archbishop Weakland. "I said, `Great idea.' Then he does the rest of the work and I get in front of the cameras and get all the praise." Similarly, in New York, Cardinal O'Connor called for a moratorium on the conversion of single-occupancy hotels to condominiums.

Conclusion

Catholic education and Catholic social services are two of the largest programs in an archdiocese. As large complex organizations, they require sophisticated management of their finances and programs. In simpler days, the archbishop might have gotten involved in the direct supervision of programs, but today he is usually forced to act through a superintendent of schools, a director of religious education, or a director of Catholic Charities who is more knowledgeable and experienced then he is. As a result, if these people do not have his trust, they will soon be replaced.

Nevertheless, the archbishop would become involved in approving any major change in policy affecting these programs, especially programs that would require archdiocesan funds or directly impact on pastors or other important constituencies. Anything that would cause a major controversy, the archbishop wants to know about ahead of time. No archbishop wants to learn about something for the first time from the newspaper.

The control mechanism most frequently used by the archbishop in overseeing archdiocesan programs is the budgetary process. At budget time, agency directors must report on their programs and answer questions. Here the archbishop can set priorities by favoring one program with funds rather than another. But in the normal course of events, the changes are incremental rather than drastic.

Many of the factors examined in this chapter when discussing education and social services are also important when examining other archdiocesan programs. The issues of governance, finances, and Catholicity are important for every program. In addition, the role of middle managers at the cabinet level are becoming common for other areas besides education and Catholic social services. Finally, in all areas of church governance, consultation and conflict avoidance are important.

Not surprisingly, the Catholicity of archdiocesan programs is a major concern of archbishops and their top staff. A secular social service or educational program, while good in itself, is not enough. The programs must be in keeping with the teachings of the church and reflect gospel values. The concern for orthodoxy has been reinforced by Rome in its dealings with the American hierarchy, as will be seen in the next chapter.

Footnotes

1. "General Summary: Complete Statistics for Archdioceses and Dioceses of the United States," The Official Catholic Directory 1988 (New York: P. J. Kenedy & Son, 1988).

2. J. Stephen O'Brien, Mixed Messages: What Bishops and Priests Say about Catholic Schools (Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association, 1987), 59-75.

3. Thomas P. Walters, National Profile of Professional Religious Education Coordinators/Directors (Washington, DC: National Conference of Diocesan Directors of Religious Education, 1983), 56.

4. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) legislated that a school commission should be established in each diocese, but prior to the 1960s few dioceses had active boards. For a history of diocesan school boards, see M. Lourdes Sheehan, R.S.M., "A Study of the Functions of School Boards in the Educational System of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States," (Dissertation at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1981), 52ff.

5. Walters, National Profile, 10-11.

6. M. Lourdes Sheehan, R.S.M., "Policies and Practices of Governance and Accountability," in Personnel Issues and the Catholic Administrator, ed. J. Stephen O'Brien and Margaret McBrien, R.S.M. (Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association, 1986), 1.

7. Theodore Drahmann, FSC, Governance and Administration in the Catholic School, NCEA Keynote Series No. 5 (Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association, 1985), 15.

8. Robert J. Kealey, FSC, Curriculum in the Catholic School, NCEA Keynote Series No. 9 (Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association, 1985).

9. Medard Shea, C.F.X., "Personnel Selection," in Personnel Issues and the Catholic School Administrator, ed. O'Brien and McBrien, 13-33. Also, Francis Raftery, SC, The Teacher in the Catholic School, NCEA Keynote Series No. 8 (Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association, 1985).

10. Edwin J. McDermott, S.J., Distinctive Qualities of the Catholic School, NCEA Keynote Series No. 1 (Washington, DC: National Educational Association, 1985).

11. Muriel Young, C.D.P., "New Wine in New Wineskins: Challenge to Administrators," in Personnel Issues and the Catholic School Administrator, ed. O'Brien and McBrien, 65-70.

12. Terence McLaughlin, Catholic School Finance and Church-State Relations, NCEA Keynote Series 5 (Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association, 1985).

13. O'Brien, Mixed Messages, 77.

14. John J. Augenstein and Mary O'Leary, O.S.U., "Just Salaries and Benefits," in Personnel Issues and the Catholic School Administrator, ed. O'Brien and McBrien, 35-64.

15. O'Brien, Mixed Messages, 77.

16. Ibid., 78.

17. The Official Catholic Directory 1988.

18. "1986 Social Services and Social Action Summary, Catholic Charities USA" and 1986 Annual Survey Catholic Charities USA (Washington, DC: Catholic Charities USA, Undated [1987?]).

19. 1986 Annual Survey Catholic Charities USA, 2-3.

20. James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), 46-48.

21. 1986 Annual Survey Catholic Charities USA, 6-7.

22. Alexandra Peeler, Parish Social Ministry: A Vision and Resource (Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Charities, 1985).

Chapter 8: Beyond the Archdiocese

The hardest part of my job is to be sandwiched between Roman orders and my people and priests' hopes and ideals.
Archbishop Weakland

I say no to altar girls. Oh God, what troubles I get into by saying no to altar girls.
Archbishop Lipscomb

A bishop's primary concern is the internal governance of his local church, but what happens in his local church can be affected by church institutions outside his diocese. Decisions made by church organs, especially the Vatican and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, can sometimes be binding on the bishop.

Bishops, as successors of the apostles, are also responsible for the welfare of the whole church, not just their dioceses. By their participation in various church organs (ecumenical councils, Roman synods, national conferences, Vatican congregations), bishops help in the governance of the entire church./1 Cardinals and archbishops exercise this responsibility to a greater extent than other bishops. As a result, archbishops are both governors and governed.

Province Metropolitan

What makes an archbishop different from a bishop is that he is a metropolitan, the head of an ecclesiastical province that contains his archdiocese and one or more dioceses. More than half of the thirty-one provinces in the United States have boundaries coextensive with those of a single state (Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin). Only California has more than one province (part of Maryland is in the province of Washington, DC). The remaining provinces contain more than one state.

The metropolitan has practically no power over the diocesan bishops in his province who are called suffragans. He is involved primarily in ceremonial functions such as attending the celebration of anniversaries or the installations and burials of bishops in his province. "You go over and show the archbishop's flag on those occasions when they have special events and ceremonies," explains Archbishop Lipscomb of Mobile whose province includes Alabama and Mississippi.

If a problem arises in a diocese in his province, the archbishop may get involved. Priests of the diocese might complain to him, or he might be approached by the pro-nuncio for information. He might also take the initiative and brings things to the attention of the pro-nuncio. "It is up to me to inform the pro-nuncio if a bishop is getting ill," says Archbishop Hannan of New Orleans. "I always talk to the bishop first and tell him what I am going to do because you have to get his cooperation." But if the bishop does not want to resign or take the archbishop's advice, there is nothing the metropolitan can do about it.

Archbishop Hannan as metropolitan of Louisiana was very active behind the scenes in Lafayette, LA, where a priest admitted to sexually abusing thirty-five children and was sentenced to twenty years in jail. Fourteen families sued the diocese, whose insurance companies eventually paid them an undisclosed sum that was estimated to be as high as $5 or $10 million. It became impossible for the local bishop to deal with this crisis, because he had transferred the priest to his current parish after knowing of his involvement in an earlier incident. The bishop, who had sent the priest to a psychiatrist, admitted making a mistake in not recognizing the depth of the priest's illness.

Archbishop Hannan became involved because the Vatican wanted to avoid the publicity that would surround a criminal trial. "My job was to see that the right steps were taken to make sure that there wasn't any trial," says Archbishop Hannan. He visited the priest in jail and convinced him to accept a plea bargain.

In addition, after the diocese settled with the parents, the insurance companies began arguing about who should pay what. The crimes occurred over a number of years when different companies were insuring the diocese. Each company wanted someone else to pay. One source says that Archbishop Hannan brought representatives of the insurance companies together in his office and told them they were not leaving until they agreed on a settlement. They settled.

A metropolitan can also come to the defense of his suffragan bishops. Archbishop Borders of Baltimore, whose province includes Virginia, objected to Rome's proposal for a visitation or investigation of the diocese of Richmond by a Vatican official. He argued that if a visitation was necessary, it should be done by an American bishop. Ultimately is was done by Archbishop May of St. Louis.

The bishops of a province meet under the chairmanship of the archbishop to draw up the provincial list of episcopal candidates (see chapter 1). The provinces also set up provincial tribunals to review annulments as was called for by the new code of canon law. Some provinces also work on other common projects. But bishops usually work under the auspices of state Catholic conferences, which are composed of all the bishops of one state.

State Catholic Conference

Bishops gather one or more times a year as a state conference usually chaired by the archbishop./2 As a state conference, they can develop common policies and programs aimed at both religious and public concerns. Normally decisions are made by consensus rather than by vote. The state conference may have a small staff (one to fifteen employees) including a lobbyist who works in the state capital. Additional staff work is often done by committees made up of officials (chancellors, superintendents of schools, directors of Catholic Charities) from the various dioceses in the state. They might also invite outside experts and observers to attend their meetings. As a regular practice, some include representatives from priests' councils at their meetings.

In the religious sphere, a conference might develop common programs and policies on sacramental preparation, faculties, the implementation of canon law, etc. Less confusion and problems exist when these policies are the same for the entire state. For example, if one diocese requires attendance at an extensive marriage preparation program, while its neighbor does not, problems can arise. Some conferences have agreed on a common policy for dealing with holy days that fall on Saturdays or Mondays.

Joint pastoral letters have also been issued by state conferences. The California conference wrote one on AIDS; the Texas conference did one on pastoral care of Hispanic immigrants and another on the sacrament of reconciliation; the Louisiana conference published one on social ministry and another on creationism. After the NCCB pastoral letter on the economy, the Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia conferences issued their own pastoral letters on the economies in their states.

Other conferences, such as California and Michigan, developed common services like health and liability insurance or retirement plans. The dioceses of Louisiana join together in running a three-day conference for their new principals each year.

State conferences also focus on public policy concerns. State conference lobbyists represent the bishops before the legislature in twenty-seven state capitals. State laws governing zoning, building codes, bingo, tax exemptions, private education, churches, hospitals, and social agencies can have a direct impact on activities of church organizations. The state of Nebraska, for example, requires every high school to have a vocational program. Catholic college preparatory schools must get a waiver every year from this requirement. State money for Catholic schools (textbooks, busing) or programs run by Catholic social service agencies would also be high on the agenda.

State conferences of bishops have also taken positions on numerous public policy issues that do not directly impinge on church institutions. Often the conferences are applying to the state level positions that have been taken by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. For example, numerous state conferences have opposed capital punishment and public funding of abortions in their states. Frequently a conference will make a statement on citizen responsibility prior to an election. Conferences have also taken positions on state legislation dealing with brain death, living wills, surrogate mothers, homosexual bill of rights, public school health clinics, sex education, welfare reform, shelters for the homeless, public housing, the farm crisis, migrant workers, prostitution, criminal justice system, pornography, etc.

Finally, meeting either as a province or a conference allows the bishops to discuss various concerns in an informal way. Some conferences also sponsor spiritual retreats for bishops or even time to relax together. In all of this, the archbishop can play a leadership role in developing consensus among the other bishops. If he prefers to act alone, the state conference will do little. If he opposes an action, the province or state conference is unlikely to act.

NCCB/USCC

All the American bishops meet once or twice a year as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the U.S. Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC) to deal with religious and public issues of common concern. Retired bishops cannot vote, but all other prelates have an equal vote except on financial issues, where only diocesan bishops (and not auxiliaries) can vote. The bishops elect a president and vice-president who act as conference spokesmen on national and international issues during their three-year terms. These officers are almost always archbishops.

When writing its pastoral letters on peace and on economic justice, the NCCB received wide attention in the news media. The bishops have also made public statements on Central America, South Africa, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, the church in Communist countries, racism, capital punishment, health care, abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, care for the terminally ill, food stamps, Medicaid, education, homelessness, international debt, immigration, tax reform, labor relations, etc.

A great deal of their time, however, is devoted to church issues, like ecumenism, Catholic education, evangelization, family ministry, Hispanic ministry, catechetics, women in the church, liturgy, and sacramental practice. The NCCB, with the approval of the Vatican, can set policy that is binding on all the bishops. Matters that are binding on the bishops require a two-thirds vote.

Before an item is voted on by the bishops, it is normally considered in committee. Sometimes the committees themselves issue statements rather than bringing the question to the entire body of bishops. The NCCB and USCC have standing committees and ad hoc committees to deal with various concerns: budget, liturgy, doctrine, pastoral practice, canon law, farm labor, Hispanics, missions, ecumenism, laity, pro-life, priestly life, priestly formation, vocations, Latin America, permanent diaconate, women, education, communications, social development, and world peace. Also, an administrative affairs committee draws up the agenda for the conference meetings and makes policy when the conference is not in session. Committee work can be very time consuming when a major document is being prepared, especially for the chairmen.

The committees and leadership of the conference are helped by the bishops' staff based in Washington, DC. The staff is headed by a general secretary and has experts on issues of concern to the bishops: public relations, liturgy, doctrine, church finances, education, priestly life and formation, civil and canon law, domestic and international affairs, etc.

Some archbishops play a larger role in the bishops' conference than others. Officers of the conference, like Archbishops May (president) and Pilarczyk (vice president), play a very active role, as do former presidents of the conference: Cardinals Krol and Bernardin and archbishops Quinn and Roach. Archbishop Kelly, as a former general secretary of the conference, is also influential. Others, like Archbishop Weakland and Cardinal O'Connor, have been chairmen of major committees.

On the other hand, some who would have liked to play a larger role in the conference have not been supported by the other bishops. In the past, Cardinal Spellman of New York was kept from having much influence in the conference although he was very influential in Rome under Pius XII. More recently, Cardinal Law of Boston and Archbishop Mahony of Los Angeles were defeated in 1986 when their names were put on the ballot for positions in the conference. Both men were seen as challenging the current direction of the conference. Some also feared that they would be more interested in the views of Vatican officials than in the views of their fellow bishops. The following year, however, Archbishop Mahony was elected chairman of the committee on international affairs.

International Responsibilities

American bishops are involved with issues that affect the Catholic church throughout the world. Individually and through their national conference, they have been supportive of local churches experiencing difficulties in Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe. They normally avoid saying anything on a topic affecting these churches without checking with them. For example, they wanted to know what the bishops of South Africa thought about divestiture before they made a statement. They also give financial assistance to poor churches around the world individually or through agencies such as the Catholic Relief Services and the Propagation of the Faith. Bishops have also sent their priests to mission lands.

The American hierarchy frequently interacts with the Holy See, which is responsible for central governance in the church. Those who were bishops during the Second Vatican Council acted, with the pope, as the supreme governing body of the Catholic church. They played an important role at the Council in pushing though the decree on religious liberty. For most of the American bishops, the Council was an educational and spiritual experience that influenced the rest of their years as bishops.

Although councils are extremely rare, the synod of bishops, which advises the pope, meets every three years or when called to Rome by the pope. Four American bishops are usually elected by their peers to attend the synod. In addition, the pope usually appoints two or more Americans. Attending the 1987 Synod on the Laity as elected representatives were Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishops Weakland and May, and Bishop Ott. Appointed to the synod were Archbishop Mahony and the-Bishop Bevilacqua.

In the past, other archbishops elected to synods have included Carberry, Dearden, Flores, Krol, Quinn, Roach, Sanchez, Stafford, Whealon, and Wright. Papal appointees have included cardinals Baum, Cooke, Krol, Law, Manning, Szoka, Wright, and archbishops Martin O'Connor, Quinn, and Weakland (when he was an abbot). Cardinal Bernardin has attended almost every synod since 1974 and has been elected by those at the synod to plan future synods as a member of the council on the synod.

Although the synodal meetings are closed, press briefings and leaks reveal some of what goes on. In 1980 at the synod on the family, American bishops were especially concerned about defending their tribunals, which were under attack for granting large numbers of annulments. Archbishop Quinn also came under attack when he gave a speech that was interpreted as calling for a rethinking of the church's prohibition against artificial birth ./3 At the 1987 synod on the laity, American bishops were joined by bishops from around the world in urging a greater role for women in the church, but their views did not make it into the final document.

American cardinals and a few archbishops serve on Vatican congregations that help govern the whole church./4 Cardinal William Baum, prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries and Institutes for Study, is the only American cardinal working full time in Rome. He is a member of a number of Vatican congregations, councils, and agencies. In addition, Archbishop Paul C. Marcinkus is involved in administering the Vatican bank and the Vatican state. Archbishop Justin Rigali is president of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, and Archbishop John P. Foley is president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

Despite the Vatican bank scandal, Archbishop Marcinkus is still one of the most influential Americans in Rome. Cardinal Baum and Archbishop Rigali are also important Americans in Rome. Archbishop Rigali worked closely with the pope on the speeches he gave while visiting the United States in 1987.

Cardinals residing in the United States also serve on Vatican congregations and councils, but their involvement is less than those who work full time in Rome. As mentioned in chapter 1, Cardinal O'Connor of New York is on the Congregation for Bishops and the Council for Social Communications. Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago is on the congregations dealing with liturgy and evangelization and the Council for Christian unity. Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia is on the congregations for clergy and the oriental churches. He also advises the office of economic affairs. Cardinal Law of Boston and Cardinal Manning of Los Angeles served on the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. Cardinal Law is also on the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples. Cardinal Hickey of Washington is on the Congregation for Seminaries and Institutes of Study and the one for canonization of saints.

A few archbishops also serve on congregations: Archbishop O'Meara of Indianapolis is on the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, Archbishop Mahony of Los Angeles on the pontifical councils for justice and peace and for migrants.

The actual work of non-Roman members of the congregations is not great. "They have periodic meetings and you have to prepare for those meetings, but there isn't a lot of ongoing work," says Cardinal Bernardin. Members not residing in Rome usually attend only about one meeting a year. "The one that really requires more," says the cardinal, "is the Council of the Synod, because you have to meet two or three times a year, and you have to prepare for it."

In fact, the American archbishops have devoted more time to ad hoc work for the Holy See than working on permanent Vatican congregations. For example, while an archbishop, Hickey conducted the visitation of the Seattle archdiocese for the Vatican. And as chancellor of the Catholic University of America, he has been prominent in dealing with Rev. Charles Curran, the moral theologian. Cardinal Bernardin, Cardinal O'Connor, and Archbishop Quinn spent countless hours resolving the Seattle controversy which will be explained below. Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco also worked tirelessly as chairman of the papal commission on religious life in the United States of which Archbishop Kelly of Louisville was also a member.

Other bishops spent months visiting seminaries and reporting on their condition. Cardinal Krol has been an advisor to the pope on Vatican finances and has worked raising money for Poland. Cardinal Law is on the papal commission responsible for writing an international catechism. Archbishop Kelly chaired the committee that planned the pope's 1987 visit.

Relations with Rome

But most archbishops' experience with the Vatican is as the governed rather than as participants. When appointed, all bishops take an oath of loyalty to the pope. "I take that very seriously," says Archbishop Kelly. "I also take seriously my responsibilities to the pastoral needs of my people. I am the bishop here. I am not an animated instrument of someone else. But I look to him for example, and he gives forceful example to me by the way he preaches and by his personal holiness. I wish I could be as good as he is."

Some archbishops stress that they are responsible to the pope and not to Vatican officials. "One of the secrets of the Catholic church is how independent the bishop is," says Archbishop Whealon of Hartford. "And he should be, he is a successor of the apostles. He really isn't under Peter's advisors, or Peter's helpers, he is under Peter." In fact, however, when Peter's helpers say they are speaking for the pope, an archbishop has little recourse.

There is a natural and inevitable tension between those concerned about the universal church and those concerned about their local churches. Bishops rarely speak on the record about problems in their relationship with Rome. In his final address as president of the bishops' conference in November 1983, Archbishop Roach of St. Paul spoke of the problem of communications between the United States and Rome. Three years later, in his final address as president, Bishop James Malone of Youngstown spoke of "a growing and dangerous disaffection of elements of the church in the United States from the Holy See." How do Rome and the church in the United States communicate and what issues have been controversial?

Ad Limina Visit

Every five years, the American diocesan bishops make an ad limina visit to Rome where they meet with the Pope and various Vatican officials./5It is called an ad limina visit from the Latin "ad limina apostolorum" by which the church refers to the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome which the bishops visit. While this book is being written, the bishops are making their 1988 visit.

Before the visit, each bishop prepares for the Congregation for Bishops a quinquennial report describing in detail the state of his diocese. This report is divided into thirteen sections asking for information on (1) the pastoral and administrative organization of the diocese, (2) the general religious situation, (3) the economic situation of the diocese, (4) liturgical and sacramental practice, (5) the clergy, (6) religious and secular institutes, (7) cooperation with the missions, (8) seminaries and universities, (9) Catholic education, (10) the life and apostolic action of the laity, (11) ecumenism, (12) social assistance, (13) other pastoral questions. In addition, the report asks for statistical data on advisory councils, the tribunal, publications, the clergy, and educational institutions. After being received by the Congregation for Bishops, the various parts of the report are distributed to the Vatican congregations specializing in the particular concerns.

Although they get a written response some months later, some archbishops expressed disappointment that, when they reached Rome, they found no one who had read their reports. One archbishop describes his experience in 1983:

I really worked hard on it. I made up my mind this was going to be my chance to put down on paper where I think my diocese really is. I put down some tough stuff. What I thought was really true about it. Well, I didn't hear from anybody.

And although the document is in Rome before you go for your ad limina, you know that nobody looked at it. So there's no input, and there's no feedback. You kinda wonder, is it worth all that effort of trying to get through somewhere?

Since there are so many American bishops, they come to Rome in groups, usually by geographic region, for the ad limina visit. The bishops meet with Vatican officials in groups and, in the past, were mostly lectured to. One bishop complained that when a bishop questioned an official at one such meeting, the official noted down the bishop's name, which killed any further questioning.

Recently there has been more dialogue as bishops have expressed their views on church issues and tried to explain themselves to Rome. The bishops have also used their visits as an opportunity to question Vatican officials about their actions. For example, in 1983 Cardinal Oddi, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, while visiting the United States, was interviewed in The Wanderer and spoke before a conference sponsored by Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), two conservative organizations that have been highly critical of the bishops./6 According to an archbishop who was present,

some of the bishops were pretty indignant about some of the things he had to say about American bishops and the American church. They asked Cardinal Oddi whether he read The Wanderer. Did he know the kind of newspaper it is and how it makes people neurotic and maybe psychotic about some of the things in the church today? Well, he said he didn't know anything about The Wanderer.

The bishops also met with cardinals Baum (prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries and Institutes for Study) and Ratzinger (prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith). One of the items the bishops brought up with Cardinal Ratzinger and the pope was the "very, very slow" rate of dispensations from celibacy for priests who have left the ministry. "You can talk to Cardinal Ratzinger and you can talk to the Holy Father about things that concern you," says one archbishop.

Each bishop also meets individually with the pope for about fifteen minutes. Although the bishops look forward to these meetings, they are not very productive. "The pope has no resume of your quinquennial report," one archbishop explains. "He asks you all the questions over again that were on it. Silly questions--how many people in your diocese, how many priests, and so on--which is pure fact."

Archbishop Hurley of Anchorage, however, reports, "You were free to say what you wanted." In 1983 he wanted to speak to the pope about ecumenism and about the positive things religious were doing in his archdiocese. He felt parish priests needed encouragement for ecumenical work, and he felt that religious women were being unfairly criticized.

When I went in he started the usual thing about your diocese, size, all that type of thing. I cut in on him to bring up what I wanted to bring up. Which turned out to be the way it had to be done. The pope doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about Alaska really. What kinds of questions can he really ask? So you really have to take the lead.

Women religious also came up when Archbishop O'Meara of Indianapolis met the pope, who asked him how he got along with the religious in his archdiocese. "I think I get along with them pretty well, Holy Father," Archbishop O'Meara responded. "Better you should ask them that question, because their view of it is more meaningful." Some bishops felt that the Vatican was surprised by the generally positive view of religious women expressed by the bishops.

Sometimes the pope may have something very specific to say to an archbishop. For example, Pope Paul VI told Archbishop Casey of Denver during his ad limina to tell his auxiliary, Bishop George Evans, to stop publicly supporting the ordination of women.

After meeting with the pope individually, the bishops in groups of about twelve have lunch with the pope, where various topics are discussed. "There were no topics barred," says one archbishop. "We didn't get organized to have prepared topics, they just came up casually. The Holy Father is open to discussing any topic."

The pope is the center of attention, but "he made sure that every man spoke," says Archbishop Hurley who describes the lunch he attended in 1983. As they sat down, the pope identified each bishop by the name of his diocese, not necessarily by the bishop's own name. Then, the archbishop recalls,

we went through an unstructured conversation.

The pope said, "I have learned two new words: undocumented and unchurched." So we talked about that and pointed out that unchurched in the U.S. does not mean atheistic. We were able to point out to him that atheism is not a major force in the U.S. in a formal way. Mark [Hurley of Santa Rosa] said to him that there was no place in the U.S. where any avowed Communist has won a political campaign.

We talked about the poor, what do we do about the poor. I said, "One of the things is to work cooperatively with government, because we do not have the funds ourselves." I gave a quick reference to my own experience. He wanted to know about working with the government, is that a problem? Not in the United States. There are lots of examples of it as they help us to do our work.

We went on for an hour and a half, two hours. That part was very good.

In the last part of the visit, the bishops as a group meet with the pope. The senior bishop, usually a cardinal, briefly addresses the pope on their behalf, and then the pope addresses the visiting bishops. The speeches of the pope appear to be written before the bishops gather in Rome. As a result, one archbishop complained, "He did not seem to reflect, in what he said, what he had heard from the American bishops."

The Issues

The pope's ad limina addresses are one of the few public indications of what the pope thinks about the American church and its hierarchy. When one bishops asked the pope what he thought of the American church, the pope responded, "Read my ad limina talks." These speeches are therefore worth examining to see what he says to the American bishops.

Three popes addressed the American bishops during their 1978 ad limina visit.

Paul VI spoke to the New York bishops on the importance of the sacrament of penance./7 He explicitly asked for "faithful observance of the norms" limiting general absolution to extraordinary situations of grave necessity. "General absolution is not to be used as a normal pastoral option, or as a means of confronting any difficult pastoral situation." He also insisted on the practice of First Confession before First Communion. He repeated a statement he had made to other bishops: "The faithful would be rightly shocked that obvious abuses are tolerated by those who have received the charge of the `episcopate,' which stands for, since the earliest days of the church, vigilance and unity."

In a very positive address to the bishops of Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota, Paul VI spoke of his closeness to them in "the splendid efforts, the sustained efforts, the united efforts that you have made on behalf of life..."/8 He supported them in "protecting life in its multiple facets" including "efforts directed to the eradication of hunger, the elimination of subhuman living conditions, and the promotion of programs on behalf of the poor, the elderly, and minorities" and human rights and their struggle against abortion./9 He also noted initiatives sponsored in the United States to explain natural family planning.

In his last address to the American bishops, Paul VI spoke on the Eucharist as the summit of Christian life and noted that extraordinary ministers of communion should be used only where there is a genuine lack of priests./10

In his only address to the American bishops, John Paul I talked about the Christian family with many references to Vatican II but without mentioning Humanae Vitae./11 He reiterated the indissolubility of marriage but said that people with difficulties "must always know that we love them."

In his first address to the American hierarchy, pope John Paul II articulated the two issues that have continued to mark his pontificate: fidelity to doctrine and church discipline./12 Quoting from John XXIII, he said that the great concern of the Vatican II and "my own deepest hope" was "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and taught." His second hope was "for the preservation of the great discipline of the church." He went on to say it was his "ardent desire today that a new emphasis on the importance of doctrine and discipline will be the postconciliar contribution of your seminaries."

In 1983, John Paul II returned to these themes and made them more explicit. Speaking to the New York bishops, he repeated Paul VI's warnings on general absolution. Citing canon law, he said, "General absolution is not envisioned solely because of large numbers of penitents assembled for a great celebration or pilgrimage." He asked for their zealous pastoral solicitude "to help ensure that these norms, as well as the norms regulating the First Confession of children, are understood and properly applied."/13

To the second group of American bishops he said that they must be holy and a sign of Christ's love, but "there can be no dichotomy between the bishop as a sign of Christ's compassion and as a sign of Christ's truth."/14 As part of that truth, the pope wanted the bishops to proclaim "the indissolubility of marriage..., the incompatibility of premarital sex and homosexual activity with God's plan..., the unpopular truth that artificial birth control is against God's law..." and "the rights of the unborn, the weak, the handicapped, the poor and the aged...."

The bishop must also explain the church's teaching on the exclusion of women from priestly ordination and "give proof of his pastoral ability and leadership by withdrawing all support from individuals or groups who in the name of progress or compassion, or for other alleged reason, promote the ordination of women to the priesthood."

In a later address to a third group of American bishops, the pope spoke on the priesthood whose identity is found in the ministry of the sacraments of the Eucharist and reconciliation. He also confirmed the "general exclusion of priests from secular and political activity."/15

To the next group of bishops, he referred to his June 1983 letter asking the American bishops to exercise special pastoral service to the religious./16 This letter announced the formation of a papal commission on religious life headed by Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco. The pope explained his action as an example of collegiality and asked the bishops to give to religious "a call to holiness, a call to renewal, and a call to penance and conversion." In his address, he stressed the importance of prayer and union with the magisterium as essential aspects of religious life.

Finally, to the last group of American bishops, he spoke of the church's "mission of proclaiming Christ's good news about Christian married love, the identity and worth of the family, and the importance of understanding its mission in the church and the world."/17 As bishops, they are "called upon to help couples know and understand the reasons for the church's teaching on human sexuality," including the church's teaching on natural family planning. He commended the bishops for the concern shown for needy families through their social service agencies.

Papal Visits 1979 and 1987

During these ad limina addresses, the pope speaks to groups of bishops from various parts of the United States. He addresses all of the bishops together only when he comes to this country. In 1979 he spoke to the U.S. bishops in Chicago, who were kept waiting for over an hour because he was running late. Although the press received copies of his talk in advance, the bishops did not. Complaints were also heard because the bishops had no real opportunity to dialogue with the pope.

In his speech, he noted the "long tradition of fidelity to the Apostolic See on the part of the American hierarchy."/18 He urged them to lives of personal holiness. He repeated his favorite quotation from John XXIII about guarding and keeping the deposit of doctrine. Then in a long section he commended them for doing this in their pastoral letter "To Live in Christ Jesus." He also referred to a pastoral letter on racism and one on homosexuality by individual bishops.

He encouraged the bishops to work for Christian unity but noted that "intercommunion between divided Christians is not the answer." He asked them to safeguard the sacrament of reconciliation, referring to the limits of general absolution. He also spoke of the Eucharist and of the communion of the local church with the universal church.

On his 1987 visit, his meeting with the American bishops in Los Angeles began in the morning so that the bishops would not be kept waiting, but once again the press and not the bishops received advance copies of his talk. The meeting was structured as a dialogue. He was addressed by four archbishops whose speeches had been given to the Vatican in advance so that the pope could prepare a response./19 Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago spoke of the church as "a communio: a communion of particular churches in which and from which exists the one and unique Catholic Church; a communion which is not fully the church unless united with the Bishop of Rome."

The church in the United States, he said, is situated in American culture "where everyone prizes the freedom to speak his or her mind.., to question things," and to "want to know the reasons why certain decisions are made, and they feel free to criticize if they do not agree or are not satisfied with the explanation." Since the church "values both its unity and diversity, there are bound to be misunderstandings and tensions at times." The ministry of the bishops is "to provide for the unity of the particular churches, and the Petrine ministry to promote and protect the unity of the universal church."

The practical question is "how to maintain our unity while affirming the diversity in the local realization of the church; how to discern a proper balance between freedom and order." He made some suggestions, including the following: "We must be able to speak with one another in complete candor, without fear. This applies to our exchanges with the Holy See as well as among ourselves as bishops. Even if our exchange is characterized by some as confrontational, we must remain calm and not become the captives of those who would use us to accomplish their own ends." Also, "we must affirm and continue to grow in our appreciation of the conciliar vision of collegiality as both a principle and style of leadership in the Church," and he pointed to the NCCB as a visible expression of collegiality.

In his response, John Paul II did not directly react to the cardinal's comments on American culture or on the need for candor between bishops and Rome. He picked up on the description of the church as a communio but stressed the "vertical dimension" of communion--communion with God and communion of the local churches with the pope. Without explicitly disagreeing with the cardinal, the pope made clear that the tension between unity and diversity should be resolved in favor of unity.

Next Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco spoke on the state of moral theology in an address that is not easily summarized. He defined moral theology as "human wisdom struggling to understand God's revelation about how we live." He said "the revolutionary changes which have occurred in personal and societal life in the 20th century are not grounds for dismissing church teaching as outmoded...."

But as pastors, the bishops must address new realities: the military role of the United States in the world, divorce and family instability, the high standard of living, new medical technologies, the insights of psychology and sociology into the nature of human sexuality, the sexually permissive climate, the changing social status of women, and the higher level of education among American Catholics. Archbishop Quinn said, "We cannot fulfill our task simply by an uncritical application of solutions designed in past ages for problems which have qualitatively changed or which did not exist in the past."

He cited the American bishops' pastoral letters on peace and on economics as examples of a moral pedagogy that distinguishes universally binding moral principles from specific applications and recommendations that allow for a diversity of opinion. He supported dialogue and discussion as an effective method of understanding moral questions and developing responses.

The pope picked up on Archbishop Quinn's statement that the church wishes to remain faithful to the moral teaching of Jesus. He said that claiming "that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a `good Catholic' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments...is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere." He did not comment on the new realities moral theology must deal with. He ignored the distinction between principles and applications. The impression given was that the magisterium has clear and definitive answers to the issues raised by Archbishop Quinn, and these answers must be proclaimed more forcefully and courageously by the bishops.

Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee spoke on the role of the laity in society and the church. He noted their increased education and increased participation in American society. They look at the intrinsic worth of an argument rather than accept it on the authority of church teachers. As a result, "an authoritarian style is counterproductive, and such authority for the most part then becomes ignored." The faithful look for a spirituality that integrates their lives, and they want to contribute their skills and knowledge to the life and growth of the church. Women want to be equal partners in the church's mission.

John Paul II acknowledged the growing role and education of American Catholics, but he asked what has been their impact on American culture. The bishops should provide the laity with a comprehensive and solid program of catechesis so that they can bring the gospel's purifying influence to the world of culture. He spoke of the need for pastoral care to families and of natural family planning. He quoted Paul VI's 1978 ad limina address commending the bishops on their work for peace and justice. He spoke of the "equal human dignity of women and their true feminine humanity."

Finally, Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati spoke on lay, religious, and clerical vocations in the United States. He noted the decline in religious and priestly vocations and the rise of lay ministry. Mandatory priestly celibacy is questioned as is the church's teaching on the ordination of women. As positive points, he noted the broadening concept of church ministry and the increasing appreciation of prayer, Scripture, and liturgy. While admitting to plenty of problems and loose ends to deal with, he felt that the Holy Spirit was hard at work in the dioceses and parishes of our country. What is happening "is not the turmoil and crisis of death and decay, but of development and of life."

In responding, John Paul avoided the term lay ministry but spoke of the "active participation of the laity in the mission of the church." He stressed the vocation of the laity in the world rather than in the church.

Finally, he mentioned some things not brought up by the bishops. He asked the bishops "to be vigilant that the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Church is faithfully and clearly presented to the seminarians, and fully accepted and understood by them." Once again he returned to his favorite quotation from John XXIII that the greatest concern of Vatican II is that "Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and taught."

He also asked the bishops to make every effort to ensure that the norms for the use of general absolution are observed. He encouraged pastoral care to homosexuals that included a clear explanation of the church's teaching, "which by its nature is unpopular." He referred in a positive way to the California bishops' pastoral letter, "A Call to Compassion," which spoke of the need of the recovery of the virtue of chastity.

But as opposed to his address in 1979, what was striking in Los Angeles was the lack of any reference to the American bishops' pastoral letters on peace and the economy, although they were cited by Archbishops Quinn and Weakland. He never mentioned the peace pastoral during his visit and referred to the economic pastoral only twice in passing. Many believed that he disagreed less with the substance of the letters than with the widely consultative public process that was involved in their writing.

Ad Limina 1988

While this book is being written, the American bishops are making trips to Rome for their 1988 ad limina visits. By the end of September, seven groups of bishops had visited Rome. Four more groups will visit before the end of the year. Early in 1989, there will be an additional meeting of a representative group of American bishops with the pope. The Brazilian bishops had a similar meeting at the end of their ad limina visit in 1986. At this meeting, the Brazilians discussed liberation theology with the pope and Vatican officials. The Brazilians were pleased with the meeting and felt that the Vatican had a better understanding of them after this visit.

The pope's talks to the American bishops during their 1988 ad limina visits were more positive tone than those given previously. Bishop Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo, TX, reports that the pope said that after his 1983 trip to the United States "he had a different view of the American Catholic" than he had previously "because he was given some rather negative publicity before he came that he didn't find true."/20 The pope noted that the demonstrations against him predicted in the press did not happen.

In March 1988, the pope spoke to the first group of visiting bishops about his 1983 trip to the United States. He noted that "One of the great riches of the church in the United States is the way in which she herself incarnates universality and catholicity in her ethnic makeup, taken as she is `from every nation and race, people and tongue' (Rv. 7:9)."/ 21He said he was "convinced of the openness of the church in the United States to challenge, of her good will and, above all, of Christ's grace active within her." He noted the church's response to the farm crisis and "the panorama of charitable works and health care that was presented to me" during the visit. He challenged the bishops not to forget the missions and cited their 1986 pastoral statement on world missions.

In his address to the second group of American bishops, which included the Texas bishops, the pope recalled "my recent visit to San Antonio, the wonderful welcome given me and the impressive faith of the people."/22 He also cited the Texas bishops' pastoral statement on human sexuality as "a much appreciated pastoral effort to present the church's teaching on chastity without fear or reticence." The rest of the address spoke of the pastoral vision needed for the third millennium, a topic relevant to the entire church. But he did ask "in a special way" that the bishops of the United States promote "the centuries-old practice of individual confession." He expanded on this theme with the third group of bishops whom he also asked to enforce the church law limiting general absolution to cases of grave necessity./23

In June the pope spoke on the importance of prayer to the fourth group of bishops. As in 1983, he noted the "superb history of eucharistic participation by the people"/24 of the United States which has a higher rate of church attendance than most other countries. To a group of bishops in July he spoke about catechetics. He complemented the bishops for calling "your people to a sense of solidarity with those in need," for standing "by all those who are struggling to live in a way consonant with their human dignity," especially migrants and immigrants, and for "sustained dialogue and fraternal collaboration in projects of service to humanity."/25

In September, John Paul surprised everyone by speaking positively of the draft of the bishops' pastoral letter on women. First he spoke of human rights in general and thanked the bishops for their persevering efforts in "defense and support of human life."/26 Then in speaking of women's rights, he said that the draft letter showed a "sensitivity" in dealing with women's issues. "You are rightly striving to eliminate discrimination based on sex," he said.

A week later, for the first time, he spoke favorably of the bishops' pastoral letters on peace and economic justice. He cited them for their support of solidarity and development in the face of global interdependence. He noted that "great openness to others has been characteristic of the church in the United States."/27 He commended the solidarity of men and women in the United States "pledged to the defense and service of human life." And he cited Catholic Relief Services as "one extraordinary example of the creative solidarity of American Catholics."

A number of bishops noted the change to a more positive tone in the pope's speeches to the American bishops. Some explained this resulted from the favorable impression he received while visiting the church in United States. Some also felt that the pope had changed speech writers because he recognized that his U.S. speeches, especially his response to the American bishops, did not go over well. The pope appears to be relying less on Archbishop Justin Rigali, the American prelate who is president of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy. In addition, informed observers pointed to the replacement of Archbishop Eduardo Martinez Somalo with Archbishop Edward Cassidy as assistant secretary of state. Somalo, who was promoted to cardinal, has a negative view of the church in the United States. The Australian Cassidy appears to be more open to the American situation.

At their lunches with the pope, the American bishops discussed a number of current concerns: women's ordination, peace and unity in the world, the alleged Marian apparitions at Medjugorje (Yugoslavia) and the case of French conservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who was excommunicated for ordaining bishops. The bishops also discussed various issues with the Vatican curia, including a statement on AIDS by the NCCB Administrative Committee.

Letters from Rome

In between ad limina visits and papal visits, communications between Rome and the bishops is usually by letter. Most archbishops say that they are rarely bothered by Rome./28 The communications from Rome they receive are mostly of a general nature distributed through the NCCB. "There would be very, very little addressed specifically to this diocese," said Archbishop Donnellan of Atlanta. Archbishop Gerety of Newark said that he got letters from the Vatican "fairly frequently, and sometimes they don't amount to a hill of beans." Most of the letters were responses on marriage cases that he just forwarded to the tribunal.

"I don't get a lot [of inquiries from Rome]," reports Archbishop Roach of St. Paul.

I don't feel that the Holy See is bugging me. Over a period of years I have gotten some letters that irritated me and have responded to them. It was dropped, and so we let it go at that.

Considering the climate of critics which we've got here [St. Paul is the headquarters of a number of conservative Catholic organizations], apparently the Holy See has been pretty good, because I don't get a lot of it back. They don't make me defend positions. Periodically things come, but it is not a major problem.

The impact of negative letters on Rome is a much debated issue. "I get many letters from the United States," reports Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith. Most of the letters are from those in "deep loyalty" to the Holy See, he said, adding that they deal frequently with controversial issues in the news. He mentioned as an example the case of Father Charles Curran, who has been criticized for his views on moral theology. "I think that the letters provide us with a reflection of typical Catholics," he said. "They are people who are preoccupied with the thought that the Catholic Church should remain the Catholic Church."/29

But many people fear that letters from right-wing Catholics have tarnished the Vatican's view of the American church and its bishops. The vicar general of Denver reports that Cardinal Baggio, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, told Archbishop Casey in 1983:

Would you please get across to your people that if things are going right we would like to hear about them, because all we get is "hate mail." If we get a lot of this negative mail, then we think the diocese is in trouble, and we have to check up on it. So if you can get the word around, let us know both sides.

When an archbishop receives a letter from a Vatican official inquiring about a controversy or problem, frequently the Vatican learned about the problem through letters from America. These complaints usually come from disaffected conservatives complaining about something in the archdiocese, especially alleged liturgical abuses by priests.

Archbishop Gerety of Newark explains:

The Vatican gets all sorts of people writing in. There are more writing in than there used to be because of the changes. It's gotten to be the fashion these days to go over the head of the local bishop and appeal to the nuncio and send a copy to the pope and this office and this cardinal and all the rest.

So they write back and say, "We have this letter from so and so; give it the pastoral attention you think it deserves."

When I interviewed Archbishop Gerety, he had on his desk a letter from Cardinal Mayer, prefect of the Congregation for Worship. A man in the archdiocese had written Rome complaining that the only way of receiving the precious blood in the archdiocese was by the cup while he preferred intinction, where the host is dipped into the chalice before it is given to the communicant. "Cardinal Mayer is just saying that he replied and [is] bringing it to my attention," explains Archbishop Gerety.

Mayer just says, from the cup "is the most desirable form, but it is not the only way" and "expressing the hope that this matter does not cause your Excellency any inconvenience, I remain...." That means Mayer can now say that he has replied.

Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati agrees that often the Vatican official will simply forward the letter to the bishop saying, "We received this letter, will you please give it the attention that it deserves."

And we do, we always give it the attention that it deserves. Sometimes it deserves very little attention.

Occasionally I will get letters from the Holy See saying, "So and so said that Father so and so said such and such. Would you please look into that." Or, "this article was published in your diocese, and we would like for you to explain what this is all about." I have found that by and large it's not unreasonable.

Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco says that he rarely receives letters forwarded from Rome. "The experience I have had," he says, "has to do with a parishioner writing Rome about something the parishioner regards as liturgically abusive. Then Rome may write back directly to that parishioner or may write to me and inquire about it. But that is very rare."

When a Vatican official answers the writer directly without notifying his bishop, the results can be embarrassing to the local bishop. One archbishop reports,

There has been a real problem when an individual writes the Holy See and gets a letter back from the Holy See and then goes running to the bishop and says, "See you are wrong."

"What are you talking about?" [the bishop asks.]

"I got this letter from Cardinal so and so." Sure enough, there is a letter from the cardinal or the congregation with no notice whatsoever to the bishop. Several bishops raised hell over that. Really blasted them.

An example of such an embarrassing incident occurred in 1986 when Cardinal Edouard Gagnon wrote a Milwaukee member of CUF (Catholic United for the Faith) describing "New Creation," a sex education series used in about eighty dioceses, as "a travesty of sex education." His problem appears to have been with explicit pictures of the human anatomy. In a subsequent letter, he wrote that he had consulted the pope and "expressed the judgment of the Holy Father."

When the letters became public, Archbishop Kucera of Dubuque, who (together with his predecessor) had given the series an imprimatur, stated, "At no time had Cardinal Gagnon contacted me about the material contained in his letters." He first learned of the letters when they were sent to him by someone other than the cardinal. Nor had the publisher been contacted by the Vatican about the series. The archbishop noted that catechetical books were under the jurisdiction of the Congregation of Clergy, not the Pontifical Council for the Family, which Cardinal Gagnon heads. More than a year after the letters were made public, the archbishop had still not heard from anyone in the Vatican about the series, which still has his imprimatur.

Liturgy is another area where the bishops have been repeatedly embarrassed by Rome. In many dioceses, the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass had been offered by dissident priests associated with Archbishop Lefebvre or other priests not in union with Rome. After fighting conservatives over the Tridentine Mass, the American bishops were caught off guard when Rome decided to permit it. Many bishops felt betrayed by this action. Under the new Vatican norms, the local bishop would determine when the Tridentine Mass could be offered. But one archbishop, who would not allow the Tridentine Mass on Sundays, complained that someone from his archdiocese called Cardinal Mayer, who told him that they could have the Tridentine Mass on Sunday. The archbishop was even given a transcript of the telephone call. More recently, Cardinal Mayer has objected to the faculties or powers given by the bishops of Michigan to their priests.

On the other hand, Archbishop Virgilio No�, who works in the Congregation for Divine Worship, sent Archbishop Hurley a copy of a letter he had received complaining about a priest in Anchorage. He also sent his reply to the complaintant. "If you think it is proper to forward my letter, feel free to do so," Archbishop No� wrote. "So I did," reports Archbishop Hurley who was pleased with this approach. "I got the pastor, the pastor went to see the couple. We took care of it. Everyone lived happily ever after."

Another area of Roman concern has been the American tribunals, which grant more annulments than all the other tribunals in the world put together. When visiting Roman congregations, Archbishop May, president of the NCCB was asked about the tribunals.

They get all these complaints that the tribunals are nothing but divorce mills; constant letters going over there from people here. A lot of it is organized mail, mostly right wing.

Most of the countries of the world, very frankly, don't even have functioning tribunals. If they exist, they might have half a dozen cases a year. And in this diocese [St. Louis] there might be 1,000, and this is just one diocese.

Well, we go over there, and they look upon us as having caved in on the divorce mentality. They don't understand that we are simply trying to serve these people with their needs, which are not the same as those in other countries.

The American bishops have defended their tribunals against Roman attack. They argue that their tribunals produce more annulments because they are better staffed with canon lawyers and secretaries, better equipped with computers and other office equipment, and because they work longer hours. "We are open 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M." explains one archbishop. "In Rome they don't open until 10:00 or 10:30, and we work without a long lunch and a siesta."

More recently, the bishops have been having trouble getting indults (dispensations) for people without canon law degrees to work in the tribunals. One archbishop tried to get an indult renewed for a sister.

They wrote back and said no. I wrote back and said, "You said no, but didn't say why." They wrote back and said no and still didn't say why. I wrote back and said, "You said no, but still didn't say why." Then they wrote back and told me why, and still didn't say why.

Archbishop Hurley had better luck getting an indult for a lay woman by visiting the Signatura, the office in Rome responsible for such indults. "The first thing I learned was nobody speaks English in the Signatura," recalls the archbishop, who finally found a part-time person to translate. He found that, although sympathetic, they were not persuaded by the great need and lack of priests in Alaska. What the Signatura wanted to know was how much theological training she had. Luckily, she had gone through the same training program as her husband who is a deacon. After sending the Signatura a description of the courses she had taken, her indult was extended for five years.

Hunthausen Case

The most extreme intervention in a U.S. archdiocese by the Vatican was in Seattle, where an auxiliary was appointed who was supposed to have final authority over important areas of diocesan life including the tribunal, liturgy, former priests, priestly formation, medical ethics and ministry to homosexuals.

Such interventions are rare, but in a few other dioceses, auxiliaries or coadjutors have been appointed with special powers. Bishop Francis J. Furey had full powers when he came as coadjutor to the bankrupt diocese of San Diego in 1963. Likewise, Bishop Norman F. McFarland had special faculties when he went to the bankrupt diocese of Reno-Las Vegas in 1974. In 1983, a coadjutor was appointed to Lafayette, LA, with powers over the clergy after a scandal involving child abuse. Finally in 1986, Bishop David Foley was appointed auxiliary in Richmond, VA, although the extent of his powers was never revealed.

The Hunthausen case is worth examining because it shows what concerns Rome has about the American church. In addition, it shows how Roman procedures and American concepts of due process come into conflict.

It all began in May 1983 when Archbishop Laghi approached Archbishop Hunthausen at a meeting of the American bishops in Chicago and told him that the Vatican wanted to have a visitation of Seattle. Hunthausen, not having the slightest idea what a visitation was, said, "Fine, we have all sorts of wonderful things going on in Seattle." Archbishop Hickey of Washington, DC, was appointed visitor.

Later, Hunthausen began to question the visitation when it became clear that its purpose was to evaluate criticisms about his ministry as archbishop. He objected that he was never given any specifics about what was to be investigated so that he could defend himself. In addition, the Vatican wanted the visitation to be secret, but he argued that was impossible. When the fact of the visitation became known, Seattle officials insisted that the leak occurred in Washington, DC.

In November 1983, Archbishop Hickey spent a week in Seattle conferring with the archbishop and over seventy priests, religious, and laypersons, many of whom were suggested by the archbishop. He also examined documents issued by the archbishop or the archdiocese. Hunthausen was never given a copy of the report sent by Archbishop Hickey to the Vatican. The Vatican argued that those interviewed were promised anonymity, and therefore he could not see it.

In September 1985, the archbishop received a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger concluding the visitation and outlining its findings./30 The letter is important because it shows what things worry the Vatican, not only in Seattle, but in other dioceses in the United States.

The six-page letter begins by complementing Hunthausen: "You have striven with heart and mind to be a good bishop of the church, eager to implement the renewal called for in the decrees of the Vatican Council II." It also commends him for bringing into existence consultative bodies, for his efforts to involve the laity in the work of the church, and for his concern for justice and peace. "You have given clear evidence of your loyalty to the church and your devotion and obedience to the Holy Father." The letter notes that he has "suffered from exaggerated criticisms and routine misunderstandings" and disassociates itself from "extremist groups."

The letter then goes on to list the abuses that Ratzinger said exist in Seattle.

First, the letter deals with marriage and divorce, citing the "rather widespread practice of admitting divorced persons to a subsequent church marriage" without an annulment. "Catholics have been advised that after divorce and civil remarriage, they may in conscience return to the sacraments." "A clear presentation of the sacramentality and indissolubility of Christian marriage should be made to all your people." And the tribunal should conform to the prescriptions of canon law.

Second, some doctrinal problems are listed. Concern is expressed about those "who seem reluctant to accept the magisterium as capable of giving definitive direction in matters of faith and morals." The church should be portrayed not simply as a sociological entity "in opposition to its divine origin, mission and authority." Faulty Christologies lead to these misunderstandings. Stress should be put on Christ's divinity, humanity, salvific mission, and union with and lordship over the church. A correct appreciation of the priesthood and role of the laity should be inculcated in the seminary program. Policies and programs of the archdiocese should reflect a vision of the human person based on the gospel and not just on human sciences. The authoritative teaching of the church has a valid claim on the Catholic conscience. "No bishop should hesitate to overrule advisors who propose opinions at variance with the authentic teaching of the Holy See."

Third, the letter states that Archbishop Hunthausen has taken steps to correct the practice of contraceptive sterilization in local Catholic hospitals.

Fourth, "first confession should precede first communion."

Fifth, "the use of general absolution must be strictly limited." Large crowds of penitents at Christmas and Easter do not constitute the necessary condition required by canon law.

Sixth, "Routine intercommunion [non-Catholics receiving Communion at Mass] on the occasion of weddings or funerals...should be recognized as clearly abusive and an impediment to genuine ecumenism."

Seventh, practices not in accord with liturgical directives should be eliminated.

Eighth, priests who have left the ministry and not been laicized by Rome cannot be employed by the church. When a priest is laicized, that is returned to the lay state, he is often prohibited from doing certain things by his rescript of laicization, the Vatican document by which he is laicized. This frequently means they may not teach in Catholic schools or act as lectors or extraordinary ministers of communion. Cardinal Ratzinger complained that these prohibitions were not being observed.

Ninth, in 1976 and 1979 the archdiocese distributed a questionnaire that revealed deficient doctrinal understandings and led some to believe it "to be a kind of voting process on doctrinal or moral teachings."

Tenth, the exclusion of women from the priesthood should be explained unambiguously.

Eleventh, "The archdiocese should withdraw all support from any group that does not unequivocally accept the teaching of the magisterium concerning the intrinsic evil of homosexual activity... A compassionate ministry to homosexual persons must be developed that has as its clear goal the promotion of a chaste life-style."

It is noteworthy that five of the issues listed in the letter (general absolution, first confession, women priests, intercommunion, homosexuality) were mentioned by the pope in talks to American bishops. The Vatican also emphasized privately that the visitation had nothing to do with Archbishop Hunthausen's vocal opposition to nuclear weapons or his refusal to pay some of his taxes as a protest. His authority on social justice and peace issues in his archdiocese was never challenged.

The Vatican did not want this letter made public, but Archbishop Hunthausen insisted that some public report was necessary lest he be accused of misrepresenting its findings. In November 1985, a letter to the archbishop from Archbishop Laghi was published that summarized the contents of the Ratzinger letter. Archbishop Hunthausen said that he was firmly committed to dealing with the areas of concern listed in the letters. But he and others in Seattle asked for specific instances of when and where these abuses had taken place. Many of the abuses, he said, never occurred or had been dealt with.

In December 1985, Donald W. Wuerl was appointed auxiliary bishop in Seattle. Seattle sources insist that from the very beginning the Vatican wanted to appoint an auxiliary or coadjutor with special powers but that Archbishop Hunthausen had refused to accept this. Bishop Wuerl was seen by Seattle as a compromise--an auxiliary without special powers but one not nominated by the archbishop. Vatican officials saw the compromise differently. Bishop Wuerl did not have special powers from the Vatican, but Archbishop Hunthausen was supposed to give him these powers himself.

By Easter of 1986 it became clear that Bishop Wuerl and Archbishop Hunthausen had different understandings of the bishop's powers. When Rome was questioned, Archbishop Hunthausen was told that he was supposed to delegate to Bishop Wuerl final authority over the tribunal, liturgy, priestly formation, former priests, medical ethics, and ministry to homosexuals. Again the Vatican did not want this made public, but the archbishop said that he could not pretend he had full power when he did not.

When it was made public in September 1986, most of the priests and religious of the archdiocese were outraged./31 Some canonists argued that it was against canon law for a diocesan bishop to delegate final decision making authority to anyone, even an auxiliary bishop. Meetings were held, petitions were signed, protests were made. It soon became clear that no matter what his legal authority, Bishop Wuerl was, in fact, isolated, with the archbishop being one of his few defenders in Seattle.

Meanwhile, shortly before the November 1986 meeting of the American bishops, Archbishop Laghi issued a chronology of the case giving the Vatican's side./32 It said that at least since 1978, "the Holy See sought the assistance of the archbishop of Seattle in responding to the high volume of complaints that were sent to Rome by priests, religious, and faithful in the archdiocese." After hearing a preliminary report on the visitation, "the Holy See considered him [Hunthausen] lacking the firmness necessary to govern the archdiocese." It also said that Archbishop Hunthausen had agreed to the delegation of powers when Bishop Wuerl was first appointed. In a closed session at the meeting of bishops, Archbishop Hunthausen gave his version of the events, which differed significantly from Archbishop Laghi's./33

Up until this point, most bishops had given Rome the benefit of the doubt, since they did not know the facts. Once the chronology gave the Vatican's side of the story, the bishops had to judge the case on the facts rather than on faith. The administrative committee of the NCCB recommended that the bishops support the Vatican action in Seattle as "fair and just." But after studying the chronology and listening to Archbishop Hunthausen, the bishops were confused and divided. They were asked to support the Vatican's actions in Seattle but refused. Rather they simply acknowledged the right of the Vatican to do what it did and offered their services to bring about a resolution to the conflict.

As it became clear that the Vatican solution was not working in Seattle and, in fact, was causing controversy across the country, the American bishops worked to settle the question before the pope's visit in September 1987. The pope agreed in February 1987 to appoint a three-man papal commission "to assess the current situation in the archdiocese of Seattle."

In May, the commission, consisting of cardinals Bernardin of Chicago and O'Connor of New York and Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco, agreed with the Vatican's assessment of the situation in Seattle but recommended the restoring of Archbishop Hunthausen to full power. The commission reported, "No matter how personally firm in his teachings and practices the archbishop himself may be, without intending it, he is perceived as generating, or at least accepting, a climate of permissiveness within which some feel themselves free to design their own policies and practices."/34 They also recommended the appointment of a coadjutor, Bishop Thomas J. Murphy, who would not have special powers. Bishop Wuerl was to receive another assignment (ultimately he became bishop of Pittsburgh), and the commission was to continue in existence to help Archbishop Hunthausen deal with the problems identified by the Vatican.

Several significant lessons can be learned from this case. First, the Vatican could do to Archbishop Hunthausen only what he allowed it to do. If he had refused to accept the visitation, if he had refused to accept Bishop Wuerl, if he had refused to delegate to Wuerl any powers, there was little the Vatican could do. It could not send in the Swiss Guard to restore order. The power of the Vatican is based on its moral authority and the willingness of Catholics to agree and obey. All of the Vatican's efforts to deal with Cardinal Cody in Chicago or to deal with Archbishop Lefebvre failed because they simply ignored it. Ultimately Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining bishops without papal approval.

Second, misunderstandings occur when Roman procedures clash with American conceptions of fairness and due process. Roman procedures presume a benign, wise, and paternal authority that does what is best for the local and universal church. American concepts of due process institutionalize a fear that authority is not always wise and sometimes abuses its power. The desire for a bill of particulars giving specific and concrete charges, the right of the accused to face and cross-examine his accusers, the desire for an open process--all of these come from a tradition where power is suspect. Vatican officials argue that such procedures are not necessary and are counterproductive--They are no more needed in the church than they are in a family. In addition, differences in language and style can lead to misunderstandings, as appears to have happened in the appointment of Bishop Wuerl.

A third lesson from the case is the growing reliance by the Vatican on local church officials to deal with problems. First, Archbishop Hickey conducted the original investigation rather than a Vatican official. It is impossible to evaluate his role in the affair since the report was never made public. Second, the Vatican tried to get the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to endorse its actions in Seattle. This failed. Later, the three American prelates on the papal commission worked out the compromise that settled the controversy. The recent studies of seminaries and religious life were also conducted by American bishops. Rome refers to this as collegiality.

A final lesson of the case is the recognition that the Vatican is capable of changing its mind; its decisions are not always set in concrete, as many believe. The Vatican appears to have been convinced by right-wing letter writers that the people of Seattle were scandalized and upset by the actions of their archbishop. Wholesale repudiation of the Vatican's actions by the Seattle priests and religious showed that Vatican intervention was not welcome and was, in fact, counterproductive.

The commission constructed a compromise that withdrew Bishop Wuerl and restored Archbishop Hunthausen while at the same time supporting the Vatican's view that there were problems in Seattle--The diagnosis was correct, the cure was not working. The Vatican reversal was portrayed as tactical, not substantive. But even this compromise required intensive negotiations that would not have succeeded if the three American prelates had not been solidly united behind their recommendations when facing both Seattle and Rome. When finally presented with their recommendations, the pope responded, "If that is what you want, fine." In addition, he was undoubtedly pleased that this matter was settled before his trip to the United States.

Gerety Case

Another archbishop who came under fire in Rome was Archbishop Gerety of Newark. CUF (Catholics United for the Faith) attacked him because Renew began and is based in his archdiocese. CUF disapproved of its emphasis on community and claimed that it was doctrinally unsound. In addition, Rome forced him to withdraw the imprimatur of Christ Among Us, a very popular book used in adult catechesis. Archbishop Gerety's resignation was accepted two years early, shortly before the NCCB committee on doctrine gave a generally favorable report on Renew while also calling for more doctrinal and catechetical content to its materials.

After claiming victory in Seattle and Newark, conservative Catholic organizations like CUF targeted Archbishop Weakland as their next victim. He was especially vulnerable in Rome because, in what he thought was an off the record talk to the Milwaukee press, he had described the newly elected pope.

I had watched him once in Czestochowa with 200,000 people in the crowd. I said, he works that crowd better than any ham actor could. And I said, he's very bright, catches on fast, but he is stubborn. The press the next day had, "Archbishop says `Pope ham actor who is stubborn.'"

Despite CUF and the press, Rome has not moved against Archbishop Weakland. Having worked in Rome as abbot primate of the Benedictines, he knows Roman ways and has Roman friends. In addition, he is widely respected by the other American bishops who elected him one of their delegates to the 1987 synod. Many observers consider him the brightest member of the American hierarchy. If Rome tried to discipline him, the Seattle controversy would look, in contrast, like a tempest in a teapot.

The Man in the Middle

A number of archbishops described themselves as being in the middle between Rome and their archdioceses. "The hardest part of my job is to be sandwiched between Roman orders and my people and priests' hopes and ideals," reports Archbishop Weakland. "I live that struggle day in and day out. I feel frustrated with no channels of communication and just kind of caught."

Archbishop Roach of St. Paul describes it in similar terms:

There is conflict between what is perceived as local need and universal teaching. A classic example would be the question of the order of penance and first Eucharist.

I feel a very strong responsibility to recognize what is the order in the universal church. I also feel a very strong responsibility to be sensitive to the pedagogical, psychological, catechetical needs as perceived by the people who are responsible for the preparation of youngsters. And that is always a stress, that's always a strain.

Another case where the bishops were caught in the middle between Rome and their flock was over the issue of altar girls. "I say no to altar girls," recounts Archbishop Lipscomb of Mobile. "Oh God, what troubles I get into by saying no to altar girls." Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago also wrote his pastors telling them not to have altar girls, but press reports indicated he did not discipline pastors who did not follow the directive.

Some archbishops feel that it is difficult for Rome to understand the American church. "The Vatican is predominantly European. It's Italian. It's Roman," says Archbishop Flores of San Antonio. "Very often they do not understand the realities out here. But I think they are making an effort, and we've been trying to dialogue individually and collectively." As an example, he cited Rome's desire that religious in his archdiocese live in community.

In the city, most of the nuns live in communities. But we have [poor rural] areas where sisters are living alone, and they're sixty or eighty miles from the nearest community. Well, we had to argue that point--that it's just not possible, and yet we need the service of a qualified sister way out there in the middle of nowhere.

Rome also wanted the sisters to wear habits. But many of the nuns were from Mexico where they had never worn habits because the government forbids it. In addition, as opposed to Europe, "here it is so hot that you just can't stand it," he says. "For the nuns to be modestly dressed is enough. The people respect them. Everybody knows they are nuns."

Another archbishop caught in the middle was Archbishop Sanchez of Santa Fe, who was asked by the Vatican to take over the University of Albuquerque when it was going broke under the administration of the Sisters of St. Francis. "We did so reluctantly because we knew that it was in tough financial condition," says Archbishop Sanchez, "but we hoped for the best." Two years later the school closed, and the archdiocese was stuck with its $8 million debt.

Conclusion

Besides governing their archdioceses, archbishops are also involved in their provinces, their state conferences and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. A few play a role in the international church. All of this work involves travel and meetings outside the archdiocese, to say nothing of the time spent in the archdiocese preparing for these meetings. Archbishops who are prominent in national and international church affairs estimate that 20 to 30 percent of their time is devoted to work outside their archdioceses.

Chancery officials have mixed feelings about this work by their archbishops. They are usually proud that their archbishop is playing an important role in the larger church, but they also complain that the work makes him less available in the archdiocese. Many of the archbishops also complain that they have to spend so much time on matters outside of their archdioceses, but it rarely stops them from being involved in something they consider important.

Not only do archbishops have an impact on the church outside their archdioceses, that same church also has an impact on them. They cannot govern their archdioceses in a vacuum independent of what happens in other parts of the church. Decisions made by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops can sometimes bind the local bishop. Even what happens in neighboring dioceses can influence opinions and actions in their archdioceses.

But it is the Vatican that can have the most significant impact on the local archdiocese. The appointment of the archbishop and the parameters of his authority are mostly determined in Rome. While Rome is not a constant concern of the archbishops, it is ever present as a source of normative policies and procedures. After examining the ad limina and U.S. speeches of the pope (and the correspondence with Seattle), it is obvious that he wants the American bishops to deal with a number of issues.

The limits to general absolution were mentioned most consistently by Paul VI in 1978, by John Paul II in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1988, and in Seattle. First confession before first communion has also come up repeatedly, as have the indissolubility of marriage and prohibitions on intercommunion. While acknowledging the need for compassion, John Paul stresses that this is not incompatible with preaching the truth. All of this was summed up in his very first ad limina address to the American bishops when he called for fidelity to church teaching and discipline.

On the other hand, Paul VI and John Paul II both praised the American church for its concern for the poor at home and abroad. Both commended the bishops for programs like Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services. The bishops have also been praised for their concern for human rights, including the right to life.

The bishops give careful attention to the pope when he speaks, and when making decisions, the views of the pope are very influential. In the next chapter we will examine how archbishops make decisions.

Footnotes

1. Michael J. Sheehan, "Is There Life in the Church Beyond Diocese? Supra-Diocesan Structures and Church Governance in Book II, the People of God," CLSA Proceedings 42 (1980): 132-50.

2. Michael J. Sheehan, "State Catholic Conferences," Jurist 30 (1970): 285-313, and Ian Jones, "Down Home, Bishops' Groups Ply Politics," National Catholic Reporter, Sept. 16, 1988, 1.

3. "Report from the Synod," Thomas J. Reese, S.J., America 143 (October 11, 1980): 199.

4. See Peter Hebblethwaite, In the Vatican (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986).

5. Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983), Canons 399 and 400. Also see Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the "Ad Limina" Visit (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1988); Congregation for Bishops, "Quinquennial Report by Residential Bishops," The Canon Law Digest 9 (June 6, 1975): 214-39; and Congregation for Bishops, Formula Relationis Quinquennalis (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1982).

6. The Wanderer, July 28, 1983, 5.

7. Paul VI, "Address to Bishops of New York," Origins 7 (April 20, 1978): 721ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 70:328ff.

8. Paul VI, "Pope Praises U.S. Bishops for Pro-Life Efforts," Origins 8 (May 26, 1978): 41ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 70:412ff.

9. In 1983 Cardinal Bernardin spoke of a "consistent ethic of life" in terms similar to those used by Paul VI. See Origins 13 (December 29, 1983): 491ff.

10. Paul VI, "The Eucharist: Summit of Christian Life," Origins 8 (June 15, 1978): 89ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 70:419ff.

11. John Paul I, "Address During Ad Limina Visit of U.S. Bishops of the Pacific Northwest," Origins 8 (September 21, 1978): 254ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 70:765ff.

12. John Paul II, "Address During Ad Limina Visit of U.S. Midwestern and Southern Bishops," Origins 8 (November 9, 1978): 353ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 71:23ff.

13. John Paul II, "Address to the Bishops of New York," Origins 12 (April 15, 1983): 759ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 75:566ff. Emphasis in original. For Vatican view of this visit, see Pio Laghi, "The Central Significance of `Ad Limina' Visits," Origins 13 (1983): 405-7.

14. John Paul II, "Address to U.S. Bishops on Women Priests, Marriage, Birth Control and Homosexuality," Origins 13 (September 5, 1983): 238ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 76:99ff. Emphasis in original.

15. John Paul II, "Address to U.S. Bishops on the Priesthood and the Eucharist," Origins 13 (September 9, 1983): 257ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 76:106ff. Emphasis in original.

16. John Paul II, "The Support Asked of Bishops for Religious," Origins 13 (September 19, 1983): 318-20.

17. John Paul II, "The Family, Marriage and Sexuality," Origins 13 (September 24, 1983): 316-318.

18. John Paul II, "An Address to the U.S. Bishops," Origins 9 (October 5, 1979): 287-291.

19. The speeches, given on September 16, were published in Origins 17 (October 1, 1987): 224-267.

20. "Texas Bishops Tell Human, Spiritual Sides of Ad Limina Visit," NC News Service, May 13, 1988.

21. John Paul II, "Pope Cites Church Strengths in United States," Origins 17 (March 25, 1988): 705.

22. John Paul II, "Developing a Pastoral Vision for the Year 2000," Origins 17 (April 28, 1988): 801.

23. John Paul II, "Pastoral Action Asked on Penance," Origins 17 (June 23, 1988): 85-88.

24. John Paul II, "Prayer as the Context for Christian Living," Origins 17 (June 23, 1988): 90.

25. John Paul II, "What is a Christocentric Catechesis," Origins 17 (August 4, 1988): 161-162.

26. John Paul II, "The Rights of Women," Origins 18 (Sept. 22, 1988): 243.

27. John Paul II, "Solidarity and Interdependence," Origins 18 (Sept. 22, 1988): 241.

28. A survey covering 78 percent of the dioceses found only thirty-six formal cases appealing a decision of a diocesan bishop to an office of the Apostolic See over a fifteen-year period. Twenty-five of these dealt with clergy personnel issues (appeals from retirement, reassignment, or removal of pastors). James H. Provost, "Recent Experience of Administrative Recourse to the Apostolic See," Jurist 46 (1986): 142-63.

29. Gerald M. Costello, "U.S. Catholics Loyal to Church, Cardinal Ratzinger Says," NC News, February 1, 1988.

30. Joseph Ratzinger, "Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter, Sept. 30, 1985," Origins 17 (June 4, 1987): 41-43.

31. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., "The Seattle Way of the Cross," America 155 (September 20, 1986): 111-12.

32. "Vatican Releases Chronology of Events in Seattle," Origins 16 (November 6, 1986): 361-64.

33. Raymond Hunthausen, "Archbishop Hunthausen to the U.S. Bishops," Origins 16 (November 20, 1986): 401-8.

34. Joseph Bernardin, John O'Connor, and John Quinn, "A Resolution of the Situation in Seattle," Origins 17 (June 4, 1987): 37-41.

Conclusion: Episcopal Decision Making

No one seems to worry about who ministers to the bishops.
Archbishop Weakland.

My mistakes have always happened in the cases where I did not really consult.
Archbishop Quinn.

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.

Reactive and Crisis Management

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.

Incrementalism vs. Comprehensive Planning

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.

Finances

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.

Catholicity

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.

Consultation

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.

Primacy of Charity

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.

Keeping the Pastors Happy

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.

Coping with Uncertainty

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.

Footnotes

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.

5. Ibid., 11.

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.

Archbishop: Inside the Power Structure of the American Catholic Church

By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

Introduction

Purpose of Book

Organization

Footnotes

Chapter 1: The Selection of Bishops

Province Candidates

Province List

Pro-nuncio

Government Interference

Auxiliaries

Diocesan Bishops

Influence of Bishops

Role of NCCB

Local Boy or Outsider

Archbishops

Questionnaire

Confidential Vatican Questionnaire on Episcopal Candidates

Pro-Nuncio's Report

Congregation for Bishops

The Pope

Notification and Consent

Conclusion

Improvements?

Footnotes

Chapter 2: The Ecclesial Environment

Voluntary Membership

Ecclesiological Beliefs

Canon Law\17

The Archdiocese

Boundaries

Geographical Size

Population

Religious, Ethnic, and Social Character

Institutional Commitments

Personnel

Tradition and Inheritance

Conclusion

Footnotes

Chapter 3: Style and Structure

Backgrounds

A Typical Day for a Workaholic

Office Work

Episcopal Styles

Civic Leader

Ecumenical Leader

National and International Leader

Teaching Archbishop

Media Minister

Pastoral Archbishop

Archbishop as Administrator

Innovator vs. Maintainer Models

Tolerant or Supportive Styles

Hands-On Administrator or Monarch

Delegator

Structures

Regional Vicariate Model

Department or Secretariat Model

Vicar General/Moderator of Curia Model

Chief Executive Model

Individual vs. Cabinet Style

Consultative Bodies

The College of Consultors

Presbyteral Council

Pastoral Council

Chapter 4: Parish and Regional Governance

Diocesan Policies

Complaints

Regional Governance

Power and Influence

Parish Visitations

Closing Parishes

Lay Ministry

Archdiocesan Programs

Conclusion

Footnotes

Chapter 5: Financial Administration

Parish Finances

Parish Budgets and Annual Reports

Chapter 5:
Financial Administration