RESPONSBHJTV
R

ftT
WORK

tuf CATHOLIC
BISHOPS’

™^som council
1969-1974

Edited by

MICHAEL J. SHEEHAN and RUSSELL SHAW



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

v

https://archive.org/details/sharedresponsibiOOusca



/^fc€‘-H
-
!6 c>2-

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

AT WORK

The Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Council

1969-1974

Edited by

MICHAEL J. SHEEHAN and RUSSELL SHAW

1975

Publications Office

UNITED STATES EATHOLIE EONFERENEE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005



Osacffled



CONTENTS

PAGE

Foreword, by Avery Dulles, S.J 1

Introduction, by Russell Shaw 3

Chronology of the Advisory Council, by Michael J. Sheehan 7

A Venture in Shared Responsibility, by John Cardinal Dearden .... 11

Origins of the Advisory Council, by Most Rev. Francis T. Hurley . . 14

Early Days of the Advisory Council, by Francis X. Kennelly ..... 18

An Eye on Priorities: 1971, by Charles Tildon 25

A New Mandate: 1972, by Joseph H. Maguire 30

A Year of Transition: 1973, by David J. Doherty 36

The End of the Beginning: 1974, by William Toomey 42

Concern for the Poor and Underprivileged, by Helen M. Casey .... 46

The Deck Was Not Stacked, by Joseph Francis, S.V.D 51

The Advisory Council and the Spanish Speaking, by Virgil P.

Elizondo 54

Study of a National Pastoral Council, by Carol Frances Jegen,

B.V.M 56

Building a Community, by Most Rev. Edward A. McCarthy 65

A Church in Miniature, by Most Rev. John F. Whealon 67

Contributors, by Mrs. Michelle Donnelly 69



'

_



FOREWORD

A brief explanation of the genesis of this book will probably contribute

to a better understanding of its contents. The U.S. Bishops’ Advisory

Council, as it approached its fifth birthday, resolved, at its September,

1973, meeting, that a record should be composed of its experiences

and achievements thus far. Such a history seemed possible, because

the events were still fresh in the memories of those who had fashioned

the council and had lived through its early days. The history seemed

desirable, moreover, for two main reasons. First, it was seen as a way

of transmitting the lessons learned by experience to newly elected

members, who were then replacing the original charter members.

Second, the council felt that much could be gained by making its ex-

istence and activities known to a wider public.

To specify the proposal more concretely, and to take the necessary

action, the Advisory Council named a committee of four of its own

members: Steven T. Landregan, Mrs. Kathleen Lukens, William J. Whalen,

and, as chairperson, myself. The projected history received immediate

encouragement from Bishop James S. Rausch, General Secretary of the

NCCB/USCC. At its meeting of September 18-19, 1973, the Adminis-

trative Board of the USCC adopted a motion introduced by Bishop

Rausch approving “the Advisory Council’s plan to begin work on a

history of the Advisory Council."

The Committee on the History, after some deliberation, came to the

conclusion that, to meet the various purposes envisaged, three distinct

projects should be undertaken. First, materials should be gathered

for subsequent use in composing, from a greater distance, a serious

critical history. Second, some popular articles should be commissioned

to acquaint a wider public with the work of the council. Third, an interim

report on the first five years of the council should be written by persons

who had shared in the establishment and workings of that body. This

interim report would be directed to all who might be interested

in such a work, but especially to those who had been, or might in the

future be, connected with the Advisory Council, to bishops receiving

reports of the work of the council, and to persons involved in comparable

or connected organizations, such as diocesan pastoral councils.

The present volume, modest in scope and intention, represents the

implementation of the last of these three efforts. The other two efforts

are being pursued concurrently.

1



On behalf of the Committee on the History, I take great pleasure in

thanking the authors of this volume. All of them are exceptionally busy

persons, yet they responded promptly and even enthusiastically to the

request that they should be contributors. We are fortunate indeed to have

the frank personal recollections and judicious assessments of so many

who have played crucial roles in the establishment and early develop-

ments of the Advisory Council. The council, as a creative American

response to the directions given by Vatican II, appears to hold great

promise for the future evolution of the Church in the United States.

This volume could not possibly have come to light without the

dedicated labors of two individuals. The Rev. Michael J. Sheehan,

Assistant General Secretary of the NCCB and USCC, has borne the

burden of coordinating the preparations at every stage. Mr. Russell

Shaw, Secretary for Public Affairs, NCCB/ USCC, has worked with the

Committee on the History from the beginning, and has done the final

editing of the entire text. Father Sheehan and Mr. Shaw, through their

anonymous services, have contributed vastly more than the relatively

brief chapters here published under their names.

Washington, D.C. Avery Dulles, S.J.

December 15, 1974

2



INTRODUCTION

By Russell Shaw

The creation of the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Council was a

post-Vatican II phenomenon. It is difficult to think of such a body

coming into being in any earlier period in the history of the Catholic

Church in the United States.

Vatican II had breathed a new spirit and enunciated a new vision

of the Church—as a community, a “people of God.’’ Although in no

sense did Vatican II deny, do away with, or downgrade the hierarchical

structure of the Church, it made abundantly clear that hierarchical

structure does not exhaust its reality. It called on all Catholics to take

to heart the obvious but sometimes overlooked fact that we are all in

this thing called Church together.

“Shared responsibility” was the formula under which this fact came

to be expressed. It was as an exercise in shared responsibility that the

Advisory Council came into existence and continues to function. As

Cardinal Dearden of Detroit expresses it in one of the papers collected

here: “A functioning Advisory Council was seen as a hoped-for instance

of shared responsibility in the Church at the national level. . . . What

was needed as an initial step was a structure that would reflect the

spirit of the total American Church in a way that would help the bishops

meet their responsibilities to that Church.”

But, as Cardinal Dearden adds, “the devising of a formula was not

a simple process.” That is an understatement. The Advisory Council

was originally set up to act in a consultative capacity to the Administra-

tive Board of the United States Catholic Conference. Its name signified

this: the United States Catholic Conference Advisory Council. Several of

the contributors to this collection record the disappointment with which

the original members discovered that they were thereby excluded from

direct involvement in the affairs of the National Conference of Catholic

Bishops. To understand their disappointment—and to appreciate the

significance of the eventual decision to extend the scope of the Advisory

Council's competence to encompass the concerns of NCCB— it is neces-

sary to know a bit about the two bodies, NCCB and USCC.

Many people take it for granted that the difference between them,

whatever it may be, is negligible and that, for all practical purposes,

3



they are one and the same. The assumption is due in great part to

history.

The bishops of the United States for half a century had a single

organization, the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC), for

collaborative action at the national level. It is widely assumed that

USCC and NCCB are the successors of the NCWC, and in a sense that

is true. Both do trace their origins back to the old “welfare conference.”

From another point of view, however, both are considerably more than

“successors” of the NCWC. This is especially true of the NCCB.

Responding to the directives of Vatican II, the U.S. bishops in the

mid-1960s found themselves faced with the task of constituting them-

selves as an “episcopal conference.” The nature and functions of such

a conference are specified in the conciliar documents and in subsequent

norms set forth by the Holy See. The “episcopal conference” is, then, the

bishops of the country themselves, united for purposes of deliberation,

decision making and collaboration in specific units of pastoral concern

proper to the episcopacy. The functional units of NCCB are committees

of bishops; the fulltime staff is small and its task is to serve the com-

mittees. One might say that the areas of interest to NCCB are those

which pertain to the internal life of the Church: doctrine, liturgy, canon

law, pastoral research and practices, priestly formation, priestly life

and ministry, the permanent diaconate, etc. In simple terms, NCCB

is the Catholic bishops of the United States working together as bishops

in matters that concern the internal affairs of the Catholic Church as a

church.

This obviously leaves a broad range of issues which are of concern

to the bishops and the Church, and which also call for collaboration and

cooperative action at the national level, but which do not pertain to the

bishops precisely in their pastoral role or to the Church as a specifically

ecclesial community. (To put it another way, many other organiza-

tions besides the Catholic Church have a responsibility with regard to

social justice, but no other organization besides the Catholic Church has

a responsibility with regard to issues in Catholic canon law.) It is in

this broad area of “other” issues that the United States Catholic Con-

ference was established to function.

The generic concerns of USCC can be enumerated rather simply:

social justice and peace, health affairs, education, communications, and,

instrumental to these, legislation and litigation. In fact, however, the

specific concerns of USCC are as diverse and shifting as the issues and

priorities of the contemporary United States and the contemporary world.

The conference staff is organized in a fairly complex structure of depart-

ments, offices and “desks.” Development of policy proposals for

implementation by the staff is the responsibility of several corresponding

4



“mixed” committees made up of both bishops and non-bishops. Policy

decisions are made by the Administrative Board (there is a similar Ad-

ministrative Committee for NCCB) and ultimately by the general body of

bishops, who are the members of the civil corporation which is USCC.

This has been a rather long detour through structures. Back, now, to

the Advisory Council. As noted, there was disappointment over the

original decision to limit the scope of its activity to USCC. Not sur-

prisingly, the decision was eventually changed by the bishops, and the

council—now re-named the “United States Catholic Bishops’ Advisory

Council”—was empowered to concern itself with the issues confronting

NCCB and to report to that body's Administrative Committee as well as

to the Administrative Board of USCC.

Why lay so much emphasis on what may seem like a bit of bureaucratic

trivia of slight interest or importance? Precisely because the broad-

ening of the Advisory Council’s competence from “USCC only” to

“USCC and NCCB” signifies an important growth in understanding

of the meaning of shared responsibility.

It might be put this way. As long as the Advisory Council was limited

to USCC, the implicit message was that the bishops, in the area of their

pastoral responsibilities (NCCB), had no need or reason to consult with

non-bishops. Once NCCB, too, was opened up to the Advisory Council,

the message was quite different: bishops, in exercising their pastoral

responsibilities, find it advisable and desirable—possibly even neces-

sary—to consult with non-bishops. Why? Because the pastoral office

of bishops is among other things a ministry of service, and those who

serve the people of God see the wisdom of consulting the people about

the mode of service. To those who might regard this as a diminution

or subversion of episcopal authority, one can only reply that it is nothing

of the kind. It is no more and no less than a prudent adaptation of the

manner in which the bishops’ authority is exercised, suited both to the

contemporary theology of the Church and to the contemporary require-

ments of effective leadership.

The Advisory Council manifests yet another phenomenon in the con-

temporary life of the Church. The word is overworked but it is the only

one that fits: “dialogue.” The role of the members of the council has

been one of listening and speaking: listening to staff (and constituencies)

of NCCB and USCC, listening and speaking among themselves, speaking

in their reports to the Administrative Committee and Administrative

Board, then listening again as the bishops respond—sometimes affirma-

tively, sometimes not—to their recommendations and proposals.

Such a process is time-consuming and can be frustrating. It is not

a pastime for impatient people who require immediate action on com-

plex issues. But, as the papers collected here make clear, it can be

5



immensely rewarding; it can “pay off” in the coin of solid achievement.

Because it reports to the Administrative Committee and Board and not

directly to the public, the Advisory Council and its work are not widely

known. That is unfortunate, for in its first five years the council played

a role in shaping decisions that led to such major new initiatives in the

Church in the United States as the Campaign for Human Development,

the forthcoming Bicentennial conference on “Liberty and Justice for

All,” and the greater thrust within NCCB and USCC toward concern

for the Blacks, the Spanish-speaking, and other groups who have

suffered from oppression and discrimination.

It would be overstating the case to lay such results solely at the

door of the Advisory Council; many other influences from many other

sources played an important part. Yet the voice of the Advisory Council

has been heard and has made a contribution. That is no little thing.

The council has not compiled a record of consistent and unqualified

success. One of the major undertakings of its first years, detailed here

by Sister Carol Frances Jegen, was the “feasibility study” of a National

Pastoral Council. Despite the Advisory Council’s conclusion that such

a body, though not immediately feasible, was desirable, the idea is

somewhere on a back burner at the time this is written. One would

hesitate, however, to say that it is dead. Some bishops, observing the

work of the Advisory Council, have suggested that it should itself evolve

into the National Pastoral Council; at the moment, the Advisory Council

does not seem so disposed. In any case, the story of the “feasibility

study” recorded here may turn out to be only one chapter in a much

longer book which is still far from completion.

It would be impossible at this stage to undertake a “history” of the

U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Council, and these papers do not

purport to be one. Rather, they are candid snapshots of an entity in

flux—a postconciliar entity as exciting and hopeful as the Church itself

in these years.

6



CHRONOLOGY OF THE

ADVISORY COUNCIL

By Michael J. Sheehan

This chronology of significant events is provided in order to give the

reader an overall view of the Council's origins and its most important

activities since its first meeting in 1969. The articles which follow go

into greater detail on the items listed in the chronology.

1968, April 23-24, St. Louis—USCC general meeting, approval by the

bishops of a Booz, Allen, Hamilton reorganization plan for NCCB/USCC;

inclusion in the plan of a national advisory council for the USCC.

1968, September 17-18, Washington—Ad Hoc committee meeting under

Archbishop Dearden to determine and begin the process of selection of

first Advisory Council members.

1969, March 25-26, Washington— First meeting of the Advisory Council;

orientation, explanation of function by Archbishop Dearden and Bishop

Bernardin; presentations on the USCC offices, departments, and di-

visions; organization of Council committees.

1969, October 3-4, Washington—Second meeting; recommendations

made on the activities of each USCC department; recommendation urging

ordinaries to establish diocesan pastoral councils and office at USCC

for pastoral councils; recommendation on the Black Manifesto, including

an increased commitment of Church resources to the black community.

1970, February 17-18, Washington—USCC Administrative Board requests

the Advisory Council to undertake a study of the nature and feasibility

of a national pastoral council.

1970, March 13-15, Kansas City, Kansas—Third meeting; establishment

of a steering committee to begin study of the feasibility of a national

pastoral council.

1970, August 29-31, Chicago—Mundelein Consultation on the feasibility

of a national pastoral council— 101 dioceses, 36 organizations par-

ticipate.

1970, September 11-13, Marriottsville, Md.— Fourth meeting; recom-

mendations concerning the Campaign for Human Development, the

Spanish-speaking and conscientious objection.

7



1971, February 12-14, Marriottsville, Md.—Fifth meeting; determination

of priorities for the USCC, recommendation that press be invited to USCC

meetings; emphasis on the need for dialogue between the bishops and

the National Office for Black Catholics.

1971, September 10-12, Marriottsville, Md.—Sixth meeting; report of

steering committee adopted—a national pastoral council while desirable

is not feasible now; efforts needed to make a national pastoral council

feasible; recommendations to the bishops for continued development

of diocesan pastoral councils, an NCCB office for diocesan pastoral

councils, enlargement of Advisory Council responsibilities to include

NCCB, invitations to representatives of the Advisory Council to attend

NCCB/USCC general meetings, designation of pastoral councils as topic

for spring, 1972 regional discussions at the Atlanta general meeting of

the bishops. Recommendations on the CHD, on the appointment of more

minority bishops, on the role of women in the Church.

1971, November 15-19, Washington—The NCCB votes to implement

several recommendations of Advisory Council; Advisory Council becomes

advisory to the NCCB Administrative Committee as well as to the USCC

Administrative Board; approval of admission of auditors to the NCCB/

USCC general meetings.

1972, February 11-13, Marriottsville, Md—Seventh meeting; recom-
mendations for regional pastoral consultations on justice and peace and

use of the 1971 synodal document, Justice in the World; Cardinal Krol

addresses the Council and offers the liturgy; recommendations on the

publication of the priesthood study commissioned by NCCB.

1972, April 11-13, Atlanta—NCCB/USCC general meeting; five Advisory

Council members among the laity, religious and priest observers; regional

discussions on the topic suggested by the Advisory Council, Pastoral

Councils and Shared Responsibility.

1972, September 8-10, Marriottsville, Md.—Eighth meeting; recommenda-

tions on diocesan pastoral councils, on the holding of regional pastoral

consultations on youth and the Church in 1973, concerning a future

national pastoral council; recommendations on the needs of Catholics

living in doubtfully valid marriages, against the publication of the docu-

ment entitled The Basic Teachings for Catholic Religious Education,

on priestly life and ministry, on the reorganization of the council to

reflect its new responsibilities; recommendations to the Administrative

Board about communications, support for a constitutional amendment

for non-denominational prayer, on youth, anti-busing, and a national

conference on justice in the world.

1972, November 13-16, Washington—NCCB/USCC general meeting

—

8



Rosa Gonzales, Council member, addresses the bishops in the name

of the observers.

1972, December 27-29, MarriottsviUe, Md.— Interdisciplinary study on

the concept of a national pastoral council sponsored by the steering

committee for a national pastoral council; participation' by eleven

scholars from the fields of history, education, scripture, theology, canon

law, sociology, psychology, and organizational skills.

1973, February 2-4, Farmington, Michigan—Ninth meeting; recommenda-

tions supporting a national pastoral letter on Christian moral values, the

invitation of Council members to participate in spring regional meetings,

the sending of materials on shared responsibility to the bishops urging

that pastoral letters be written on the subject, new bylaws for the

Council. The Council urges the better implementation of the educational

dimension of CHD, prompter transmittal of CHD funds to the national

office, recommendations concerning the Spanish-speaking Catholics,

and amnesty for conscientious objectors to the Vietnamese war.

1973, Spring Regional Meetings
—“Youth and the Church,” suggested by

the Advisory Council, is a topic for regional meetings; most Councih

members participate in the regional meetings around the country.

1973, September 7-9, MarriottsviUe, Md.—Tenth meeting; recommenda-
tions for an office of shared responsibility and for training programs

for* pastoral council personnel, of four models for consideration as a

national pastoral council, the role of women in the Church; observations

on the NCCB regional meetings, expression of pastoral concern about

the first confession/first communion question as well as for the renewal

of the procedural norms for marriage cases, and for procedures for

laicization; recommendations for further study, but no immediate action

on Catholic membership in the National Council of Churches, on the

Spanish-speaking, on the canonization of Blessed Mother Seton; recom-

mendations that communications in the Church be the topic for the

1974 spring NCCB regional meetings, that a history of the first five

years of the Advisory Council be drawn up, on corporate investments,

on prison reform, in support of the United Farm Workers, on the ministry

of the Church to youth, on the updating of the Commission on the

Colored and Indians, concerning the quality of life, and about the in-

stitutionalized mentally retarded.

1973, September 10, Washington—NCCB Administrative Committee de-

cision to delay further study of a national pastoral council for the

immediate future but continued efforts urged for the development of the

concept of shared responsibility, parish and diocesan pastoral councils.

1973, November 12-16, Washington—NCCB/USCC general meeting;

William Baroody, chairman of the Advisory Council steering committee

for a national pastoral council, addresses the bishops in the name of the

observers.

9



1973, December 3-5, Cleveland, Ohio—Several Advisory Council mem-

bers and staff participate in organizing and conducting a national

workshop on pastoral planning.

1974, February 1-3, San Antonio, Texas—Eleventh meeting (held in San

Antonio to highlight the concerns of Spanish-speaking Catholics); recom-

mendations on the Catholic observance of the bicentennial, on the na-

tional catechetical directory effort, concerning a right-to-life constitu-

tional amendment, on the regional election process for Advisory Council

members, on statements prepared for adoption by the l '"CC Administra-

tive Board on Chile and South Vietnam, and on th* policy for such

statements, urging strong USCC action tc 1 !p the International De-

velopment Association; recommendation for an office on shared re-

sponsibility in NCCB, the funding of which would be sought by Mr.

William Baroody, chairman of the newly constituted standing committee

on shared responsibility.

1974, Spring Regional Meetings—Council members participate in the

meetings and the topic is the use of Modern Means of Communication

as Instruments for Evangelization.

1974, August 12, Washington—NCCB/ USCC Research, Plans and Pro-

grams Committee decides against an NCCB committee and secretariat

for shared responsibility but will allow for one which would be limited to

pastoral councils.

1974, September 13-15, Marriottsville, Md.—Twelfth meeting, Apostolic

Delegate, Archbishop Jean Jadot, addresses Council and celebrates the

Eucharist; recommendations on the Eucharistic Congress, on women and

the Church, of support for Catholic University of America, on the day of

prayer and study on the renewal of faith, scheduled for the November,

1974 bishops' meeting, on the permanent diaconate, on the Holy Year

pilgrimages, on supporting USCC pro-life activities, on the revision of

the U.S. priestly formation program, on ecumenical affairs; there were

also recommendations on the housing and urban crisis, the disposition

of Montezuma Seminary properties, on the USCC Department of Edu-

cation, in particular for the establishment of a national commission on

married life in the Department, on Catholic Relief Services, and the

World Hunger Crisis, urging a statement for amnesty.

1974, November 18-22, Washington—NCCB/USCC general meeting, Mrs.
Teddy Nardi, Council member, in the name of the observers addresses

the assembly of bishops.

10



A VENTURE IN SHARED

RESPONSIBILITY

By John Cardinal Dearden

A functioning Advisory Council was seen as a hoped-for instance of

shared responsibility in the Church at the national level. In several

discourses that I had addressed to the bishops, I had spoken of shared

responsibility as a need of the Church and felt that some movement in

this direction should be taken not only at the local level, but at the

national level as well.

And yet in trying to achieve shared responsibility at the national level,

the matter took on an unusual degree of complexity. It was evident from

the beginning that a national pastoral council, in the strict sense of the

term, was not immediately, if ever, achievable. What was needed as

an initial step was a structure that could reflect the spirit of the total

American Church in a way that would help the bishops meet their re-

sponsibilities to that Church. The devising of a formula was not a

simple process.

Initially it seemed best to relate the work of the projected Advisory

Council to the USCC. Since the USCC functions in the arena of public

action, it touches upon a range of concerns that very immediately fall

into the purview of the total Church. For this reason it was judged that

the bishops would be more accepting and more understanding of the

participation by an advisory body in their activities in that field. And

in order to focus the impact of the participation of such a body as

effectively as possible, it was judged best to have its point of insertion

into the organization come through the Administrative Board of the

USCC.

Once the matter was proposed for consideration by the bishops, it

was accepted with great readiness and, seemingly, with few reservations.

The record of movement of the concept through the conference is re-

flected in the minutes of the meetings of that time.

Perhaps the most difficult task at the outset was the choice of the

persons who would serve on the council. To be representative of the

total Church, it was necessary that its membership be drawn from all

segments of the Church. Yet, granted the vastness and the complexity

of this country, no simple process could bring about the representation

11



that was called for. Ultimately, a central committee was carefully

brought together to choose the membership of the Advisory Council

from persons whose names were presented from throughout the country

by a process of election or selection. The committee could work only with

the names that had been proposed. It was not free to add others of its

own choosing. Through an involved procedure, the initial membership

was brought together.

Within a remarkably short span of time—one year or so—the Advisory

Council demonstrated its responsibility and maturity. What contributed

greatly to the effectiveness of the Advisory Council almost from the

beginning was the character of the original membership. The process

of selection had brought together a most representative group of

persons—bishops, priests, religious, and laity—a true cross-section of

the American Church. Its membership reflected differences and com-

monalities. Certainly one of the first blessings that the undertaking

received was the caliber of the original body. Because it was so diversi-

fied, so representative, yet so loving of the Church, it established its

own distinctive esprit de corps and achieved a level of effectiveness that

was extraordinary. The soundness of its presentations to the Adminis-

trative Board and the evidence of prayerful reflection that had preceded

them won a high level of acceptance.

The very favorable experience with the Advisory Council in its rela-

tionship with the USCC helped to win acceptance of the proposal to

broaden the scope of its concerns to the whole range of affairs con-

sidered by the bishops’ conference. This would involve matters under

consideration by the NCCB as well as the USCC. In the light of our

earlier experience, it was felt that the most effective point of insertion

for this new area of interest would be the Administrative Committee of

the NCCB. Looking back over the years, I feel that our judgment was

sound in proposing that the central boards of the two bodies be the

point of contact between the Advisory Council and the bishops.

In retrospect, I think that it can be said that our hopes for a respon-

sible body representative of the Church and lovingly committed to it

have been strikingly realized. The Advisory Council has truly been a

representative, responsible voice of the American Church, giving true,

valid input into the deliberations of the bishops and bringing new

dimensions into their thinking.

In a number of instances the importance of issues under consideration

by the bishops has been underscored and their directions have been

reinforced by the counsel that has come from the Advisory Council.

In other instances matters have come up for consideration by the bishops

that conceivably would have been bypassed had it not been for a strong

representation by the Advisory Council. Even at times when the bishops

12



were unable to accept the recommendations of the Advisory Council,

the process of evaluating them was itself a positive and constructive

experience.

As is evident, the process has extended over a period of time. When

the issue of opening the meetings of the bishops to attendance by non-

bishops was raised, among those who had first title to participate were

members of the Advisory Council. Allowing their representatives to sit

at the general sessions of the bishops’ meetings was an expression of

trust and confidence. That trust and confidence had been earned.

All in all, it has been a healthy experience for the Church in the

United States. I am confident that, as the Advisory Council gains more

experience and grows to a fuller understanding of the various issues in

which the Church is involved, and particularly grows in its own aware-

ness of the movement of the life of the Church, it will have a lasting

contribution to make.

The concept of this type of participation in decision-making is a sound

one. Providentially, the initial concept has developed and matured on

a secure basis. The experience that the bishops have had with it has

been encouraging and helpful. A decision of the bishops’ conference

which has been enriched by the thoughtful ecclesial thinking of the

Advisory Council reflects more surely the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

*

13



ORIGINS OF THE

ADVISORY COUNCIL

By Most Rev. Francis T. Hurley

The proposal for the establishment of the Advisory Council for the

United States Catholic Conference was the natural consequence of two

forces affecting the Church in the United States in the late 1960s. One

was the thrust of the Second Vatican Council urging wider participation

by all Catholics, and particularly the laity, in the life, activity and even

administration of the Church. The other was the rather business-like

reorganization and restructuring of the National Catholic Welfare Con-

ference, the national coordinating agency of the bishops of the United

States, under the guidance of the management consultant firm of

Booz, Allen & Hamilton. The first force provided the ideology and the

spirit; the second, the technique and structure.

The basic reorganization of the NCWC led almost inevitably to an

advisory council. The NCWC became two entities, the National Con-

ference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and the United States Catholic

Conference (USCC). For many the establishment of two organizations

seemed a distinction without a difference. Both were described as

organizations of the bishops. It seemed that the bishops wore one hat

or the other almost at whim. The distinction, however, did constitute

a difference both by reason of activity and of the involvement of laity,

religious and priests, other than staff, in the actions and policies of

the bishops relating to the Church nationally.

The USCC is concerned with socio-civic-educational-charitable ac-

tivities in which the laity and religious have a special competence and

responsibility. Because of this they should be brought into the decision-

making process to the extent their status warrants.

The NCCB, on the other hand, was to focus on matters of a more

ecclesiastical, liturgical, canonical and pastoral nature. Not that the

laity have no vested interest in these matters, but the responsibility for

final decisions in these areas is properly that of the bishops.

The involvement of the laity in the decision-making process became

the pivotal point in considering an advisory council. The documents of

Vatican II made it clear that pastoral councils and priests’ senates at the

diocesan level were solely advisory. Yet neither the NCCB nor the

14



USCC was comparable to a diocese in structure, competency or authority.

Further, an argument could be made that the laity, by reason of their

inherent rights, should have more than merely a voice in some public

issues affecting the Church politic.

For example, federal aid to education. This is an issue involving the

parents’ prime right in the education of their children arid the right

and responsibility of the bishops with regard to the religious education

of children. In addition politics—sometimes partisan politics—and eco-

nomics entered the picture. Two questions were asked: Should the

decision on federal aid be made solely by the bishops or by the bishops

and laity together? Should either group alone make the final decision?

In answer the bishops reserved to themselves the final decision, but

the questions had been raised.

There was rather immediate acceptance by the bishops of the concept

of an advisory council. It fit clearly into the spirit of Vatican II. De-

veloping the arena of activity for the council even helped to sharpen the

focus of NCCB and USCC and to clarify the distinction between them.

The council would be attached to the USCC, the agency which focused

on the civic-political realm, a realm of proper competency for the layman.

The council was positioned somewhat parallel to the Administrative

Board, receiving reports and reviewing proposals from the conference’s

departments and making its recommendations to the board. The mem-

bets of the council would not make the decisions but would be involved

in the process.

It was not deemed necessary to ask the Advisory Council to serve

the same function for NCCB. The NCCB through its committee mem-

berships had considerable input from the laity and religious. More

important, however, confining the council to USCC implied a greater

degree of involvement in the decision-making process in matters in

which the laity have a proper role.

The management consultant team from Booz, Allen & Hamilton ex-

plored alternate roles for members of the advisory council. One was

the role of voice and vote; the other was that of voice only.

The role of voice and vote posed two difficulties. Granting such to a

cross-section of priests, religious and laity would be tantamount to

bringing them into membership on the Administrative Board of USCC,

which, according to the reorganization plan, was to be comprised of

bishops only. The consultant team felt that such involvement was not

warranted or, if warranted, not timely.

The second difficulty was the effect of granting vote as well as voice

on the concept of shared responsibility. This concept, while not new

in the Church, needed more maturation. The decision was made, there-

fore, to attach the Advisory Council to the USCC in an advisory capacity.

15



The method of selection of the membership of the first Advisory

Council is a matter of record. Certain concepts guided the system of

selection. The members were to be a cross-section of bishops, priests,

religious and laity. They were to be drawn from the Catholic people at

large and not on the basis of institutional or organizational affiliation.

They were to be classed not as representatives of any group (except the

general categories of bishops, priests, religious and laity), ethnic com-

munity or geographical area. Rather, each member was to be a re-

sponsible Catholic who brought a particular expertise and knowledge

to the deliberations of USCC.

The selection system was a combination of regional meetings desig-

nating 200 candidates, a national committee identifying 50 members

from among these 200, and the Administrative Board of USCC making

the final appointment of the 50. The system succeeded in bringing

together a group of Catholics who reflected a very broad spectrum of

the Catholic people of the United States—differing attitudes, racial and

ethnic groups, regions, economic conditions, age, and even church

organizations.

The regional meetings were an effective means of obtaining an im-

posing list of 200 candidates. Most bishops took very seriously the in-

vitation from the president of USCC to send delegates to the regional

meetings, choosing either personally or through councils, senates and

lay organizations delegates very alive to developments in the Church.

Only a few bishops selected the “standbys,” good Catholics but of no

special competence or interest. A very few of the delegates—and there

were some—were just dispatched from a chancery to be present for the

rollcall of dioceses.

Some leaders of national Catholic organizations viewed the council

either as a threat to their status or as superfluous or as a body that would

not be sufficiently independent of the bishops. The Administrative Board

of USCC, however, persisted in its determination to select on the basis

of individual competency rather than organizational affiliation.

Some staff of USCC looked at the council with wary eye. Was it to be

a super review board? A threat to the newly formed departmental com-

mittees that were comprised of a cross-section of bishops, priests,

religious and laity? An instrusion of outsiders in their domain? Another

layer of bureaucracy between a department and the Administrative

Board?

To allay such fears it was made clear that the members of the

Advisory Council had no relationship to any department, except the

Executive, nor were they to enter into dealings with departmental staff.

The council would, indeed, review the activities of the departments

but its report was to be merely another voice of consultation—whether

16



affirmative or critical of the departments—for the bishops in reaching

their decisions.

The reporting procedure of the council is probably its weakest feature.

Being only a voice, the council’s thoughts and recommendations can

easily be lost among many others, particularly since its “voice” is

merely a report, and it is not involved in the give and take of dialogue

and debate at the table where decisions are made.

The USCC Advisory Council represented a desire of the bishops to

bring responsible Catholic laity* priests and religious into the decision-

making process on matters about which they have as great a concern

as the bishops and often a comparable responsibility. The subject matter

of the council was limited initially to what came within the purview of

USCC in order to set the outer limits beyond which the bishops must

retain ultimate responsibility. Within those limits, however, the Advisory

Council was a model for involving the people of God in decisions

affecting all of them. As a model it was expected that experience would

dictate its growth, development and degree of involvement. Key to

that development is a single question: Should the final decisions of

USCC, a civic-political agency of the Church, be made by the bishops

alone or by responsible people from many segments of the Church?

The Advisory Council subsequently became formally attached to the

NCCB as well. In that area it must retain solely an advisory role because

the bishops, as leaders of the Church and by reason of their office,

cannot delegate their decision-making powers in the NCCB. In the

USCC, however, the potential exists for moving beyond a solely advisory

capacity. Whether that potential could or should be realized only ex-

perience will tell.

17



EARLY DAYS OF THE

ADVISORY COUNCIL

By Francis X. Kennelly

A few weeks before the first meeting of the Advisory Council I received

a telephone call from Msgr. Francis T. Hurley, now Bishop Hurley and

then Associate General Secretary of the United States Catholic Con-

ference. Msgr. Hurley explained that a temporary or acting chairman

was required to conduct the first meeting. He asked me if I would

accept this temporary position and I readily agreed to do so. It was

suggested that I arrive in Washington early on Friday, March 25, 1969

for a meeting with Msgr. Hurley and Bishop Joseph L. Bernardin, General

Secretary of USCC, in order to discuss the proposed agenda and the

arrangements for the meeting which was to begin that evening.

I met with Bishop Bernardin and Msgr. Hurley early on the afternoon

of March 25 at the Executive Offices of USCC. After meeting the staff

and reviewing the physical arrangements which had been prepared, we

discussed the format for the meeting. I was pleasantly surprised and

extremely gratified to learn that, with the exception of the necessary

orientation planned and the logistical problems which had been settled

in advance, the Advisory Council was actually expected to organize itself,

decide upon its own structure and method of operation, select its own

agenda and in general conduct its affairs free from any direction or

supervision which might have been superimposed upon it from either the

USCC or its executive officers.

After reviewing the plans for the orientation discussion that evening

and the proposed reports to be given by the directors of the five

departments of USCC the following day, I inquired if any assignments

would be given to the members of the Advisory Council prior to the

next general assembly. I was advised that, in keeping with the idea that

the council would be free to evolve its own structures, there were no

preconceived plans for the members to take any action at this first

meeting. I suggested that it would be a shameful waste of time and

talent if the members were to leave this first meeting with no assign-

ment to prepare for the next meeting, and it was agreed that we would

suggest that committees be formed of and by the members to work

in the five general areas of concern of the USCC departments.

18



It was also apparent that for the work of reviewing the USCC de-

partmental activities we could have each committee review and report on

the department which was its special concern. In this manner it became

evident that, if the members were in accord with this thinking, the work

of the Advisory Council could be accomplished through the committee

system rather than by the council acting as a committee of -the whole.

It was agreed that, if the committee system was acceptable, each

member of the council should insofar as possible be free to select the

committee in whose subject matter he or she had the most interest and

was best suited by special background, knowledge or expertise. We

would also suggest that of the general divisions of council membership,

i.e., bishops, priests, religious, lay men and women, be represented on

each committee.

Now that it appeared we might leave this first meeting as a working

council, it was necessary to propose that officers be elected in order

to conduct the ongoing business of the council. We agreed that no

election should take place until the end of the meeting. This would

allow everyone to become acquainted with each of the members and

give each of us a reasonable opportunity to make judgments about

proposed officers and nominations to come from the floor before the

final votes were cast. It would be necessary, however, to select a

nominating committee after the first orientation session in order that

they Viight have time to observe the members and place names in

nomination. It was further agreed that the nominating committee should

be asked to select two slates of officers in order that there would be some

initial choices available, and that the committee should be composed of

one person from each of the general categories of membership.

To prepare for the succeeding meetings it was assumed that an

agenda committee would be required. Since we anticipated that com-

mittees would be formed and meet on the following day, it was proposed

that each committee then elect a chairman and secretary; the chairmen

thus selected could serve on an agenda committee with the officers of

the council.

With these matters mapped out and after reviewing such items as the

Booz, Allen & Hamilton report and the limited scope of the competence

of the council— i.e., within the framework of USCC only—a tentative

agenda for the meeting was prepared.

I have gone into some detail with regard to the events of my initial

meeting with the authorities at USCC not only because I was the only

member of the council present but, more important, because I believe

they demonstrate very well that the council was given complete freedom

to control its own fortunes. At the beginning of our meeting Bishop

Bernardin and Msgr. Hurley had planned this first meeting only as an

orientation session and as an opportunity for the members to become

19



acquainted with each other. They were quite evidently pleased when I

encouraged them to believe that our members would want to get

organized immediately and feel they had an assignment on which to get

started before leaving the meeting. I am also certain, as was demon-

strated later by the other members, that all of us were of the same mind

with regard to assisting, in our own way, with the business of the USCC

as soon as possible. I believe this freedom to evolve and the attitude of

openness sparked the enthusiasm of each member of the council as the

first meeting progressed.

The first opportunity the newly formed council members had to meet

and become acquainted with each other and some of the staff of USCC

was during a reception and dinner held prior to the evening session.

The success of this first gathering was insured by the easy manner and

genuine warmth of Archbishop John F. Dearden, Chairman of the Ad-

ministrative Board of USCC, whose keen interest in each of the members

he met as he circulated among them seemed to set an example for

everyone. The other bishops rejected any form of ceremony or special

title and soon made one feel that, as members of the council, they neither

expected nor wished to be granted any special recognition. This relaxed

attitude on the part of the bishops helped all of us to attain a feeling

of unity from the very start which has grown over the years into a sense

of community which can only be known to those of us who have ex-

perienced it as members of the Advisory Council.

An example of what I have been trying to communicate would be

appropriate. During the dinner following the reception, I was seated

at a table beside Archbishop Dearden. On his other side was a young

lady who was then the youngest member of the council. Throughout

dinner she several times addressed the Archbishop, to my amazement,

as “Father.” Later I asked her if she realized she had been calling

Archbishop Dearden “Father” all evening. She explained that, after

she had told him that she did not know how to address him in ordinary

conversation, he had insisted that she call him “Father.” I cite this

not merely because it demonstrates the humility of the Archbishop

but also as a further example of the effort made by all in author-

ity to have the council members recognize that they were to be ac-

cepted as a part of the USCC team working hand in hand with the

leadership of the conference for the best interests of the Church in the

United States.

After dinner the meeting was officially opened with prayer by Arch-

bishop Dearden. Bishop Bernardin then explained in some detail the

organization of USCC, the relationship of the departments, divisions

and committees, and the relationship of the Advisory Council to the

Administrative Board. He explained the history, nature and purposes of

the organization. Archbishop Dearden then explained why the Advisory

20



Council was conceived and how it was to function in relation to the

rest of the USCC. The council was to be only advisory, as its name

clearly implied. However, its deliberations and advice would be expected

to form a part in the decision making of the Administrative Board. The

council would function in three areas: first in an appraisal of the work

of the departments of USCC; second to discuss and advise on par-

ticular matters presented to the council by the Administrative Board;

and finally it would be free to consider such matters of interest to the

Church in the United States as it might on its own initiative believe to

be of concern to the people of God and the members of the hierarchy.

It was made perfectly clear that the council was to be concerned only

with matters within the area of concern of USCC. A clear distinction was

made between the competency of USCC and the National Conference of

Catholic Bishops. The council's concerns would be restricted to those

matters pertaining to planning and conducting programs in the Church’s

social, economic, educational and public affairs. It would not concern

itself with questions of liturgy, ecumenism, priestly life and other

pastoral concerns of NCCB.

Archbishop Dearden made it clear that we were to be free to develop

our own council. We were expected to work to make it whatever we

thought it should be. We were to work together as 50 Christian people

interested in the actions and activities of the Church in the United
%

States and, insofar as might be possible, as though there were no dis-

tinctions among us with regard to rank in the Church. Each member

would be expected to give his advice freely and without fear of questions

of motive. Each was to draw upon his or her own personal experience

and background in order that every question might reflect the thinking of

the entire Church. We were not selected as representatives of any group

or area and should not feel that we should necessarily reflect the

opinions of others. We were, however, thought to be representative of

all of the various people of the Church in the United States and in that

manner our advice would represent the thinking of a cross-section of the

Catholic populace. After the answers to several questions which helped

to clarify the information given, and which were addressed to Arch-

bishop Dearden and Bishop Bernardin, the proposed agenda for the

following day was discussed and accepted. A nominating committee

was appointed and the meeting closed.

After the meeting I conferred briefly with the members of the nomina-

tions committee, Bishop Raymond Gallagher, Sister Marie Augusta

Neal, Mr. Ruben Cardenas, Mrs. John Casey and Msgr. Richard Dwyer.

They were already reviewing the biographical sketches of the various

members. Again it was emphasized that two persons should be

nominated for the office of chairman, vice chairman and secretary

and that members of the nominations committee should not be excluded

21



from those to be nominated. Most of the council members remained

for some time after the meeting discussing the events of the evening.

It was apparent from many of the discussions of these small groups that

the only real concern, if not disappointment, was the restriction of the

council’s advice to USCC exclusively.

I was requested by Msgr. Hurley to accompany him to Archbishop

Dearden’s room at the hotel later that evening to report to the Arch-

bishop and Bishop Bernardin. I recall giving them my candid appraisal

of the events of the evening and the reactions of the members with whom

I had had an opportunity to discuss the matters after the meeting. It

was very evident that Archbishop Dearden was most concerned for the

success of the council and he wanted to be informed regarding the

acceptance by the members of his explanations and proposals. I told

him of the general enthusiasm of those with whom I had time to com-

municate and he seemed quite pleased with my report.

On Saturday, March 26, 1969 the meeting was reconvened at USCC

headquarters. The various directors of the departments of USCC ex-

plained the work of their respective departments and the divisions within

them. Each of the directors answered several questions from the

council regarding their work.

Having had this opportunity to learn of the workings of the depart-

ments the council agreed to form five committees, one for each de-

partment of USCC then operating. The members were given ballots

upon which to indicate their preference for committee work; assignments

were made using the ballots as a guide. The committees were then

given time to meet and organize. In the process they were requested

to elect a chairman and secretary.

The nominating committee reported and elections were conducted for

the officers of the council. The following were elected:

Chairman

Vice Chairman

Secretary

Francis X. Kennelly

Charles G. Tildon

Helen Casey

Social Development Committee

Chairman

Secretary

David Doherty

LeMay Bechtold

Christian Formation Committee

Chairman

Secretary

Joseph Maguire

Fr. Ernest Burns

International Affairs Committee

Chairman

Secretary

Maureen McNamara

Mrs. Allen Benjamin

22



Health Affairs Committee

Chairman

Secretary

Archbishop Thomas McDonough

Mrs. John Merlo

Communications Committee

Chairman

Secretary

Msgr. J. Paul O’Connor

Msgr. Henry McMurrough

It was agreed that the next meeting would be held for two full days,

a Friday and Saturday, in order to allow sufficient time to cover the

work which was anticipated. The dates of October 3 and 4, 1969, were

accepted and the meeting was adjourned.

The agenda committee held its first meeting at USCC headquarters

in June 1969. Msgr. Hurley met with us and his immediate reaction was

consternation over the composition of the committee. For the first time

he realized that, after months spent on the selection of Advisory Council

members to insure a cross-section of all the people of the Church in

the United States, everyone on the agenda committee with one exception

was of Irish descent. Despite this handicap the several chairmen of the

committees had suggestions for agenda items which were reviewed by the

agenda committee. We agreed on several suggestions for review and

report by each committee and decided to send them to the members who

were to reply by indicating which of the items they felt should be given

priority. Their replies were to be sent to USCC headquarters in time

for our final agenda committee meeting in August.

At the August meeting, again held in Washington, we were able to

agree upon a tentative list of items for discussion and review. We were

also informed that the council would receive, at a later date, reports of

the USCC departments which would also be included for review at our

October meeting.

The agenda committee was disappointed that no specific questions

were presented to the council by the Administrative Board. Msgr.

Hurley assured us that such questions would be forthcoming in the

future.

The comprehensive records of the minutes of the meeting of October

3 and 4 and the detailed report contained in the minutes of the Ad-

ministrative Board meeting of November 8, 1969, fully indicate the

scope and importance of the items covered. Two things stand out with

regard to the October 3 and 4 meeting: first, the universal feeling of

the members that they had insufficient time to work on the voluminous

reports of the USCC departments; second, the debate on the response to

the Black Manifesto.

Although a great deal of the time allotted for the meeting was spent

considering the Black Manifesto and the other concerns of the social

23



development committee, I have always felt that the time and effort

expended may have been the triggering device for what I believe was

the response of the hierarchy to the social needs of the entire country

in the institution of the Campaign For Human Development. It is my

personal opinion that this and other social and economic responses to

the Mexican-American community were among the most important

activities generated by the deliberations of the Advisory Council in its

formative years.

24



AN EYE ON PRIORITIES: 1971

By Charles Tildon

During the September, 1970, meeting I was privileged to be elected

chairman of the Advisory Council for the calendar year 1971. Other

officers were: Joseph Maguire, vice chairman, and LeMay Bechtold,

secretary.

However, my first experience in chairing a meeting of the USCC

Advisory Council came quite unexpectedly at the Kansas City meeting

in March of 1970 when I was called upon, in my capacity as vice chair-

man, to carry out the office of chairman for most of the meeting.

Subsequently, I went to San Francisco to report on the recommenda-

tions of the Advisory Council to the USCC Administrative Board. This

meeting was held in conjunction with the general meeting of bishops,

and the communications media were broadly represented. I was given

the opportunity to share part of a press conference with Bishop Joseph

L. Bernardin, General Secretary of the Conference, Cardinal Dearden,

President, and Archbishop Hannan, Chairman of the Communications

Committee, where the major interest was the progress of the committee

established to study the feasibility of a national pastoral council.

This was a new experience for me as a lay member of the Catholic

Church. I felt it to be especially significant that a member of the black

community was on national television representing the national Advisory

Council of the United States bishops.

During the February, 1971 meeting of the Advisory Council the

major agenda item was a study of priorities of the United States Catholic

Conference. In discussions with Bishop Bernardin and Father James

Rausch, Associate General Secretary of USCC, this emerged as a topic

of overriding importance. One of the primary reasons for this was the

decline in revenue available to the USCC. The USCC Committee on

Research, Plans and Programs was to conduct a careful review of all

programs of the Conference, and it was felt that the Advisory Council

could provide a valuable service to the committee by recommending

priorities to the Administrative Board at its February meeting.

Mr. John O’Neill, Director of the Office of Research, Plans and Pro-

grams, presented the objectives of the type of study the council was

requested to do. The council then divided itself into study groups to

evaluate the work of the departments of USCC. Preliminary reports on

25



priorities were then reported to the Administrative Board. The following

is a summary of priority recommendations:

“It is the opinion of the Advisory Council that the highest priority

of USCC departments and divisions should be the reformation of the

Christian conscience and consciousness. USCC participates in the

mission of the Church herself to bring Christ to all men, but has the

challenge and opportunity of meeting men where they are: in their

educational and social needs, in their health problems, or in their

various relationships with other persons, groups and nations. The

priority for USCC is then to search out how the saving and life-giving

message of Christ can be brought to the American people, in these

areas of human concern.

“Then, as a means of accomplishing this goal, the Advisory Council

is of the opinion that it would be helpful if the USCC were to intensify

or even redirect its efforts towards utilizing and influencing the secular

institutions of American culture. No longer can we hope to shape

our nation’s destiny by the influence of the Catholic school or the

church pulpit alone. Rather, it is these secular forces, such as

national legislation, or the utilization of mass media, or participation

in international activities such as the UN, that we American Catholics

can most effectively bring our values to bear in shaping our country's

development.

“We do not suggest, however, that USCC abandon its direct role

of service to the American Church. We recommend that USCC con-

tinue to service, in those areas of national concern where local

dioceses and organizations are not able to do this for themselves.

“The committees unanimously concurred that there are several

functions presently performed by the USCC as a service to the bishops

and the American Catholic Church-at-large which are of major im-

portance and can only be properly handled by a national organization

such as the USCC. The USCC should, therefore, continue, as a matter

of course, such functions as liaison with the federal government and

other national governments, liaison with other U.S. national religions

as a participant in joint programs and in a spirit of ecumenism, and

assisting local bishops in information gathering, research and

other staff functions more effectively and efficiently conducted at a

national level.’’

Among the membership of the council was a significant black presence

as well as an influential Spanish-speaking presence. Their contributions

were felt throughout the activities of the council. The relationship of

USCC with minorities became an important issue discussed at the

February 1971 meeting. At this time the Advisory Council recommended

to the Administrative Board that it invite the National Office for Black

26



Catholics to enter into “dialogue with a competent committee of bishops

in order to restudy the budget requests of NOBC in a spirit of realistic

dialogue toward the goal of funding adequate to need."

As a result of these recommendations, a special committee of bishops

met with the executive committee of the NOBC in Detroit. Further meet-

ings were subsequently held between the ad hoc committee and NOBC.

Funds which had been allocated ($150,000 from Conference funds and

$50,000 from another source) were made available to the NOBC.

The council also addressed the needs of the Spanish-speaking com-

munity, commending the bishops for the transfer of the national office

for the Spanish-speaking to Washington, so that more effective means

of communication with USCC, governmental and other agencies could

be maintained.

The council recommended the appointment of diocesan directors for

the Spanish-speaking in places where there were significant numbers of

Spanish-speaking people. It urged that these diocesan directors seek

out the needs and be responsive to the particular problems of the Span-

ish-speaking people on the local level.

It was also requested of the Administrative Board that it brought to

the attention of the NCCB that serious efforts should be made without

delay to promote the appointment of Black and Hispanic-American

Ordinaries in the United States.

The Campaign for Human Development was a major agenda item

during the September, 1971, meeting. A report was presented to the

Council by Father Robert Monticello, the ’newly appointed Executive

Director of the CHD. He gave an extensive summary of CHD’s allocation

of funds, its educational endeavors, administrative functions, promo-

tional activites, membership and budget. The Advisory Council was

then given the opportunity to present specific recommendations to the

Administrative Board concerning the CHD.

One of the Advisory Council's concerns was that the Campaign for

Human Development shun the image of being solely the bishops' anti-

poverty campaign. The image of the CHD as a program of the entire

Catholic community was stressed in press releases. It was also recom-

mended that publicity and follow-up programs should be incorporated

to advise the contributors on how their monies were spent. Follow-ups on

specific proposals were recommended to evaluate compliance of actions

with objectives. The Administrative Board referred the council’s recom-

mendations to the National Committee for the Campaign for Human

Development, and it was reported that most of these recommendations

were acted upon favorably.

27



With the Synod of Bishops only a few weeks away, there was a strong

interest in international affairs and the topic of justice at the September

meeting. The council proposed to the Administrative Board that it con-

sider setting up a symposium on A Call to Action, Pope Paul’s recently

published letter on justice, and the documents on justice in the world

which would come out of the 1971 Synod. In his response to the

Advisory Council, the General Secretary reported that such action was

under consideration by the Committee on International Affairs and the

Committee on Social Development.

Sister Marie Augusta Neal, attempting to raise the consciousness of

the Council and the bishops to the needs of women, proposed a recom-

mendation to Cardinal Dearden that the American bishops request that

at least one woman religious and one lay woman from the United States

be invited to attend the Synod and that they ask that women from other

areas of the world also be invited. The rationale for this was that justice

was a key topic of the Synod, and one of the justice problems of the

world is the position of women. Women form about half the People of

God in whose service the Synod meets; and men other than bishops

have been invited to participate in the Synod, and, therefore, women

want to be represented as well. This resolution passed with a vote of

29 in favor, one opposed, and one abstention. It was the response of

the bishops that invitations to participate or act as observers to the

Synod were considered the exclusive right of the Holy See and outside

the purview of individual prelates or conferences of bishops.

While these are only a few of the discussions and recommendations

of the Advisory Council which took place during my chairmanship, the

deliberations of the council during that time encompassed many of the

activities of the departments and divisions of the USCC. The deep

commitment that each member of the council—bishop, priest, religious,

lay man and woman alike—has for the continuing renewal and growth

of the Church and the betterment of all men was apparent in the dis-

cussions of the council. Decisions, even those which were unanimous

or close to unanimous, were reached only after discussions which must

be described as tough-minded and hard-hitting, while being pervaded

by charity. However, no matter how heated a debate might be, there was

a common factor of a very real and dedicated love for the Church.

The evening social hour was of great importance to the success of

the council. It was not uncommon for members to share their feelings,

insights, encouragements and disappointments concerning the Church

and the People of God with one another until the early hours of the

morning.

These periods of relaxation, daily liturgies and the willingness of the

council members to share in fellowship with one another helped to create

28



a praying and witnessing community. The Advisory Council has become

an effective force in the deliberations of the Catholic Church because

it is such a community. An expired term on the council does not mean a

severance from it. If the Advisory Council is able to keep this spirit, a

great deal can happen in the Church today.

29



A NEW MANDATE: 1972

By Joseph H. Maguire

1972 was the last year that the United States Catholic Bishops'

Advisory Council was comprised entirely of persons who had been

members since its inception in 1969. The officers for 1972 were

myself, chairman; David Doherty of Pontiac, Mich., vice chairman; and

Mrs. John M. Merlo of Chicago, secretary.

One of the most important developments, perhaps the most important,

in the workings of the council was the enlargement of its mandate from

the United States Catholic Conference alone, to the problems and issues

of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops as well. This had been

sought for a long time by many of the members, and it eliminated one

tension from the preceding years, the hesitation about crossing into

what might be termed “NCCB territory.” The enlargement of the man-

date was taken by the members of the council as a manifestation of

support and confidence in its work. The work of the Steering Committee

concerned with the study of the feasibility of a National Pastoral Council

had led strongly in this direction.

Early in 1972 it was decided to extend to Cardinal Krol, President

of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States

Catholic Conference, an invitation to come to the February meeting of

the council. His Eminence accepted the invitation, came to the meeting

and spoke to the membership. He also was principal celebrant of the

Eucharist and remained for dinner. This visit was important because

it gave the members a much better insight into the hopes and ideas

of the conference president and made him more sensitively aware of

the persons comprising the council and the methods of their interaction.

An invitation was extended to His Eminence, Cardinal Shehan, Arch-

bishop of Baltimore, to join the council for the Eucharist and for dinner

at the fall, 1972, meeting. This was done largely because so many of

the meetings of the council had been held in his archdiocese at Marriotts-

ville. He accepted the invitation and came to one evening of the meeting

for Mass and dinner.

Since the early days of the council attempts had been made to have

by-laws formed and accepted. It was not until 1972 that these by-

laws were finally ratified by the membership. It is a tribute to the con-

30



cern and genuine care of the membership that the council functioned

so well for so long without these rather necessary aids to good order.

Another problem which had manifested itself and which was remedied

in 1972 was the question of when and how to replace members and how

to fill vacancies. In the time since 1969 approximately 15 persons

had either resigned, been removed for non-attendance, or become less

than optimally effective because of irregular attendance. In 1972 for

the first time, charter members left the council, having completed terms

of service, and procedures were established by the council for its

restructuring and the replacement of members. These changes were

accepted by t! e Administrative Committee of the NCCB. It is important

to mention here that, while the absence of so many members made for

difficulties in '•eoresenting the People of God in the various states of

life, geographical regions, etc., the members present did manifest

in their comments and interventions a sense of awareness of the needs

of the whole Church in this country. Often questions or remarks would

be framed in terms of how such an issue would affect this or that

group—a group sometimes not clearly and directly represented in the

active membership of the council.

The Advisory Council had become, and continued to develop as, a

praying and loving community with a real interest in the needs of the

Church. Each session gave several opportunities for group and in-

dividual prayer. Differences of opinion would be stated firmly but always

without rancor. The spirit present while members were at prayer sur-

vived and permeated while they were at work in meetings, discussion

groups and committees.

One of the requests made prior to 1972 by the Steering Committee

concerned the presence of observers at the semi-annual meetings of the

bishops. In 1972 the bishops allowed observers for the first time.

There were representatives of priests, religious and laity. There were

five representatives of the laity and these were chosen from the mem-

bership of the Advisory Council. The same members observed at the

spring and fall meetings (held in Atlanta and Washington, respectively).

Those who participated in this historic development were Mrs. John J.

Casey, Mr. David Doherty, Mrs. Sabas B. Gonzales, Mr. Joseph H.

Maguire, and Mr. Charles Tildon.

In 1972, especially but not exclusively because of the expanded

mandate to the council, members seized the initiative more than had

previously been the case in suggesting items for the agenda. This

was especially so in the preparation of the September meeting.

Some of the concerns of the council were of an ongoing and con-

tinuing nature; others would appear only once on the agenda. One of the

former was the Priestly Life and Ministry Study. Msgr. Colin Mac-

31



Donald, a member of the council, was also director of the secretariat

of the bishops’ ad hoc Committee for Implementation of the Study.

Publication of the summaries of studies from the historical, sociological

and psychological points of view was urged by the council. An example

of the latter would be the proposed reorganization chart submitted for

the USCC. Father James Rausch, Associate General Secretary of the

conference, made the presentation concerning the justification and

reasons for such a reorganization, and the council divided into small

groups for more detailed study and reported to the assembly. The

assembly accepted the reorganization and made its report to the Ad-

ministrative Board of USCC reflect that it had heard all the small group

reports and had incorporated these.

Sometimes items were proposed which did not receive the considera-

tion of the council because the council honestly felt unable to handle

the topic. One such topic, topic of great concern to the members but of

professional concern to (and within the professional ken of) only a few

of them, was religious education. The council conveyed to the admin-

istrative bodies of the bishops its concern and yet its unwillingness to

enter where it, to a significant degree, lacked a highly professional

competence.

One of the actions taken in the February meeting was the appointment

of a committee (Sister Marie Augusta Neal, chairperson, Father Kevin

O’Rourke and Mr. William Toomey) to study the accomplishments,

methods and future directions of the council. The report of the com-

mittee was submitted after the September meeting.

In considering the reorganization of the USCC, the membership time

and again pointed to the role of the minorities and their interests and

asked how these would or would not be served or served more effectively.

The council also showed some dissatisfaction with or lack of understand-

ing of the division between NCCB and USCC. Another reaction heard

frequently was the belief that the USCC should function within its budget.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the work of the council

during the tenure of any chairman without discussing at least a little the

work of the Steering Committee. Recommendations at the spring, 1972,

meeting were that the bishops discuss diocesan, regional and national

pastoral councils at their regional meetings in Atlanta in April, 1972.

Another recommendation was that regional pastoral consultations be

held in the fall of 1972 concerning justice and peace. Suggestions

such as this surfaced at other times in the history of the council, and

it is interesting to note that the NCCB Bicentennial observance will see

a national conference on justice and peace.

The September, 1972, meeting referred a number of questions and

recommendations to the Administrative Board of the USCC to be given

32



to the USCC Committee on Communications for consideration and

study. These were given with a view toward a more thorough imple-

mentation of the Vatican’s Pastoral Instruction on Social Communications.

These included: “Should the Catholic Press merit a subsidy? . . . The

high blown, feudal style of address and language common to papal

documents should be changed. ... All forms of censorship should be

publicly rejected, except in extreme cases. . . . How do we provide access

to the media for the powerless? . . . How does the Church effort become

a supporter of legitimate protest through use of the media of communi-

cation and her channels of education? . . . How can the decision-making

processes in the Church be improved so that concerned people can be

made aware of the process and offer suggestions in the spirit of pro-

ductive communications? . . . (This is especially true of decisions made

by Roman congregations which concern the life of Catholics in the

U.S.A.)”

One item discussed at length and with intensity was submitted to

the agenda by one of the members and was timely because of news

reports concerning Catholics living in doubtfully valid (but “good faith’’)

marriages. Critical of the tribunal system, desirous of a pastoral spirit

of love and mercy, sensitive to the respect for the indissolubility of mar-

riage and the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the council recommended

that the NCCB continue to explore this question together with the

Catholic Theological Society of America and the Canon Law Society of

America, with a view to developing radically improved procedures for

expediting marriage cases, perhaps even at the parish level, and

recommending such procedures to the Holy See. This motion was able

to receive the widespread support of the membership, including bishops,

priests, religious and laity.

Archbishop Whealon, a member of the Council, submitted to the

discussion and scrutiny of the council a document entitled: Basic Teach-

ing for Catholic Religous Education. This was done rather late in the

development of the document, but the council nonetheless voiced its

reservations strongly. After a long and heated discussion, a resolution

was passed (21 in favor, 6 opposed, 3 abstentions—a very unusual vote

for the council, which seldom had more than one or two negatives and

one or two abstentions) which noted the far-reaching pastoral implica-

tions of the document; its style, content and timeliness; and the de-

velopment and existence of the General Catechetical Directory and the

U.S. National Catechetical Directory. It recommended that the NCCB

neither adopt nor promulgate the document in its present form, and it

also suggested that if such a document were to be issued in the future

it be recast to include a strong emphasis on the prophetic role of the

Church’s mission and be published in such a way as to show that it is

supportive of the best efforts of religious education. All of this from a

council which had on some occasions claimed a lack of expertise in

33



religious education! It certainly reflected the ability and willingness of

the members to learn, to undertake careful attention to those with ex-

pertise and then to act. Many manifested a strongly negative sense

about the document.

Despite this, it was clearly evident that Archbishop Whealon, one of

the principal authors of the document, was cherished and yes, even

admired, for submitting it to the scrutiny of the council even though

it had not originally been on the agenda. The recommendations made

were not ultimately accepted by the Administrative Committee, but they

were carefully reviewed and this was well understood by the member-

ship. Advice is only that; it should be considered and evaluated; it

need not always be accepted.

At its September meeting, the council heard brief reports concerning

the Campaign for Human Development and the Division for the Spanish

Speaking and requested in-depth reports at the first meeting in 1973.

The council had been briefed frequently on these two areas and it felt

that the time was ripe for an extensive review. The council also stated

its support for the efforts of the conference concerning equality of

educational opportunity for all Americans with particular reference to

busing.

A somewhat divided vote (17 for, six against and two opposed) was

passed supporting enabling legislation to permit the recitation in public

schools of any of a number of nondenominational prayers composed

by religious leaders in interfaith and ecumenical fashion so as not to

offend any theology or person, with such prayers being optional for

each student. The council held that this should be accompanied by a

total look at the impact of religious activity on social developments in

this country.

The membership often has the problem of having too many topics for

discussion and too little time in which to treat them. One of these was

the question, raised during a Sunday morning meeting, of provisions

for retired priests and religious. There was great concern for the proper

maintenance of these persons in a state of care that would satisfy their

needs and the needs of justice and charity, to say nothing of gratitude.

The concern was communicated to the Administrative Committee.

Bishop Borders, a member of the council, authored a report entitled:

The Responsibility of the Church to Develop a Realistic Ecclesial Atmos-

phere Congenial to the Life Style of Youth. The council came time and

again to a concern for youth and its relationship to the Church. Many

times questions concerning credibility of the Church were raised. The

council asked that the statement of Bishop Borders be made available

to all bishops and that youth and the Church be considered seriously

as a topic for the spring, 1973, regional meetings of the bishops. Both

of these things were, in fact, done.

34



The reorganization of the council, finally resolved in the September,

1972, meeting, called for a total membership of 60, divided as follows:

12 laymen, 12 laywomen, six bishops and alternates, six priests and

alternates, six religious men and women with alternates, and 18 at-large

members, including two bishops. Minorities, youth, and other groups

would be chosen for representation among the at-large delegates if not

already satisfactorily represented.

Elected to serve as officers for 1973 were: David Doherty, chairman;

Sister Angelita Myerscough, vice chairperson; and Mr. Everett Cahill,

secretary.

At the end of 1972 the council began to replace some of its original

members with newly chosen persons. The council was well on the way

to fulfilling many of the hopes of those who had seen its birth. Now,

on many occasions, references would be heard to the discussions and

conclusions of the council—at meetings of the various committees of

the conference, at the general meetings of the bishops, and in other

forums. The council works with rather little publicity, but it does guaran-

tee an intensity of consultation and evaluation on the work and plans

of the conference that would be difficult to replace. The membership has

proven itself deeply interested in many areas of concern and motivated

by a love for the Church. It supports and it opposes—both openly, both

prayerfully, and both thoughtfully. The respect that has grown among

the members and between the members and the bishops is a good

testimony of this.

I spoke in 1971 to the Administrative Board of USCC in reporting on

one of the sessions of the council. I began my remarks with the words:

“My Brothers. If these words of greeting are inappropriate, neither of us

belongs here; if the greeting is appropriate, both of us—bishops and

representatives of the Advisory Council—have reason to be here.” I

stayed, as did the bishops. There was, and is, reason for both to stay.

35



A YEAR OF TRANSITION: 1973

By David J. Doherty

The development and maturation of the U.S. Catholic Bishops'

Advisory Council during its first five years of existence has been a true

sign of the continuing development of the American Catholic Church

as it continues to strive, not always in harmony of effort but usually in

harmony of purpose, to be sensitive to the will of the Holy Spirit and to

meet the needs of the people of God in an ever more rapidly changing

society.

1973 was a year of transition for the Advisory Council. It was the first

year in which new members replaced original members, creating both

an air of sadness at the departure of so many close friends and col-

leagues and a sense of anticipation at the realization that the spirit of

Christian community which epitomized the original council would be

more difficult to attain. Whereas the original membership had been

together for more than five years without change, all subsequent bodies

would face a one-third attrition each year and would never be together

as an entire group for more than a single year.

1973 was a year of assessment and evaluation. The council received

the evaluation report of its ad hoc committee which analyzed the efforts,

organization and procedures of the council to date and at the same time

expanded its membership, altered the representation, changed the

system of election-selection to one of direct election, an^ approved

formal by-laws.

It was a year of wonderment at the crises and frustrations that had

been overcome through the help of the Holy Spirit and an honest,

earnest, and rewarding pursuit of community prayer.

It was a year of thanksgiving that this most broadly representative

body of American Catholics constituted by so many talented people of

broadly diverse persuasions could represent often strongly divergent

opinions in a spirit of mutual respect and Christian love.

It was a year of total turnover among the bishop-members, with

all 10 bishops being replaced at the same time, a decision that probably

would not have been repeated. It was, however, providential that John

Cardinal Dearden, who inspired the birth of the council and shepherded

it through several periods of trauma, was himself elected to the council.

36



He was then able to host the first meeting of new members in the

Archdiocese of Detroit, present an orientation, place the council in

perspective, and renew its hope for the future as a prime developer and

practitioner of shared responsibility motivated by mutual Christian

concern.

While 1973 was a year of transition, it was no less a year of pro-

ductivity and debate on several major issues and actions. To explain

adequately the significance of council actions it seems appropriate to

comment on the process of the organization. The Advisory Council

agenda is totally unrestricted. There is no issue of concern to the

American Catholic Church to which the council cannot address itself and

which it cannot, in turn, bring to the direct attention of the National

Conference of Catholic Bishops and/or the United States Catholic Con-

ference.

Much of the agenda, however, is dictated by the necessity to react and

advise the bishops on issues which they have placed on their own agenda

for immediate action at their impending meetings. The imminence of

formal action by the bishops and the timeliness of many of these items

dictate Advisory Council priority. In addition to these issues, the mem-

bership can and does present its own concerns for the attention of the

bishops. The staffs of the USCC and of the NCCB also keep the Ad-

visory Council apprised of major issues under study by the several

bishops’ committees.

The bishops are influenced in several ways by Advisory Council de-

cisions and recommendations. First, through the formal channel of

Advisory Council communication, all recommendations are presented

by an officer of the council both orally and in writing to the respective

administrative bodies the USCC and NCCB. The bishops normally take

this opportunity to ask questions, get a sense of the council vote and

rationale for its position.

A second important avenue of communication and awareness is the

influence of bishop members of the Advisory Council on their brother

bishops, particularly those who serve on either of the respective admin-

istrative bodies. This form of influence cannot be valued too highly.

The bishops who have participated to date on the council seem to have

made the greatest adjustment among the membership in terms of

evolving participation, sense of belonging, confidence in the openness

and respect of the council, and advocacy for the process and the council’s

credibility in terms of sincerity, knowledge, preparation and prayerful-

ness. This relationship and the increasing number of bishops who have

had an opportunity to share it is, perhaps, the most meaningful though

subtle level of influence for the Advisory Council.

A third level of influence is exerted through strong and continuous

37



communication by the NCCB/USCC staff to the bishops. The staff

members are constant advocates for the process of shared responsibility

and serve most effectively as facilitators of that process.

A fourth conduit of communication has developed to a limited extent

during the past three years. That is the Advisory Council’s role as the

principal lay observer of the bishops’ general meetings as well as

their regional meetings. While the need stiil exists to define and clarify

the role of the observers, there is a unique opportunity for several

members of the Advisory Council to become acquainted and participate

with a large number of bishops in a more or less informal manner. It is

possible that through some systematic effort the members of the Advisory

Council could in a few years introduce themselves and have a brief

discussion with each and every bishop in the country. There is an even

stronger possibility of this at the regional bishops’ meetings.

Finally, there is a continuing opportunity for each member of the

council to communicate directly with his or her own bishop or with the

bishops of his or her region. This opportunity to establish a personal

relationship as well as to discuss specific issues of concern helps im-

measurably in increasing the understanding and confidence of the

bishops toward the work of the Advisory Council.

Issues of Action and Debate

1973 was highlighted by discussion and action on several important

issues.

1) Recommendations to the bishops concerning a National
Pastoral

Council and the establishment of an Office for Shared Responsibility.

While the NPC study is documented in detail in a separate section, it

is important to highlight a few aspects in the context of 1973.

At the 1973 fall meeting of the council four models for consideration

as a national pastoral council were completed and given to the bishops

in order to keep the idea of an NPC clearly in focus. In an effort to

salvage the concept and buy time, the council also urged the bishops by

a vote of 55 yes, 0 no, and 3 abstentions to establish an office on shared

responsibility within the NCCB. This action was taken in recognition

of the lack of preparedness among Catholics at large for an NPC and

the necessity for the bishops to move on several fronts in assisting their

people to understand better and develop a commitment to shared re-

sponsibility.

The decision of the Advisory Council was, first, to present the shared

responsibility recommendation without tying it to the goal of a NPC,

and, second, to present a detailed analysis of the NPC study including

the concerns of the council for the negative publicity given NPC’s by
the

Sacred Congregation of the Clergy, and then to seek a renewed
commit-

ment from the NCCB Administrative Committee.

The report presented to the NCCB was outlined as follows:

38



A. Shared responsibility office

B. Workshop for diocesan pastoral councils

C. Training program for members of diocesan pastoral councils and
parish councils

D. Preamble and presentation of models for a National Pastoral
Council

E. Observations of regional bishops’ meetings

F. Recommendations on the structure and dynamics of an NPC as a
result of the regional experience

The strategy of the Advisory Council was to place priority on obtaining
the bishops' support for the promulgation of the concept of shared re-
sponsibility and for the strengthening of diocesan pastoral councils and
the regional experience, then to test their present commitment to an
NPC.

The result was clear. The bishops did support the effort toward
shared responsibility and the strengthening in local dioceses of diocesan
pastoral councils. They also dealt a serious blow to hopes for an NPC
in the immediate future based largely on four considerations: 1) on the
Advisory Council's original statement of two years before that an NPC
was not feasible at this time; 2) on recent statements by Rome pertain-
ing to the desirability of National Pastoral Councils; 3) on the need for
further development of diocesan councils; and 4) on their own uncer-
tainty over precisely what an NPC would entail.

2) The Advisory Council took specific action to encourage the bishops
to give greater priority to the Spanish-speaking Catholics in terms of
pastoral concerns at all levels, encouragement of vocations, and appoint-
ments to positions of high trust and decision making responsibility.
Since the very first meeting of the council, the Spanish-speaking issue
has received the most constant attention of any presented to the
council. The Advisory Council has demonstrated great concern for the
plight of Spanish-speaking Catholics and has submitted several recom-
mendations on their behalf prior to 1973.

3) The Campaign for Human Development, while under the direct
jurisdiction of its own advisory committee, nevertheless came under
the general purview of the Advisory Council. Since one of the council
members was also on the Campaign committee, it was convenient to
receive a report of progress and difficulties at each council meeting.
However, two in-depth presentations were also made to the council by
the staff of the Campaign. The presentation at the spring meeting in
Detroit prompted a lengthy series of recommendations, ranging from
program direction to operation maintenance. These recommendations
were not only well received by the bishops but were appreciated and
acted upon by the staff of the Campaign. The efforts of the Campaign

39



staff to keep the Advisory Council well informed were a tribute to their

desire to render service in the most complete way possible.

4) While more than a score of issues received the
specific attention

of the council in the two 1973 meetings, several generated very strong

reaction. These included: a) opposition to the manner in which the

decision on First Communion before first confession was communicated

to the American bishops without proper acknowledgment of the practice

of collegiality or the principle of subsidiarity; b) council support
for an

extension of the American norms for marriage tribunals (an issue

which surfaced at council meetings on more than one occasion); c) con-

cern over unreasonable delays in granting the laicization of priests;
and

d) council support for favorable consideration by the
NCCB of the

recommendations in the study by the ad hoc Committee for Priestly Life

and Ministry. In each of the above issues the sentiment
expressed by

the council received an exceptionally strong vote of support.

5) Several major presentations were
given to the Advisory Council

by the staff and by members themselves. These prompted some initial

reaction in the form of recommendations and resolutions, but
more

often than not they served to pave the way for future discussion
and

action. This is an effective means of planting a seed and providing

basic information to allow the council to delve into the
issue at a later

date. Among the most significant issues presented in 1973 were:

liturgy and worship, Church and youth, prison reform, quality
of life,

and corporate responsibility.

As this year of transition drew to a close it was apparent that
the new

members had been successfully assimilated into the council and
were

bringing a fresh dimension to its discussions. The reorganization
ap-

peared to be a healthy move in terms of direct constituent representation

and accountability. The council had for some time wrestled
with the

problem of insufficent exposure to the average American
Catholic.

Although press releases and issues of special import did allow
broader

coverage, the concept of direct elections emanating from each
diocese

to the 12 regions could in the long run encourage
more local interest

in the activities of the council.

One of the major challenges presented by the transition
was the

maintenance of continuity provided by the constant
membership of the

first five years. This is an organizational challenge
that will demand

attention. However, the commitment and the sense of purpose
remain

and these represent the hope for the council and what it
represents to

the American Church. The shelving of plans for a
National Pastoral

Council in 1973 could give significant impetus to the
evolution of the

Advisory Council toward an even more representative body
making an

even greater contribution to the development of
shared responsibility

within the Church.

40



The United States Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Council is a microcosm

of the total American Church and must see itself as a constantly chang-

ing organization responding to the changing needs of the Church.

While the evolution of the Advisory Council through its first five years

was probably more rapid than it will be in the future, it will remain

a major challenge of its membership and of the bishops themselves to

see that the council not only fulfills its role of advising but continues

its natural evolution according to the needs of the people of God.

This sensitivity to the will of the Spirit can only be maintained and

sharpened by a continued emphasis within the council on community

prayer and mutual support. This, perhaps, is the primary legacy of the

first five years of council experience.

41



THE END OF THE BEGINNING: 1974

By William A. Toomey, Jr.

1974 was the end of the beginning. The last 12 of the original

members called together in the spring of 1969 to embark on a journey

of shared responsibility in the Church in the United States came to the

end of their terms on the Advisory Council. History is always written

in the perspective of the writer, and thus is this chapter in the life of

the council set to words.

Five years of continuous exposure to our brothers in Christ of Mexican

American cultural background resulted in the selection of San Antonio,

Tex., as the site for the first meeting of the council in 1974. Father

Virgil Elizondo, vice chairperson, acted as host and arranged a meeting

that warmly received the members and gave all a greater appreciation

of the beauty and deep faith of the people of Mexican heritage. Sixteen

new members had an opportunity to become assimilated into the

council and hear from a council member who gave the original orienta-

tion in 1969—John Cardinal Dearden. Of special note in his talk was

the concern that the council, through the elective process, not become

populated with “common denominators.” The Church is diverse; so

must those be who would be representative and of value to the bishops.

The new members’ backgrounds, when viewed in light of the backgrounds

of those elected the year before, seemed to have similarities. The ex-

perience of the year proved that the similarities extended into the

deliberations of the council, a situation not completely pleasing to

some members.

The council addressed itself to the matters of the NCCB and passed

along concerns about the International Eucharistic Congress scheduled

for 1976 in the United States; the Bicentennial celebration of the

Church; the release for publication of all the new prayer forms in the

new Sacramentary; the Scripture texts and the new Sacramental rites;

the release of the report of the bishops’ ad hoc Committee for Priestly

Life and Ministry; the willingness of the bishops to release the pastoral

on our Blessed Mother “Behold Your Mother”; the National Catechetical

Directory; the continued fight for quality of life; and the spring regional

meetings of the bishops.

The council, in order to be of greater assistance in the preparation

of the National Catechetical Directory, constituted an ad hoc committee

to study the documents and report back to the body at future meetings.

In response to inquiries and comments of regional chairmen and bishops

42



concerning the procedures for the election of council members on a

regional basis, a new procedure was suggested. The basic element of the

procedure was to utilize the spring regional meetings as a forum for

the selection. This was not deemed advisable at this time by the NCCB.

The Steering Committee for a National Pastoral Council, in reflection

on the response of the NCCB to its recommendations concerning the

NPC, reported to the council that its task had been completed. The

council, ever concerned about the theological principles of shared re-

sponsibility, voted to bring into being its first permanent committee, a

Committee on Shared Responsibility. The council requested that the

NCCB set up an Office on Shared Responsibility in Washington within

the structure of the NCCB/USCC. Assistance in securing funds for this

office was promised by the council. This was rejected by the NCCB.

The council discussed the documentation of the USCC and made recom-

mendations concerning: statements on Chile and South Vietnam; the

policy of issuing statements on international justice issues; international

development assistance; and the need to give greater emphasis to the

pastoral problems of the Spanish-speaking.

The council heard a report on international concerns of USCC from

Father J. Bryan Hehir, Director of the conference’s Division of Justice

and Peace. The report demonstrated to the council that the Church now

had expertise in central staff that would be of great assistance in bring-

ing the message of the Gospel to the problems of today in a manner

understandable by all the People of God.

The 11th meeting of the council continued to upset many of the

members who had expressed concern about the way the council operated

to arrive at a report that was to give advice to the bishops. The council

struggled with an agenda that was without major issues of the day,

primarily because it was geared to the agendas of the Administrative

Committee and Administrative Board. Members expressed a desire to

have resolutions more formalized and arising out of the documentation

and not from the interest of an individual.

Following the meeting the majority of council members were invited

to participate in the spring regional meetings of the NCCB. In some

regions members were given an opportunity to speak about the council,

thus attempting to meet a continuing self-evaluation problem: belonging

to a council that had influence but which was relatively unknown in the

country.

The agenda committee met in mid-July to set the agenda. The docu-

mentation from the NCCB and USCC was expected to be heavy, with

many items to be considered. The staff priests, as in the past, par-

ticipated in the agenda meeting. This participation tended to affect

strongly the direction of the agenda toward consideration of certain

43



items. A long-time interest of the council in the work of Catholic Relief

Services finally resulted in the scheduling of a presentation by its director

for the fall, 1974, meeting of the council. This was timely considering the

Church’s concern for world food problems.

The fall meeting returned to Marriottsville, Md., a site that was be-

coming the unofficial headquarters for the council. A new format was

used to insure that all resolutions would be before the council, at least

in preliminary form, by Saturday afternoon. Further, to meet the desire

to bring grassroot concerns to the attention of the bishops, time was

allotted to discuss issues proposed in advance by the members. The

method was to be similar to the varia of the bishops’ meetings.

The council reviewed items of the NCCB documentation and presented

resolutions on: a theme for the 1976 Eucharistic Congress; the ad hoc

Committee on Women in Society and the Church; complete openness

regarding women in the ministry in the Church; the Catholic University

of America; selection of a lay person to speak on “Renewal of Faith”

at the Bishops' meeting; the permanent diaconate; matters of concern

to pro-life endeavors; the Holy Year; priestly formation program; report

of the Bishop’s Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs;

continued format of spring regional meetings; and rededication to the

concepts of shared responsibility. Seven concerns of the membership

were reported to the NCCB.

The council formally voted to express concerns to the USCC on: the

housing and urban crisis; the Montezuma Seminary question; the Com-

mittee on Education and its Family Life section; Catholic Relief Services

and the world hunger crisis; Committee on Social Development and

World Peace on the world food crisis; amnesty; the Respect Life pro-

gram of the Department of Education; the National Disaster Relief

Committee report. Two concerns of the membership were reported to

the USCC. The most intense discussion of the meeting concerned the

question of amnesty.

The meeting was honored by the appearance and presentation of

Archbishop Jean Jadot, Apostolic Delegate in the United States. His

remarks were warm, filled with pastoral concerns and direction for the

council. The questions to him were met with candor, wit and a sense

of great awareness of the problems facing the Church in the United

States.

The format adopted resulted in a more orderly handling of the busi-

ness of the council. The chair at times was commanding in order that

the agenda be completed. As is usual when people are attending their

second meeting, many participated who had not participated at the

previous meeting. However, the membership of so many from the same

national organization, National Council of Catholic Women, tended to

44



rob the council of diverse thinking that is so necessary to meet the

challenges facing the Church today. The sharp differences that existed

in councils of the past did not surface in 1974.

Elections for officers for 1975 resulted in the choice of Steven

Landregan as chairperson, Dan Rupp as vice chairperson, and Teddy

Nardi as secretary. Landregan and Nardi were elected in their first

year of membership. Thus continued the practice of electing a layman

as chairperson. The council membership, when called upon to elect

members to represent it at the bishops’ annual meeting, selected the

outgoing and incoming officers, who were lay people. Some confusion

arose over the role of the observers to the bishops’ meeting and a new

vote was suggested. This should be discussed in a future meeting in

order that the council be best represented. A by-law change was passed

to allow the immediate past chairperson to remain on the council for one

year if his or her term would otherwise expire.

The necessary steps were taken to insure the election of regional

representatives to replace those whose terms ended. An at-large selection

committee was elected and given the suggestion that two people identi-

fied with Indian life and capable of speaking for Native Americans be

selected for membership.

The council has prospered because of a desire on the part of those

who have enjoyed membership and through the guiding spirit of the

Lord as called upon by the prayers of the membership, especially as

led in those prayers by Sister Dominga Zapata.

The year concluded with the participation of five council members

as observers at the bishops’ meeting and the chairing of the observers’

group by William Toomey. The council members were well received by

the bishops and were much more knowledgeable about the matters being

discussed by the bishops than the other observers. Teddy Nardi was

elected by the observers to give the report to the general meeting.

The role of the chairperson is to move the council through the busi-

ness of the council and strive for participation by all those who are

members and have something to contribute. This role could not have

been fulfilled without the dedication of Dolores Gilmore, council secre-

tary.

45



CONCERN FOR THE

POOR AND UNDERPRIVILEGED

By Helen M. Casey

Throughout the first five years of the Advisory Council, concern for

the poor and underprivileged was a top priority. There was no meeting,

beyond the initial organizational meeting, in which such concern was

not reflected in one or more actions. It was manifested in the early

years of the council through the reports of the various study groups

which paralleled the USCC departmental committee structure at that

time, viz., Social Development, Christian Formation, International Af-

fairs, Health Affairs, Communications. These various reports were

discussed, amended and then adopted by the whole group for submission

to the Administrative Board. It was manifested also in responding to

specific topics, such as the Black Manifesto.

Probably the most prominent programs, encompassing the whole

spectrum of poverty problems, into which the Advisory Council has had

considerable input are the Campaign for Human Development and the

justice conference as part of the Bicentennial observation. In the

case of the former, the Advisory Council’s initial input came after the

decision by the bishops to establish CHD; however, in the latter, the

Advisory Council itself had a major role in pushing for a justice con-

ference over a period of several meetings.

CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

At the September, 1970, meeting the Campaign for Human Develop-

ment was first presented to the Advisory Council. CHD had been pro-

posed by the NCCB at its November, 1969, meeting and authorized at

its April, 1970, meeting. The Advisory Council had the benefit of a

complete presentation of the concepts, structure, goals and promotional

and educational effort planned for the fall of 1970.

The Advisory Council enthusiastically endorsed CHD, giving special

emphasis to the educational phase of the campaign “as a means of

changing attitudes toward the poor, and of creating in the spirit of

renewal, a new sense of our commitment and responsibility as Chris-

tians.” The council also advised strongly that persons from minority

groups and regions be included on both the national committee and

46



staff. It recommended that the proposed executive and national com-

mittees be one and the same, but the proposal was not accepted by

the Administrative Board as being in the best interests of the campaign

goals.

In subsequent meetings, a report on CHD was always part of the

Advisory Council agenda, with continuing full support but also with

constructive criticism and suggestions.

At the February, 1971, meeting, particular concern was expressed

that the national committee did not appear to have enough poor persons

among its membership. The council also re-emphasized the importance

of the education program with an awareness of the sensitivities of poor

persons to assure their dignity.

The council was perceptive in urging even at this early date that

dioceses adopt the national criteria so as to strengthen CHD overall and

“establish a national unity in this area of concern.”

At the September, 1971, meeting Father Robert Monticello, executive

director, gave an extensive progress report on CHD which resulted in

a number of recommendations. These included suggestions on publicity

regarding funded programs, evaluation of funded programs, renewed

priority on the education dimension of CHD, outside evaluation of

entire CHD operation, a code of ethics for national committee members,

and exploring alternate funding for eligible and rejected proposals.

At the February and September, 1972, meetings crowded agendas

permitted only brief progress reports on CHD. At the February, 1973,

meeting, however, an entire evening was devoted to a multimedia

presentation which included oral reports, samplings of TV and radio

spots and films, printed materials and a panel discussion plus distribu-

tion of a specially prepared document entitled The Educational Thrust

of the Campaign for Human Development: A Progress Report 1970-1972.

This presentation generated the greatest amount of written input ever

received in council history, necessitating the establishment of a special

ad hoc committee to synthesize the input. The recommendations once

again expressed major concern that the educational dimension was lack-

ing implementation in many areas of the country. The council suggested

that the multi-media presentation be given to the bishops to familiarize

them with the excellent materials available. The council also was con-

cerned with delays on the part of some dioceses in transmitting funds

collected in order to facilitate planning of allocations. Finally, council

members committed themselves to personal support of CHD in their

own areas.

JUSTICE CONFERENCE

As far back as the second meeting of the Advisory Council in October,

47



1969, the council discussed the need of education of Catholic Americans

in understanding and responding to social justice.

The vehicle at that time was the opportunity to review the proposed

American bishops’ response to Pope Paul’s encyclical Populorum

Progressio. The International Relations Study Group report, endorsed

by the entire council, accepted with enthusiasm the objective, purpose

and intent of such a statement and the need of it in the United States

for Catholics in particular.

In the report to the Administrative Board on April 20, 1970, the

Advisory Council “recommended that the Department of International

Affairs be requested by the Administrative Board of USCC to conduct

or commission a study to formulate the objectives and concerns of the

Catholic Church in the United States in the international sphere, includ-

ing some discussion of the theology of development.” This recommenda-

tion was the first official statement, preparing the soil for a future justice

conference, to go to the body to whom the council reported.

At the September, 1970, meeting, the Advisory Council again affirmed

even more strongly that it “enthusiastically approves the request (from

Department of International Affairs) for a statement from the bishops”

on human solidarity.

The February, 1971, meeting saw further development of the council’s

concern for conscientization by means of recommendations in two

separate segments of its report to the Administrative Board on February

16, 1971.

The September, 1971, meeting, marked the planting of the seed of

a justice conference. The recommendation for the September 14, 1971,

Administrative Board meeting was for “the setting up of a symposium

on the 80th year letter—A Call to Action—and the documents which will
come from the Synod on Justice in the World, a conference similar to the

symposium on Pacem in Terris held in the United Nations building in

1964.” In response, the General Secretary reported that “the council’s

recommendation ... is under consideration in both the Committee

on International Affairs and the Committee on Social Development. In

the documentation for the Administrative Board meeting in February

(1972), it is proposed that the two committees work jointly on a national

conference on ‘Justice in the World.’ This, it is understood, would be

preceded by diocesan and/or regional conferences on the subject. If a

national conference is to be held, careful local planning and input will

be essential to its success and impact on the nation.”

A year later the General Secretary was able to state that the bishops

had approved the appointment of a committee charged with the total

planning of the participation of the Church in the observance of the

48



1976 Bicentennial and that this committee would assume responsibility

for the conferences on justice. Cardinal Dearden had accepted the

chairmanship and a search was underway for a project director.

WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AND SOCIETY

On two occasions, the Advisory Council submitted specific recom-

mendations.

The first was to the Administrative Board in September, 1971. The

Council strongly recommended that the American bishops request that

at least one woman religious and one lay woman from the United States

be invited to attend the upcoming synod and that they ask that women

from other areas of the world also be invited. Bishop Bernardin reported

that the recommendation was not acted upon because the right to invite

observers belonged exclusively to the Holy See.

The second recommendation went to the Administrative Committee

of NCCB in September, 1973. The intent was to strengthen the position

of women in the Church by some practical steps. The Advisory Council

recommended:

1. That the NCCB ad hoc committee on Women in Society and in

the Church have its status changed to a standing committee;

and that either some women be admitted as members of the

NCCB committees or that the committee be shifted from

NCCB to USCC.

2. That an office on Women in Society and the Church be estab-

lished at national headquarters, enabled to receive input and

facilitate the processing of the work of the committee.

3. That the Committee on Women in Society and the Church, as

quickly as possible, propose actions that would demonstrate a

genuine determination of the American Catholic Church to

realize in practice the full human dignity of women and their

competency in participating more actively in the life and

worship of the Church.

These recommendations were not regarded as feasible at the time be-

cause of structural and budgetary considerations.

Above I dealt with specific written recommendations submitted to

the Administrative Board or Committee. In the effort to be precise, much

of the flavor, emotion, and frank exchange of views among members

was necessarily lost. The very great diversity of the membership, not

only by categories such as bishops, priests, religious men and women,

and lay men and women, ethnic background, age, geographic location,

vocation, etc., but also the very life experiences and personalities of the

49



members created a mix that was guaranteed to be lively, at times even

explosive, but always in Christian charity.

Abundantly aware of the vast social disorders of poverty and injustice

both here and abroad, all were eager, at times impatient, that the

Church in the U.S. make these top priorities. This accounts for the

enthusiastic interest in the Campaign for Human Development, par-

ticularly in its education/attitude-changing aspects. It accounts also for

the persistent pushing for a justice conference which would be to the

Church in the United States what the Medellin Conference was to the

Church in Latin America.

There was a great deal of gentle but persistent reminding of the

often unrecognized discrimination against women in both Church and

society and a call for the Church to make its actions match its words

in this regard. It should be quickly added that there was strong support

for the liberation of women on the part of the majority of the men on

the council.

50



THE DECK WAS NOT STACKED

By Joseph A. Francis, S.V.D.

When I was first approached by Bishop Bernardin about serving on

the USCC Advisory Council, I was overjoyed but cautiously optimistic.

Being in the unique position of a black provincial in a large international

religious order and having had more exposure to the religious, civil and

educational community as a unique black person, I had some reserva-

tions.

I knew what I wanted, but I did not know what the hierarchy wanted

of me. Whatever it was they wanted, I was not so sure that I could give.

It was not that I was unsure of my ability and willingness to give, but

that I was uneasy in the thought that I might have to make too many

compromises that would destroy my credibility with the black com-

munity. I was afraid that my selection would be viewed as a classic

exercise of paternalism and that my contributions would be distilled to

the point of ineffectiveness.

Most of these fears were reinforced by our first meeting in Washing-

ton, D.C. I came away with no little sense of frustration. However, I

became curious to know more about the men and women who made up

the council and this fact alone gave me reason for hope.

The meetings in which we came to grips with the “Black Manifesto”

afforded me the opportunity to classify, in broad terms, members of the

council. This meeting was the testing ground and, as far as I am con-

cerned, it spelled the beginning of the council’s process of maturity and

it announced to the bishops and to the American Church that here was

a group of men and women who would be heard and whose loyalty to

the Church was unquestioned. While we disagreed on many aspects of

the Manifesto and what should be our response as a Church, we learned

to respect each other as persons with integrity and commitments. The

issue could have been something other than the Black Manifesto, but I

believe the group would have responded with equal enthusiasm, integrity

and commitment.

At this point in the life of the USCC Advisory Council the Church was

able to recognize a pluriformity of response indicative of a healthy

pluralism among the members. This indicated that the “deck was not

stacked.” From the very beginning it was obvious that the only people

who voted in blocks were the bishops, but later this was not the case.

51



Further, it was also obvious then, and continues to hold today, that more

bishops are not influenced by episcopal interventions or the manner in

which bishops vote.

If one were to ask me about the point in time when members of the

USCC Advisory Council became truly members of an ad hoc Christian

community, I would have to say it was in Kansas City. If one asks for

an identification of time when the bishops really were sure of the council

as trustworthy and useful, I would say that it was after the meeting in

Chicago when the National Pastoral Council was discussed by the most

diversified group in the history of the Catholic Church in America. It was

at this time that the unique consistency and temperateness of the coun-

cil was highlighted in the midst of the organized confusion of that

Chicago consultation. The decision of the hierarchy to make the coun-

cil advisory to the NCCB as well as the USCC marked the public acknowl-

edgement of the bishops that “the people are the Church.'’

I suppose it would be well at this point to isolate what I, as a black,

Catholic major religious superior would see as outstanding contributions

of the USCC Advisory Council to the Church in America.

1. The influence it exercised in the establishment of the Campaign for

Human Development. I am convinced that our discussion on the

Black Manifesto helped to sensitize the bishops to what the re-

sponse of the American Church should be.

2. The almost phenomenal, although belated, response to the

Spanish-speaking. The Spanish-speaking members made their

case clear and they were given support by all. It was at this point

that I recognized the greatness of many of our bishops, although

their posture was and still is far less liberal than mine or a fairly

large number of the council members.

3. The response of the council to the National Office for Black

Catholics, and that in spite of terribly bad relationships between

the NCCB and NOBC, was something that only the council could

do. To this extent it played the role of advocacy in reconciliation

and practical realism.

4. The willingness of the council to discuss participatory government

in the hierarchy by black and Spanish-speaking clergy opened the

way for frank and honest dialogue about the selection of bishops.

It took away the aura of magic and mythology which suppresses

and follows the process by which mortal men become bishops.

The process in which the council was engaged provided the bish-

ops an opportunity to see and conclude that there is a need for

wider consultation and input when priests are nominated for

the episcopacy.

52



5. Not so well defined and documented, but very much in evidence,

is the emergence of the role played by the women members of the

council. What is so fascinating about this happening is that

Spanish women, black women, white women, women religious

—

black, white, Spanish—young women, middle-aged women, etc.,
all responded as women—then with no let-up as women represent-

ing the various ethnic, professional, vocational and/orage cate-

gories mentioned. At this point I would presume to state that the

contribution of women and minority representatives was the single

most important fact of the council and the single most enriching

experience of the council.

6. While efforts were made to utilize a “youth” input, I felt that they

were far from successful.

7. Two of the most far-reaching inputs of this Council and assuredly

the most publicized were the roles it played in the feasibility study

on a National Pastoral Council and its support, at times stormy,

of the Ad Hoc Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry.

While there are other important facts to record and useful observa-

tions and assessments to be made, I shall conclude here.

I can honestly say that for me: “Happiness is being a member of

the USCC/NCCB Advisory Council.” It is one of the few groups of which

I know where “authority is exercised by serving and power is the means

of freeing men to love God and each other.”

53



THE ADVISORY COUNCIL

AND THE SPANISH SPEAKING

By Virgil P. Elizondo

From the very beginning, with the presence of Rosa Gonzales of

Corpus Christi, the council has shown growing interest and concern for

the pastoral needs of the Spanish-speaking and other minorities. It was

Rosa who moved the council to the realization that the Mexicans had

been made to feel as orphans within the North American Church. For

the most part they have been ignored and neglected in the mainstream

life of the Catholic Church in the United States.

Other voices from the Spanish-speaking community played a sig-

nificant role in the early days of the council. Among them were Reuben

Cardenas and Mrs. Odon Betanzos. The council’s commitment to

Spanish-speaking issues is recorded in a number of the papers in this

volume, and I shall not repeat what they say. Here I wish only to note a

few of the developments during the period of my own participation in

the council.

Members of the Advisory Council have shown an increasing concern

for the questions and problems of the Mexican American. They invited

Mr. Paul Sedillo, director of the USCC Division for the Spanish Speaking,

to make a major presentation at one of the semiannual meetings held in

Detroit in February, 1973. Following Mr. Sedillo’s presentation it was

the unanimous vote of the council that the Church should consider as a

top priority item its response to the Spanish-speaking.

In a special effort to become acquainted with the needs and questions

of the Spanish-speaking, the council made the dramatic move of having

its semiannual meeting in San Antonio, Tex., where it could take a

first-hand look at the conditions in which many of the Mexican Americans

live. Thus, in February of 1974 the council came to San Antonio for

their meeting. During its course the council members took advantage of

the occasion to tour many of the areas of San Antonio, to participate in

the liturgical celebrations of the Spanish-speaking, and to tour the

Mexican American Cultural Center where research and personnel forma-

tion has been going on for ministry in the bilingual, bicultural community.

At this meeting the council also recommended to the bishops that studies

be made for setting up a major endowment fund so that monies could

be used for programs in relation to the pastoral needs of the Spanish-

54



speaking. The council noted that even though many programs are con-

sidered urgent and necessary, when it comes to the point of funding

they die because no one seems to have the money for them. Thus, it

was deemed all-important to recommend to the bishops to set up a

major endowment fund for pastoral programs for the Spanish-speaking.

As of the writing of this article we have not heard from the bishops in

response.

There is also a sign of greater participation as more Spanish-speaking

Catholics have been added to the council within the past years. Begin-

ning with Rosa Gonzales, other members who have been added include:

Sister Dominga Zapata of Chicago, Mr. Filemon Vela of Brownsville, Tex.,

Mr. Gary Tijerina of San Antonio, and myself.

Through the meetings of the Advisory Council all the members have

been sensitized to the particular needs of the large percentage of the

American population which heretofore had remained the silent, suffering

minority. Many good and sincere Catholic leaders, who had before been

simply ignorant of the problems, have become quite concerned and are

moving to help the Church respond more effectively to the Mexican

American.

55



STUDY OF A NATIONAL

PASTORAL COUNCIL

By Sister Carol Frances Jegen, B.V.M.

The March, 1970, meeting of the Advisory Council in Kansas City,

Mo., was highly significant. That meeting has often been referred to by

council members as a real breakthrough in the identity of the Advisory

Council. The Christian community aspects of the council came into

clearer focus because new opportunities for mutual sharing, particularly

in prayer, were made possible at St. John’s Seminary.

It was helpful that the awareness of these community dimensions of

the Advisory Council had been heightened when the invitation was ex-

tended by Bishop Bernardin, General Secretary of the NCCB, to under-

take a study on the possible establishment of a National Pastoral Coun-

cil. From the beginning, Christian community implications became a

major part of the National Pastoral Council deliberations.

From the standpoint of the evolution of the Advisory Council, it should

be noted that the invitation to study a National Pastoral Council came

from the NCCB Administrative Committee rather than from the USCC

Administrative Board. At that time, the Advisory Council functioned only

in relation to the USCC. When the NCCB considered exploring a National

Pastoral Council and turned to the USCC's Advisory Council, the role of

the Advisory Council already had expanded somewhat beyond its original

design.

The resolution of the Advisory Council accepting the invitation of the

bishops to study the feasibility of a National Pastoral Council deserves

comment. Of special note are the references to “new channels of com-

munication”; fostering “creative contributions to the renewal of the

Church”; “the need to draw on the wisdom and experience” of as many

of the faithful as possible; and the importance of prayer permeating the

entire study. The four basic questions mentioned by Cardinal Dearden

in the invitation from the bishops were repeated in the Advisory Coun-

cil's acceptance resolution as major guidelines for the projected study:

—Exercise of shared responsibility
—Nature of a National Pastoral Council
—Determination of membership in such a council
—The relationship of a National Pastoral Council to other national

bodies

56



The extent of this new responsibility shouldered by the Advisory Coun-

cil was clear. Because the study could not be handled in depth by the

entire council, a Steering Committee of 15 persons was elected to under-

take the work. The committee included: 10 lay persons elected from and

by the lay members of the council; 1 woman religious elected by the

women religious members; 1 man religious elected by the men religious

members; 2 priests elected by the priest members; and 1 bishop elected

by the bishop members.

Two months after its election the Steering Committee met for the

first time and determined to sponsor an interdisciplinary consultation

before the end of the following summer. This consultation was the sug-

gestion of Avery Dulles, S.J., Advisory Council member, who had joined

the Steering Committee as a theological consultant. Excitement and

urgency were felt by the Committee to such an extent that this national

consultation was conceived and undertaken in an extraordinarily brief

period of time. In announcing the consultation, Msgr. J. Paul O’Connor,

chancellor of the Diocese of Youngstown and chairman of the Steering

Committee, described its two main objectives as follows:

First, to establish contact with organizations and individuals, in-

cluding those not identified with national Catholic groups, in order

to get their thinking on the subject of a National Pastoral Council.

Second, to generate information and ideas concerning a National

Pastoral Council and stimulate dialogue on the subject among as

many Catholics as possible.

The interdisciplinary consultation held at Mundelein College in

Chicago from August 29 to 31, 1970, to explore the possibility of a

National Pastoral Council had considerable historical significance for

the life of the Church in the United States. Probably no other meeting

has gathered together such a wide and diverse representation of the

people of God in working sessions designed to elicit open dialogue on

the future of the Church in our country. Representatives of 101 arch-

dioceses and dioceses and 36 national Catholic organizations responded

to the invitations which were sent across the land. These representatives

had the opportunity to listen and respond to scholars from the fields of

theology, canon law, Church history, and the social sciences as they

presented papers and reactions on various aspects of a National Pastoral

Council in the light of the history of Catholicism in the United States.

Additional helpful insights were contributed by a few members of

Protestant communions who were also invited. The consultation was not

solely an occasion of lectures, panels, and small group discussions, but

included prayerful reflection culminating in Eucharistic celebrations.

One of the major objectives of the Steering Committee in sponsoring

the consultation was to begin a process of serious reflection and dialogue

57



throughout the Church in the United States as to the desirability and

feasibility of a National Pastoral Council. Feedback from such wide-

spread deliberation was considered of utmost importance. Consequently,

two publications emerged from the consultation and were distributed by

the USCC through the diocesan and organizational representatives in

order to assist those consultation delegates in explaining the concept

of a National Pastoral Council and in soliciting the opinions of the faith-

ful. The papers given at the Consultation and a range of reaction to

them were edited into a small booklet entitled A National Pastoral Coun-

cil: Pro and Con. A shorter, simpler, summary statement with the title

A National Pastoral Council: Yes, No and Maybe was also composed.

About 1,200 copies of the booklet and 42,000 copies of the pamphlet

were sold in the months following the Mundelein consultation.

Additional publicity resulting from the appearance of articles and

notices in the diocesen press and other religious periodicals along with

a television talk show in Chicago helped raise the issue of a possible

National Pastoral Council in the public consciousness. Reactions did

come, not to the extent the Steering Committee had originally envisioned,

but in sufficient volume to collate the responses and to use the gathered

material as a partial basis for a first major progress report to the

Advisory Council and to the NCCB Administrative Committee in the fall

of 1971.

In order to prepare this report, the Steering Committee met from July

23-26, 1971, in Pomfret, Conn. The careful deliberations of those five

days resulted in a 55-page report which was approved by the Advisory

Council for the NCCB Administrative Committee. This report included

six sections:

I. An Introductory Statement

II. History of the Feasibility Study

III. Rationale for the Desirability of a National Pastoral Council

IV. Directions toward Feasibility

V. Recommendations

VI. Response to the Questions Originally Proposed to the Advisory

Council

An Appendix was added which contained:

A. An Evaluation of Cooperation

B. An Evaluation, Summary, and Interpretation of Responses

C. Selected Responses

The selected responses included a special report from the Spanish-

speaking Catholics for whom the pamphlet had been translated into

Spanish.

58



The Pomfret meeting was not without its tensions, the major one being

the weight of evidence contained in the surveys and questionnaires which

followed the Mundelein consultation. Several members of the Steering

Committee felt strongly that the data collected could not be evaluated as

though they were the results of a scientific survey because this clearly

was not the case. Several Steering Committee members maintained that

conclusions drawn from such data could not be considered definitive.

Robert McMillan, S.J., Assistant Professor of Sociology at Holy Cross Col-

lege, agreed with this opinion in his sociological evaluation of the data

collected. His reasons were included in Appendix B of the report. In a

footnote to this appendix, the Steering Committee mentioned that it

“consciously based its decisions on additional factors which are enunci-

ated elsewhere in this report."

A careful analysis of the Pomfret meeting’s report is most important

for a correct understanding of the Steering Committee’s position. News-

paper headlines quickly highlighted the conclusion of the study, with

emphasis on the lack of feasibility for a National Pastoral Council at that

time. Equal emphasis was not given to the Steering Committee’s con-

clusions as to the desirability of a National Pastoral Council. In the

light of subsequent events, the question might well be asked about the

somewhat negative impact of the press coverage.

In the Steering Committee's summary and interpretation of responses,

considerable attention was given to the meaning of the words feasible

and desirable, with an effort to distinguish between them. The com-

mittee hoped to go on with its work on the premise that the desirability

factor prominent in the report indicated that continued work needed to

be done to make the desired National Pastoral Council feasible in the

near future. To that end the committee determined to bend all its

energies, and was encouraged to do so by the NCCB Administrative

Committee who accepted the report in September, 1971.

One major recommendation of the Steering Committee as adopted in

the 1971 Advisory Council Report was the further development of

diocesan councils and regional consultations. It was further suggested

that the role of the Advisory Council be expanded to include NCCB

agenda items. Both of these recommendations were acted on as interim

steps to the possible establishment of a National Pastoral Council by

1976 as part of the Bicentennial celebration of the United States.

Various study projects were inaugurated in 1972. The Canon Law

Society of America was requested to give research assistance. The

bishops were requested to discuss the role and function of diocesan

pastoral councils at their spring meeting. These discussions were carried

on in the regional groupings in April of that year. Summary reports of

those discussions were communicated to the Steering Committee and

59



were included in a July, 1972, booklet reporting a survey on diocesan

pastoral councils. This survey was undertaken by the USCC staff under

the direction of the Steering Committee. The results showed that at

that time, out of 137 jurisdictions responding, 57 had pastoral councils

in existence and 68 had plans to establish them. Additional helpful in-

formation pertaining to the benefits, problems, and achievements of

diocesan councils were included in the survey report. Each bishop in

the United States received a copy of the 81-page report entitled A Survey

of Diocesan Pastoral Councils in the United States of America.

1972 also saw the beginning of several explorations regarding the

development of training programs for members of parish and diocesan

councils. The survey was partly responsible for highlighting the need

for such programs.

Another pertinent study project of that year was the preparation of

materials on shared responsibility for the purpose of writing pastoral

letters on that subject. Nine pages of notes were compiled, drawn

largely from several documents of the Second Vatican Council. This

paper on Shared Responsibility along with a bibliography was sent to the

Ordinaries of the country.

December of 1972 brought several other study projects into existence

as a result of a second interdisciplinary meeting. Eleven scholars from

the fields of history, education, Scripture, theology, canon law, sociology,

psychology, and organizational skills met with six members of the

Steering Committee for three days at the Marriottsville Spiritual Center

in Maryland. Some of the topics raised at that meeting, on which the

scholars present agreed to do research, were: clarification about the

international concerns of a “National” Pastoral Council; determination

about the balance between “prophetic” and “representative” functions

of a National Pastoral Council; clarification of the role of a National

Pastoral Council and its members in regard to authority in the Church;

clarification of the theological meaning of the word “pastoral” in the

term National Pastoral Council; development of a national Catholic con-

sciousness; leadership in the light of Vatican II.

A major setback to the work of the Steering Committee occurred in the

summer of 1972 with a widely circulated news story stating that the

Sacred Congregation of the Clergy under the leadership of Cardinal

Wright had adopted a negative position regarding the formation of

National Pastoral Councils. When Advisory Council members met in

September they shared several press reports to that effect from various

parts of the United States. The Steering Committee’s reaction, adopted

by the Advisory Council, was to ask that a delegation from the committee

be sent to the Congregation of the Clergy in Rome to dialogue about the

results of the National Pastoral Council research undertaken to date in

60



the United States. The research would include the data gathered from

the experience of diocesan pastoral councils as recorded in the 1972

Survey Report.

Such a delegation was not sent to Rome. Rather, Bishop Bernardin

met with Cardinal Wright in October of that year and reviewed with him

all the documents which the Steering Committee had developed. Bishop

Bernardin also reported the encouraging actions taken by the -Adminis-

trative Committee of NCCB, the entire body of United States bishops,

and the Advisory Council. Cardinal Wright’s response was one of appre-

ciation for all the work undertaken by the Advisory Council. He refuted

the recent news stories which implied that some official stand had been

taken on the formation of National Pastoral Councils, because the congre-

gation had not addressed the question but had focused its deliberations

on diocesan pastoral councils. He further explained that National Pas-

toral Councils were not called for explicitly by Vatican II as were diocesan

pastoral councils. Consequently, the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy

had been concerned primarily with the fostering of diocesan pastoral

councils. As the question of National Pastoral Councils becomes more

viable, congregations other than the Congregation of the Clergy will prob-

ably address the question also.

When the report of Bishop Bernardin's meeting was discussed in the

February, 1973, meeting of the Steering Committee, the hope was ex-

pressed that Cardinal Wright would make some statement to the press to

offset the negative influence of the earlier stories which he claimed were

inaccurate as far as the thinking of the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy

was concerned. During the years of its work, from the days of the

Mundelein consultation on, the Steering Committee could not ignore the

organized opposition to a National Pastoral Council, an opposition which

made considerable use of those negative press reports to further its end

of preventing the establishment of a National Pastoral Council. For

whatever reasons, a positive clarifying press statement on this matter

was never issued by Cardinal Wright.

The summer of 1973 found another Steering Committee project under-

way. A small group worked diligently to prepare models of a National

Pastoral Council for presentation to the entire Advisory Council at the

September meeting. It was hoped that those models would be circulated

throughout the country for discussion purposes. As a result of the dis-

cussions, specific recommendations could be made to the Administra-

tive Committee of NCCB regarding the structure of a National Pastoral

Council. The 1976 target date was still very much in mind.

By the time the Steering Committee met in September, 1973, the

press carried reports of a circular letter issued on January 25, 1973, by

the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy to the patriarchs, primates, arch-

bishops, bishops and other Ordinaries of places concerning pastoral

61



councils, according to the views of the combined plenary congregation of

March 15, 1972. In the Steering Committee’s Preamble Statement for

Presentation of Models, the final paragraph voiced the committee’s re-

sponse to the circular letter as follows:

The letter concludes by asking the Conference of Bishops “to notify

the Sacred Congregation concerning their experiences with this

matter so that we may have a suitable record of their experiences

in the future.” This desire for continual communication on the

preparatory stages toward a National Pastoral Council had previ-

ously been voiced by Cardinal Wright to Archbishop Bernardin in

1972 regarding the Advisory Council’s work in this area. More

recently, according to current press releases a reliable source

within the Clergy Congregation told NC News that “it is widely felt

that an educational program of dialogue and forum is necessary

even in the smallest countries . . . before an attempt is made to

draw up an agenda for a national council which would be equally

profitable to the hierarchy and the laity . . To this end of foster-

ing one aspect of an “educational program of dialogue and forum,”

we present these four models of a National Pastoral Council in

primitive stages of development. It is our hope that serious study

and discussion of these models be given by a wide representation of

our people throughout the coming year.

The Steering Committee also recommended the establishment of an

Office on Shared Responsibility within the conference. Other recom-

mendations focused on further development and training of members of

diocesan pastoral councils. The Advisory Council accepted all the

recommendations of the Steering Committee and sent them on to the

Administrative Committee. As a result of the Administrative Committee's

action, Msgr. O'Connor, outgoing chairman of the Steering Committee,

and Mr. William Baroody, newly elected chairman, received a letter from

Bishop Rausch, General Secretary of NCCB. The most significant parts

of the letter are given here:

The bishops have received the four models for an NPC prepared

by the Advisory Council and are grateful for all the efforts expended

in drawing them up. However, there does not seem to be solid sup-

port for the establishment at this time of an NPC in the United

States. This is in keeping with the conclusion of the Steering Com-

mittee presented by the Advisory Council to the Administrative

Committee in 1971, and significant thrust for an NPC since 1971

simply has not developed.

The Circular Letter from Rome on pastoral councils earlier this

year, while encouraging the development of diocesan pastoral coun-

cils, discouraged the establishment of pastoral councils at the na-

tional level. Moreover, other countries which have given serious

62



consideration to the establishment of an NPC have decided
that

the project is not presently feasible.
For these reasons, the Admin-

istrative Committee has determined that there
would be no useful

purpose served in distributing the models prepared
by the Advisory

Council for the evaluation of Catholic
groups and individuals in the

country. The Administrative Committee wishes
that further study

of an NPC be delayed for the immediate future, and
that emphasis

be placed on the development of the Advisory
Council as a struc-

ture already embodying the very best which an
NPC would offer the

Church in the United States. Continued
development of pastoral

councils on the parish and diocesan levels and
increased under-

standing of the theological principles of
shared responsibility

should also take place.

The letter did go on to encourage cooperation
with the NCCB/USCC

Committee on Research, Plans and Programs toward the
development by

the National Council of Catholic Laity of a
training program for pastoral

council leaders.

Mr. Baroody’s reaction to Bishop Rausch’s letter
included a request

to speak to the Administrative Committee.
Before that request could be

honored, the Steering Committee met at the February,
1974, Advisory

Council Meeting in San Antonio. Quite simply, a
decision had to be

reached about continued existence as a Steering
Committee. Even

though the question of a National Pastoral Council
had to be postponed

temporarily, the development of shared responsibility
was seen to be

more important than ever. In this context, the Steering
Committee

agreed to continue its endeavors, an agreement with
which both the

Advisory Council and the NCCB Administrative Committee concurred.

Shared responsibility was a keynote sounded for
the Steering Com-

mittee right from the beginning of its existence
as the first question

presented to it for exploration. On a note of shared
responsibility, this

brief history of the life of the Advisory
Council’s Steering Committee

will conclude by recalling the committee’s hopes as
reflected in its 1971

report. In its Rationale for the Desirability of a National
Pastoral Council,

the Steering Committee, focusing on the ecclesiological
developments of

the Second Vatican Council, highlighted its awareness
of the “serious

needs of the Church in the United States at the present
time.” In the

words of that Rationale Statement:

Since the days of Vatican II the exercise of such
responsi-

bility has often been referred to in the context of
“shared respon-

sibility.” That the Second Vatican Council saw fit to begin
to spell

out some ways in which shared responsibility could be
exercised

flows from that Council’s awareness of aspects of
Christian life

which needs special emphasis today . . .

63



Our most pressing problems both within and beyond the Church

are national in scope. As such they demand national concern and

organized effort on a national scale if they are to be met in any

effective way. Such an emphasis on shared responsibility on a

national level does not preclude the necessity of regional and local

concern and organized effort as well. As a matter of fact, national

effort can be weak or even totally ineffective if it lacks regional and

local support. But local and regional efforts alone are insufficient

to handle problems which have assumed national proportions

—

problems such as poverty, peace, human dignity, and religious

meaning in the present cultural expressions of life in the United

States.

As the Advisory Council we have been deeply impressed by the

expressed desire for a meaningful participation in the life of the

Church on the part of all segments of the Church’s life. We are

unanimous in our request that most serious consideration be given

to this deeply felt concern at a crucial hour in the history of the

Church in the United States.

In 1974, that statement still stands as the Steering Committee, now a

Committee on Shared Responsibility, continues to work as a standing

committee of the NCCB/USCC Advisory Council.

64



BUILDING A COMMUNITY

By Most Rev. Edward A. McCarthy

The Advisory Council was born in an age of distrust and tension

within the Church. The very composition of the council was destined to

reflect this for its members, as a cross-section of the Church, repre-

sented varying viewpoints and emotions. The way the council dealt with

this was, in my mind, one of its most beautiful achievements in witness-

ing to the dynamics of how the unifying love of earnest Christians can

prevail over disruptive tensions to produce a unified community.

I recall the original organization meeting at which His Eminence, John

Cardinal Dearden, then President of the bishops’ conference, presided.

While it was clear that the members were thrilled to be part of a new

initiative in dialogue and in sharing responsibility in the Church, it was

also clear that there were those who harbored suspicions of the proposal.

They wanted to be assured that their council would be taken seriously;

that they would not be a mere rubber stamp group or a window dressing.

The members were told that they were advisory to the Administrative

Board of the United States Catholic Conference. When they learned that

this USCC board did not deal with such pastoral questions as the sacred

liturgy, some were disturbed for they felt they were being restricted from

expressing themselves on issues which to them were very basic in the

life of the Church. Tensions within the group itself soon began to appear

as representatives of special, sometimes conflicting, interests began to

express themselves.

I feel that the key to the creation of the spirit of unity and respect and

dialogue which soon emerged was in the early recognition among the

leaders and members of the Council that if they were to be sort of a

microcosm of the Church, they had to be not only a dialoguing com-

munity, but a community of prayer and of love. That community took

shape when periods were set aside in the agenda for celebrating the

sacred liturgy together and for other forms of common prayer, and

when it was determined that, long and hard-working as the days were,

they should not close without a general period of joyfulness and fellow-

ship. It was in these recreation periods that we soon discovered extra-

ordinary talents among the group, such as the ability to lead in the sing-

ing of an Irish lullaby, or Negro spiritual, or Chicano melody as all

gathered around the piano.

65



As a bishop, I developed a new appreciation and respect for the

earnest concern and dedication that the priests, religious and laity of

our nation have for the work of Christ; for the insights, the thought and

the wisdom which they bring to evaluation and planning; and for their

ability to articulate their thoughts in effective yet courteous ways. At

times, issues were raised and solutions were suggested which seemed

oversimplified, perhaps even naive, in the light of lengthier and more in-

depth debates of the same issues in meetings of the bishops. However,

comparing the meetings of the Advisory Council with those of the bish-

ops’ conference, I did find the Advisory Council discussions frequently

stimulating, simply because the approaches and the questions asked

were fresh and less conditioned by traditional patterns of thought. I

also felt that the council, which is not burdened with the entire order

of business that must necessarily occupy a bishops' meeting, is freer to

think creatively and in more depth about some of the issues of concern

in the Church. I feel that the proposals of the council are being wel-

comed gratefully by the bishops as valued contributions to the leader-

ship of the Church in our times.

The Advisory Council experience has given the members a more com-

prehensive vision to the overall programs of the Church, and afforded

sympathetic understanding of the role of the bishops and the problems

and responsibilities they face.

66



A CHURCH IN MINIATURE

By Most Rev. John F. Whealon

I became a member of the Advisory Council in 1969. This member-

ship was contemporary with my coming to the Archdiocese of Hartford,

and so I began in Hartford and began involvement with the Advisory

Council in the spring of that year.

The overriding memory which I have is of the Advisory Council as a

small Catholic community. It developed a noticeable spirit of unity,

sociability and liturgy almost at the beginning. Though the members

represented many parts of the country and various orders in the Church,

nevertheless they coalesced into a working unity in which charity pre-

vailed.

It seems to me in retrospect that the place in which we met was

contributory to that community development. We met mostly at

Marriottsville, in a building which in architecture and setting was ideal.

The chapel, the respect for the ecology of the area, the spirit of the

Sisters, the beautiful setting of the grounds—all this made Marriotts-

ville a place in which we were happy to stay and work, to pray and relax

together.

Concerning the effectiveness of the Advisory Council, I can make

judgment from the viewpoint of a member of the council as well as a

member of the Administrative Committee of the National Conference of

Catholic Bishops. The recommendations developed by the Advisory

Council were developed as a result of considerable study and dialogue.

At times the discussions were so prolonged as to test the patience of

the members. Yet the results of those discussions were, it seemed to

me, generally balanced and considerate of the welfare of the entire

Church. They were recognized by both the Advisory Council and the

bishops as clearly advisory. From the viewpoint of the bishops, I know

how seriously these recommendations were accepted and how much

attention was paid to their implementation. The Advisory Council had a

clear and discernible impact on the decisions of the bishops during the

past five years.

Generally speaking, it is only the bishops who realized this. The

Advisory Council seems destined to feel that its painstaking efforts are

not appreciated by the Catholic faithful and the Church at large in this

67



country. The service of the Advisory Council is thus a somewhat humble

service—and this is in accord with Gospel values.

During the first five years of existence of the Advisory Council there

were in the United States a number of tensions within the Catholic

community. Those tensions have been reflected accurately within the

Advisory Council, so far as I can judge. It has been a Church in

miniature, and in the spirit of the Church within this nation the Advisory

Council has moved to greater maturity, to a better understanding of

Christ and of His Church as reflected in our lives.

68



CONTRIBUTORS
By Michelle Donnelly

Mrs. John J. Casey (Helen)

Mrs. Casey is the mother of four and lives in Midland, Mich. She is

Vice-President of the Michigan Catholic Conference and serves as an

educational coordinator for the Campaign for Human Development and on

the NCCB Committee for the Observance of the Bicentennial.

John Cardinal Dearden

A native of Valley Falls, R. I., Cardinal Dearden was educated in

schools in Cleveland and in Rome, where he was ordained in 1934. He

served in parish work and as a seminary professor before he was named

Coadjutor Bishop of Pittsburgh in 1948. He became Bishop of Pitts-

burgh in 1950, Archbishop of Detroit in 1958, and was named a cardinal

in 1969. He served as the first President of the NCCB and USCC from

1966 to 1971.

David J. Doherty

Mr. Doherty resides in Flint, Mich., where he is the Special Consultant

for Program Development for Flint Community Schools. He holds a

Ph.D. in educational administration. He is married and the father of

five children.

Mrs. Michelle Donnelly

Mrs. Donnelly resides in Alexandria, Virginia. She is the Administra-

tive Secretary to the Assistant General Secretary of NCCB/ USCC and,

in that capacity, has been closely associated with the Advisory Council

since 1971.

Rev. Avery Dulles, S.J.

Father Dulles is a member of the Society of Jesus and currently

teaches theology at the Catholic University of America in Washington,

D.C. Father Dulles has authored a number of articles and books on a

variety of topics, including revelation, apologetics, grace, Christian unity

and Ecclesiology.

Rev. Virgil Elizondo

A priest of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, Father Elizondo is President

of the Mexican American Cultural Center and director of the Pastoral

69



Institute of Religious Studies, both in San Antonio. He became an at-large

member of the Advisory Council in 1972.

Rev. Joseph Francis, S.V.D.

A priest of the Society of the Divine Word, Father Francis was born in

Lafayette, La. He is Provincial of the Southern Province of his religious

society and is President of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men.

Bishop Francis T. Hurley

A priest of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Bishop Hurley was

assigned to the National Catholic Welfare Conference in 1957. He be-

came Associate General Secretary of the new National Conference of

Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference in 1968.

It was while he held this position that the Advisory Council came into

existence and his efforts were instrumental in its formation. He was

named the Auxiliary Bishop of Juneau, Alaska, in 1970 and Ordinary of

that diocese in 1971.

Sister Carol Frances Jegen, B.V.M.

Sister Carol Frances Jegen is a member of the Sisters of Charity of

the Blessed Virgin Mary and has been active in renewal programs in

religious life and liturgy. She founded the theology department at

Mundelein College in Chicago and is a professor of religious studies

there.

Francis X. Kennelly

Mr. Kennelly is a member of the Trenton Diocesan Pastoral Council

and served as first chairman of the USCC Advisory Council. He lives in

Red Bank, N.J., where he practices law. He is married and has two

children.

Bishop Edward A. McCarthy

A native of Cincinnati, Ohio, Bishop McCarthy was ordained a priest

in 1943. He was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Cincinnati in 1965 and

became the first Bishop of Phoenix, Ariz., in 1969.

Joseph H. Maguire, Jr.

Mr. Maguire is Assistant Dean of Holy Cross College in Worcester,

Mass., and chairman of the English Department there. He served as

Chairman of the Advisory Council in 1972 and also served as Vice-

Chairman of the Steering Committee studying the feasibility of a National

Pastoral Council.

70



Russell Shaw

Mr. Shaw is Secretary for Public Affairs of the National Conference of

Catholic Bishops and United States Catholic Conference. He is the

author of several books and many articles.

Rev. Michael J. Sheehan

A priest of the Diocese of Dallas, Father Sheehan came to Washington

in 1971 as Assistant General Secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference.

His responsibilities in that position were soon expanded to include those

of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Father Sheehan has

worked closely with the Advisory Council since 1971, acting as the prin-

cipal staff person of NCCB/USCC relating to the Council.

Charles G. Tildon, Jr.

Mr. Tildon is a native of Baltimore, Md., and is presently employed

by the Maryland Service Corps. He is deeply committed to the Black

cause and has been active in many professional, civic, church and fra-

ternal organizations in the Maryland community. Mr. Tildon is married

and has one son.

William A. Toomey, Jr.

Mr. Toomey, who lives in Albany, is a labor arbitrator, and works as

district director of the New York State School of Industrial and Labor

Relations—Cornell University. He is married and is the father of nine

children.

Archbishop John F. Whealon

Archbishop Whealon was born in Barberton, Ohio, and was ordained

in 1945. He was named Auxiliary Bishop of Cleveland in 1961, Bishop

of Erie in 1967, and Archbishop of Hartford in 1969. He was a member

of the Advisory Council from 1969 until 1972.

71



-

*



STANDING ORDER SERVICE

By filling in and returning the form below, you will

be included in the standing order service, a plan by

which each new printing of the USCC Publications Office

is automatically mailed to subscribers. These printings

are mainly Papal Documents and the Bishops' yearly

statements but may include special publications or an

occasional pamphlet of current interest. Many include

indexes, study outlines and bibliographies.

Not all Papal messages or documents are included

but rather a selection of the more important ones or

those of special interest to American Catholics, or for

which there is an unusual number of requests.

There are usually from 15 to 30 printings each year

ranging in price from 10# to 75$. The total yearly

bill is usually $12.00 to $20.00 depending on the num-

ber of items published during the year. Occasional

special standing order discounts off the list prices are

offered on some items.

Billings are made annually in December for the pre-

ceding year, unless you specify otherwise or unless the

quantity ordered is large. You may cancel your stand-

ing order any time.

I wish to place a standing order for copies of

all new printings issued by the USCC Publications Office

until such time as I request cancellation of this order.

Please address the mailings as follows:

Name

(Print)

Address

City State Zip

Signature



.