So now we know: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops cares
more about its authority than being right. That’s the clear import of a
fine piece
of reporting by NCR’s John Allen on the split between the USCCB and
the Catholic Hospital Association (CHA) over the health care bill
(which, you’ll recall, the former opposed and the latter supported).

Writing
from the CHA’s annual meeting in Denver, Allen got Cardinal Francis
George, the USCCB’s current capo, on the phone from St. Petersburg,
where the bishops are assembled in semi-annual conclave. The cardinal
allowed as how the substance of the bill was subject to different
interpretations: “different lawyers have said different things.” The
core issue, he insisted, was “about the nature of the church
itself, one that has to concern the bishops.” As in: “The bishops have
to protect their role in governing the church…”This may be a narrow
disagreement, but it has exposed a very large
principle.”

In other words, never mind that faithful and
knowledgeable Catholic organizations and officials might actually do a
better job of applying agreed-upon doctrines of faith and morals to a
complex piece of legislation than we do. It’s our way or the highway.

Amazingly,
Allen managed to find one bishop who begged to differ. “I’ve been
associated in one way or another with the episcopal
conference of the United States since 1972,” St. Pete Bishop Robert
Lynch told him. “I have never before this year heard the theory
that we enjoy the same primacy of respect for legislative interpretation
as we do for interpretation of the moral law.”

“I think this
theory needs to be debated and discussed by the body of
bishops,” said Lynch, who sits on the CHA’s Board of Trustees.

I
wouldn’t hold my breath for an open debate. But I also wouldn’t be
surprised if a fair number of bishops feel that the USCCB got way too
deep into the legislative weeds on health care, and that there needs to
be room–in line with the principles of conscience laid out in their own
document on political choice, Forming
Consciences for Faithful Citizenship–for honest disagreement among
those officially identified with the church.

In the meantime,
it’s worth bearing in mind that the USCCB has no authority to bind a
single American bishop to its opinions. So let’s suppose that one of
them–Bishop Lynch, say–had decided to dissent from the party line and
embrace the CHA’s position on the health care bill (just as a few
conservative bishops dissented from Faithful Citizenship). Would that
have meant, under the George Theory of Episcopal Governance, that all
Catholic institutions and officials in the Diocese of St. Petersburg had
to support the bill too?