In a recent interview with Famiglia Christiana, a weekly in Italy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger discussed many topics, and made a remark on bishops' conferences that particularly caught my attention. He noted the problems caused by the large size of the bishops' conferences in some nations. Said the cardinal, "There is a risk that the discussions and the solutions will be guided by the bureaucracy . . . a deeper exchange on disputed topics is impossible." The solution, Ratinger suggested, might be for more points to be decided by each bishop for his own diocese.

The problem which Ratzinger mentioned seems to me to be one that is both obvious and grave, and yet in the past very few leaders in the Church have been willing to address it openly. It is encouraging to see that Cardinal Ratzinger, at least, acknowledges that the problem exists. He did not specify the United States, but I believe the problem is particularly serious in the United States. Anyone who has watched coverage of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meetings on EWTN must realize that immense power in the conference is wielded by the committees. The suggestions of the committees are almost always followed in votes among the full body of bishops, often with little or no discussion. This is contrary to the spirit in which national bishops' conferences were first formed. The whole point of the conference is that all the bishops of the nation are supposed to come together and make decisions and statements that need to be made as a group. Perhaps this mission is technically fulfilled by the bishops appointing numerous committees to determine the basic nature of most of their decisions and statements, but in truth this approach is entirely inadequate. The effect is that if substantive discussion occurs on any given issue, it will probably be among a very small number of bishops on a particular committee. This reality, taken in conjunction with the fact that each committee also has its own bureaucracy of non-bishops attached to it, means that Catholics cannot even be certain that the suggestions that are accepted so easily by the conference at their meetings even originated from bishops in the first place. It would seem that this at least partially defeats the purpose of having a national conference of bishops.

Superficially, the problem may appear to be a simple function of the size of the country, since smaller countries with fewer bishops obviously will find it much easier to have substantive discussions at their conference meetings. That is partially true. The size of the United States certainly plays a role in making the problem evident. However, the more specific problem here is that the role of the bishops' conference has been expanded to cover far more than is appropriate. The USCCB is always issuing statements on this issue or that issue, and some of them are good. Others, perhaps, are not as good. The basic question that is not asked enough, though, is not whether the statements are good but why they are being made by the USCCB at all. Why can't most of these issues be dealt with in statements by the individual bishops to their individual dioceses? If there were less topics to be considered and decisions to be made at the conference meetings, then more careful thought and discussion could be devoted to each one, and issues that are now virtually settled in committee could be considered by the full body of bishops in the conference, as they should be.

Leaving more issues to be settled by the local bishops would also have positive effects on the level of the dioceses. First of all, if more issues are dealt with by individual bishops, Catholics will be more familiar with the man who is, after all, supposed to be leader of their particular church. It would not surprise me if some Catholics in the United States are more familiar with Bishop Wilton Gregory, current president of the USCCB, than they are with their own local bishop. This is partially because circumstances have led to Gregory having a higher profile than any previous USCCB president, but it should never be the case under any circumstances, and it will not be if the local bishop is the one making Catholic statements on important issues. Further, if more decisions are made at the level of the local bishop, there will be a greater sense of direct episcopal responsibility for the decisions. No longer will bishops be able to content themselves with just going along with whatever the USCCB says. They will have to make judgments themselves, and if anything that should increase consciousness of their obligations as shepherds of the flock of Christ. Moreover, the authority of the local bishop can be exercised in a far more personal way than that of a large group of bishops far away from most of the dioceses which their decisions will affect. Of course in some cases the leadership and care given by the local bishop will leave much to be desired, but that will be true in some instances regardless of what is said or done by any national conference. That does not change the fact that the local bishop is in a position to know better than any of his brother bishops the needs of the people in his church, and he can lead them and care for them in a way that no national conference can.

It must also be remembered from a theological perspective that the local bishop remains always the primary leader of his particular church under the Pope. The office of bishop is intrinsic to the Catholic Church, having its origins in the fact that Christ entrusted the leadership of His Church to the Apostles. National bishops' conferences are a relatively recent man-made development. There is nothing wrong with that, but Catholics must never forget that the authority of the local bishop as part of the hierarchy headed by the Pope is primary. The secondary authority of the bishops' conference, which is not part of that divinely established hierarchy, should never be allowed to infringe upon the role of the individual bishop. Leadership in the Church has always been personal because, simply put, Jesus Christ made it that way. Bishops are meant to be shepherds, not CEOs or regional managers, or worse yet mere board members. However, it is likely that many bishops will not realize and embrace their pastoral identity fully while they can leave many of the most important decisions about guiding their flocks to the national bishops' conference. Furthermore, there are the supernatural effects of the sacrament of Holy Orders itself to consider here. The Catholic Church has always understood the grace and power given by God to the bishop in episcopal consecration as intended primarily for personal guidance of particular churches, which we call dioceses, not for some sort of management by committee of the lives of Catholics throughout a nation.

There are, of course, some areas that can appropriately be dealt with by the national conference of bishops. Obvious examples include decisions which must be made in close cooperation with the Vatican, such as the translations that will be used in the liturgy in a particular country. The universality of the Church usually is best served if such things remain generally the same from diocese to diocese within a nation, and in any case it would be a great burden for the Vatican to have to deal separately with each and every diocese in the world in these areas. In addition, there might be very occasional issues which are of such great national importance that the bishops feel it is appropriate for them to speak as a group in addition to making individual statements. However, this should only be considered in truly exceptional cases, so that the local bishop always remains clearly the ordinary leader of his diocese. Moreover, if there is not a consensus among all the bishops on what to say or whether to a speak as a conference on a particular issue, the solution should always be simply to leave the matter to be addressed by the individual bishops.

The bottom line is that the gradual spread of the authority of national bishops' conferences into areas best left to the local bishop has proven to be a no-win proposition. It has left both the local bishop and the conference of bishops less effective in their proper roles. Reversing this trend and restricting the operation of these conferences to their appropriate sphere would improve the abilities of both the conferences and the individual bishops to fulfill their respective responsibilities. In the end, it should not surprise anyone that such practical benefits result from more perfectly respecting the unique and necessary pastoral office of the bishop and the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church as established by Jesus Christ.