Ad Hoc Committee On The Plenary Council Varium
Presentation To The Body Of Bishops
November 2004
Archbishop Daniel M. Buchlein

1) My particular task is to report to you following our Special Assembly that took place in Denver in June. I am gratified to be able to tell you that the comments that we have received from Bishops following that gathering have been positive. Bishops said they were grateful for an opportunity to be with each other in a situation which allowed us to be priests, pastors and friends, and which allowed us to treat significant issues with a little more time and reflection. I would like to express a particular word of gratitude to the other members of our Ad Hoc Committee, Cardinal Dulles, Cardinal Rigali, Archbishops Quinn and Dolan and Bishops Vigneron, Ochoa, Schnurr and Perry for their wisdom and generous contributions to that success. We are grateful to Cardinal George, Cardinal Dulles and the other Bishop speakers and presenters as well.

2) You have before you a summary of the responses given by the Bishops on the questionnaire distributed at the conclusion of the Special Assembly. Interestingly, Bishop Joseph Sullivan, who offered a workshop on the "Priority of Pressing Issues Facing the Church - Facing the Diocese", tallied the responses he collected from Bishops attending his talk, and they are remarkable consistent with what you have before you, adding only the desire to increase our efforts among immigrants, the Latino population and alienated youth. At the same time, the bishops and our Committee recognize that much work still needs to be done to define further the specific themes that we need to address as pastors. For example, the first theme refers to the weekly celebration of the Eucharist and its centrality to our life of faith. In identifying this as a concern, we have not identified a cause. Is it that we priests are not celebrating or preaching well? Is it that people are not motivated to worship? Is it that our people do not understand and value the sacraments of the Church? Or is it that we do not have enough priests to make this a reality?

3) Further consideration of these issues would be most effective if it included the participation of clergy, religious and laity in the examination of the challenges facing the Church. For this consultation to be effective, we bishops must provide effective leadership. Before we precede we need a more focused and defined idea in our own minds about the nature of these pastoral challenges.

4) While there was consensus about the need for extraordinary means to address extraordinary pastoral issues there was little support for a Plenary Council or a Regional Synod, at least at this time. That being the case, our Ad Hoc Committee on the Varium for a Plenary Council has completed its task.

5) Nonetheless the sense of the assembly of bishops in Denver directed that the work begun there should be continued in some form. At its September meeting the Administrative Committee instructed our Ad Hoc Committee to seek direction from the Body of Bishops at this meeting by presenting options to be tested by the electronic process available here. The resultant direction for future action will be handed on to our new President to be pursued at his direction.

6) Accordingly, we propose the following options derived from the significant sentiments expressed during the June Special Assembly. Of particular note was the request for a series of special assemblies. Notable attention was focused on our June meetings.

Therefore, we offer the following options for consideration.

A. Concerning the 3-day June 2005 June meeting in Chicago: Does the Body of Bishops want to devote 2 days of the June 2005 meeting in Chicago for further reflection and discussion on extraordinary pastoral issues? Yes 84 No 143 Abstain 14 B. Does the Body of Bishops want to devote one day of the June 2005 meeting in Chicago for further reflection and discussion? Yes 153 No 81 Abstain 7 C. Does the Body of Bishops want to devote meeting in Chicago for further reflection and discussion? Yes 55 No 167 Abstain 18 D. Is the Body of Bishops willing to add an additional day to the 2005 June meeting in Chicago? Yes 93 No 142 Abstain 4 E. Is the Body of Bishops willing to add one or more special assemblies apart from the June and November meetings in order to deal with the pressing pastoral issues we face? Yes 64 No 169 Abstain 7 F. Does the Body of Bishops agree that Evangelization and Catechesis is one of three pastoral issues to be pursued with further prayer and reflection? Yes 219 No 17 Abstain 6 G. Does the Body of Bishops agree that Eucharist and Sacraments is one of three pastoral issues to be pursued with further prayer and reflection? Yes 221 No 15 Abstain 3 H. Does the Body of Bishops agree that Priesthood and Consecrated Life is one of three pastoral issues to be pursued with further prayer and reflection? Yes 208 No 27 Abstain 7 I. Does the Body of Bishops prefer presentations by Bishops alone? Yes 71 No 165 Abstain 6 J. Does the Body of Bishops prefer presentations by Bishops and outside experts? Yes 190 No 47 Abstain 5 K. Does the Body of Bishops prefer that further reflections should follow the Special Assembly format, that is, without the presence of non-essential staff or media? Yes 193 No 41 Abstain 6 L. Does the Body of Bishops desire that the Special Assembly 2007 pursue the extraordinary issues surfaced in Last June's Special Assembly? Yes 161 No 55 Abstain 24 M. Does the body of Bishops wish that, rather than the regular June business meeting, the June meeting of 2006 be a Special Assembly? Yes 173 No 56 Abstain12

Consensus of the Body of Bishops has led us down paths other than that of a Plenary Council or a Regional Synod at this time. With this report our Ad hoc Committee has completed its task.

Bishop Gregory, I now propose that we test the proposed future options in order to determine the sense of the Body of Bishops.