I seriously doubt that these accusations will be addressed publicly, at least in a thorough manner, which is unfortunate for the USCCB staff if they are indeed telling the truth. There might be some other bishops that share different recollections of what was discussed on the point of staffing cuts but I'd be surprised if there is more than that.
I could also see this being an honest miscommunication, where the subject of staffing cuts were discussed in "corporate" speak and some bishops didn't pick up on the language. Maybe the staffing cuts were mentioned using terms like "streamlining" the staff roster, "eliminating redundancies", or any one of the many creative terms that companies are using to mask the reality of mass firings these days. For better or for worse, the USCCB and the Church in general have picked up many habits from the secular corporate world with regards to how it runs its operations.
It would be deeply concerning if the Archbishops of Hartford and St. Louis - two archdioceses where financial acumen is essential to assist in reorganizing the parishes - could not figure out common corporate euphemisms or that “there is no money” means some people will be let go. It does not inspire confidence in their management.
Baltimore, where Archbishop Rozanski was a pastor & auxiliary bishop, is bankrupt. He is a very good man & bishop, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Same for Abo. Becker.
Father Frain: Chapter 11 "reorganization" is the most popular form of non-consumer bankruptcy. It admits the organization is insolvent and cannot pay its creditors in full, so it contributes the bulk of its assets to a pot for the creditors left behind when the organization emerges from the bankruptcy. Unfortunately, most of the money goes to the lawyers. So Mr. Witkowski is 100% correct. Every diocese that has filed bankruptcy in the US has filed chapter 11 and has had to give away the farm in the process to satisfy the massive sexual abuse claims. That equals bankruptcy by any definition, legal or nonlegal.
Seems like an excellent reason for not using "corporate" speak. If you aren't willing to tell the people who are ostensibly in charge what you are doing frankly, then possibly you are trying to keep them from really being in charge. Corporate speak develops, in part, to make bad things seem less bad, or even good, and make good things seem far better than they are, and to muddle what's really going on so that those who might object will remain ignorant and silent. That's also why corporate buzzwords have a lifespan shorter than women's fashion - use the same phrases too long, and those you're trying to exclude might catch on. If you're really clever, you can make just about anything sound like an improvement. If the bishops' complaints boil down to that, more power to them.
If you really want someone to know something, you tell them, then hand them a memo that says the same thing.
My immediate reaction to this article was almost precisely what you're saying. There is every chance that the miscommunication can be chalked up to not reading between the lines because some euphemistic approach was used to soften the severity of the blow. If that's the case, part of me wants to side with the bishops: if the bad news was so sugar-coated as to obscure the reality of the layoffs, then it needs to be said that bluntness and frankness were probably the better path at the time. Is that failure to be direct a kind of duplicity? maybe, maybe not. But now it's more of a PR mess than it needed to be.
If a Bishop says it ,MUST it be the truth? One would think the answer is yes but after several years of reading The Pillar included, I would say there are many “ broad mental reservations “. Remember them? If corporate speak is now the language I think this should be part of the Bishops education. And that may have to come from the laity or those who speak it.
I recognize the C.C.H.D. has been attacked over the years from pundits like Michael Voris, who tried to dismantle C.C.H.D. These attacks are not convincing, nor are they helpful. Reform is always possible and necessary at times. But elimination of CCHD equates with an admission of defeat, an acknowledgement that poverty is a fate for those born into it and that programs for the poor don’t work. I don’t buy it. That’s why I have contributed to C.C.H.D. second collections. I hope the Bishops will reverse this.
While the Church has a preferential option for the poor (as did Our Lord), the issue seems to be one of stewardship over limited resources. Should the Church's dwindling coffers be used for CCHD or, as suggested by Bp Paprocki, would those limited resources be more effectively used to sustain Catholic education? "The poor you will always have with you..." but Catholic schools maybe not much longer absent material financial support. Worthy of serious debate.
How is communication so lacking that this infighting and accusatory language is in full public view! What has happened to the Synodality!
"Individual episcopal attention is known to wander during conference meetings, especially during more extended sessions."
-Thinking wistfully about that famous USCCB ice cream?
I seriously doubt that these accusations will be addressed publicly, at least in a thorough manner, which is unfortunate for the USCCB staff if they are indeed telling the truth. There might be some other bishops that share different recollections of what was discussed on the point of staffing cuts but I'd be surprised if there is more than that.
I could also see this being an honest miscommunication, where the subject of staffing cuts were discussed in "corporate" speak and some bishops didn't pick up on the language. Maybe the staffing cuts were mentioned using terms like "streamlining" the staff roster, "eliminating redundancies", or any one of the many creative terms that companies are using to mask the reality of mass firings these days. For better or for worse, the USCCB and the Church in general have picked up many habits from the secular corporate world with regards to how it runs its operations.
It would be deeply concerning if the Archbishops of Hartford and St. Louis - two archdioceses where financial acumen is essential to assist in reorganizing the parishes - could not figure out common corporate euphemisms or that “there is no money” means some people will be let go. It does not inspire confidence in their management.
That said, I think you’re probably right.
Baltimore, where Archbishop Rozanski was a pastor & auxiliary bishop, is bankrupt. He is a very good man & bishop, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Same for Abo. Becker.
Just some clarification: they filed for reorganization under Chapter 11.
Father Frain: Chapter 11 "reorganization" is the most popular form of non-consumer bankruptcy. It admits the organization is insolvent and cannot pay its creditors in full, so it contributes the bulk of its assets to a pot for the creditors left behind when the organization emerges from the bankruptcy. Unfortunately, most of the money goes to the lawyers. So Mr. Witkowski is 100% correct. Every diocese that has filed bankruptcy in the US has filed chapter 11 and has had to give away the farm in the process to satisfy the massive sexual abuse claims. That equals bankruptcy by any definition, legal or nonlegal.
Seems like an excellent reason for not using "corporate" speak. If you aren't willing to tell the people who are ostensibly in charge what you are doing frankly, then possibly you are trying to keep them from really being in charge. Corporate speak develops, in part, to make bad things seem less bad, or even good, and make good things seem far better than they are, and to muddle what's really going on so that those who might object will remain ignorant and silent. That's also why corporate buzzwords have a lifespan shorter than women's fashion - use the same phrases too long, and those you're trying to exclude might catch on. If you're really clever, you can make just about anything sound like an improvement. If the bishops' complaints boil down to that, more power to them.
If you really want someone to know something, you tell them, then hand them a memo that says the same thing.
My immediate reaction to this article was almost precisely what you're saying. There is every chance that the miscommunication can be chalked up to not reading between the lines because some euphemistic approach was used to soften the severity of the blow. If that's the case, part of me wants to side with the bishops: if the bad news was so sugar-coated as to obscure the reality of the layoffs, then it needs to be said that bluntness and frankness were probably the better path at the time. Is that failure to be direct a kind of duplicity? maybe, maybe not. But now it's more of a PR mess than it needed to be.
It's just Vatican politics writ small.
If a Bishop says it ,MUST it be the truth? One would think the answer is yes but after several years of reading The Pillar included, I would say there are many “ broad mental reservations “. Remember them? If corporate speak is now the language I think this should be part of the Bishops education. And that may have to come from the laity or those who speak it.
I recognize the C.C.H.D. has been attacked over the years from pundits like Michael Voris, who tried to dismantle C.C.H.D. These attacks are not convincing, nor are they helpful. Reform is always possible and necessary at times. But elimination of CCHD equates with an admission of defeat, an acknowledgement that poverty is a fate for those born into it and that programs for the poor don’t work. I don’t buy it. That’s why I have contributed to C.C.H.D. second collections. I hope the Bishops will reverse this.
While the Church has a preferential option for the poor (as did Our Lord), the issue seems to be one of stewardship over limited resources. Should the Church's dwindling coffers be used for CCHD or, as suggested by Bp Paprocki, would those limited resources be more effectively used to sustain Catholic education? "The poor you will always have with you..." but Catholic schools maybe not much longer absent material financial support. Worthy of serious debate.
“"The poor you will always have with you..." except those individuals who starve to death.
Oh man, I love this stuff (well, not the bishops being bitchy in public, but Ed doing his stuff.)