Ping to read later
Alex, just a little background information on the USCCB. There was never as national semi-official organization like this prior to Vatican II and while there were some bishops’ organizations (such as the “Catholic Rural Life Conference,” etc.) prior to Vatican II, they didn’t have canonical status as such and were never regarded as being the ultimate teaching authority for the country.
With Vatican II, there came a push for permanent national “representative bodies” of the bishops, and in some cases existing organizations were the seed for this and in other cases, entirely new bodies were formed.
They have always been a disaster and have been one of the reasons that the US bishops have been so weak in dealing with problems. The USCCB powerhouses were for years the liberal bishops, and they used the USCCB to prevent other bishops from disagreeing with them. Even the sex abuse problems can be traced to the USCCB, because they put forth policy guidelines that were naively adopted by individual bishops (things such as psychological treatment instead of immediate reclusion in a very penitential monastery or removal from the priesthood). In addition, when people can hide behind an organization, they do, and a lot of weak bishops simply abdicated in favor of the USCCB.
Maybe the only good thing to come out of this presidential election will be that some bishops have obviously had it up to the eyebrows with the USCCB and finally an issue has arisen that is enough to make them stand up and find their own voices again. The Pope is known not to be favorable to these national bishops’ councils, btw, because he regards them as weakening both the authority of the local bishop and the authority of Rome.
This is a very positive development!