Bishop Jaime Soto, Diocese of Sacramento, California NCCHM Episcopal Moderator
Back in 2005, the USCCB created a committee to study the issue of whether the Conference had grown too large with too many committees and offices. When considering priorities in light of the mission, logically, there are decisions as to where to allocate resources. So, while a significant number of bishops would argue that this process was strategic and mission driven, it is unarguable also that it was also a matter of resources. There is much to be said for the fact that the decision was financial. If there were no financial concern, all things could be done without a need for prioritizing.
The National Council for Hispanic Ministry provides a national network and forum for the religious, social, professional, and civic advancement of Roman Catholic Hispanics in the United States. NCCHM is a vehicle for communication, reflection, dialogue, and collaboration among national and regional ministerial/professional organizations, institutes, movements, and religious congregations of men and women. NCCHM furthers the empowerment of Hispanics in both church and society by identifying, convoking, and developing leadership among its member organizations and their constituencies.
The National Catholic Council for Hispanic Ministry is a proactive agent of National Pastoral de Conjunto, supporting its members’ common advocacy, education and networking. NCCHM promotes this pastoral de Conjunto through its annual membership meeting, training symposia, national leadership congresses and vehicles of communication as well as through a formal linkage to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
What happened, therefore, was also an inevitable consequence of what was happening at the diocesan level. The priorities of the Conference became defined as: So, what the Conference decided to prioritize was:
The number of committees has been reduced. The subcommittees are gone and will be restructured or subsumed into other committees. There is now a committee on the Laity with a very widely expanded mission.
There is a critical question: how do we position ourselves in the face of all this? We need to bring back some statement of concern to the next Bishops´ meeting. In terms of doing that, it is important for us to recognize ourselves as protagonists, rather than passive receptors. We need to work jointly, but our way of addressing the committee must be in the form of protagonists in the development of Hispanic ministry in this country.
As we do that, we have to recognize what many bishops have done as Episcopal body: they have made a preferential option for the immigrant. This decision to enter into a political debate like this comes from the heart. It is not easy and we need to take this into account. We placed ourselves in a contrary and difficult position, very difficult in the face of very hostile forces. For many of the bishops who had to face attacks and hatred this was not easy at all.
My own thought on that is that we would be limiting ourselves if we just focused on the work of the diversity community, because the priorities of the bishops also affect the Latino community. Our question is how do to integrate our work and our priorities into the priorities and tasks of the Catholic Bishops.
A comment that really impressed me was one of Bishop Carlos Aguiar. He presented one of the context presentations and posed this question which seems to me is a key question for us: Are we in an era of change or is this a change of era? I believe the bishops were not ready to give an answer to this question, but I think it is valid for our work here. I hope we can place ourselves in this context: this is not an era of many changes, but a change of era for the church in the United States.