A new pastoral document for the pastoral care of indigenous peoples was withdrawn during a meeting of US bishops last month, with concern that the document may create liability issues for the church among the motivating factors.
The document, titled “Fulfilling Christ’s Promise: A Pastoral Framework for Indigenous Ministry,” drafted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, was scheduled to be approved by the bishops during the USCCB’s fall plenary session in Baltimore in November.
But amid last-minute concerns about some of the document’s language, the bishops reconvened in unscheduled executive session on November 14, at the end of the conference’s afternoon plenary sessions.
Conference President Timothy Broglio told the assembly during its session on November 14: “Brothers, there are some matters that have caught my attention and it is best to address them in the executive session.”
The archbishop then asked the bishops to end the public portion of the conference meeting early, with Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington endorsing the motion.
The unscheduled shift to executive session raised eyebrows among the press during the Assembly, as the conference had already in recent years moved more of the bishops’ talks and discussions behind closed doors, limiting public access to the proceedings.
Speculation about the subject of the surprise closed session increased as the bishops later stated that they had been given a stern warning not to discuss the substance of the meeting with journalists.
“All I will say is that the meeting began with a warning not to talk to the press about this,” one bishop said at the time. “This even extends to ColumnThe bishop explained.
But after the executive session, the scheduled vote to approve the pastoral document was removed from the meeting agenda on Wednesday morning, with the discussion and vote proposed being rescheduled until the scheduled spring meeting of the bishops’ conference.
—
Sources close to the conference confirmed this Column That the “Pastoral Framework for Indigenous Ministry” document was the core of the executive session, and that specific concerns had been raised among some bishops about some of the language used to recount the Church’s historical involvement in residential schools for Indigenous children.
One source familiar with the issues said Column The document addressed several sensitive issues, including language of apology on behalf of bishops for the church’s involvement or failure to oppose institutional discrimination and mistreatment of indigenous people.
The text was drafted with the guidance of the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, following a vote by the bishops to commission the project in 2020.
The framework was designed to include addressing specific sensitive issues noted by the bishops at the time the draft was agreed upon, including the so-called “doctrine of discovery,” Native American ministries in urban areas, and what the subcommittee called the “residential school period.”
The final draft of the text was approved by the subcommittee in July, and in September, it was supported by the National Advisory Council – the advisory body of the bishops’ conference, made up of lay, religious and diocesan priests.
Sources close to the drafting process said the final text was developed in close cooperation with representatives of several indigenous peoples and communities. Columnand received a unanimous vote from the USCCB Administrative Committee to be added to the conference agenda in November for approval by a vote of the full body.
The text was intended to provide general priorities and themes for diocesan bishops and ministries, indigenous Catholic leadership, and other Catholic bodies working with indigenous communities.
But last-minute concerns were flagged during the November meeting because the text will also be a formal and authoritative statement by the U.S. Catholic bishops. The sources said Column Some bishops had concerns that passages intended to express remorse and moral responsibility for the treatment of indigenous communities could be interpreted as creating potential legal liability for bishops.
While the sources declined to highlight specific paragraphs as a cause for legal concern, several people familiar with the case said Column It was a special language regarding boarding schools that were marked.
He obtained a copy of the draft Columnemphasizes the importance of working with and valuing the input of indigenous Catholic leaders.
“In serving indigenous communities in their dioceses, bishops often recognize the importance of listening to Elders and other indigenous Catholic leaders and recognizing the wisdom of the Holy Spirit speaking through them,” reads a draft introduction that the bishops are scheduled to sign. Subcommittee Chairman Bishop Chad Zielinski of New Ulm.
“Much of what these pages offer is the product of dialogues with Indigenous people and our collective discernment regarding their pastoral needs and the actions needed to address them.”
The draft framework also includes explicit admissions of past failures of church leaders and institutions.
“Today, many of North America’s indigenous Catholics trace their faith back to their ancestors’ decision to convert to Catholicism hundreds of years ago. However, we are also shamefully reminded that church leaders did not always prioritize the pastoral care of these early converts or of the generations of indigenous Catholics who followed them.
“We apologize for any neglect or abandonment experienced by indigenous Catholics in our pastoral care.”
The first part of the draft document opened with a section titled “Trauma History,” which began with the following:
“Among the most important shocks are epidemics, national policies and indigenous residential schools, which stand out because of their profound impact on family life,” it reads.
“The family systems of many Indigenous peoples have not fully recovered from these tragedies, which have often resulted in broken homes and damaged homes due to addiction, domestic violence, abandonment and neglect. The Church recognizes that they have played a role in the traumas experienced by Indigenous children.
The document said the retracted text contained a stark assessment of the history and motivations behind residential school programs organized by the federal government, which were intended to destroy indigenous families and cultures.
“Through its Bureau of Indian Affairs, the government established approximately 4,007 boarding schools throughout the United States and forced many Native children to attend them. In these schools, Native children were forced to give up their traditional languages, clothing, and customs. At the 1892 convention , Captain Richard Pratt explained the basic belief that the government should kill the Indian and save the man.
“Residential schools were seen as one convenient means of achieving this cultural assimilation because they separated Aboriginal children from their families and tribes and ‘Americanized’ them while they were still resilient.”
Although the church played a role in running some of these schools, the draft text stated that not all Catholic schools were created for Americanization purposes, or to separate children from their families.
“In Alaska, for example, many church-run boarding schools were established to house young people who were orphaned during epidemics or whose parents were sick or extremely poor and could not care for them,” the document said.
“Many of the original graduates of those boarding schools still living today express their gratitude for the care and educational opportunities they received from the religious men and women who ran the mission schools.”
But, as the text states, “Regardless of individual experiences in residential schools, the system itself has left a legacy of societal and individual trauma that has led to the breakdown of family and support systems among Indigenous communities.”
The text directly linked historical traumas, such as forced residential schools, to modern instances of deprivation, addiction, and suicide among indigenous communities.
The draft framework also listed “transparency” about the church’s dealings with residential schools and cooperation with independent investigations into them as a way to rebuild trust and bring about reconciliation.
According to the draft text, in 2021, Bishop James Wall, then chair of the subcommittee, wrote to all U.S. bishops along with Archbishop Paul Coakley, chair of the Conference Committee on Internal Peace, Justice and Human Development, offering specific recommendations for the bishops to promote healing and reconciliation with Indigenous communities.
Among the recommendations was that the bishops “where possible, identify historical information about residential schools, Native American cemeteries, and other issues related to the treatment of Native Americans by members of the Church; and make that information accessible to the public.”
Wall and Coakley, who was later elected secretary of the conference, also recommended that the bishops “be open to fully cooperating with tribal and other government investigations into any Catholic involvement in racial abuse. These investigations include, but are not limited to, indigenous residential schools.”
Sources close to the conference said Column Although the document received overwhelming approval by the Subcommittee, the Conference Administrative Committee, and the National Advisory Board, and received no objections from other conference committees consulted, some individual bishops raised concerns about the draft framework during the Baltimore meeting.
While appreciating the significant collaboration with Indigenous Catholic leaders and communities in the drafting process, and desiring to incorporate as much of the proposed language as possible into the final draft, Column Some bishops were said to have expressed concern that the language could create legal problems for dioceses that previously had boarding schools on their territory.
“The goal of the document is to build confidence and promote recovery,” said one person familiar with the objections. Column. “However, a few bishops have expressed concern that the wording of some parts could lead to their dioceses being sued. This is clearly a concern for them.”
The text is now being reviewed and revised and is expected to be presented back to the bishops when they next meet in June 2024.
—
The draft framework also included an explicit recognition of the systematic harm done to indigenous communities and families, over generations, by European colonizers and a clear refutation of the so-called “doctrine of discovery,” followed by the papists in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Bulls were used by European Catholic powers to justify the colonization of the Americas and the subjugation of indigenous populations.
“Let us be very clear here: the Catholic Church does not embrace these legal and political concepts or practices,” the draft read.
Earlier this year, the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education and the Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development issued a joint statement clarifying, with emphasis, that “the doctrine of discovery is not part of the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
The Church “rejects those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery,'” Chambers said.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recently made the decision to withdraw the original American pastoral text on the language. This move comes after criticism and concerns were raised about certain passages in the original text. The USCCB is now working on updates and revisions to ensure the pastoral text accurately reflects the teachings and values of the Catholic Church. This decision has sparked discussions and debates within the Catholic community, as individuals and groups express their opinions on the changes being made.