USCCB election highlights shift in general secretary role
U.S. bishops will elect a new USCCB general secretary at their meeting in Baltimore next month, amid significant challenges for the conference. The previous election followed Msgr. Jeff Burrill’s abrupt 2021 resignation, which prompted organizational upheaval and national controversy. Msgr. Michael Fuller was appointed interim secretary and later elected to a five-year term, taking the role without the customary apprenticeship as associate general secretary. Fuller’s tenure has drawn mixed assessments: he is viewed sympathetically for taking on the role during a crisis, though some bishops and staff have raised concerns about tensions and leadership style.
5 hours ago
The U.S. bishops are due to elect a new general secretary at their November meeting in Baltimore, as the conference faces organizational and financial pressures. The article says the election may also reflect changing expectations of the position, with associate general secretary Fr. Paul Hartmann viewed as the leading candidate.
Msgr. Michael Fuller became interim general secretary in 2021 after Msgr. Jeff Burrill resigned amid questions about his conduct; Fuller was later elected to a five-year term. He took the position without the customary prior service as associate general secretary and began amid intense scrutiny of the conference.
During Fuller’s tenure, the USCCB coordinated national synodality work and took part in organizing the National Eucharistic Congress. His performance has drawn mixed views: some bishops and observers have sympathy for the circumstances in which he assumed the job, while the article also notes reported tensions with bishops and staff concerns about clarity of leadership.
The article describes the role as requiring a balance between leading staff and ensuring the conference remains a tool of the bishops rather than a “staff-driven” institution. General secretaries can also become influential advisers and relationship-builders among bishops, though Fuller is described as having focused largely on internal conference affairs.
The position was once widely seen as a route to the episcopacy, but the article says that reputation overstates the pattern: since the 1970s and 1980s, fewer than half of the officeholders have become bishops.
Fr. Paul Hartmann, the associate general secretary and a canon lawyer from Milwaukee, is identified as the likely successor. His election is not certain because the bishops must choose the secretary; doctrinal secretary Fr. Ron Kunkel is mentioned as a possible opponent. Hartmann is described as more outgoing and decisive than Fuller, a profile that could bring clearer internal authority but potentially reduce departments’ autonomy.
The next secretary will take office as the conference confronts vacant headquarters space, layoffs following the collapse of federal refugee-resettlement programs, and indications that further downsizing may be ahead. The article frames the coming term as a period in which the USCCB may have to reconsider its role and the resources available to carry it out.
Episcopal conference governance requires accountable ecclesial leadership
Episcopal conference governance does require accountable ecclesial leadership—but accountability must be understood in a specifically ecclesial and canonical sense. A conference exists to help bishops act together for the Church’s good, not to replace their authority with a centralized bureaucracy. Its leaders and structures are therefore answerable to the conference’s proper mission, the authority of individual diocesan bishops, and communion with the universal Church. The supplied teachings also commend transparency, shared responsibility, discernment, and evaluation as sound governance practices, while cautioning that these principles must serve the Church’s nature and mission rather than import secular management models.
An Episcopal conference is a way for bishops in a country or territory to consult, share pastoral experience, and cooperate on common concerns. Its purpose is practical and ecclesial: to strengthen their common service and promote the good of the Church. John Paul II describes conferences as an expression of episcopal collegiality, rooted in the bishops’ ordination and hierarchical communion.
That shared work does not erase the distinct responsibility of each bishop for his own diocese. John Paul II insists that conference offices and commissions are to assist bishops, not take their place or become an intermediate authority between them and the Apostolic See:
“to be of help to the Bishops and not to substitute for them, and even less to create an intermediate structure between the Apostolic See and individual Bishops”
This boundary is central to accountable leadership. A conference’s officers, commissions, and staff should exercise only the role entrusted to them; they should not quietly assume powers belonging to individual bishops or to the conference as a whole. John Paul II accordingly warns that a bishop’s duty to teach, sanctify, and govern is personal and cannot be surrendered to others.
A conference does not possess unrestricted power over its member bishops. Apostolos Suos explains that conference decisions bind individual bishops when the Church’s common law or a specific mandate of the Apostolic See assigns the matter to the conference. Where neither provides for conference action, the competence of individual diocesan bishops remains intact; neither the conference nor its president may speak for all the bishops without their consent.
This makes canonical limits part of accountability, not an obstacle to effective leadership. A conference can coordinate and support common action, but it must be clear about whether it is offering consultation, acting within authority granted by law, or presenting a position that requires the consent of the bishops concerned. John Paul II also emphasizes that conference decisions have implications for the universal Church and that the Petrine ministry serves as a guarantor of their harmony with the Church’s life and teaching.
The supplied teachings identify practices that help ecclesial governance remain responsible: mutual listening, shared responsibility, transparency, communal discernment, subsidiarity, and responsible participation. Pope Leo XIV presents these as characteristics of good governance and stresses that authority should promote participation rather than concentrate everything in itself.
In a conference, such principles support careful decision-making: bishops should have meaningful opportunities to deliberate; leaders should communicate what has been decided and within what authority; and structures should be reviewed when they no longer serve the pastoral needs for which they were created. John Paul II specifically calls for constant reassessment of conference structures and procedures, warning against arrangements that become unduly rigid.
Pope Leo XIV’s remarks on accountability, evaluation, and decision-making were addressed to a conference of major superiors, not to an Episcopal conference. They therefore do not establish a specific rule for episcopal conferences. They do, however, articulate broader principles of ecclesial governance: leaders should evaluate their actions and results, foster transparency, and remain open to dialogue and correction. Applied to Episcopal conferences, those principles should be exercised within the distinct authority and canonical structure proper to bishops.
Accountable leadership does not mean simply adopting corporate procedures or treating a conference as a secular organization. John Paul II explicitly cautions that conference structures must function as an ecclesial body, not as an institution modeled on secular management. Structures are instruments of evangelization and service, not ends in themselves.
The practical test is therefore not whether a conference looks administratively powerful, but whether its governance helps bishops discharge their pastoral responsibilities, encourages genuine cooperation, respects the authority entrusted to each bishop, and preserves communion with the universal Church. The sources support a strong case for accountable leadership—but one grounded in service, participation, canonical competence, and communion rather than centralized control.