(RNS) — “We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people,” said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a special pastoral message on immigration that was almost unanimously approved at their annual meeting this week in Baltimore.

But this message almost didn’t happen.

Statements from the bishops are normally drafted by staff, reviewed and approved by a committee of bishops, distributed to the bishops in advance of their meeting and then discussed, amended and voted on again when the bishops gather for their fall meeting. When the bishops opened the meeting in Baltimore on Monday (Nov. 10), however, there was nothing on the agenda to respond to the immigration crisis facing the country.

In a customary address, the outgoing conference president, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, talked about the work of the bishops to “meet the basic needs of the immigrant” and to “lobby for immigration reform,” but he said nothing about the harsh treatment of migrants by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

This failure of USCCB leadership would not stand. The bishops made clear behind closed doors on the first day of their four-day meeting that they wanted to say something about immigration. Four bishops were asked to draft a message on immigration to be put to a vote on Wednesday, the last day of public sessions. But the USCCB leadership wanted the committee draft to be approved without the opportunity to amend it.

Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich objected that this was contrary to USCCB rules, and his amendment strengthening the message by opposing indiscriminate mass deportation was overwhelmingly approved. “How can we say to the people who are suffering in this moment that we stand with you if we don’t clearly say that we are opposed to the indiscriminate deportation of people,” said Cupich in defense of his amendment.

The message as drafted by the committee attempted to be pastoral, not political, in tone, sending words of solidarity and comfort to the migrants without naming those responsible for rounding them up and deporting them.

There are three theories on why the bishops were reluctant to publicly criticize President Donald Trump.

First, many bishops approve of much that the Trump administration is doing, especially on abortion and gender issues. These bishops do not want to attack an ally and strengthen the hand of Democrats, who see these issues differently.

Second, the administration eliminated government funding for the bishops’ work on behalf of refugees. Some bishops hope that the administration will restore this funding and don’t want to antagonize Trump. They, like college presidents who have also seen funding withdrawn, are afraid to poke the bear.

Third, the bishops know that Catholics are divided almost equally between Democrats and Republicans. They don’t want to alienate the Trump supporters among their followers — though this has not stopped them from alienating Catholic Democrats by attacking pro-choice Democrats. Some also believe that the bishops are afraid of alienating conservative donors.

It’s hard to say which was the most convincing factor in some bishops’ reluctance to call out the president by name; it’s likely a combination of all three.

San Jose, California, Bishop Oscar Cantú, who wanted a stronger statement, acknowledged to Religion News Service that the hesitancy of the bishops to mention Trump may be because “ a lot of Catholics voted for him — and a lot of Catholics who have been supportive of many of our dioceses.” 

As a result, the bishops prefer to talk about the pain their flock is experiencing, rather than who is causing it. They send words of comfort and solidarity to the migrants but not words of condemnation to those rounding them up and deporting them. They say their message must be pastoral, not partisan.

As pastors, the bishops say they are “disturbed” by the climate of fear that happens when federal agents profile citizens and undocumented immigrants alike. They are “saddened” by the debate and “concerned” about conditions in detention centers, particularly the lack of access to chaplains. They continued in the statement:

We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status. We are troubled by threats against the sanctity of houses of worship and the special nature of hospitals and schools. We are grieved when we meet parents who fear being detained when taking their children to school and when we try to console family members who have already been separated from their loved ones.

They note that Catholic social teaching “exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants.” They remind readers that Jesus and the prophets gave priority to the most vulnerable, including the stranger. “The Church’s concern for neighbor and our concern here for immigrants,” they said, “is a response to the Lord’s command to love as He has loved us.”

In a report given by Bishop Mark Seitz, the outgoing chair of the bishops’ committee on migration, we see stronger language that did not make it into the bishops’ message.

“Since January, the Trump Administration has remained committed to carrying out the President’s campaign promise of mass deportations,” reported Seitz. “This has been accompanied by policy changes that are intimidating and dehumanizing the immigrants in our midst, regardless of how they came to be here.”

Seitz contradicts the administration’s clam that it is focused on terrorists and dangerous criminals. Instead, he sees “the detention of those attending their immigration court hearings, the targeting of international students, and even the circumvention of protections for unaccompanied children, among others.”

The data does not support the administration’s claims, the bishop said, since “Over two-thirds of the almost 60,000 people held in immigration detention at the end of September had no criminal convictions.”

Broglio’s successor as USCCB president, Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City, was elected at the meeting, as was a new vice president, Bishop Daniel E. Flores of Brownsville. The two were the top candidates for president, with Coakley beating out Flores 128-109 in a runoff on the third ballot.

The results were “deeply disappointing” and “depressing” to Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter, who had supported Flores for president.

Winters and others noted that Coakley had defended Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó, the former apostolic nuncio to the United States and now a schismatic, when Viganó accused Pope Francis of covering up the sex abuse of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington. Coakley has never apologized for this imprudent and disloyal statement, which is still posted on the Oklahoma Archdiocese’s website.

In an interview with OSV News after his election, Coakley said that he didn’t know Viganó all that well. “A lot more about his views became apparent in subsequent months and years,” he said, “which I could certainly not support or countenance.”

The election of Flores on the first ballot as vice president sets him up as a possible but not guaranteed president in three years. Flores was a strong supporter of Pope Francis.