It was not the teaching that was under episcopal attack, it was the way the teaching was expressed. The opposition was based on pedagogical not doctrinal reasons. What is the point of having a teaching document that will only alienated those the bishops are trying to teach, they asked. Most bishops voting against the letter felt that it would cause them more problems with women in their dioceses than it would help. When the draft failed to receive the required two-thirds vote, Cardinal Bernardin's motion was resurrected with the addition that the amended draft be published as a report of the drafting committee even though Bishop Imesch did not want it as a report from his committee which he argued went out of existence with the defeat of the draft.
Questions remain about the teaching authority of the committee report.
But to say that the report has no teaching authority would be to undermine the authority of every other report issued by a conference committee. Clearly it has some authority, but a very limited authority because it does not reflect a consensus among the bishops. Ironically, those who in the past have objected to giving teaching authority to conference committees will be the ones who will now stress the authority of this document. Similarly, those who argued for decision making by consensus and who forced compromises in the peace and economic pastorals were the ones who were quite willing to pass the women's pastoral by a slim majority. The bishops also approved with little debate a pastoral letter on stewardship, a national plan for evangelization, and a revised program of priestly formation.