Business as usual?

At HMS Blog, Greg has posted the beginning of a story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on the state's Catholic bishops and an advisory committee they are forming to "ensure their own accountability." This committee was to be appointed by Dec. 1, but it hasn't yet, which is probably the reason Greg titled the post as he did: "MN Bishops: Business as usual".

I have a bit of a problem with Greg's title, because (along with the beginning of the story he posted) it gives the impression that the bishops in that fair state (yes, I'm biased) have simply let their plan go by the wayside. In fact, that's not at all the case, as the rest of the story indicates. Rather, the 10 bishops of the state decided at the national meeting and then a "local" meeting in St. Paul to hold off on forming the committee. They seem to be fully aware of their original intentions, and in fact still plan to carry them out.

Now, I suppose it's possible that the reasons given are only excuses. But it's also possible that they are legitimate concerns. Why don't we presume the latter? Because of the actions of some other bishops? That doesn't seem fair. If I decide that I'm going to be proactive and take additional steps to deal with a particular problem which others in my "profession" have faced, and I then decide that I need to adjust my timetable for implementing those additional steps, would I be automatically deserving of a sideways look?