"It will not make headlines in The Washington Post," responded
Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk of Cincinnati when asked what was new about
the revised Order of Christian Funeral that was approved by the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops for use beginning Nov. 2, 1986.
His comment could have been applied to much of what went on at the N.C.C.B.
Nov. 11-15, 1985, meeting.
Although the bishops dealt with many topics of importance to the church,
much of the meeting was dull partly because the bishops' committees, like
Archbishop Pilarczyk's Committee on the Liturgy, had done their homework.
The Archbishop, for example, convinced the bishops that they should continue
to support the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, the
agency that translates liturgical texts for use in the English-speaking
world. While some bishops might want to change some words in the translation,
such changes would undermine the ICEL process of producing common texts.
The bishops overwhelming approval of the revised Order of Christian
Funeral bodes well for future revisions by ICEL, including a planned
revision of the Order of the Mass. How far these revisions will
go beyond merely a new translation in unclear. However, the suggestion
by Archbishop John R. Quinn of San Francisco that the greeting of peace
might be better placed elsewhere in the Mass was referred to ICEL for consideration
during this revision.
Likewise, Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland of Milwaukee and his committee
produced a second draft of their pastoral letter on the economy that also
received wide support from the bishops although it is still criticized
by conservatives outside the bishops conference. The bishops expressed
approval that the second draft was shorter and less confrontational than
the first.
On two points, however, the bishops wanted the letter to be more specific.
First, they wanted more on the impact of the economy on the family. The
bishops are concerned about the effects of unemployment and poverty on
families and also felt that such a discussion would make the letter more
relevant to the people in the pews.
Secondly, the bishops wanted more said about the importance of education,
especially Catholic schools, as a means of overcoming poverty. If the bishops
expressed anger about anything during the meeting, it was toward the Supreme
Court's Aguilar v. Felton decision denying Chapter 1 funds to Catholic
schools teaching disadvantaged students (see Am., 7/27 and 10/5). Many
bishops felt that the decision was both anti-Catholic and an injustice
to Catholic school students and their parents.
Another education issue discussed by the bishops was the authority of
the bishops and the Vatican over Catholic colleges and universities. The
new code of canon law grants bishops some authority over these institutions
and a draft of a Pontifical Document on Catholic Universities by the Congregation
for Catholic Education suggests an assertion of control over them by Rome.
Catholic college presidents fear the impact of these developments not only
on academic freedom but also on government funding. So far the bishops
have wisely refrained from attempting to exercise control over college
faculties because their lawyers warn them of the likelihood of being sued
by any professor they move against.
The most discussed topic at the N.C.C.B. meeting was the Synod of Bishops
which will be held in Rome Nov. 25 to Dec. 8. Bishop James W. Malone of
Youngstown, president of the N.C.C.B., said that he would take to the synod
an optimistic view of the implementation of the Vatican Council in the
United States as opposed to the more pessimistic view expressed by Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Bishop Malone also felt that "collegiality" should be a primary topic of
the synod.
The bishops discussed two topics in closed sessions: a statement on
racism by the black bishops and a proposal to review the bishops' support
of nuclear deterrence. The statement on racism received wide support from
the bishops, with many wondering why the black bishops had asked that it
be considered in executive session. In any case, it received wide publicity
because of the media's curiosity about anything discussed behind closed
doors.
A proposal to reconsider the bishops' support of nuclear deterrence
was considered in executive sessions because the N.C.C.B. Administrative
Committee feared a public discussion of this topic before the Geneva summit
would be impolitic. In their peace pastoral the bishops said nuclear deterrence
was morally acceptable so long as nations are moving toward nuclear disarmament.
Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton and others felt that the world has moved in
the opposite direction since the letter was published in 1983 (see Am.,
9/7). The issue was referred to a committee to be appointed by Bishop Malone.
While the press would prefer exciting meetings with public fights between
bishops, periodic bouts of boredom at bishops' meetings might not be all
that bad for the church.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, Nov. 30, 1985
Copyright © 1985 by America
Press
All rights reserved.
See also