The best and the worst of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
(NCCB) were on display at Collegeville, MN, where the American bishops
met to discuss a wide-range of topics, everything from Mother Angelica
to condoms. The issues were complex and controversial with the bishops
striving for consensus but not always attaining it.
Two topics about which there was little division among the bishops were
retired religious and nuclear weapons. There are about 39,000 religious
in the United States over age 70. The average cost of their care is $10,000
annually. Simple mathematics shows this adds up to almost $400 million
in retirement costs per year. The total unfunded retirement liability for
the religious communities is estimated at over $3 billion.
The bishops unanimously decided to help needy religious communities
with their retirees. Determining need without complicated and intrusive
regulations proved to be impossible. As a result, the bishops decided to
give 90 percent of the money raised by a national collection to communities
based on the number of elderly members. But a community with enough funds
set aside for retirement would not receive any money.
The remaining 10 percent of the collection would be distributed in grants
to communities in desperate need of funds for retired religious. The money
will be distributed by a tri-conference commission with members from the
NCCB, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) and the Leadership
Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).
Also noncontroversial was the report from the bishops' ad hoc committee
to study deterrence chaired by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. The
report, which was approved by the full assembly, said, "We remain convinced
that the policy of nuclear deterrence is not a stable long-term method
of keeping the peace among sovereign states." But, "we are persuaded to
renew the judgment of The Challenge of Peace: that nuclear deterrence merits
only strictly conditioned acceptance."
The report spoke in a positive way of improvements in Soviet-American
relations. But it also said, "it is our prudential judgment that proposals
to press deployment of SDI do not measure up to the moral criteria outlined
in this Report." SDI can "be maintained as a research and development program,
within the restraints of the ABM Treaty...."
The committee accepted Cardinal John O'Connor's suggestion to delete
language in the report labeling SDI as "morally deficient." In fact, this
phrase which some bishops found confusing, had been suggested by a bishop
not on the deterrence committee. The committee also accepted some additions
proposed by Pax Christi bishops headed by Walter Sullivan of Richmond,
but these bishops withdrew their alternative draft when it became clear
it had no chance of passing. The Bernardin report passed with no audible
dissent.
Nuclear warfare was simple and noncontroversial when compared to the
bishops' debate over general absolution. According to the new code of canon
law, each diocesan bishop determines whether or not the conditions necessary
for general absolution exist in his diocese, but he is to determine this
in light of the criteria set by his episcopal conference.
Canon 961 states that general absolution can be given "when in the light
of the number of penitents a supply of confessors is not available properly
to hear confessions of individuals within a suitable time so that the penitents
are forced to be deprived of sacramental grace or holy communion for a
long time through no fault of their own...." The NCCB Canonical Affairs
Committee recommended that "a long time" be defined as 30 days.
In the emotional discussion some bishops blamed the decline in individual
confessions on the use of general absolution. Others argued that general
absolution is a useful pastoral tool for reconciling Catholics and brings
people back to individual confession. Archbishop William D. Borders said
that in Baltimore general absolution was properly given when 10 priests
at a communal penance service would be confronted by 1,000 penitents. Archbishop
William Levada of Portland disagreed saying that general absolution in
such a situation was improper.
Cardinal O'Connor, who confessed to using general absolution on new
recruits as a Navy chaplain, felt the setting of criteria would give more
legitimacy to the proper use of general absolution. Bishop McManus reported
that the Pope when asked what a long time meant, responded "I don't know."
He noted that the code of canon law asked episcopal conferences to set
an age for confirmation but that the NCCB had left this to the local bishop.
He argued the same should be true on general absolution.
Some feared that the 30-day norm would mean no general absolution in
any parish that had weekly confessions. Nor was it clear how the norm would
be implemented on the local level. With a church full of people, does the
priest ask those in serious sin who cannot get to confession for a month
to stand so he can give general absolution only to them?
The debate on "a long time" went on for a long time with the resolution
being supported by a 168-62 vote. Since the vote required 200 votes or
two-thirds of the members, the absent members will be polled by mail. Archbishop
John May of St. Louis, president of the conference, believes it will get
the necessary number of votes for passage.
Another complex and controversial item on the agenda was the use of
television by the conference. Many bishops feel they have poured millions
of dollars into the Catholic Telecommunications Network (CTNA) and gotten
little for their money. Cardinal Edmund C. Szoka of Detroit, a firm supported
of CTNA, believes the bishops made a serious mistake in scrambling CTNA's
signal so that cable systems could not use it without the approval of the
local bishop. In addition, as a for-profit corporation, CTNA could not
solicit tax deductible contributions. "Only the bishops could figure out
how to lose money on religious broadcasting," commented one observer.
An ad hoc committee chaired by Archbishop J. Francis Stafford of Denver
presented an 87-page assessment of CTNA to the bishops along with 39 recommendations.
Most were accepted, but the bishops refused to increase the national share
of the communications collection from 50 to 60 percent.
The bishops also considered a proposal to negotiate participation in
VISN, the Vision Interfaith Cable Network. Many observers thought that
the bishops would support continued negotiations with VISN, but many bishops
thought they were being asked to buy a pig in a poke. VISN is a proposal
in development not an existing network. Their experience with CTNA also
made them fear that VISN would require a large financial commitment from
the bishops.
Finally, the cable industry's support for VISN made bishops fear that
VISN would become the token religious channel that cable companies would
point to in denying access to local programing, CTNA, EWTN or other religious
programing. Despite support for continued negotiations from CTNA, the USCC
communications staff and the bishops' communication committee, the resolution
was defeated 51 to 118.
The bishops did decide to collaborate with EWTN, the Eternal Word Television
Network inspired and led by Mother Angelica. Mother offered the bishops
a two-year contract providing free air time for conference programs.
Many bishops objected to a clause in the contract giving EWTN the right
to refuse any conference program it does not approve of. Mother Angelica
sees EWTN as a spiritual or devotional network and does not want programs
on social justice pushed down the throats of her viewers. People at EWTN
are also quick to question the orthodoxy of theologians they disagree with.
Archbishop Daniel W. Kucera of Dubuque noted that EWTN does not trust the
bishops' conference. He also accused EWTN commentators of doing a hatchet
job on the bishops during coverage of conference meetings.
EWTN reluctantly agreed to an appeals board of five bishops (a majority
of them chosen by the NCCB president) to review any conference programs
rejected by EWTN. Also added was a guarantee of three one-half hours per
week of prime time. In choosing EWTN over VISN, the bishops preferred a
clear contract over a poorly worded resolution, they chose strict orthodoxy
over interfaith cooperation and they climbed aboard the network that promised
them a free ride. When the contract will be signed is unclear. Despite
the 122 to 93 vote, Archbishop May and other bishops indicated there were
some issues still to be negotiated, such as a clause forbidding the conference
from dealing with any other national cable network.
The most controversial item on the agenda, the statement on AIDS by
the USCC administrative board, was discussed in closed session. The statement
had been publicly attacked by Cardinals O'Connor, Bernard Law and other
bishops. The focus of the attack was a section on public education programs
and condoms.
The administrative board recognized that everyone would not accept their
teaching on abstaining from sexual activity outside of marriage. They therefore
said, educational efforts, if grounded in their broader moral vision, could
include accurate information about prophylactic devices. "Such a factual
presentation should indicate that abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity
within marriage as well as the avoidance of intravenous drug abuse are
the only morally correct and medically sure ways to prevent the spread
of AIDS. So-called safe sex practices are at best on partially effective."
Although most moral theologians find this position clearly within the
bounds of traditional moral teaching on counseling the lesser evil (see
America 2/13/88), many bishops continued to have troubles with it. Some
press reports erroneously described it as a change in the church's teaching
on birth control.
On arriving at Collegeville, the bishops received a letter from Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith,
expressing concern about the disunity of the bishops on this issue which
was generating confusion among the faithful. He wanted the bishops to give
a clear and public demonstration of unity "so necessary among the bishops
in the teaching of Christian moral doctrine." He criticized the bishops
for publishing a document that generated world-wide reaction without consulting
in advance the Holy See.
On the substance of the statement, the cardinal took the side of its
critics. He said, the classical principle of tolerance of the lesser evil
was not pertinent to the issue. "One would not be dealing simply with a
form of passive toleration but rather with a kind of behavior which would
result in at least the facilitation of evil." Defenders of the statement
felt that the cardinal did not understand their letter, but this in itself
is an argument for more dialogue. Archbishop May admits that if he had
it to do over again, he would send the statement to the full assembly.
The bishops came prepared for a very divisive fight over the statement.
But by proposing a compromise, Cardinal Bernardin magically transformed
a classroom brawl into a boys' choir singing in unison. The essence of
the compromise was that the administrative board's statement stands unchanged,
but the full assembly of bishops will write a new AIDS statement of its
own.
Once this proposal was seconded by Cardinal Law, bishops could be seen
scratching out large sections of their prepared speeches. Little time was
actually given to discussing condoms and the principle of the lesser evil.
Rather, the bishops voiced concern about their divisions. In an emotional
speech that was well received by the bishops, Cardinal O'Connor apologized
for any harm he might have done to the conference by his actions. Most
bishops agreed that the discussions were a healing experience, but it remains
to be seen whether divisions will again appear over drafting the new statement.
The bishops also discussed in small groups "Partners in Ministry," the
pastoral letter on women's issues. Reports from small groups indicated
wide support for the letter although some bishops wanted more on motherhood
and a stronger defense of the church's teaching of birth control and a
male priesthood. Some bishops also felt there was too much "priest bashing"
in the sections apologizing for the past treatment of women in the church.
Cardinal Ratzinger's letter on AIDS leads one to speculate what will
be his response to the women's pastoral. He too will probably complain
that more space should be given to defending church teaching and less to
airing the views of alienated women. Nor is it likely he will look favorably
on altar girls, women lectors and a call for a study of the possibility
of women deacons.
The intervention of Cardinal Ratzinger in conference proceedings brings
to fore the central issue of the teaching authority of episcopal conferences.
The bishops had small group discussions on the Vatican working paper, "The
Theological and Juridical Status of Episcopal Conferences" (see America
3/19/88). Many bishops believe that the Vatican document needs major revision.
Some went so far as to say such a poorly written document would never be
allowed out of their chanceries. A response to the Vatican paper will be
prepared and presented to the bishops next November by an ad hoc committee
of former NCCB presidents.
Some of the "dangers" touched on in the Vatican document were evident
during the meeting. For example, the decision on VISN was made with only
about half the bishops present and voting. Only two-thirds of the bishops
were present for the EWTN vote which passed by only 29 votes. This is clearly
not decision making by consensus asked for in the Vatican document.
The debates also touched on the proper role of episcopal conferences.
As a hierarchical institution, there will probably always be debates over
which issues should be decided at what level in the church. But it is simplistic
to portray the bishops as divided between those supporting a strong conference
and those wanting to weaken it. Bishops switched sides depending on the
issue.
For example, those who wanted the conference to establish criteria on
general absolution were often the same bishops attacking the administrative
board for establishing criteria on AIDS education. Many who said that a
conference policy on general absolution interfered with their discretion
as diocesan bishops also said that the AIDS statement had helped them in
their dioceses.
Nor is the argument simply between those for Rome and those for the
conference. The Pope himself in response to a question on AIDS said that
"I am the successor of Peter. I am not a dictator." On the other hand,
issues that have world-wide impact need to be dealt with in consultation
with the Holy See and other episcopal conferences. At the same time, the
conference cannot simply be a echo chamber or rubber stamp for the Vatican.
Cardinal Ratzinger is not pope, he is not the president of the NCCB
nor should his approval be required for every conference statement. To
make him the ultimate censor of conference documents reduces the bishops
to school children whose papers must be corrected by the teacher before
they are published.
The NCCB was at its best in daring to grapple with difficult topics
and in its willingness to back away from divisive quarrels that produce
more heat than light. But if the bishops are going to make decisions about
complex topics, they must first educate themselves on the issues. For example,
the confusion over the principle of the lesser evil was as much due to
ignorance as to disagreement. Speed reading a foot high pile of agenda
material and listening to the debates is not enough.
In addition, the church still has not found a way of publicly discussing
controversial issues. Some confusion, misunderstandings and even disagreements
are inevitable when the church deals with complex and evolving issues.
Rome is terrified of public disagreement among bishops. It is even more
upset by bishops or theologians questioning Vatican policy.
Fear of confusing the faithful, when in fact it is sometimes church
officials who are confused, is an excuse for limiting public debate. A
careful reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows that disagreements and
arguments between Peter and Paul were in fact healthy for the early church.
Peter and Paul compromised at the council of Jerusalem and preserved church
unity. Joseph and Bernard did the same at Collegeville.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, July 16, 1988
Copyright © 1988 by America
Press
All rights reserved
See also