Bishops Meet in Washington

By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, November 30, 1991
Copyright © 1991 by America Press
All rights reserved

At their November 1991 meeting, the U.S. bishops discussed important and controversial issues, but the important issues were not controversial and the controversial issues were not important.

First the important issues. With no controversy or dissent the bishops condemned the Serbian aggression against Croatia as a "pernicious, unjust war." The bishops were responding to a personal request of Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, archbishop of Zagreb, who has seen thousands of his people slaughtered and 200 of his churches destroyed. The cardinal denied that this was a religious war pitting Catholic Croatians against Orthodox Serbs. Rather it is a war of imperial aggression led by the former Communist leaders who are atheists. With the fall of Communism the Croatian people had expected freedom and democracy, explains the cardinal, what they got was war. The pope has also called this an unjust war, but the fighting goes on.

Also noncontroversial was the bishops' statement on the environment, although in the long run it could have great impact. The bishops are late joining the environmental bandwagon, but their modest statement provides the ethical and religious principles that can make the environmental movement more credible and challenging to the American public. Americans consume twenty-eight times more energy than the average person in the third world, the statement reports. "Americans are road hogs on the road of life," said Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Whether the bishops will preach a simpler life style as a moral imperative remains to be seen. A genuine environmental asceticism would be more demanding than the fast and abstinence of the pre-Vatican II church.

The bishops also showed that they are still committed to their social justice agenda by approving a statement on children decrying that twenty percent of the children in this country live in poverty. The concern of the bishops for families and children is not new. The tragedy is that they are not being listened to by government officials who ignore the needs of children since they cannot vote.

With no debate, the bishops' conference also adopted a statement on responsible investment of its money. No investments will be made in companies dealing with abortion, contraceptives, and South Africa, nor in companies whose primary business is making weapons. These guidelines eliminate from consideration about a third of the stocks listed on the exchanges. In addition, the statement authorized involvement in stockholder resolutions although Archbishop Pilarczyk did not foresee any resolutions in the near future. Surprisingly, the statement said nothing about unions, a traditional concern of the American bishops. The policy applies only to conference investment, although dioceses are free to adopt it.

The bishops also responded to the reservations of Native Americans about having a triumphalistic celebration of the fifth centenary of the arrival of Christianity in the Western world. The bishops acknowledged the damage caused to Native Americans by the European invasion and called for reconciliation as well as celebration.

Controversy

The most controversial items on the agenda were proposals to eliminate the obligation to attend mass on four holy days (January 1, Ascension Thursday, August 15, and November 1). Many of the bishops would like to do something about these holy days because attendance is about half the attendance at mass on Sundays. Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco called it is imprudent to impose a binding obligation (not based on natural or divine law) that is ignored by most people. Bishops from rural dioceses noted the burden these days place on priests who serve churches separated by many miles. Holy days that fall on Saturday or Monday are especially burdensome although they occur only about six times every ten years.

Those defending the holy days argued their value as countercultural symbols forming the self-identity of American Catholics. Cardinal James Hickey of Washington, D.C., said that it is good that holy days intrude on everyday life because they remind Catholics and their neighbors of who they are. Many bishops appeared to regret dropping meatless Fridays and saw eliminating the obligation of holy days as a continuation down the slippery slope of making concessions to human weakness.

Ultimately the bishops decided to maintain the status quo. Because of episcopal absenteeism, the votes on eliminating the obligation when a holy day fell on Saturday or Monday was inconclusive. Absent bishops are being polled to determine the outcome. If the motion fails to get a two-thirds vote, individual bishops can still lift the obligation.

The bishops also maintained the status quo by voting down norms on lay preaching. In 1988 the bishops adopted nonbinding guidelines on lay preaching that were unacceptable to the Holy See which said that the Code of Canon Law required binding norms. Lay preaching outside the Eucharist is noncontroversial among the bishops as long as the lay person is competent. Nor is there a problem with lay preaching at the beginning of Mass or the end of Mass.

The sticking point is lay preaching after the Gospel where the priest normally gives a homily. Canon law forbids homilies by lay people, but some canonists define a homily as a sermon given by an ordained minister. Thus by definition it is impossible for a lay person to give a homily even if he or she preaches on the Scriptures after the Gospel. Fearing that the norms were open to such an interpretation, the bishops accepted an amendment by Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston deleting reference to preaching during the Eucharist. The norms were ultimately voted down by conservatives who felt they went too far and by liberals who, after the Law amendment, felt they were too restrictive. The matter remains now in the hands of the local bishop.

Finally, there was the children's lectionary, referred to in the press room as the Sesame Street lectionary. The lectionary is based on the Contemporary English Version of the Scriptures developed by the American Bible Society. The translation is aimed at eight year-olds and the biblically illiterate. It avoids biblicisms--words that are only used in the Bible and not in contemporary English. Thus manger becomes feed box, swaddling clothes become baby clothes, ark becomes a big boat, and plowshares become garden tools.

The lectionary was originally presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition because the translation is owned by the translators. But when it became clear that the entire lectionary could sink under the weight of a single feed box, Bishop Wilton Gregory, chair of the Liturgy Committee, got permission from the translators to keep the manger and thus saved the lectionary.

Finally the bishops debated and approved a document on the teaching role of bishops. Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee said that the earlier draft was better. No one seemed very excited about the document including its sponsors who said the draft was changed in response to suggestions from the bishops. One fifth of the document deals with theologians and dissent. Avery Dulles, S.J., says the document "makes room for dissent by theologians in scholarly publications and at professional meetings." On the other hand, Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, chair of the drafting committee, said that if the document had been in place the Rev. Charles Curran could not have claimed any support in the conference's documents.

What was disappointing at this meeting was not so much what the bishops did as the lack of any new or creative ideas. Cardinal Hickey is right that the self-identity of the Catholic people is crucial, but if all that the bishops can find to rally around is holy days and their opposition to dissent, then they might as well stay home.

See also