Women in the church, violence in America, liturgical prayers, and guidelines
for Catholic hospitals were some of the issues discussed by the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops when it met in Washington November 14-17,
1994. Although the issues were complex and controversial the bishops were
able to reach consensus to an extraordinary degree.
Two and a half years ago, the bishops failed to reach agreement on their
pastoral letter on women's concerns, a project that took six years to write.
Although the letter bitterly divided the bishops, they returned to the
issues because they wanted to reach out to women who feel alienated from
the church.
The new statement is much shorter than the pastoral letter. It calls
for an end of sexism in the church and society, and for a greater use of
women in the many roles available to them in the church. At the same time
the bishops loyally support the pope's position against ordination of women.
Few bishops were completely satisfied with the statement which they
felt needed further development and expansion. But the authors had crafted
the letter in such a way as to eliminate anything which would stir up opposition
from the bishops. The bishops concluded that the statement was a good first
step that would help rather than hurt them in dealing with women's issues
in their dioceses.
The consensus almost fell apart over the question of radical feminism.
Bishop Charles Chaput of Rapid City offered an amendment to expressing
concern over "the social and ecclesial problems caused by a radicalization
of feminist issues that can lead people away from the church." He was supported
on the floor by Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha, Archbishop Theodore
McCarrick of Newark, and Cardinal James Hickey of Washington, D.C. Auxiliary
Bishop Emil Wcela of Rockville Centre asked if this meant radicalization
of the left or the right, and Bishop Chaput responded, "All of the above."
During the coffee break the last eight words of the amendment were changed
to "which forms an obstacle to the legitimate aspirations of equality shared
by women and men alike." Auxiliary Bishop Frank Murphy of Baltimore and
Archbishop Frank Hurley of Anchorage and others expressed concern about
the amendment, especially its use of the words "radicalization" and "feminism."
Archbishop John Roach of St. Paul suggest alternative language: "We further
reject extreme positions on either side of the argument that impede further
dialogue on women's issues." After the Chaput amendment lost 74-136, the
Roach amendment was adopted.
The debate was about substance and perception, as Archbishop Roach rightly
pointed out. Many bishops, like the Vatican, are concerned about "radical
feminists," whom they tend to define as women who celebrate their own Eucharists
and refuse to go to a liturgy presided over by a man. Some bishops would
throw into this category any women who support women's ordination. Most
bishops, however, preferred to avoid the imprecisely defined phrase as
unhelpful to the discussion. The last thing they needed at this time was
a headline announcing "Bishops Condemn Radical Feminists." The bishops
preferred words that would invite people to dialogue rather than chase
them away.
Media coverage of the Catholic church was a theme of Cardinal designate
William Keeler's presidential address. He criticized the press for not
covering the many good things the church does and concentrating on stories
"of an ailing pope trying to impose outdated morality on a resistant world,
a church preoccupied by sexual issues, hostile to social progress and,
now, deaf to the nuances of inclusive language." Needless to say, the Keeler
speech did not go down well in the press room although many reporters admitted
they were not always happy with media coverage of the church.
The conference then proceeded to fumble the media ball by postponing
debate on its statement on violence so that it came up on the same day
as the women's statement and a report on sex abuse by the clergy. The reporters
covering the meeting had been ready to make the bishops' statement on violence
the focus of their stories for that day. Because of the postponement, they
were forced to deal with the statements on violence and on women's concerns
in the same story thus reducing by half the amount of media attention these
statements got. Obviously not only the media are to blame when good news
about the church is missed.
The bishops' statement on violence is a prophetic and counter-cultural
response to the violent character of American society. Violence in families,
schools, and neighborhoods is tearing apart the fabric of American life.
American society, they say, is to quick to seek violent solutions to social
problems whether it be through abortion or capital punishment. They call
for gun control and less violence on television and in video games. In
their document they encourage parishes and other Catholic organizations
to work toward the reduction of violence in American life. The bishops
are offering not just a statement but an organized effort at the local
level to combat violence. One wag commented that after talking so much
about sex, the bishops decided to give equal time to violence.
During the debate, the bishops added an amendment decrying the violence
done through budget cuts that hurt the poor. During the week the bishops
were meeting, Representative Newt Gingrich was talking about cutting welfare
benefits to mothers and putting their children in orphanages. Reporters
recognized that this was diametrically opposed to the bishops' position
on welfare reform. Although every newspaper editor was looking for a lead
that would put the bishops in conflict with the new speaker of the House,
the bishops tried to avoid personalizing the issue without backing away
from their social teaching.
When the bishops met behind closed doors, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los
Angeles, chair of the pro-life committee, gave a generally favorable report
on the number of antiabortion candidates winning in the last election.
Some bishops noted, however, that the Republican "Contract with America"
did not include opposition to abortion or support for aid to Catholic schools.
The bishops also continued their work in reviewing a new sacramentary
for use in the Eucharistic liturgy. Last year the ICEL (International Commission
for English in the Liturgy) sacramentary ran into rough waters when it
was attacked for proposing prayers that were alleged to be poorly translated
and unorthodox. Cardinal Hickey called for an examination of the prayers
by the bishops' committee on doctrine. In addition, the bishops had a major
presentation on the translation process at the spring meeting this year.
This year the ICEL texts received overwhelming support from the bishops
once a few were set aside for further consideration by ICEL. The bishops
committee on doctrine found no heresies in the presidential prayers but
did suggest some minor modifications in about 30 out of 800 prayers. The
prayers now go back to ICEL which will review the proposed changes and
resubmit them to the English-speaking bishops conferences around the world.
After the sacramentary is approved by the bishops' conferences, it must
be approved by Rome which means it will not be in the parishes for at least
a couple more years.
The bishops hope that the new translations will make the prayers be
better understood when spoken. In addition, the bishops approved new prayers
to go with the Scripture in the three-year cycle of Sunday readings. The
new prayers were written to match the themes in the scriptures for each
Sunday. All these prayers use inclusive language, a point that was not
even debated by the bishops despite Rome's recent rejection of their request
to use the New Revised Standard Version in liturgical readings. The Congregation
of the Faith did not like the use of inclusive language in the translation
although John Paul II had referred to it as an excellent translation that
he himself used.
The bishops also approved an ICEL translation of the so-called Swiss
Eucharistic prayer. This will provide an additional Eucharist prayer for
weekdays and other occasions. This Eucharistic prayer, which was originally
written for Switzerland, has already been translated into Spanish and Italian
and is being used in many parts of the world. The bishops postponed action
on other proposed changes in the sacramentary, including a proposal to
move the kiss of peace to after the liturgy of the word and before the
presentation of gifts. These changes will be discussed at the bishops'
meeting next spring.
The last major item approved by the bishops was a new set of "Ethical
and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services." The last set
of guidelines for Catholic hospitals was issued in 1971 and revised in
1975. The bishops wanted to update the guidelines to reflect changes in
medical technology dealing with reproduction and intensive care. The directives
reject artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization but approve of
methods that assist rather than substitute for the marital act.
The bishops also rejected euthanasia and physician-assisted suicides,
but supported the use of pain killers even if they might hasten death as
long at that was not the intention.
More complex and controversial was the discussion of life-sustaining
technologies for a terminally ill patient. In general, the bishops said,
"A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving
life. Disproportionate means are those that do not offer a reasonable hope
of benefit or entail an excessive burden to the person, family, or others."
Nutrition and hydration by artificial means can be withdrawn if the burden
outweighs the benefits.
The directives also confronted the changing economic environment of
Catholic hospitals. The bishops continue to support universal health care
but recognize that economic conditions are forcing Catholic hospitals into
partnerships where their Catholic identity and autonomy can be threatened.
Some of these partnerships may be with entities that provide services unacceptable
to Catholic teaching. The bishops note that cooperating with such entities
could be licit under certain circumstances: if the services are not performed
in the Catholic hospital or if the services are performed under duress.
Duress, for example, could be applied to a Catholic clinic in a poor neighborhood
that is dependent on interns from a non-Catholic medical school. The school
might refuse to send interns unless a full range of birth control services
are offered. If the clinic refuses, it will be forced to close and the
poor will not served.
The directives were unanimously approved by the bishops after six years
of work that included extensive consultation with American moral theologians,
Catholic hospitals, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The bishops continue to act slowly on their agenda but with great care
for the development of consensus whether it be on women's concerns, medical
ethics, or liturgical texts. Such slowness is frustrating to people who
want quick results, but in the long run it is probably better than tearing
the church apart by forcing decisions before consensus is reached.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, December 10, 1994
Copyright © 1994 by America
Press
All rights reserved
See also