Beyond the Archdiocese
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J. From Archbishop: Inside the Power Structure of the American Catholic Church (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989) The hardest part of my job is to be sandwiched between Roman orders and my people
and priests' hopes and ideals. I say no to altar girls. Oh God, what troubles I get into by saying no to altar
girls. A bishop's primary concern is the internal governance of his local church, but what
happens in his local church can be affected by church institutions outside his diocese.
Decisions made by church organs, especially the Vatican and the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops, can sometimes be binding on the bishop. Bishops, as successors of the apostles, are also responsible for the welfare of the
whole church, not just their dioceses. By their participation in various church organs
(ecumenical councils, Roman synods, national conferences, Vatican congregations), bishops
help in the governance of the entire church./1
Cardinals and archbishops exercise this responsibility to a greater extent than other
bishops. As a result, archbishops are both governors and governed. What makes an archbishop different from a bishop is that he is a metropolitan, the head
of an ecclesiastical province that contains his archdiocese and one or more dioceses. More
than half of the thirty-one provinces in the United States have boundaries coextensive
with those of a single state (Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington,
and Wisconsin). Only California has more than one province (part of Maryland is in the
province of Washington, DC). The remaining provinces contain more than one state. The metropolitan has practically no power over the diocesan bishops in his province who
are called suffragans. He is involved primarily in ceremonial functions such as attending
the celebration of anniversaries or the installations and burials of bishops in his
province. "You go over and show the archbishop's flag on those occasions when they
have special events and ceremonies," explains Archbishop Lipscomb of Mobile whose
province includes Alabama and Mississippi. If a problem arises in a diocese in his province, the archbishop may get involved.
Priests of the diocese might complain to him, or he might be approached by the pro-nuncio
for information. He might also take the initiative and brings things to the attention of
the pro-nuncio. "It is up to me to inform the pro-nuncio if a bishop is getting
ill," says Archbishop Hannan of New Orleans. "I always talk to the bishop first
and tell him what I am going to do because you have to get his cooperation." But if
the bishop does not want to resign or take the archbishop's advice, there is nothing the
metropolitan can do about it. Archbishop Hannan as metropolitan of Louisiana was very active behind the scenes in
Lafayette, LA, where a priest admitted to sexually abusing thirty-five children and was
sentenced to twenty years in jail. Fourteen families sued the diocese, whose insurance
companies eventually paid them an undisclosed sum that was estimated to be as high as $5
or $10 million. It became impossible for the local bishop to deal with this crisis,
because he had transferred the priest to his current parish after knowing of his
involvement in an earlier incident. The bishop, who had sent the priest to a psychiatrist,
admitted making a mistake in not recognizing the depth of the priest's illness. Archbishop Hannan became involved because the Vatican wanted to avoid the publicity
that would surround a criminal trial. "My job was to see that the right steps were
taken to make sure that there wasn't any trial," says Archbishop Hannan. He visited
the priest in jail and convinced him to accept a plea bargain. In addition, after the diocese settled with the parents, the insurance companies began
arguing about who should pay what. The crimes occurred over a number of years when
different companies were insuring the diocese. Each company wanted someone else to pay.
One source says that Archbishop Hannan brought representatives of the insurance companies
together in his office and told them they were not leaving until they agreed on a
settlement. They settled. A metropolitan can also come to the defense of his suffragan bishops. Archbishop
Borders of Baltimore, whose province includes Virginia, objected to Rome's proposal for a
visitation or investigation of the diocese of Richmond by a Vatican official. He argued
that if a visitation was necessary, it should be done by an American bishop. Ultimately is
was done by Archbishop May of St. Louis. The bishops of a province meet under the chairmanship of the archbishop to draw up the
provincial list of episcopal candidates (see chapter 1). The provinces also set up
provincial tribunals to review annulments as was called for by the new code of canon law.
Some provinces also work on other common projects. But bishops usually work under the
auspices of state Catholic conferences, which are composed of all the bishops of one
state. Bishops gather one or more times a year as a state conference usually chaired by the
archbishop./2 As a state conference, they can develop
common policies and programs aimed at both religious and public concerns. Normally
decisions are made by consensus rather than by vote. The state conference may have a small
staff (one to fifteen employees) including a lobbyist who works in the state capital.
Additional staff work is often done by committees made up of officials (chancellors,
superintendents of schools, directors of Catholic Charities) from the various dioceses in
the state. They might also invite outside experts and observers to attend their meetings.
As a regular practice, some include representatives from priests' councils at their
meetings. In the religious sphere, a conference might develop common programs and policies on
sacramental preparation, faculties, the implementation of canon law, etc. Less confusion
and problems exist when these policies are the same for the entire state. For example, if
one diocese requires attendance at an extensive marriage preparation program, while its
neighbor does not, problems can arise. Some conferences have agreed on a common policy for
dealing with holy days that fall on Saturdays or Mondays. Joint pastoral letters have also been issued by state conferences. The California
conference wrote one on AIDS; the Texas conference did one on pastoral care of Hispanic
immigrants and another on the sacrament of reconciliation; the Louisiana conference
published one on social ministry and another on creationism. After the NCCB pastoral
letter on the economy, the Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia conferences issued their
own pastoral letters on the economies in their states. Other conferences, such as California and Michigan, developed common services like
health and liability insurance or retirement plans. The dioceses of Louisiana join
together in running a three-day conference for their new principals each year. State conferences also focus on public policy concerns. State conference lobbyists
represent the bishops before the legislature in twenty-seven state capitals. State laws
governing zoning, building codes, bingo, tax exemptions, private education, churches,
hospitals, and social agencies can have a direct impact on activities of church
organizations. The state of Nebraska, for example, requires every high school to have a
vocational program. Catholic college preparatory schools must get a waiver every year from
this requirement. State money for Catholic schools (textbooks, busing) or programs run by
Catholic social service agencies would also be high on the agenda. State conferences of bishops have also taken positions on numerous public policy issues
that do not directly impinge on church institutions. Often the conferences are applying to
the state level positions that have been taken by the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops. For example, numerous state conferences have opposed capital punishment and
public funding of abortions in their states. Frequently a conference will make a statement
on citizen responsibility prior to an election. Conferences have also taken positions on
state legislation dealing with brain death, living wills, surrogate mothers, homosexual
bill of rights, public school health clinics, sex education, welfare reform, shelters for
the homeless, public housing, the farm crisis, migrant workers, prostitution, criminal
justice system, pornography, etc. Finally, meeting either as a province or a conference allows the bishops to discuss
various concerns in an informal way. Some conferences also sponsor spiritual retreats for
bishops or even time to relax together. In all of this, the archbishop can play a
leadership role in developing consensus among the other bishops. If he prefers to act
alone, the state conference will do little. If he opposes an action, the province or state
conference is unlikely to act. All the American bishops meet once or twice a year as the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops and the U.S. Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC) to deal with religious and
public issues of common concern. Retired bishops cannot vote, but all other prelates have
an equal vote except on financial issues, where only diocesan bishops (and not
auxiliaries) can vote. The bishops elect a president and vice-president who act as
conference spokesmen on national and international issues during their three-year terms.
These officers are almost always archbishops. When writing its pastoral letters on peace and on economic justice, the NCCB received
wide attention in the news media. The bishops have also made public statements on Central
America, South Africa, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, the church in Communist
countries, racism, capital punishment, health care, abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment,
care for the terminally ill, food stamps, Medicaid, education, homelessness, international
debt, immigration, tax reform, labor relations, etc. A great deal of their time, however, is devoted to church issues, like ecumenism,
Catholic education, evangelization, family ministry, Hispanic ministry, catechetics, women
in the church, liturgy, and sacramental practice. The NCCB, with the approval of the
Vatican, can set policy that is binding on all the bishops. Matters that are binding on
the bishops require a two-thirds vote. Before an item is voted on by the bishops, it is normally considered in committee.
Sometimes the committees themselves issue statements rather than bringing the question to
the entire body of bishops. The NCCB and USCC have standing committees and ad hoc
committees to deal with various concerns: budget, liturgy, doctrine, pastoral practice,
canon law, farm labor, Hispanics, missions, ecumenism, laity, pro-life, priestly life,
priestly formation, vocations, Latin America, permanent diaconate, women, education,
communications, social development, and world peace. Also, an administrative affairs
committee draws up the agenda for the conference meetings and makes policy when the
conference is not in session. Committee work can be very time consuming when a major
document is being prepared, especially for the chairmen. The committees and leadership of the conference are helped by the bishops' staff based
in Washington, DC. The staff is headed by a general secretary and has experts on issues of
concern to the bishops: public relations, liturgy, doctrine, church finances, education,
priestly life and formation, civil and canon law, domestic and international affairs, etc.
Some archbishops play a larger role in the bishops' conference than others. Officers of
the conference, like Archbishops May (president) and Pilarczyk (vice president), play a
very active role, as do former presidents of the conference: Cardinals Krol and Bernardin
and archbishops Quinn and Roach. Archbishop Kelly, as a former general secretary of the
conference, is also influential. Others, like Archbishop Weakland and Cardinal O'Connor,
have been chairmen of major committees. On the other hand, some who would have liked to play a larger role in the conference
have not been supported by the other bishops. In the past, Cardinal Spellman of New York
was kept from having much influence in the conference although he was very influential in
Rome under Pius XII. More recently, Cardinal Law of Boston and Archbishop Mahony of Los
Angeles were defeated in 1986 when their names were put on the ballot for positions in the
conference. Both men were seen as challenging the current direction of the conference.
Some also feared that they would be more interested in the views of Vatican officials than
in the views of their fellow bishops. The following year, however, Archbishop Mahony was
elected chairman of the committee on international affairs. American bishops are involved with issues that affect the Catholic church throughout
the world. Individually and through their national conference, they have been supportive
of local churches experiencing difficulties in Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe.
They normally avoid saying anything on a topic affecting these churches without checking
with them. For example, they wanted to know what the bishops of South Africa thought about
divestiture before they made a statement. They also give financial assistance to poor
churches around the world individually or through agencies such as the Catholic Relief
Services and the Propagation of the Faith. Bishops have also sent their priests to mission
lands. The American hierarchy frequently interacts with the Holy See, which is responsible for
central governance in the church. Those who were bishops during the Second Vatican Council
acted, with the pope, as the supreme governing body of the Catholic church. They played an
important role at the Council in pushing though the decree on religious liberty. For most
of the American bishops, the Council was an educational and spiritual experience that
influenced the rest of their years as bishops. Although councils are extremely rare, the synod of bishops, which advises the pope,
meets every three years or when called to Rome by the pope. Four American bishops are
usually elected by their peers to attend the synod. In addition, the pope usually appoints
two or more Americans. Attending the 1987 Synod on the Laity as elected representatives
were Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishops Weakland and May, and Bishop Ott. Appointed to the
synod were Archbishop Mahony and the-Bishop Bevilacqua. In the past, other archbishops elected to synods have included Carberry, Dearden,
Flores, Krol, Quinn, Roach, Sanchez, Stafford, Whealon, and Wright. Papal appointees have
included cardinals Baum, Cooke, Krol, Law, Manning, Szoka, Wright, and archbishops Martin
O'Connor, Quinn, and Weakland (when he was an abbot). Cardinal Bernardin has attended
almost every synod since 1974 and has been elected by those at the synod to plan future
synods as a member of the council on the synod. Although the synodal meetings are closed, press briefings and leaks reveal some of what
goes on. In 1980 at the synod on the family, American bishops were especially concerned
about defending their tribunals, which were under attack for granting large numbers of
annulments. Archbishop Quinn also came under attack when he gave a speech that was
interpreted as calling for a rethinking of the church's prohibition against artificial
birth ./3 At the 1987 synod on the laity, American
bishops were joined by bishops from around the world in urging a greater role for women in
the church, but their views did not make it into the final document. American cardinals and a few archbishops serve on Vatican congregations that help
govern the whole church./4 Cardinal William Baum,
prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries and Institutes for Study, is the only American
cardinal working full time in Rome. He is a member of a number of Vatican congregations,
councils, and agencies. In addition, Archbishop Paul C. Marcinkus is involved in
administering the Vatican bank and the Vatican state. Archbishop Justin Rigali is
president of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, and Archbishop John P. Foley is
president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. Despite the Vatican bank scandal, Archbishop Marcinkus is still one of the most
influential Americans in Rome. Cardinal Baum and Archbishop Rigali are also important
Americans in Rome. Archbishop Rigali worked closely with the pope on the speeches he gave
while visiting the United States in 1987. Cardinals residing in the United States also serve on Vatican congregations and
councils, but their involvement is less than those who work full time in Rome. As
mentioned in chapter 1, Cardinal O'Connor of New York is on the Congregation for Bishops
and the Council for Social Communications. Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago is on the
congregations dealing with liturgy and evangelization and the Council for Christian unity.
Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia is on the congregations for clergy and the oriental
churches. He also advises the office of economic affairs. Cardinal Law of Boston and
Cardinal Manning of Los Angeles served on the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated
Life. Cardinal Law is also on the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples. Cardinal
Hickey of Washington is on the Congregation for Seminaries and Institutes of Study and the
one for canonization of saints. A few archbishops also serve on congregations: Archbishop O'Meara of Indianapolis is on
the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, Archbishop Mahony of Los Angeles on the
pontifical councils for justice and peace and for migrants. The actual work of non-Roman members of the congregations is not great. "They have
periodic meetings and you have to prepare for those meetings, but there isn't a lot of
ongoing work," says Cardinal Bernardin. Members not residing in Rome usually attend
only about one meeting a year. "The one that really requires more," says the
cardinal, "is the Council of the Synod, because you have to meet two or three times a
year, and you have to prepare for it." In fact, the American archbishops have devoted more time to ad hoc work for the Holy
See than working on permanent Vatican congregations. For example, while an archbishop,
Hickey conducted the visitation of the Seattle archdiocese for the Vatican. And as
chancellor of the Catholic University of America, he has been prominent in dealing with
Rev. Charles Curran, the moral theologian. Cardinal Bernardin, Cardinal O'Connor, and
Archbishop Quinn spent countless hours resolving the Seattle controversy which will be
explained below. Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco also worked tirelessly as chairman of
the papal commission on religious life in the United States of which Archbishop Kelly of
Louisville was also a member. Other bishops spent months visiting seminaries and reporting on their condition.
Cardinal Krol has been an advisor to the pope on Vatican finances and has worked raising
money for Poland. Cardinal Law is on the papal commission responsible for writing an
international catechism. Archbishop Kelly chaired the committee that planned the pope's
1987 visit. But most archbishops' experience with the Vatican is as the governed rather than as
participants. When appointed, all bishops take an oath of loyalty to the pope. "I
take that very seriously," says Archbishop Kelly. "I also take seriously my
responsibilities to the pastoral needs of my people. I am the bishop here. I am not an
animated instrument of someone else. But I look to him for example, and he gives forceful
example to me by the way he preaches and by his personal holiness. I wish I could be as
good as he is." Some archbishops stress that they are responsible to the pope and not to Vatican
officials. "One of the secrets of the Catholic church is how independent the bishop
is," says Archbishop Whealon of Hartford. "And he should be, he is a successor
of the apostles. He really isn't under Peter's advisors, or Peter's helpers, he is under
Peter." In fact, however, when Peter's helpers say they are speaking for the pope, an
archbishop has little recourse. There is a natural and inevitable tension between those concerned about the universal
church and those concerned about their local churches. Bishops rarely speak on the record
about problems in their relationship with Rome. In his final address as president of the
bishops' conference in November 1983, Archbishop Roach of St. Paul spoke of the problem of
communications between the United States and Rome. Three years later, in his final address
as president, Bishop James Malone of Youngstown spoke of "a growing and dangerous
disaffection of elements of the church in the United States from the Holy See." How
do Rome and the church in the United States communicate and what issues have been
controversial? Every five years, the American diocesan bishops make an ad limina visit to Rome where
they meet with the Pope and various Vatican officials./5
It is called an ad limina visit from the Latin "ad limina apostolorum" by
which the church refers to the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome which the bishops
visit. While this book is being written, the bishops are making their 1988 visit. Before the visit, each bishop prepares for the Congregation for Bishops a quinquennial
report describing in detail the state of his diocese. This report is divided into thirteen
sections asking for information on (1) the pastoral and administrative organization of the
diocese, (2) the general religious situation, (3) the economic situation of the diocese,
(4) liturgical and sacramental practice, (5) the clergy, (6) religious and secular
institutes, (7) cooperation with the missions, (8) seminaries and universities, (9)
Catholic education, (10) the life and apostolic action of the laity, (11) ecumenism, (12)
social assistance, (13) other pastoral questions. In addition, the report asks for
statistical data on advisory councils, the tribunal, publications, the clergy, and
educational institutions. After being received by the Congregation for Bishops, the
various parts of the report are distributed to the Vatican congregations specializing in
the particular concerns. Although they get a written response some months later, some archbishops expressed
disappointment that, when they reached Rome, they found no one who had read their reports.
One archbishop describes his experience in 1983: I really worked hard on it. I made up my mind this was going to be my chance to put
down on paper where I think my diocese really is. I put down some tough stuff. What I
thought was really true about it. Well, I didn't hear from anybody. And although the document is in Rome before you go for your ad limina, you know that
nobody looked at it. So there's no input, and there's no feedback. You kinda wonder, is it
worth all that effort of trying to get through somewhere? Since there are so many American bishops, they come to Rome in groups, usually by
geographic region, for the ad limina visit. The bishops meet with Vatican officials in
groups and, in the past, were mostly lectured to. One bishop complained that when a bishop
questioned an official at one such meeting, the official noted down the bishop's name,
which killed any further questioning. Recently there has been more dialogue as bishops have expressed their views on church
issues and tried to explain themselves to Rome. The bishops have also used their visits as
an opportunity to question Vatican officials about their actions. For example, in 1983
Cardinal Oddi, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, while visiting the United
States, was interviewed in The Wanderer and spoke before a conference sponsored by
Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), two conservative organizations that have been highly
critical of the bishops./6 According to an archbishop
who was present, some of the bishops were pretty indignant about some of the things he had to say about
American bishops and the American church. They asked Cardinal Oddi whether he read The
Wanderer. Did he know the kind of newspaper it is and how it makes people neurotic and
maybe psychotic about some of the things in the church today? Well, he said he didn't know
anything about The Wanderer. The bishops also met with cardinals Baum (prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries
and Institutes for Study) and Ratzinger (prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the
Faith). One of the items the bishops brought up with Cardinal Ratzinger and the pope was
the "very, very slow" rate of dispensations from celibacy for priests who have
left the ministry. "You can talk to Cardinal Ratzinger and you can talk to the Holy
Father about things that concern you," says one archbishop. Each bishop also meets individually with the pope for about fifteen minutes. Although
the bishops look forward to these meetings, they are not very productive. "The pope
has no resume of your quinquennial report," one archbishop explains. "He asks
you all the questions over again that were on it. Silly questions--how many people in your
diocese, how many priests, and so on--which is pure fact." Archbishop Hurley of Anchorage, however, reports, "You were free to say what you
wanted." In 1983 he wanted to speak to the pope about ecumenism and about the
positive things religious were doing in his archdiocese. He felt parish priests needed
encouragement for ecumenical work, and he felt that religious women were being unfairly
criticized. When I went in he started the usual thing about your diocese, size, all that type of
thing. I cut in on him to bring up what I wanted to bring up. Which turned out to be the
way it had to be done. The pope doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about Alaska
really. What kinds of questions can he really ask? So you really have to take the lead. Women religious also came up when Archbishop O'Meara of Indianapolis met the pope, who
asked him how he got along with the religious in his archdiocese. "I think I get
along with them pretty well, Holy Father," Archbishop O'Meara responded. "Better
you should ask them that question, because their view of it is more meaningful." Some
bishops felt that the Vatican was surprised by the generally positive view of religious
women expressed by the bishops. Sometimes the pope may have something very specific to say to an archbishop. For
example, Pope Paul VI told Archbishop Casey of Denver during his ad limina to tell his
auxiliary, Bishop George Evans, to stop publicly supporting the ordination of women. After meeting with the pope individually, the bishops in groups of about twelve have
lunch with the pope, where various topics are discussed. "There were no topics
barred," says one archbishop. "We didn't get organized to have prepared topics,
they just came up casually. The Holy Father is open to discussing any topic." The pope is the center of attention, but "he made sure that every man spoke,"
says Archbishop Hurley who describes the lunch he attended in 1983. As they sat down, the
pope identified each bishop by the name of his diocese, not necessarily by the bishop's
own name. Then, the archbishop recalls, we went through an unstructured conversation. The pope said, "I have learned two new words: undocumented and unchurched."
So we talked about that and pointed out that unchurched in the U.S. does not mean
atheistic. We were able to point out to him that atheism is not a major force in the U.S.
in a formal way. Mark [Hurley of Santa Rosa] said to him that there was no place in the
U.S. where any avowed Communist has won a political campaign. We talked about the poor, what do we do about the poor. I said, "One of the things
is to work cooperatively with government, because we do not have the funds
ourselves." I gave a quick reference to my own experience. He wanted to know about
working with the government, is that a problem? Not in the United States. There are lots
of examples of it as they help us to do our work. We went on for an hour and a half, two hours. That part was very good. In the last part of the visit, the bishops as a group meet with the pope. The senior
bishop, usually a cardinal, briefly addresses the pope on their behalf, and then the pope
addresses the visiting bishops. The speeches of the pope appear to be written before the
bishops gather in Rome. As a result, one archbishop complained, "He did not seem to
reflect, in what he said, what he had heard from the American bishops." The pope's ad limina addresses are one of the few public indications of what the pope
thinks about the American church and its hierarchy. When one bishops asked the pope what
he thought of the American church, the pope responded, "Read my ad limina
talks." These speeches are therefore worth examining to see what he says to the
American bishops. Three popes addressed the American bishops during their 1978 ad limina visit. Paul VI spoke to the New York bishops on the importance of the sacrament of penance./7 He explicitly asked for "faithful observance of
the norms" limiting general absolution to extraordinary situations of grave
necessity. "General absolution is not to be used as a normal pastoral option, or as a
means of confronting any difficult pastoral situation." He also insisted on the
practice of First Confession before First Communion. He repeated a statement he had made
to other bishops: "The faithful would be rightly shocked that obvious abuses are
tolerated by those who have received the charge of the `episcopate,' which stands for,
since the earliest days of the church, vigilance and unity." In a very positive address to the bishops of Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota, Paul VI
spoke of his closeness to them in "the splendid efforts, the sustained efforts, the
united efforts that you have made on behalf of life..."/8 He supported them in "protecting life in its
multiple facets" including "efforts directed to the eradication of hunger, the
elimination of subhuman living conditions, and the promotion of programs on behalf of the
poor, the elderly, and minorities" and human rights and their struggle against
abortion./9 He also noted initiatives sponsored in
the United States to explain natural family planning. In his last address to the American bishops, Paul VI spoke on the Eucharist as the
summit of Christian life and noted that extraordinary ministers of communion should be
used only where there is a genuine lack of priests./10 In his only address to the American bishops, John Paul I talked about the Christian
family with many references to Vatican II but without mentioning Humanae Vitae./11 He reiterated the indissolubility of marriage but
said that people with difficulties "must always know that we love them." In his first address to the American hierarchy, pope John Paul II articulated the two
issues that have continued to mark his pontificate: fidelity to doctrine and church
discipline./12 Quoting from John XXIII, he said that
the great concern of the Vatican II and "my own deepest hope" was "that the
sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and taught."
His second hope was "for the preservation of the great discipline of the
church." He went on to say it was his "ardent desire today that a new emphasis
on the importance of doctrine and discipline will be the postconciliar contribution of
your seminaries." In 1983, John Paul II returned to these themes and made them more explicit. Speaking to
the New York bishops, he repeated Paul VI's warnings on general absolution. Citing canon
law, he said, "General absolution is not envisioned solely because of large numbers
of penitents assembled for a great celebration or pilgrimage." He asked for their
zealous pastoral solicitude "to help ensure that these norms, as well as the norms
regulating the First Confession of children, are understood and properly
applied."/13 To the second group of American bishops he said that they must be holy and a sign of
Christ's love, but "there can be no dichotomy between the bishop as a sign
of Christ's compassion and as a sign of Christ's truth."/14 As part of that truth, the pope wanted the bishops
to proclaim "the indissolubility of marriage..., the incompatibility of premarital
sex and homosexual activity with God's plan..., the unpopular truth that artificial birth
control is against God's law..." and "the rights of the unborn, the weak, the
handicapped, the poor and the aged...." The bishop must also explain the church's teaching on the exclusion of women from
priestly ordination and "give proof of his pastoral ability and leadership by
withdrawing all support from individuals or groups who in the name of progress or
compassion, or for other alleged reason, promote the ordination of women to the
priesthood." In a later address to a third group of American bishops, the pope spoke on the
priesthood whose identity is found in the ministry of the sacraments of the Eucharist and
reconciliation. He also confirmed the "general exclusion of priests from secular
and political activity."/15 To the next group of bishops, he referred to his June 1983 letter asking the American
bishops to exercise special pastoral service to the religious./16 This letter announced the formation of a papal
commission on religious life headed by Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco. The pope
explained his action as an example of collegiality and asked the bishops to give to
religious "a call to holiness, a call to renewal, and a call to penance and
conversion." In his address, he stressed the importance of prayer and union with the
magisterium as essential aspects of religious life. Finally, to the last group of American bishops, he spoke of the church's "mission
of proclaiming Christ's good news about Christian married love, the identity and worth of
the family, and the importance of understanding its mission in the church and the
world."/17 As bishops, they are "called
upon to help couples know and understand the reasons for the church's teaching on human
sexuality," including the church's teaching on natural family planning. He commended
the bishops for the concern shown for needy families through their social service
agencies. During these ad limina addresses, the pope speaks to groups of bishops from various
parts of the United States. He addresses all of the bishops together only when he comes to
this country. In 1979 he spoke to the U.S. bishops in Chicago, who were kept waiting for
over an hour because he was running late. Although the press received copies of his talk
in advance, the bishops did not. Complaints were also heard because the bishops had no
real opportunity to dialogue with the pope. In his speech, he noted the "long tradition of fidelity to the Apostolic See on
the part of the American hierarchy."/18 He
urged them to lives of personal holiness. He repeated his favorite quotation from John
XXIII about guarding and keeping the deposit of doctrine. Then in a long section he
commended them for doing this in their pastoral letter "To Live in Christ
Jesus." He also referred to a pastoral letter on racism and one on homosexuality by
individual bishops. He encouraged the bishops to work for Christian unity but noted that
"intercommunion between divided Christians is not the answer." He asked them to
safeguard the sacrament of reconciliation, referring to the limits of general absolution.
He also spoke of the Eucharist and of the communion of the local church with the universal
church. On his 1987 visit, his meeting with the American bishops in Los Angeles began in the
morning so that the bishops would not be kept waiting, but once again the press and not
the bishops received advance copies of his talk. The meeting was structured as a dialogue.
He was addressed by four archbishops whose speeches had been given to the Vatican in
advance so that the pope could prepare a response./19
Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago spoke of the church as "a communio: a communion
of particular churches in which and from which exists the one and unique Catholic Church;
a communion which is not fully the church unless united with the Bishop of Rome." The church in the United States, he said, is situated in American culture "where
everyone prizes the freedom to speak his or her mind.., to question things," and to
"want to know the reasons why certain decisions are made, and they feel free to
criticize if they do not agree or are not satisfied with the explanation." Since the
church "values both its unity and diversity, there are bound to be misunderstandings
and tensions at times." The ministry of the bishops is "to provide for the unity
of the particular churches, and the Petrine ministry to promote and protect the unity of
the universal church." The practical question is "how to maintain our unity while affirming the diversity
in the local realization of the church; how to discern a proper balance between freedom
and order." He made some suggestions, including the following: "We must be able
to speak with one another in complete candor, without fear. This applies to our exchanges
with the Holy See as well as among ourselves as bishops. Even if our exchange is
characterized by some as confrontational, we must remain calm and not become the captives
of those who would use us to accomplish their own ends." Also, "we must affirm
and continue to grow in our appreciation of the conciliar vision of collegiality as both a
principle and style of leadership in the Church," and he pointed to the NCCB as a
visible expression of collegiality. In his response, John Paul II did not directly react to the cardinal's comments on
American culture or on the need for candor between bishops and Rome. He picked up on the
description of the church as a communio but stressed the "vertical dimension" of
communion--communion with God and communion of the local churches with the pope. Without
explicitly disagreeing with the cardinal, the pope made clear that the tension between
unity and diversity should be resolved in favor of unity. Next Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco spoke on the state of moral theology in an
address that is not easily summarized. He defined moral theology as "human wisdom
struggling to understand God's revelation about how we live." He said "the
revolutionary changes which have occurred in personal and societal life in the 20th
century are not grounds for dismissing church teaching as outmoded...." But as pastors, the bishops must address new realities: the military role of the United
States in the world, divorce and family instability, the high standard of living, new
medical technologies, the insights of psychology and sociology into the nature of human
sexuality, the sexually permissive climate, the changing social status of women, and the
higher level of education among American Catholics. Archbishop Quinn said, "We cannot
fulfill our task simply by an uncritical application of solutions designed in past ages
for problems which have qualitatively changed or which did not exist in the past." He cited the American bishops' pastoral letters on peace and on economics as examples
of a moral pedagogy that distinguishes universally binding moral principles from specific
applications and recommendations that allow for a diversity of opinion. He supported
dialogue and discussion as an effective method of understanding moral questions and
developing responses. The pope picked up on Archbishop Quinn's statement that the church wishes to remain
faithful to the moral teaching of Jesus. He said that claiming "that dissent from the
magisterium is totally compatible with being a `good Catholic' and poses no obstacle to
the reception of the sacraments...is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of
the bishops of the United States and elsewhere." He did not comment on the new
realities moral theology must deal with. He ignored the distinction between principles and
applications. The impression given was that the magisterium has clear and definitive
answers to the issues raised by Archbishop Quinn, and these answers must be proclaimed
more forcefully and courageously by the bishops. Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee spoke on the role of the laity in society and the
church. He noted their increased education and increased participation in American
society. They look at the intrinsic worth of an argument rather than accept it on the
authority of church teachers. As a result, "an authoritarian style is
counterproductive, and such authority for the most part then becomes ignored." The
faithful look for a spirituality that integrates their lives, and they want to contribute
their skills and knowledge to the life and growth of the church. Women want to be equal
partners in the church's mission. John Paul II acknowledged the growing role and education of American Catholics, but he
asked what has been their impact on American culture. The bishops should provide the laity
with a comprehensive and solid program of catechesis so that they can bring the gospel's
purifying influence to the world of culture. He spoke of the need for pastoral care to
families and of natural family planning. He quoted Paul VI's 1978 ad limina address
commending the bishops on their work for peace and justice. He spoke of the "equal
human dignity of women and their true feminine humanity." Finally, Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati spoke on lay, religious, and clerical
vocations in the United States. He noted the decline in religious and priestly vocations
and the rise of lay ministry. Mandatory priestly celibacy is questioned as is the church's
teaching on the ordination of women. As positive points, he noted the broadening concept
of church ministry and the increasing appreciation of prayer, Scripture, and liturgy.
While admitting to plenty of problems and loose ends to deal with, he felt that the Holy
Spirit was hard at work in the dioceses and parishes of our country. What is happening
"is not the turmoil and crisis of death and decay, but of development and of
life." In responding, John Paul avoided the term lay ministry but spoke of the
"active participation of the laity in the mission of the church." He stressed
the vocation of the laity in the world rather than in the church. Finally, he mentioned some things not brought up by the bishops. He asked the bishops
"to be vigilant that the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Church is faithfully and
clearly presented to the seminarians, and fully accepted and understood by them."
Once again he returned to his favorite quotation from John XXIII that the greatest concern
of Vatican II is that "Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and
taught." He also asked the bishops to make every effort to ensure that the norms for the use of
general absolution are observed. He encouraged pastoral care to homosexuals that included
a clear explanation of the church's teaching, "which by its nature is
unpopular." He referred in a positive way to the California bishops' pastoral letter,
"A Call to Compassion," which spoke of the need of the recovery of the virtue of
chastity. But as opposed to his address in 1979, what was striking in Los Angeles was the lack of
any reference to the American bishops' pastoral letters on peace and the economy, although
they were cited by Archbishops Quinn and Weakland. He never mentioned the peace pastoral
during his visit and referred to the economic pastoral only twice in passing. Many
believed that he disagreed less with the substance of the letters than with the widely
consultative public process that was involved in their writing. While this book is being written, the American bishops are making trips to Rome for
their 1988 ad limina visits. By the end of September, seven groups of bishops had visited
Rome. Four more groups will visit before the end of the year. Early in 1989, there will be
an additional meeting of a representative group of American bishops with the pope. The
Brazilian bishops had a similar meeting at the end of their ad limina visit in 1986. At
this meeting, the Brazilians discussed liberation theology with the pope and Vatican
officials. The Brazilians were pleased with the meeting and felt that the Vatican had a
better understanding of them after this visit. The pope's talks to the American bishops during their 1988 ad limina visits were more
positive tone than those given previously. Bishop Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo, TX,
reports that the pope said that after his 1983 trip to the United States "he had a
different view of the American Catholic" than he had previously "because he was
given some rather negative publicity before he came that he didn't find true."/20 The pope noted that the demonstrations against him
predicted in the press did not happen. In March 1988, the pope spoke to the first group of visiting bishops about his 1983
trip to the United States. He noted that "One of the great riches of the church in
the United States is the way in which she herself incarnates universality and catholicity
in her ethnic makeup, taken as she is `from every nation and race, people and tongue' (Rv.
7:9)."/ 21He said he was "convinced of the
openness of the church in the United States to challenge, of her good will and, above all,
of Christ's grace active within her." He noted the church's response to the farm
crisis and "the panorama of charitable works and health care that was presented to
me" during the visit. He challenged the bishops not to forget the missions and cited
their 1986 pastoral statement on world missions. In his address to the second group of American bishops, which included the Texas
bishops, the pope recalled "my recent visit to San Antonio, the wonderful welcome
given me and the impressive faith of the people."/22
He also cited the Texas bishops' pastoral statement on human sexuality as "a much
appreciated pastoral effort to present the church's teaching on chastity without fear or
reticence." The rest of the address spoke of the pastoral vision needed for the third
millennium, a topic relevant to the entire church. But he did ask "in a special
way" that the bishops of the United States promote "the centuries-old practice
of individual confession." He expanded on this theme with the third group of bishops
whom he also asked to enforce the church law limiting general absolution to cases of grave
necessity./23 In June the pope spoke on the importance of prayer to the fourth group of bishops. As
in 1983, he noted the "superb history of eucharistic participation by the
people"/24 of the United States which has a
higher rate of church attendance than most other countries. To a group of bishops in July
he spoke about catechetics. He complemented the bishops for calling "your people to a
sense of solidarity with those in need," for standing "by all those who are
struggling to live in a way consonant with their human dignity," especially migrants
and immigrants, and for "sustained dialogue and fraternal collaboration in projects
of service to humanity."/25 In September, John Paul surprised everyone by speaking positively of the draft of the
bishops' pastoral letter on women. First he spoke of human rights in general and thanked
the bishops for their persevering efforts in "defense and support of human
life."/26 Then in speaking of women's rights,
he said that the draft letter showed a "sensitivity" in dealing with women's
issues. "You are rightly striving to eliminate discrimination based on sex," he
said. A week later, for the first time, he spoke favorably of the bishops' pastoral letters
on peace and economic justice. He cited them for their support of solidarity and
development in the face of global interdependence. He noted that "great openness to
others has been characteristic of the church in the United States."/27 He commended the solidarity of men and women in the
United States "pledged to the defense and service of human life." And he cited
Catholic Relief Services as "one extraordinary example of the creative solidarity of
American Catholics." A number of bishops noted the change to a more positive tone in the pope's speeches to
the American bishops. Some explained this resulted from the favorable impression he
received while visiting the church in United States. Some also felt that the pope had
changed speech writers because he recognized that his U.S. speeches, especially his
response to the American bishops, did not go over well. The pope appears to be relying
less on Archbishop Justin Rigali, the American prelate who is president of the Pontifical
Ecclesiastical Academy. In addition, informed observers pointed to the replacement of
Archbishop Eduardo Martinez Somalo with Archbishop Edward Cassidy as assistant secretary
of state. Somalo, who was promoted to cardinal, has a negative view of the church in the
United States. The Australian Cassidy appears to be more open to the American situation. At their lunches with the pope, the American bishops discussed a number of current
concerns: women's ordination, peace and unity in the world, the alleged Marian apparitions
at Medjugorje (Yugoslavia) and the case of French conservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
who was excommunicated for ordaining bishops. The bishops also discussed various issues
with the Vatican curia, including a statement on AIDS by the NCCB Administrative
Committee. In between ad limina visits and papal visits, communications between Rome and the
bishops is usually by letter. Most archbishops say that they are rarely bothered by Rome./28 The communications from Rome they receive are
mostly of a general nature distributed through the NCCB. "There would be very, very
little addressed specifically to this diocese," said Archbishop Donnellan of Atlanta.
Archbishop Gerety of Newark said that he got letters from the Vatican "fairly
frequently, and sometimes they don't amount to a hill of beans." Most of the letters
were responses on marriage cases that he just forwarded to the tribunal. "I don't get a lot [of inquiries from Rome]," reports Archbishop Roach of St.
Paul. I don't feel that the Holy See is bugging me. Over a period of years I have gotten some
letters that irritated me and have responded to them. It was dropped, and so we let it go
at that. Considering the climate of critics which we've got here [St. Paul is the headquarters
of a number of conservative Catholic organizations], apparently the Holy See has been
pretty good, because I don't get a lot of it back. They don't make me defend positions.
Periodically things come, but it is not a major problem. The impact of negative letters on Rome is a much debated issue. "I get many
letters from the United States," reports Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican
Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith. Most of the letters are from those in "deep
loyalty" to the Holy See, he said, adding that they deal frequently with
controversial issues in the news. He mentioned as an example the case of Father Charles
Curran, who has been criticized for his views on moral theology. "I think that the
letters provide us with a reflection of typical Catholics," he said. "They are
people who are preoccupied with the thought that the Catholic Church should remain the
Catholic Church."/29 But many people fear that letters from right-wing Catholics have tarnished the
Vatican's view of the American church and its bishops. The vicar general of Denver reports
that Cardinal Baggio, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, told Archbishop Casey in
1983: Would you please get across to your people that if things are going right we would like
to hear about them, because all we get is "hate mail." If we get a lot of this
negative mail, then we think the diocese is in trouble, and we have to check up on it. So
if you can get the word around, let us know both sides. When an archbishop receives a letter from a Vatican official inquiring about a
controversy or problem, frequently the Vatican learned about the problem through letters
from America. These complaints usually come from disaffected conservatives complaining
about something in the archdiocese, especially alleged liturgical abuses by priests. Archbishop Gerety of Newark explains: The Vatican gets all sorts of people writing in. There are more writing in than there
used to be because of the changes. It's gotten to be the fashion these days to go over the
head of the local bishop and appeal to the nuncio and send a copy to the pope and this
office and this cardinal and all the rest. So they write back and say, "We have this letter from so and so; give it the
pastoral attention you think it deserves." When I interviewed Archbishop Gerety, he had on his desk a letter from Cardinal Mayer,
prefect of the Congregation for Worship. A man in the archdiocese had written Rome
complaining that the only way of receiving the precious blood in the archdiocese was by
the cup while he preferred intinction, where the host is dipped into the chalice before it
is given to the communicant. "Cardinal Mayer is just saying that he replied and [is]
bringing it to my attention," explains Archbishop Gerety. Mayer just says, from the cup "is the most desirable form, but it is not the only
way" and "expressing the hope that this matter does not cause your Excellency
any inconvenience, I remain...." That means Mayer can now say that he has replied. Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati agrees that often the Vatican official will simply
forward the letter to the bishop saying, "We received this letter, will you please
give it the attention that it deserves." And we do, we always give it the attention that it deserves. Sometimes it deserves very
little attention. Occasionally I will get letters from the Holy See saying, "So and so said that
Father so and so said such and such. Would you please look into that." Or, "this
article was published in your diocese, and we would like for you to explain what this is
all about." I have found that by and large it's not unreasonable. Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco says that he rarely receives letters forwarded from
Rome. "The experience I have had," he says, "has to do with a parishioner
writing Rome about something the parishioner regards as liturgically abusive. Then Rome
may write back directly to that parishioner or may write to me and inquire about it. But
that is very rare." When a Vatican official answers the writer directly without notifying his bishop, the
results can be embarrassing to the local bishop. One archbishop reports, There has been a real problem when an individual writes the Holy See and gets a letter
back from the Holy See and then goes running to the bishop and says, "See you are
wrong." "What are you talking about?" [the bishop asks.] "I got this letter from Cardinal so and so." Sure enough, there is a letter
from the cardinal or the congregation with no notice whatsoever to the bishop. Several
bishops raised hell over that. Really blasted them. An example of such an embarrassing incident occurred in 1986 when Cardinal Edouard
Gagnon wrote a Milwaukee member of CUF (Catholic United for the Faith) describing
"New Creation," a sex education series used in about eighty dioceses, as "a
travesty of sex education." His problem appears to have been with explicit pictures
of the human anatomy. In a subsequent letter, he wrote that he had consulted the pope and
"expressed the judgment of the Holy Father." When the letters became public, Archbishop Kucera of Dubuque, who (together with his
predecessor) had given the series an imprimatur, stated, "At no time had Cardinal
Gagnon contacted me about the material contained in his letters." He first learned of
the letters when they were sent to him by someone other than the cardinal. Nor had the
publisher been contacted by the Vatican about the series. The archbishop noted that
catechetical books were under the jurisdiction of the Congregation of Clergy, not the
Pontifical Council for the Family, which Cardinal Gagnon heads. More than a year after the
letters were made public, the archbishop had still not heard from anyone in the Vatican
about the series, which still has his imprimatur. Liturgy is another area where the bishops have been repeatedly embarrassed by Rome. In
many dioceses, the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass had been offered by dissident priests
associated with Archbishop Lefebvre or other priests not in union with Rome. After
fighting conservatives over the Tridentine Mass, the American bishops were caught off
guard when Rome decided to permit it. Many bishops felt betrayed by this action. Under the
new Vatican norms, the local bishop would determine when the Tridentine Mass could be
offered. But one archbishop, who would not allow the Tridentine Mass on Sundays,
complained that someone from his archdiocese called Cardinal Mayer, who told him that they
could have the Tridentine Mass on Sunday. The archbishop was even given a transcript of
the telephone call. More recently, Cardinal Mayer has objected to the faculties or powers
given by the bishops of Michigan to their priests. On the other hand, Archbishop Virgilio Noč, who works in the Congregation for Divine
Worship, sent Archbishop Hurley a copy of a letter he had received complaining about a
priest in Anchorage. He also sent his reply to the complaintant. "If you think it is
proper to forward my letter, feel free to do so," Archbishop Noč wrote. "So I
did," reports Archbishop Hurley who was pleased with this approach. "I got the
pastor, the pastor went to see the couple. We took care of it. Everyone lived happily ever
after." Another area of Roman concern has been the American tribunals, which grant more
annulments than all the other tribunals in the world put together. When visiting Roman
congregations, Archbishop May, president of the NCCB was asked about the tribunals. They get all these complaints that the tribunals are nothing but divorce mills;
constant letters going over there from people here. A lot of it is organized mail, mostly
right wing. Most of the countries of the world, very frankly, don't even have functioning
tribunals. If they exist, they might have half a dozen cases a year. And in this diocese
[St. Louis] there might be 1,000, and this is just one diocese. Well, we go over there, and they look upon us as having caved in on the divorce
mentality. They don't understand that we are simply trying to serve these people with
their needs, which are not the same as those in other countries. The American bishops have defended their tribunals against Roman attack. They argue
that their tribunals produce more annulments because they are better staffed with canon
lawyers and secretaries, better equipped with computers and other office equipment, and
because they work longer hours. "We are open 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M." explains
one archbishop. "In Rome they don't open until 10:00 or 10:30, and we work without a
long lunch and a siesta." More recently, the bishops have been having trouble getting indults (dispensations) for
people without canon law degrees to work in the tribunals. One archbishop tried to get an
indult renewed for a sister. They wrote back and said no. I wrote back and said, "You said no, but didn't say
why." They wrote back and said no and still didn't say why. I wrote back and said,
"You said no, but still didn't say why." Then they wrote back and told me why,
and still didn't say why. Archbishop Hurley had better luck getting an indult for a lay woman by visiting the
Signatura, the office in Rome responsible for such indults. "The first thing I
learned was nobody speaks English in the Signatura," recalls the archbishop, who
finally found a part-time person to translate. He found that, although sympathetic, they
were not persuaded by the great need and lack of priests in Alaska. What the Signatura
wanted to know was how much theological training she had. Luckily, she had gone through
the same training program as her husband who is a deacon. After sending the Signatura a
description of the courses she had taken, her indult was extended for five years. The most extreme intervention in a U.S. archdiocese by the Vatican was in Seattle,
where an auxiliary was appointed who was supposed to have final authority over important
areas of diocesan life including the tribunal, liturgy, former priests, priestly
formation, medical ethics and ministry to homosexuals. Such interventions are rare, but in a few other dioceses, auxiliaries or coadjutors
have been appointed with special powers. Bishop Francis J. Furey had full powers when he
came as coadjutor to the bankrupt diocese of San Diego in 1963. Likewise, Bishop Norman F.
McFarland had special faculties when he went to the bankrupt diocese of Reno-Las Vegas in
1974. In 1983, a coadjutor was appointed to Lafayette, LA, with powers over the clergy
after a scandal involving child abuse. Finally in 1986, Bishop David Foley was appointed
auxiliary in Richmond, VA, although the extent of his powers was never revealed. The Hunthausen case is worth examining because it shows what concerns Rome has about
the American church. In addition, it shows how Roman procedures and American concepts of
due process come into conflict. It all began in May 1983 when Archbishop Laghi approached Archbishop Hunthausen at a
meeting of the American bishops in Chicago and told him that the Vatican wanted to have a
visitation of Seattle. Hunthausen, not having the slightest idea what a visitation was,
said, "Fine, we have all sorts of wonderful things going on in Seattle."
Archbishop Hickey of Washington, DC, was appointed visitor. Later, Hunthausen began to question the visitation when it became clear that its
purpose was to evaluate criticisms about his ministry as archbishop. He objected that he
was never given any specifics about what was to be investigated so that he could defend
himself. In addition, the Vatican wanted the visitation to be secret, but he argued that
was impossible. When the fact of the visitation became known, Seattle officials insisted
that the leak occurred in Washington, DC. In November 1983, Archbishop Hickey spent a week in Seattle conferring with the
archbishop and over seventy priests, religious, and laypersons, many of whom were
suggested by the archbishop. He also examined documents issued by the archbishop or the
archdiocese. Hunthausen was never given a copy of the report sent by Archbishop Hickey to
the Vatican. The Vatican argued that those interviewed were promised anonymity, and
therefore he could not see it. In September 1985, the archbishop received a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger concluding
the visitation and outlining its findings./30 The
letter is important because it shows what things worry the Vatican, not only in Seattle,
but in other dioceses in the United States. The six-page letter begins by complementing Hunthausen: "You have striven with
heart and mind to be a good bishop of the church, eager to implement the renewal called
for in the decrees of the Vatican Council II." It also commends him for bringing into
existence consultative bodies, for his efforts to involve the laity in the work of the
church, and for his concern for justice and peace. "You have given clear evidence of
your loyalty to the church and your devotion and obedience to the Holy Father." The
letter notes that he has "suffered from exaggerated criticisms and routine
misunderstandings" and disassociates itself from "extremist groups." The letter then goes on to list the abuses that Ratzinger said exist in Seattle. First, the letter deals with marriage and divorce, citing the "rather widespread
practice of admitting divorced persons to a subsequent church marriage" without an
annulment. "Catholics have been advised that after divorce and civil remarriage, they
may in conscience return to the sacraments." "A clear presentation of the
sacramentality and indissolubility of Christian marriage should be made to all your
people." And the tribunal should conform to the prescriptions of canon law. Second, some doctrinal problems are listed. Concern is expressed about those "who
seem reluctant to accept the magisterium as capable of giving definitive direction in
matters of faith and morals." The church should be portrayed not simply as a
sociological entity "in opposition to its divine origin, mission and authority."
Faulty Christologies lead to these misunderstandings. Stress should be put on Christ's
divinity, humanity, salvific mission, and union with and lordship over the church. A
correct appreciation of the priesthood and role of the laity should be inculcated in the
seminary program. Policies and programs of the archdiocese should reflect a vision of the
human person based on the gospel and not just on human sciences. The authoritative
teaching of the church has a valid claim on the Catholic conscience. "No bishop
should hesitate to overrule advisors who propose opinions at variance with the authentic
teaching of the Holy See." Third, the letter states that Archbishop Hunthausen has taken steps to correct the
practice of contraceptive sterilization in local Catholic hospitals. Fourth, "first confession should precede first communion." Fifth, "the use of general absolution must be strictly limited." Large crowds
of penitents at Christmas and Easter do not constitute the necessary condition required by
canon law. Sixth, "Routine intercommunion [non-Catholics receiving Communion at Mass] on the
occasion of weddings or funerals...should be recognized as clearly abusive and an
impediment to genuine ecumenism." Seventh, practices not in accord with liturgical directives should be eliminated. Eighth, priests who have left the ministry and not been laicized by Rome cannot be
employed by the church. When a priest is laicized, that is returned to the lay state, he
is often prohibited from doing certain things by his rescript of laicization, the Vatican
document by which he is laicized. This frequently means they may not teach in Catholic
schools or act as lectors or extraordinary ministers of communion. Cardinal Ratzinger
complained that these prohibitions were not being observed. Ninth, in 1976 and 1979 the archdiocese distributed a questionnaire that revealed
deficient doctrinal understandings and led some to believe it "to be a kind of voting
process on doctrinal or moral teachings." Tenth, the exclusion of women from the priesthood should be explained unambiguously. Eleventh, "The archdiocese should withdraw all support from any group that does
not unequivocally accept the teaching of the magisterium concerning the intrinsic evil of
homosexual activity... A compassionate ministry to homosexual persons must be developed
that has as its clear goal the promotion of a chaste life-style." It is noteworthy that five of the issues listed in the letter (general absolution,
first confession, women priests, intercommunion, homosexuality) were mentioned by the pope
in talks to American bishops. The Vatican also emphasized privately that the visitation
had nothing to do with Archbishop Hunthausen's vocal opposition to nuclear weapons or his
refusal to pay some of his taxes as a protest. His authority on social justice and peace
issues in his archdiocese was never challenged. The Vatican did not want this letter made public, but Archbishop Hunthausen insisted
that some public report was necessary lest he be accused of misrepresenting its findings.
In November 1985, a letter to the archbishop from Archbishop Laghi was published that
summarized the contents of the Ratzinger letter. Archbishop Hunthausen said that he was
firmly committed to dealing with the areas of concern listed in the letters. But he and
others in Seattle asked for specific instances of when and where these abuses had taken
place. Many of the abuses, he said, never occurred or had been dealt with. In December 1985, Donald W. Wuerl was appointed auxiliary bishop in Seattle. Seattle
sources insist that from the very beginning the Vatican wanted to appoint an auxiliary or
coadjutor with special powers but that Archbishop Hunthausen had refused to accept this.
Bishop Wuerl was seen by Seattle as a compromise--an auxiliary without special powers but
one not nominated by the archbishop. Vatican officials saw the compromise differently.
Bishop Wuerl did not have special powers from the Vatican, but Archbishop Hunthausen was
supposed to give him these powers himself. By Easter of 1986 it became clear that Bishop Wuerl and Archbishop Hunthausen had
different understandings of the bishop's powers. When Rome was questioned, Archbishop
Hunthausen was told that he was supposed to delegate to Bishop Wuerl final authority over
the tribunal, liturgy, priestly formation, former priests, medical ethics, and ministry to
homosexuals. Again the Vatican did not want this made public, but the archbishop said that
he could not pretend he had full power when he did not. When it was made public in September 1986, most of the priests and religious of the
archdiocese were outraged./31 Some canonists argued
that it was against canon law for a diocesan bishop to delegate final decision making
authority to anyone, even an auxiliary bishop. Meetings were held, petitions were signed,
protests were made. It soon became clear that no matter what his legal authority, Bishop
Wuerl was, in fact, isolated, with the archbishop being one of his few defenders in
Seattle. Meanwhile, shortly before the November 1986 meeting of the American bishops, Archbishop
Laghi issued a chronology of the case giving the Vatican's side./32 It said that at least since 1978, "the Holy
See sought the assistance of the archbishop of Seattle in responding to the high volume of
complaints that were sent to Rome by priests, religious, and faithful in the
archdiocese." After hearing a preliminary report on the visitation, "the Holy
See considered him [Hunthausen] lacking the firmness necessary to govern the
archdiocese." It also said that Archbishop Hunthausen had agreed to the delegation of
powers when Bishop Wuerl was first appointed. In a closed session at the meeting of
bishops, Archbishop Hunthausen gave his version of the events, which differed
significantly from Archbishop Laghi's./33 Up until this point, most bishops had given Rome the benefit of the doubt, since they
did not know the facts. Once the chronology gave the Vatican's side of the story, the
bishops had to judge the case on the facts rather than on faith. The administrative
committee of the NCCB recommended that the bishops support the Vatican action in Seattle
as "fair and just." But after studying the chronology and listening to
Archbishop Hunthausen, the bishops were confused and divided. They were asked to support
the Vatican's actions in Seattle but refused. Rather they simply acknowledged the right of
the Vatican to do what it did and offered their services to bring about a resolution to
the conflict. As it became clear that the Vatican solution was not working in Seattle and, in fact,
was causing controversy across the country, the American bishops worked to settle the
question before the pope's visit in September 1987. The pope agreed in February 1987 to
appoint a three-man papal commission "to assess the current situation in the
archdiocese of Seattle." In May, the commission, consisting of cardinals Bernardin of Chicago and O'Connor of
New York and Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco, agreed with the Vatican's assessment of
the situation in Seattle but recommended the restoring of Archbishop Hunthausen to full
power. The commission reported, "No matter how personally firm in his teachings and
practices the archbishop himself may be, without intending it, he is perceived as
generating, or at least accepting, a climate of permissiveness within which some feel
themselves free to design their own policies and practices."/34 They also recommended the appointment of a
coadjutor, Bishop Thomas J. Murphy, who would not have special powers. Bishop Wuerl was to
receive another assignment (ultimately he became bishop of Pittsburgh), and the commission
was to continue in existence to help Archbishop Hunthausen deal with the problems
identified by the Vatican. Several significant lessons can be learned from this case. First, the Vatican could do
to Archbishop Hunthausen only what he allowed it to do. If he had refused to accept the
visitation, if he had refused to accept Bishop Wuerl, if he had refused to delegate to
Wuerl any powers, there was little the Vatican could do. It could not send in the Swiss
Guard to restore order. The power of the Vatican is based on its moral authority and the
willingness of Catholics to agree and obey. All of the Vatican's efforts to deal with
Cardinal Cody in Chicago or to deal with Archbishop Lefebvre failed because they simply
ignored it. Ultimately Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining
bishops without papal approval. Second, misunderstandings occur when Roman procedures clash with American conceptions
of fairness and due process. Roman procedures presume a benign, wise, and paternal
authority that does what is best for the local and universal church. American concepts of
due process institutionalize a fear that authority is not always wise and sometimes abuses
its power. The desire for a bill of particulars giving specific and concrete charges, the
right of the accused to face and cross-examine his accusers, the desire for an open
process--all of these come from a tradition where power is suspect. Vatican officials
argue that such procedures are not necessary and are counterproductive--They are no more
needed in the church than they are in a family. In addition, differences in language and
style can lead to misunderstandings, as appears to have happened in the appointment of
Bishop Wuerl. A third lesson from the case is the growing reliance by the Vatican on local church
officials to deal with problems. First, Archbishop Hickey conducted the original
investigation rather than a Vatican official. It is impossible to evaluate his role in the
affair since the report was never made public. Second, the Vatican tried to get the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops to endorse its actions in Seattle. This failed.
Later, the three American prelates on the papal commission worked out the compromise that
settled the controversy. The recent studies of seminaries and religious life were also
conducted by American bishops. Rome refers to this as collegiality. A final lesson of the case is the recognition that the Vatican is capable of changing
its mind; its decisions are not always set in concrete, as many believe. The Vatican
appears to have been convinced by right-wing letter writers that the people of Seattle
were scandalized and upset by the actions of their archbishop. Wholesale repudiation of
the Vatican's actions by the Seattle priests and religious showed that Vatican
intervention was not welcome and was, in fact, counterproductive. The commission constructed a compromise that withdrew Bishop Wuerl and restored
Archbishop Hunthausen while at the same time supporting the Vatican's view that there were
problems in Seattle--The diagnosis was correct, the cure was not working. The Vatican
reversal was portrayed as tactical, not substantive. But even this compromise required
intensive negotiations that would not have succeeded if the three American prelates had
not been solidly united behind their recommendations when facing both Seattle and Rome.
When finally presented with their recommendations, the pope responded, "If that is
what you want, fine." In addition, he was undoubtedly pleased that this matter was
settled before his trip to the United States. Gerety Case Another archbishop who came under fire in Rome was Archbishop Gerety of Newark. CUF
(Catholics United for the Faith) attacked him because Renew began and is based in his
archdiocese. CUF disapproved of its emphasis on community and claimed that it was
doctrinally unsound. In addition, Rome forced him to withdraw the imprimatur of Christ
Among Us, a very popular book used in adult catechesis. Archbishop Gerety's
resignation was accepted two years early, shortly before the NCCB committee on doctrine
gave a generally favorable report on Renew while also calling for more doctrinal and
catechetical content to its materials. After claiming victory in Seattle and Newark, conservative Catholic organizations like
CUF targeted Archbishop Weakland as their next victim. He was especially vulnerable in
Rome because, in what he thought was an off the record talk to the Milwaukee press, he had
described the newly elected pope. I had watched him once in Czestochowa with 200,000 people in the crowd. I said, he
works that crowd better than any ham actor could. And I said, he's very bright, catches on
fast, but he is stubborn. The press the next day had, "Archbishop says `Pope ham
actor who is stubborn.'" Despite CUF and the press, Rome has not moved against Archbishop Weakland. Having
worked in Rome as abbot primate of the Benedictines, he knows Roman ways and has Roman
friends. In addition, he is widely respected by the other American bishops who elected him
one of their delegates to the 1987 synod. Many observers consider him the brightest member
of the American hierarchy. If Rome tried to discipline him, the Seattle controversy would
look, in contrast, like a tempest in a teapot. A number of archbishops described themselves as being in the middle between Rome and
their archdioceses. "The hardest part of my job is to be sandwiched between Roman
orders and my people and priests' hopes and ideals," reports Archbishop Weakland.
"I live that struggle day in and day out. I feel frustrated with no channels of
communication and just kind of caught." Archbishop Roach of St. Paul describes it in similar terms: There is conflict between what is perceived as local need and universal teaching. A
classic example would be the question of the order of penance and first Eucharist. I feel a very strong responsibility to recognize what is the order in the universal
church. I also feel a very strong responsibility to be sensitive to the pedagogical,
psychological, catechetical needs as perceived by the people who are responsible for the
preparation of youngsters. And that is always a stress, that's always a strain. Another case where the bishops were caught in the middle between Rome and their flock
was over the issue of altar girls. "I say no to altar girls," recounts
Archbishop Lipscomb of Mobile. "Oh God, what troubles I get into by saying no to
altar girls." Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago also wrote his pastors telling them not
to have altar girls, but press reports indicated he did not discipline pastors who did not
follow the directive. Some archbishops feel that it is difficult for Rome to understand the American church.
"The Vatican is predominantly European. It's Italian. It's Roman," says
Archbishop Flores of San Antonio. "Very often they do not understand the realities
out here. But I think they are making an effort, and we've been trying to dialogue
individually and collectively." As an example, he cited Rome's desire that religious
in his archdiocese live in community. In the city, most of the nuns live in communities. But we have [poor rural] areas where
sisters are living alone, and they're sixty or eighty miles from the nearest community.
Well, we had to argue that point--that it's just not possible, and yet we need the service
of a qualified sister way out there in the middle of nowhere. Rome also wanted the sisters to wear habits. But many of the nuns were from Mexico
where they had never worn habits because the government forbids it. In addition, as
opposed to Europe, "here it is so hot that you just can't stand it," he says.
"For the nuns to be modestly dressed is enough. The people respect them. Everybody
knows they are nuns." Another archbishop caught in the middle was Archbishop Sanchez of Santa Fe, who was
asked by the Vatican to take over the University of Albuquerque when it was going broke
under the administration of the Sisters of St. Francis. "We did so reluctantly
because we knew that it was in tough financial condition," says Archbishop Sanchez,
"but we hoped for the best." Two years later the school closed, and the
archdiocese was stuck with its $8 million debt. Besides governing their archdioceses, archbishops are also involved in their provinces,
their state conferences and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. A few play a role
in the international church. All of this work involves travel and meetings outside the
archdiocese, to say nothing of the time spent in the archdiocese preparing for these
meetings. Archbishops who are prominent in national and international church affairs
estimate that 20 to 30 percent of their time is devoted to work outside their
archdioceses. Chancery officials have mixed feelings about this work by their archbishops. They are
usually proud that their archbishop is playing an important role in the larger church, but
they also complain that the work makes him less available in the archdiocese. Many of the
archbishops also complain that they have to spend so much time on matters outside of their
archdioceses, but it rarely stops them from being involved in something they consider
important. Not only do archbishops have an impact on the church outside their archdioceses, that
same church also has an impact on them. They cannot govern their archdioceses in a vacuum
independent of what happens in other parts of the church. Decisions made by the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops can sometimes bind the local bishop. Even what happens in
neighboring dioceses can influence opinions and actions in their archdioceses. But it is the Vatican that can have the most significant impact on the local
archdiocese. The appointment of the archbishop and the parameters of his authority are
mostly determined in Rome. While Rome is not a constant concern of the archbishops, it is
ever present as a source of normative policies and procedures. After examining the ad
limina and U.S. speeches of the pope (and the correspondence with Seattle), it is obvious
that he wants the American bishops to deal with a number of issues. The limits to general absolution were mentioned most consistently by Paul VI in 1978,
by John Paul II in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1988, and in Seattle. First confession before first
communion has also come up repeatedly, as have the indissolubility of marriage and
prohibitions on intercommunion. While acknowledging the need for compassion, John Paul
stresses that this is not incompatible with preaching the truth. All of this was summed up
in his very first ad limina address to the American bishops when he called for fidelity to
church teaching and discipline. On the other hand, Paul VI and John Paul II both praised the American church for its
concern for the poor at home and abroad. Both commended the bishops for programs like
Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services. The bishops have also been praised for
their concern for human rights, including the right to life. The bishops give careful attention to the pope when he speaks, and when making
decisions, the views of the pope are very influential. In the next chapter we will examine
how archbishops make decisions. 1. Michael J. Sheehan, "Is There Life in the Church Beyond
Diocese? Supra-Diocesan Structures and Church Governance in Book II, the People of
God," CLSA Proceedings 42 (1980): 132-50. 2. Michael J. Sheehan, "State Catholic Conferences," Jurist
30 (1970): 285-313, and Ian Jones, "Down Home, Bishops' Groups Ply Politics," National
Catholic Reporter, Sept. 16, 1988, 1. 3. "Report from the Synod," Thomas J. Reese, S.J., America
143 (October 11, 1980): 199. 4. See Peter Hebblethwaite, In the Vatican (Bethesda,
MD: Adler & Adler, 1986). 5. Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition (Washington,
DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983), Canons 399 and 400. Also see Congregation for
Bishops, Directory for the "Ad Limina" Visit (Vatican City: Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1988); Congregation for Bishops, "Quinquennial Report by
Residential Bishops," The Canon Law Digest 9 (June 6, 1975): 214-39; and
Congregation for Bishops, Formula Relationis Quinquennalis (Vatican City: Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1982). 6. The Wanderer, July 28, 1983, 5. 7. Paul VI, "Address to Bishops of New York," Origins
7 (April 20, 1978): 721ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 70:328ff. 8. Paul VI, "Pope Praises U.S. Bishops for Pro-Life
Efforts," Origins 8 (May 26, 1978): 41ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis
70:412ff. 9. In 1983 Cardinal Bernardin spoke of a "consistent ethic
of life" in terms similar to those used by Paul VI. See Origins 13 (December
29, 1983): 491ff. 10. Paul VI, "The Eucharist: Summit of Christian
Life," Origins 8 (June 15, 1978): 89ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis
70:419ff. 11. John Paul I, "Address During Ad Limina Visit of U.S.
Bishops of the Pacific Northwest," Origins 8 (September 21, 1978): 254ff. Also
Acta Apostolicae Sedis 70:765ff. 12. John Paul II, "Address During Ad Limina Visit of U.S.
Midwestern and Southern Bishops," Origins 8 (November 9, 1978): 353ff. Also Acta
Apostolicae Sedis 71:23ff. 13. John Paul II, "Address to the Bishops of New
York," Origins 12 (April 15, 1983): 759ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis
75:566ff. Emphasis in original. For Vatican view of this visit, see Pio Laghi, "The
Central Significance of `Ad Limina' Visits," Origins 13 (1983): 405-7. 14. John Paul II, "Address to U.S. Bishops on Women
Priests, Marriage, Birth Control and Homosexuality," Origins 13 (September 5,
1983): 238ff. Also Acta Apostolicae Sedis 76:99ff. Emphasis in original. 15. John Paul II, "Address to U.S. Bishops on the
Priesthood and the Eucharist," Origins 13 (September 9, 1983): 257ff. Also Acta
Apostolicae Sedis 76:106ff. Emphasis in original. 16. John Paul II, "The Support Asked of Bishops for
Religious," Origins 13 (September 19, 1983): 318-20. 17. John Paul II, "The Family, Marriage and
Sexuality," Origins 13 (September 24, 1983): 316-318. 18. John Paul II, "An Address to the U.S. Bishops," Origins
9 (October 5, 1979): 287-291. 19. The speeches, given on September 16, were published in Origins
17 (October 1, 1987): 224-267. 20. "Texas Bishops Tell Human, Spiritual Sides of Ad
Limina Visit," NC News Service, May 13, 1988. 21. John Paul II, "Pope Cites Church Strengths in United
States," Origins 17 (March 25, 1988): 705. 22. John Paul II, "Developing a Pastoral Vision for the
Year 2000," Origins 17 (April 28, 1988): 801. 23. John Paul II, "Pastoral Action Asked on
Penance," Origins 17 (June 23, 1988): 85-88. 24. John Paul II, "Prayer as the Context for Christian
Living," Origins 17 (June 23, 1988): 90. 25. John Paul II, "What is a Christocentric
Catechesis," Origins 17 (August 4, 1988): 161-162. 26. John Paul II, "The Rights of Women," Origins
18 (Sept. 22, 1988): 243. 27. John Paul II, "Solidarity and Interdependence," Origins
18 (Sept. 22, 1988): 241. 28. A survey covering 78 percent of the dioceses found only
thirty-six formal cases appealing a decision of a diocesan bishop to an office of the
Apostolic See over a fifteen-year period. Twenty-five of these dealt with clergy personnel
issues (appeals from retirement, reassignment, or removal of pastors). James H. Provost,
"Recent Experience of Administrative Recourse to the Apostolic See," Jurist
46 (1986): 142-63. 29. Gerald M. Costello, "U.S. Catholics Loyal to Church,
Cardinal Ratzinger Says," NC News, February 1, 1988. 30. Joseph Ratzinger, "Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter, Sept.
30, 1985," Origins 17 (June 4, 1987): 41-43. 31. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., "The Seattle Way of the
Cross," America 155 (September 20, 1986): 111-12. 32. "Vatican Releases Chronology of Events in
Seattle," Origins 16 (November 6, 1986): 361-64. 33. Raymond Hunthausen, "Archbishop Hunthausen to the
U.S. Bishops," Origins 16 (November 20, 1986): 401-8. 34. Joseph Bernardin, John O'Connor, and John Quinn, "A
Resolution of the Situation in Seattle," Origins 17 (June 4, 1987): 37-41.
Copyright © 1989 by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
All rights reserved
For the previous chapter and table of contents, see Chapter 7
and Contents.
Archbishop Weakland
Archbishop LipscombProvince Metropolitan
State Catholic Conference
NCCB/USCC
International Responsibilities
Relations with Rome
Ad Limina Visit
The Issues
Papal Visits 1979 and 1987
Ad Limina 1988
Letters from Rome
Hunthausen Case
The Man in the Middle
Conclusion
Footnotes
See also: