The semi-annual meeting of the U.S. Catholic bishops in Collegeville, Minnesota, June 24 to 27, was either a turning point in the history of the postconciliar Church in this country, or a fluke. On every controverted question, the more orthodox or conservative position prevailed.
Some routine items were on the agenda, including minor revisions in the bylaws of the corporation and the establishment of a retirement fund for religious, and were disposed of quickly. But four action items dealt with sensitive subjects.
Strategic Defense Initiative
A committee chaired by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin offered an assessment of nuclear deterrence and the impact of the 1983 pastoral letter “The Challenge of Peace.” This assessment was mostly self-congratulatory except for its treatment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
SDI presented the committee with a problem. The idea is hardly mentioned in “The Challenge of Peace” since it was already almost finished when SDI was first proposed. But SDI is a strategy that could easily have been produced by a group of Catholic theologians seeking a way out of the dilemma of mutual assured destruction. It is thoroughly in keeping with traditional Catholic just war principles and provides a solution to problems raised in “The Challenge to Peace.” Thus, it is hard to find a theological reason to object to SDI; but because of the intense partisanship of the bloc of “peace” bishops, the committee had to find some excuse for opposing it.
The first try, in a preliminary draft, was a failure. It dismissed SDI with the embarrassing argument that “An ethic of intention must be judged by an ethic of consequences”—practically a formal adoption of consequentialist ethics. This sentence provoked an earthquake among bishops who have been opposing consequentialism in other domains (for example, in arguments in favor of abortion), and the language was quickly dropped in favor of a more “nuanced” reading. The committee was really trying to say that even if SDI is based on good intentions, it is “morally deficient” because of certain consequences that might follow upon its deployment.
Even this is fairly weak as moral reasoning. What it seems to mean is that SDI is morally licit in itself, but certain external circumstances make its deployment now imprudent. Therefore, it would seem, those external circumstances ought to be addressed in order to make it prudent to achieve the good ends that SDI will bring about, namely an end to reliance on nuclear deterrence and the protection of civil populations from a first strike. That, however, would sound far too “Reaganesque” for this committee. So let the judgment of “moral deficiency” stand.
Bishop Stanislaus Brzana of Ogdensburg expressed his puzzlement at the term “morally deficient.” “Are you trying to say it is a sin?” he asked. Uncomfortable with such a harsh term as “sin,” Cardinal Bernardin hesitated for several minutes, finally allowing that SDI is “morally deficient” but not a “sin.”
Archbishop Joseph Ryan of the Military Archdiocese then offered perhaps the most pugnacious intervention of the entire meeting. The whole section on SDI should be rewritten, he contended, because it “rests upon factual data that is highly controverted, supported by an obviously politicized scientific report, and blatantly designed to undermine the declared intention of the government to move beyond the philosophy of MAD [mutually assured destruction]…. This section reveals a fundamental distrust and bias against governmental agencies that is not worthy of this body…. If SDI is so unworkable and impractical, why are the Soviets so anxious to derail it?”
Archbishop Ryan’s statement was ruled to be a comment and not a question, and therefore out of order.
The next morning, just prior to the vote to accept the committee’s report, Cardinal John O’Connor rose and, apologizing for offering an amendment out of order, proposed some minor changes to get rid of the confusing term “morally deficient.” Cardinal Bernardin graciously accepted the O’Connor language, and the report, thus amended, was adopted unanimously.
The relevant statement now reads: “Judged within an adequate moral framework, one that takes into account the relevant moral circumstances surrounding this policy, it is our prudential judgment that proposals to press deployment of SDI do not measure up to the moral criteria outlined in this Report.”
The final version endorses the objectives of SDI as well as continued research and development. But deployment is discouraged unless four conditions are met:
• the framework of arms control negotiations must not be made more difficult;
• a new surge of competition in offensive weapons must not be initiated;
• the stability of deterrence must not be weakened (a curious demand in view of the previously stated moral imperative to move beyond deterrence); and
• defense spending must not absorb a morally disproportionate percentage (unspecified) of the federal budget.
But while the document now opposes deployment, or restricts it, it endorses SDI for what it is now—a research and development program. The bishops also agree that “some of the objectives of SDI correspond to key themes in the [earlier] pastoral letter.” In sum, the bishops appear to endorse an SDI approach that moves cautiously toward deployment, and that keeps in mind cost ratios, the stimulus to offensive arms, and the fabric of deterrence.
General Absolution
Canon Law governing the use of general absolution specifies that, at the discretion of the local ordinary, it may be used if the penitents, through no fault of their own, would be unable to make an individual confession “for a long time” (L. diu). The Holy See had asked each national conference to establish some reasonable interpretation of diu, suitable to pastoral conditions in their country. The recommendation submitted to the bishops was that 30 days be considered a long enough time.
Archbishops Rembert Weakland and William Borders and retired Bishop William McManus argued strenuously against any guideline, with Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop William Levada, and Bishop Austin Vaughan supporting the recommendation. Archbishop Borders appealed to his own experience, recalling that at a penance service in Baltimore around Christmas there were about 1,000 penitents and only 10 confessors, so general absolution was a practical necessity.
Archbishop John May ruled that the recommendation would require a two-thirds vote of the entire Conference for approval. Since only 230 of the 300 active bishops were present, that ruling practically killed its chance of passage. But the vote was overwhelmingly favorable at 168 for and 62 against. Archbishop May acknowledged that there is no doubt the standard will be formally accepted once the absent bishops are canvassed. This will make general absolution extremely rare in the United States.
Mother Angelica
A dramatic showdown came on two competing proposals for cable TV affiliation. U.S. Catholic Conference programming could be carried either on the proposed Vision Interfaith Satellite Network or on Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). Vision is not yet on the air and will carry mostly mainline Protestant programming. The bishops could purchase a limited amount of time on this network. Eternal Word is on the air with all Catholic programming, and offered the bishops an equivalent amount of time at no charge. The rub is that Eternal Word reserved the right to refuse Conference programming on the grounds of content, except where a bishop appeared personally. This provoked accusations of censorship, although the real issue seemed to be Mother Angelica’s ardent support of papal teaching, even when the USCC appears grumpy.
Bishop Thomas Daily of West Palm Beach, a board member of Eternal Word, arranged a compromise with Mother Angelica. A board of five bishops, including the Bishop of Birmingham (ex officio on the Board of EWTN) and one other EWTN board member plus three appointed by the Conference, would have the final say on any program that was questioned. Having thus removed Mother Angelica from any personal role in judging the orthodoxy of Conference programming, Bishop Daily told his colleagues that it was an either/or proposition: if the Vision proposal were accepted, the EWTN contract would be withdrawn. He then asked for a vote by secret ballot. That was probably a crucial tactical move, because the expressed sentiment was running strongly against Mother Angelica. On a voice vote, peer pressure might have made her opponents more vociferous and her supporters timid.
The results of the ballot stunned the anti-EWTN faction. The Vision proposal was turned down 118 to 51, and the Eternal Word contract accepted, 122 to 93. Bishop Anthony Bosco, chairman of the communications committee and leading advocate of the Vision proposal, was visibly unhappy at the press conference afterwards. Earlier he had smugly ridiculed Mother Angelica’s concerns over orthodoxy. Now, he mistakenly asserted that the vote was merely to negotiate with, rather than to accept, the EWTN contract. In response to a question from a particularly obtuse reporter who wondered if Mother Angelica might not be too far to the “right” to work comfortably with the Conference, Bishop Bosco did not do the obvious thing and declare that sort of political terminology inappropriate, but endorsed it and expressed the view that Mother Angelica would have to move to the “left” if she were to work in cooperation with the Conference.
The AIDS Document
The big test came on the last day of the meeting in a closed session. What would the bishops do about AIDS and the scandalous statement “The Many Faces of AIDS,” which had shocked bishops and public alike upon its release last December?
There is no need to elaborate on the significance of this closed session. Never before had so many bishops, including the most prominent members of the hierarchy, objected so publicly and so strenuously to a document that had been issued in their names. Never before had Catholic moral teachings been so seriously compromised in an official USCC statement. Partisans were intensely active on both sides, with Richard McCormick, Dan Maguire, and Dignity (the pro-homosexual rights group) praising the document; and Germain Grisez, the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and the Sienna Group for Catholic Policy waging strong attacks against it. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent an important letter identifying several serious theological errors in the document. [For text, see p. 41.] Cardinal Bernard Law, who had been absent for the earlier sessions, flew in to lead the forces calling for a new statement. (A private plane had been arranged to carry him to the consistory in Rome the next day.)
The discussion lasted all morning. Several of the written interventions were leaked to the press. Among those opposing “The Many Faces” were Cardinals O’Connor and Law, Archbishops Francis Stafford and Roger Mahony, and Bishops James McHugh and Eusebius Beltran of Tulsa, the last heretofore a low-profile figure in the Conference, who delivered a scathing blast against the document. Among its defenders were Bishops Anthony Pilla of Cleveland and Stanley Ott of Baton Rouge.
It must have been evident that a majority of the Conference was ready to dump “The Many Faces,” and so Cardinals Bernardin and Law worked out an accommodation that would restore unity to the Conference and save face for the minority. Bernardin offered, and Law seconded, a motion to have an entirely new statement drafted. It will be submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and fully discussed among the bishops in open plenary session before its release. The Bernardin-Law motion was unanimously adopted, and a vote on “The Many Faces” was mooted.
Cardinal Bernardin tried to put the best face on this, noting that “The Many Faces” still stood as a statement of the USCC Administrative Board. But the fact is that “The Many Faces” was implicitly repudiated and will be superseded by the new statement. It is up to Archbishop May to appoint a drafting committee, and his likely tactic will be to draw the process out as long as possible.
Other Business
Two other important matters were discussed without action. They were the Vatican’s draft guidelines on the theological and juridical status of episcopal conferences, which embody Cardinal Ratzinger’s view that conferences, as such, have no teaching authority; and the forthcoming pastoral on women. Both will be on the agenda when the bishops meet again in Washington in November.
In his opening address to the meeting, Archbishop May took a strong line against the draft guidelines on conferences. He argued that each bishop exercises in his diocese a teaching mandate in a collegial manner. “If this is true of one bishop,” May concluded, “it cannot be less true of three hundred.” His opposition to the draft was loudly echoed during the brief discussion period.
Bishop Joseph Imesch, head of the committee drafting the pastoral letter on women, noted that the Holy Father will issue a statement of his own on the same subject before the close of the Marian Year. Following his presentation, Bishop Imesch was asked by a lady reporter if he would remove his recommendation for female altar servers if the Pope’s statement ruled that out of order. After a momentary pause, he responded, “Yes!”
The reporter, apparently annoyed at his lack of gumption in standing up to papal tyranny, came back with a challenging “Why?” To which Bishop Imesch responded, with a smile but no pause, “Because he’s the Pope.”
November may tell a different tale. The guidelines on episcopal conferences may galvanize anti-Roman sentiment among the bishops. They may get carried away by a wave of feminism. The battle for the American Church is by no means over. But the 1988 Collegeville meeting must be counted a successful engagement for the forces of authentic renewal.