Bishops' Session Assesses the State of the U.S. Church

New York Times ^ | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[american colleen]

June 21, 2003 Bishops' Session Assesses the State of the U.S. Church By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

T. LOUIS, June 20 — In a closed-door meeting they described as "a day of prayerful reflection," the nation's Roman Catholic bishops began a re-examination of the sexual abuse crisis by asking themselves how the American church had strayed so far from its ideals.

To focus the discussion, bishops said they had polled themselves in the last few months, and fixed on these problems as their priorities: the low attendance of Catholics at Mass and confession; the corrosive effects of American culture on faith; and the confused identity and spirituality of many bishops and priests.

To consider these and other ills, the prelates today debated a proposal to hold a plenary council, a major assembly of bishops, priests and laypeople that the church in the United States has not seen since 1884.

Some bishops argued today for smaller forums that could be organized more quickly, like "listening sessions" with laypeople, or a synod of bishops. The earliest a plenary council would be held is three years from now, and the bishops will not even decide whether to move forward on the proposal for at least a year.

But no matter the outcome, today's meeting made clear that the sexual abuse scandal had prodded the bishops into a collective reassessment of the church in the United States — a step some laypeople have been urging for years.

Bishop Allen H. Vigneron, who initiated the call for a plenary and was recently named bishop-elect for the diocese of Oakland, Calif., said in an interview, "The problems of a year ago dealing with the abuse of children and young people by clergy indicate that we need to regain a clear focus about our identity and life as a church and as pastors in the church."

"The question is," he said, "what weaknesses in our life have been disclosed to us by the crisis?"

When told of the bishops' agenda today, leaders of some Catholic lay groups said they were surprised to hear what had emerged at the top of the bishops' list of concerns. Some questioned whether the bishops would adequately involve laypeople in the discussion, but agreed the bishops were raising legitimate issues.

"My generation of baby boomers was brought up at a time when it was a sin not to go to Mass on Sundays, it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays," said Linda Pieczynski, spokeswoman and former president of Call to Action, a Catholic reform group with 25,000 members and 49 chapters across the country. "Our children are not getting out of the sacraments what my generation got out of it."

But others said the bishops were trying to deflect attention from their own responsibility for the crisis.

"The biggest issue facing the bishops is their credibility," said Barbara Blaine, a leader of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.

Bishop Vigneron was among eight theologically conservative bishops who last year called for a plenary council as a galvanizing event that would return the church to the path of tradition and orthodoxy. They envisioned a council focused on the theme of how to recommit bishops, priests, religious and laypeople to lives of holiness and purity.

The proposal gained the backing of 107 bishops. But as Bishop Vigneron acknowledged, some of those bishops signed because they wanted a debate on the proposal, not because they necessarily supported the theological framing of the event.

The idea has clearly captured the imagination of many bishops, but there has been no straw vote yet to indicate how many would support it. But with the bishops discussing a plenary council today and again at their meeting in June 2004, Catholics across the country are likely to hear about and weigh in on the debate.

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of Milwaukee said that in today's meeting, the bishops had thrown the net much wider than the theme of holiness because, he said, "We need to examine our whole mission."

He said the bishops had found today's discussions "rewarding," even exhilarating after more than a year burdened by the sexual abuse controversy. "We felt like bishops, we felt like pastors, we felt like priests," he said. "There was almost a sense of relief, of `This is great.' "

There have been three plenary councils before in the United States, all in the 19th century, all in Baltimore. The plenaries produced the catechism, the codification of church teaching that Catholics know as the "Baltimore Catechism."

Cardinal William Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore, said in an interview that if the bishops decide to have a plenary, he would invite them to hold it in Baltimore. He said he was still making up his mind about whether he favored the event.

Others also said they were not yet persuaded. Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago, said, "We need more information about what it would entail" including the expense, and who would participate.

"I wonder if this is the time," said Cardinal Edward M. Egan, archbishop of New York. "We have other things on our plate to deal with." Pressed for examples, he mentioned vocations to the priesthood, parish life and teaching church doctrine to young people.

The Rev. Philip J. Murnion, director of the National Pastoral Life Center, said in a telephone interview that the church needs a plenary, but only if the agenda includes issues of concern to the right wing in the church, like personal morality, and the left wing, like a church structure that excludes women and laypeople.

"What puzzles me is why the bishops needed to have this conversation in a closed session," he said, "since what this is about is how to have a more open discussion about the needs of the church."

[american colleen]

FYI.

[RobbyS]

The problem with the conference is that it is an ad hoc political body rather than a religious one and one with no canonical authority. No wonder it issues condemnations of proabortion politicians like Kerry but leave the bishop of Boston free not to excommunicate the bastard. I agree that we need a plenary council but not if it is controlled by the likes of Mahoney and Egan. According to Deal Hudson, who I heard last week, there is a growing group of conservative bishops but they are not yet in the majority.

[Salvation]

** today's meeting made clear that the sexual abuse scandal had prodded the bishops into a collective reassessment of the church in the United States — a step some laypeople have been urging for years.**

The question remains:

"What action will they therefore take?"

[Salvation]

**The proposal gained the backing of 107 bishops.**

Wow! I wasn't aware of this!

[sinkspur]

What puzzles me is why the bishops needed to have this conversation in a closed session," he said, "since what this is about is how to have a more open discussion about the needs of the church."

The problem the bishops have is that the expectations for a plenary council will be very high. Phenomenally high.

The worst possible outcome would be a huge meeting, lots of discussion, and then business as usual.

There will be immense pressure from various lay groups for lay involvment. If the bishops don't figure out a way to involve lay people in this council, it will be discounted by many.

This is a silver bullet. If they fire it, it can't miss.

[Salvation]

**Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of Milwaukee said that in today's meeting, the bishops had thrown the net much wider than the theme of holiness because, he said, "We need to examine our whole mission."**

Archbishop Dolan bump!

[Salvation]

**"What puzzles me is why the bishops needed to have this conversation in a closed session," he said, "since what this is about is how to have a more open discussion about the needs of the church."**

This last paragraph says a lot! Why, indeed, did this need to be held in CLOSED session. I would think that most of the arch/bishops would want this smell out of their midst and out into the open air.

But like you said above, maybe the timing is not quite there. We need to have a majority of conservative bishops, archbishops and cardinals!!!!!!

[Land of the Irish]

**Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of Milwaukee said that in today's meeting, the bishops had thrown the net much wider than the theme of holiness because, he said, "We need to examine our whole mission."**

No, the Pope needs to throw a net over the heretic Amchurch Bishops and bring them back to the Catholic Church.

[drstevej]

***But like you said above, maybe the timing is not quite there.***

Why not now? Have the cardinals and bishops speak openly their views. Let the public see who says what and who keeps silent.

The choice to broadcast proceedural discussions and close doors to discussions of principles and morals is not an encouraging sign.

Let the sun shine in.

[RobbyS]

I am less worried about the plenary Council than I am about what comes out of these conferences. There is a mismatch between what they say and what they do. I mean, how hard would it be for a bishop to formally excommunicate Fanny Kissling and everyone else in her front so everyone will know she is not a dissenting Catholic but an ex-Catholic. If they won't go after the small fry, is it any not wonder they don't go after the likes of Kerry.

[RobbyS]

The situation is not ripe.Right now the bishops are split. The longer this drags out the more visible the split will become. I am hoping that the right people are able to gain control of the plenary council. I don't want lay participation to consist of the likes of Peggy Steinfels and Scott Appleton. When the bishops asked them to speak last year, that told me lots about the political make-up of the conference. To hell with that.

[B Knotts]

According to Deal Hudson, who I heard last week, there is a growing group of conservative bishops but they are not yet in the majority.

I sense this to be true. Remember, it was not that long ago that the bishops busied themselves passing resolutions having to do with nuclear weapons and farmworkers.

[B Knotts]

It seems to me that the surest way to achieve your worst possible outcome is to insist upon lay involvement.

Who will decide what laity should be involved? Remember the shining examples of lay dissent we heard from last year?

[NYer]

Bishop Vigneron was among eight theologically conservative bishops who last year called for a plenary council as a galvanizing event that would return the church to the path of tradition and orthodoxy. They envisioned a council focused on the theme of how to recommit bishops, priests, religious and laypeople to lives of holiness and purity.

Dear friends, it is now time to show these men OUR support for such a council! Some of the bishops are waffling on this idea ... and they are the usual suspects. Enough!!

Can one of you compose a simple letter that we can then write to ALL of the bishops, not just our local ordinary.

Let's spread the word throughout our own parishes and muster additional letter writers amongst the laity. Let's pepper every catholic blog site with the text of that letter and invite them to pass it along to their friends and families.

Ladies and gentlemen, like Jake and Elwood, we are

ON A MISSION FROM GOD!

[sinkspur]

It seems to me that the surest way to achieve your worst possible outcome is to insist upon lay involvement.

I don't agree. In fact, there will almost have to be lay involvement.

Who will decide what laity should be involved?

The bishops, obviously.

Remember the shining examples of lay dissent we heard from last year?

What dissent? I didn't hear any dissent voiced at the Dallas meeting. Appleton and Steinfels were talking about clerical abuse.

[B Knotts]

What dissent? You don't think Steinfels is a dissenter?

I think this column from last year by Michael Novak identifies the real fear of too many of the bishops: the fear that they might be thought of as...gasp...conservatives!

Bishops Ignore Elephant - and Camel

[sinkspur]

You don't think Steinfels is a dissenter?

You said "dissent at the meeting," and I'm telling you I didn't hear any dissent expressed the bishops' meeting last year.

Some of the bishops are dissenters too, but they know to keep their heads down in certain venues.

[B Knotts]

Well, I can't find a transcript of her comments, so I can't provide a concrete example. I simply remember being nauseated while listening to her.

[Salvation]

**Let the sun shine in.**

I agree with you......move from the darkness to the light of Christ!