The 1976 U.S. Catholic Bishops' Call To Action Conference in Detroit

A.D. 1977
What Happened at Detroit?
Were We Mugged or Blessed?

 

Blind people felt the elephant and described totally different beasts. People of wisdom and insight have varied as broadly on Detroit's "Call to Action " Conference. Too large to ignore and too vibrant to smother, it has been showered with widely diverging descriptions.

Cardinal Dearden called it, "one of the more diversified and deliberative assemblies in our history." Its resolutions "indicate a realism, an independence, and a critical and mature judgment remarkable in a first assembly conducted along democratic lines."

Fr. Andrew Greeley, who did not attend, called it "The Great Detroit Tent Show." Arlington delegate, Kay Regan said, "The Detroit Conference was a marvelous experience, and I am a different person because of it. The Church is alive." Archbishop Bernardin complained that specialinterest groups "dominated the conference." Archbishop Jadot, the Apostolic Delegate, walked about the meeting letting it be known how impressed and pleased he was with the process. Msgr. Quinn from D.C. called the conference extremely well organized." Frederick Pugarelli of Alexandria said, "All my experiences at Detroit were positive ... a strong affirmation for the love of the church was evidenced. There was a shared belief in what we did."

Fr. Charles Curran found the documents a disaster, but the process great. Another theologian suggested it was a model of the Church from chaos. Bishop Rausch initially labelled the conference as representative as the U. S. Senate, then Complained about its stance on disarmament. Angela Calvert from Chicago, who favored disarmament, said, I have never experienced such a cohesive group ... or one as supportive of each other's concerns..."

Most delegates who made up the voting consensus seemed to find the Conference touching and exciting, filled with a sense of God's Spirit at work. The American Church had begun to express its little-used but unique gifts for open, democratic process. The events and resolutions which emerged from Detroit were sufficiently powerful and unexpected to compel interpretations. As with the first Pentecost, they range almost from "drunk" to "a new visit by the Spirit."

THE PREPARATION F0R THE C0NFERENCE

The Introduction to the Working Papers, printed above, describes the extensive two year process of preparation. 800,000 pieces of data came from testimony and from local diocesan and parish programs, the largest Catholic consultation yet attempted. Although many dioceses, especially the large city dioceses of the north and east, had little involvement, many others made intensive efforts to encourage local preparation.

Seven public hearings in various parts of the country heard invited and volunteered testimony. Writing Committees took the testimony and produced eight section papers on particular themes. Each section contained 34 mildly progressive recommendations for action. Cardinal Dearden said, "The materials represent a tremendous investment of time, energy and Intelligence on the part of a great number of our Catholic people and witness to their deep commitment to the Church." (Dearden, "Report to NCCB" November 1976)

Who Showed Up - Each diocese, regardless of prior involvement, was encouraged to send a nine-person delegation. Not yet ready to try elections, bishops appointed the delegates. It was strongly suggested that part of each delegation be chosen from among minority groups, especially those suffering injustice. Large dioceses could send extra delegates based upon their Catholic population. 152 of the 167 dioceses sent representatives. Financial assistance enabled many poorer persons to attend.

1340 persons were voting delegates. Over 100 bishops attended, almost half of the active bishops of the country. 1140 were ex officio members or delegates appointed by bishops, and 92 were invited representatives from national Catholic organizations, including 10, previously excluded, invited on the first morning of the Conference after "explaining" their case to the Credentials Committee.

Thus 93% of the delegates were bishops, or persons appointed by bishops. 7% came from national Catholic organizations. 39% of the delegates were women. Despite the strong clerical flavor, women, blacks and persons of Spanish origins were present in numbers far larger than is typical at church meetings. Some elderly and a handful of young people were there. The assembly seemed a group verging on middle age.

What Did They Think Would Happen? - Expectations varied widely but leaned toward doubt that much would happen. Some pessimists expected the assembly, dominated by bishops and appointed delegates, to be timid and cautious. A few social justice optimists hoped that the moderate recommendations of the working papers could be preserved intact, or maybe even strengthened. Most did not know what to expect, since few delegates knew each other. The writing committees, as Dr. David O'Brien mentioned, felt that the brief meeting would allow the delegates only enough time to nuance the working papers.

Indeed, the three day meeting did look too brief for serious writing or inclusion of new materials. The planned dynamics seemed too tightly controlled, the deliberations too brief, and the voting procedures too intimidating. In the General Assembly the delegates would sit with their bishops in diocesan- delegations. Some delegates considered asking for secret ballots in the final voting so that local delegates might not be intimidated by the episcopal presence. It was not a group that expected great happenings. How mistaken the skeptics were to be!

A STRANGE THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM

Cobo Hall, the cavernous Detroit convention center, welcomed the delegates and observers on Wednesday afternoon, Oct. 20. On Thursday, in seating reminiscent of a basketball court, the group gathered in a giant general assembly. 1340 delegates filled the stands along one side, each delegation clustered about the sign with the name of their diocese. 1500 observers filled the bleachers at both ends. A huge triple media screen occupied the fourth wall, while the chairperson and speakers' podium sat centered on the floor.

After an opening prayer, greetings from Pope Paul filled the big screen. Cardinal Dearden extended warm personal greetings and encouraged the assembly to do its work with courage and hope. After a few brief announcements on procedures and general amenities, the meeting bounced to life with a complaint that Polish ethnics were underepresented. The complaint was ruled out of order by the chair, which was sustained by the Assembly on appeal, but free and forthright debate was off and running. It was to be the hallmark of the conference.

The General Assembly then began to subdivide into manageable working groups.

The conference split first into 8 sections of about 165 delegates. Each section represented a major theme of the conference. At this stage, delegates questioned the members of the original writing committees for the working papers in order to clarify the meaning of the action recommendations.

Each section then broke into 3-4 working committees according to the action recommendations for that section. There were 29 groups in all, each containing 30-40 delegates. These delegates had been invited to join the working committee which most interested them.

After the final clarification at this level, working committees split their action recommendations into a number of small groups, each working on a few lines of the recommendation. There were over 200 such small groups.

It was at this point, when the Assembly was most fragmented, that striking developments began. The small working groups began to exercise independent judgment. They began to shape their segment of the action recommendation into the advice they wished to set forth. Continuity there would be with the previous documents but the emerging documents would be their own.

Debate was strong and forthright, even heated. Some groups welcomed the observers to take part, other groups insisted that they remain silent. Bishops and lay persons, priests and religious, liberals and conservatives, old and young, black, white, Spanish, native American, women and men, each had an equal voice-and they put it to good use. Final differences were resolved by voting. The number of resolutions multiplied as delegates tried to meet their mandate of "liberty and justice for all. " (emphasis added)

Through Thursday afternoon and evening the working committees revised and voted recommendations. Late in the evening they turned in their copy to the Conference staff for mass duplication. The staff, which gave unstinting service throughout the Conference, worked through the night to assure that each delegate would have a copy of these first re-writes" by Friday morning. They met their deadline.

With revised documents in hand, the delegates met in the 8 large sections on Friday morning. In parliamentary debate, they sifted out the recommendations of their working committees. By 1:00 P.M. a new, basic set of documents had been voted in each section. But would they "fly" in the general assembly?

THE PLENARY SESSION: A WORKING CHURCH

The answer began to unfold on Friday afternoon. An air of nervous expectation was obvious as delegates and observers took up their seats in the bleachers.

The "Family" document came first, presented by an "arm-around-each-other" couple from Marriage Encounter. Amendments were brought forth for consideration. With a humorous Msgr. Jack Egan in the chair, easy debate began and the group slowly relaxed. The first and second action recommendations were easily approved by voice vote.

The relaxed atmosphere vanished quickly in recommendation II 1, #3 of "Family" concerning the reception of the Eucharist by divorced and remarried Catholics. Parliamentary wrangling broke out, anxieties soared and debate grew intense. Finally, the question was called to a vote.

Shouted votes of "yeas" and "nays" proved too close to call. A show of hands proved inconclusive. A stand-up vote decided the issue. The count was dramatic, with bishops, priests and lay persons standing on both sides of the question. A clear majority favored the resolution, as written. Applause broke forth from both delegates and observers. The Assembly had discovered its ability and stride. The process worked. By 6:00 P.M., the Assembly voted its acceptance of the amended section on "Family." Applause swelled again. The first set of resolutions was in place.

A lengthy and contemplative liturgy, highlighted with a powerful multi-media presentation and a homily by Bishop Joseph Francis of Newark, capped the day.

PLENARY SESSION ON SATURDAY: THE DETROIT MARATHON

At 8:15 A.M. the general Assembly began a marathon session that would move without a break, like a closing day legislature, until 5:15 P.M. Each section received about an hour and 15 minutes. When all the amendments to a section were voted up or down, the final document on the section was voted. Ms. Alexis Herman alternated in the chair with Msgr. Egan, both providing firm, patient, often humorous guidance.

As the day advanced, it became clear that, far from being intimidated by public debate and voting, the delegates relished the chance to vote their convictions. The tempo, at times, brought demands to pause for time to read the documents, but generally, the group just kept moving. Even when amendments multiplied, voting went with discrimination and care. A string of votes rejecting amendments would suddenly be broken with overwhelming support for a desirable amendment which made common sense, such as communion in the hand, and an amendment welcoming girls, as well as boys, as altar servers.

Strong evolution of consciousness emerged. The general resolutions on women, controversial only the day before, passed with few objections. Repeated attempts to delete or weaken the fourfold endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment, were rejected by swelling consensuses. A strong, quasi-papal disarmament stance produced sharp reaction in the debate, but overwhelming support when put to a vote. Sensitivity to ethnic, racial and sexual minorities was very marked. Members of each group spoke with great, often understated, effectiveness.

At times, the delegates expressed public concern that the tempo of debate and the massive number of recommendations (29 general recommendations with 218 parts) left too little time for reflection. The question is a valid one to raise about Detroit, yet like a legislative assembly which trusts its committee system the delegates gave their honest advice. They seemed to have an active hope that the ongoing process of consultation, action and reflection would temper their recommendations and test them in the fires of implementation.

By early afternoon, when five sections were completed, a pattern had emerged. When provided with choices between restrictive approaches to justice, and advice which was hopeful and expansive, the Assembly consistently chose the expansive, trying to include as many persons as possible within the ambit of their concern. Unfairness in the debate, no matter who put it forth, was consistently recognized and rejected.

By the end of the afternoon the group was deeply tired. It finally tabled the remaining 17 amendments to the section on Personhood. Strong protests were lodged, but the group had reached the end of its energy and the vote to table stood firm. The Assembly then voted the final document and welcomed a motion to adjourn. Both delegates and observers broke into sustained applause. After a brief closing ceremony a tired assembly slowly broke up, said good-byes and left for home.

Commentators might second guess the assembly, but it was clear that the bulk of the delegates believed that they had been faithful to their charge to give honest recommendations on how the Catholic Church of this country could set its face during the next five years toward a dream of liberty and justice for all.

POINTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Bishops -About 110 bishops took part, almost half of the active bishops in the country. A number participated in the lively debates and voted their convictions throughout the Assembly They appeared to find the experience of free and open debate with other members of the Church a rewarding and enriching experience. They seemed to be enjoying themselves. Some bishops, with less sense of pleasure, took part in small group debate but chose not to vote, suggesting that they would wait until May to give their reactions. Others found the democratic style difficult and did not take part.

Throughout the conference, Cardinal Dearden was a warm supporter of the Assembly. A special moment to reflect appreciation back to him came late in the general session when disrupters ran through the hall carrying a banner saying "When you leave, take our red Cardinal with you," and shouting "Judas, Judas When they were ushered out, Cardinal Dearden left for a moment to make sure that none was mistreated. He returned to a prolonged standing ovation. A woman picked up the interrupted debate with the words, "Many of us would be delighted to take your red Cardinal home with us." Again the applause broke forth.

Observers-Over 1,500 observers attended some or all of the sessions of the Assembly Their presence brought an unexpected life and perspective to the entire gathering. Some were invited to take part in the discussion phases of the small groups. The interest and enthusiasm of the observers brought a wider perspective to the conference, a sense that the assembly had meaning for the whole church.

MAJOR OBJECTIONS REVISITED

Numerous newspaper columnists, bishops and participants have put forth their interpretations of the meeting. Their responses range from acclaim and celebration for the meeting and its results, to charges that the whole process was incompetent and that some debate was manipulated by a few people who had the support of "some naive, little ladies." Let's review some of the major complaints.

1. The delegates were not representative of the Catholic population

The delegates were not elected. The bishops were not yet ready to embark upon such a large scale attempt at democratic participation. Had they done so it seems likely that the assembly would have been far more clerical, male and religious, since these are generally the best known Catholics in an area.

In this case, 93% of the delegates were bishops, or people appointed by each bishop. It seems valid to suggest that the people were generally known to the bishops or to his advisors. Almost a third of the delegates were priests, usually associated with diocesan decision-making. It seems reasonable to suggest that the bishops tended to appoint persons who appeared moderate, rather than extremists of any persuasion.

Fr. Richard McBrien has argued that the delegates represented, not the general Catholic population, half of whom do not attend Church, nor the average church goer, most of whom do not get involved in church life and structures. The observation seems valid, with a major exception. A significant and welcome departure from most church meetings was the strong representation of minorities who usually have little access to official church decisions. Their presence was indeed powerful. Their convictions and experiences did, indeed affect the assembly, as they were intended to do. One wonders if they would have been present in a freely elected assembly. Evidence will have to wait until the hopeful day when such an approach is tried.

2. The Resolutions don't reflect the opinions of ordinary Catholics

This complaint usually implies that the group was more open and expansive than the people of the Church (or the commentator). In so doing the resolutions differ from the results of Catholic surveys.

Yet, sociological surveys assess individual opinions. The Detroit Assembly brought individuals together in a group process in which they spent three days discussing, sharing, debating and voting their positions with other Catholics. In such a conference, a sizable and rapid evolution of individual consciousness is the general rule. The resolutions of the Assembly and the testimony of individuals witness that this development did indeed take place. What will happen when other Catholics gather and share a similar experience?

Few polls of the "ordinary" bishops coming to the Vatican Council would have predicted the documents that would emerge.

3. The meeting was taken over by special interest groups

Archbishop Bernardin voiced publicly a complaint expressed privately by many who looked for an explanation of how a group which was expected to be cautious, could prove surprisingly energetic and expansive. The archbishop did. not identity these people.

Was it the representatives from the 92 national Catholic organizations who were the "special interest" groups? They covered the spectrum of opinion including Christians United for the Faith (CUF), the Wanderer Forum, the Justice and Peace Convergence, National Office of Black Catholics (NOBC), Catholic Coalition for Life, Marriage Encounter, Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM), Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), National Council of Catholic Women (NCCW), etc. They were a small fraction of the assembly (7%) and often espoused conflicting views. These delegates generally seem to have been invited to take part in the conference precisely because they represented special interest, and thus, special expertise.

Another mechanism for special interest seems to have been at work and it was one of the great strengths of the assembly.

All delegates, prior to the meeting, were invited to sign up for the section which especially interested them. This set up a special-interest dynamic in the entire deliberations and allowed a vast array of special expertise and experience to be brought to bear on many issues simultaneously.

Many bishops signed up for the section on Church administration and finances. Marriage Encounter couples joined "Family." Ethnics and blacks went to "Ethnicity and Race." Women committed to equality, or opposing it, went to the recommendation on "Women in the Church," while delegates with global concern worked on resolutions which touched international issues.

The conference was a classic approach to democratic process relying on interested persons to share their expertise and experience in a particular area. The clash of divergent views produced the creative tension that broadened debate and understanding.

Although there is, indeed, validity to the charge that a special-interest dynamic took over at the Assembly, it misses the point that the Conference was deliberately designed to encourage such involvement. This approach reflects the democratic participation of the American political process. The dynamic generated life and energy, even when the delegates were appointed. This was its strength. That this approach brought discomfort to some decisionmakers, can be taken as a measure of the conflict between such an approach and the traditional, hierarchic modes of decision-making in the Church.

A democratic approach to decision-making often sets up a "win-lose" climate which is hard to avoid if the statements voted are more than bland generalities. The Assembly rejected some interests when it favored others. The charge of special-interest group dominance seemed to arise most strongly from those who felt that their positions lost out at the Assembly and sought some way to explain it away.

Surprisingly enough, many so-called special-interest groups seemed quite timid in their recommendations, fearing that if they pushed strongly, they might lose the hopedfor progress achieved in the working documents. Other delegates often pushed more strongly in their area. Thus, the most forward resolution on women's ordination was proposed by a bishop; another bishop played a major role in the strong disarmament stance; a bishop proposed the removal of excommunication on divorced and remarried Catholics, while a cardinal encouraged the formation of parish and diocesan pastoral councils. The general assembly proved bold. It strengthened resolutions favoring communion-in-the-hand and sexual equality in serving Mass and welcomed proposals on ongoing implementation.

4. The Voting Resolutions did not reflect the hearings and local testimony

This is a difficult question to assess. The Assembly is controversial, for example, precisely because it did reflect the views of the testimony favoring a change in Church posture on birth control. Concern for women was the second most voiced concern of the testimony. Strong concern is reflected in the resolutions. Yet continuity is difficult to assign when we have already witnessed considerable growth in church consciousness during the 1974-1976 process of the preparatory testimony.

In addition, it is of the nature of groups such as the Detroit Conference to move beyond their preparatory material. Had they been asked to make decisions for the Church, they might well have moderated their views to what was practical at the present time. However they were asked to give advice on directions for the next five years, and this concern encouraged them to move forward.

Three areas of discontinuity have been specially suggested: disarmament, the Equal Rights Amendment, and the recommendations on ongoing implementation.

Disarmament, as voiced by the conference, is strongly resonant with recent papal teaching, even if the U. S. Church has exhibited some discomfort with that teaching.

The Equal Rights Amendment had considerable support in the volunteered testimony of the hearings, but was left out by the generally cautious writing committees. The Equal Rights Amendment was written into four separate recommendations by the working committees of the conference. The General Assembly retained these four endorsements. Four times, by swelling margins, the Assembly rejected attempts to delete it. The delegates clearly viewed the issue as an integral dimension of justice in the law.

Ongoing implementation seemed to arise naturally from an assembly which wanted to see its advice and recommendations move forward. It is the typical and expected course of action for such deliberative assemblies. Preliminary testimony could speak little in this area. It was up to the Assembly to make its own recommendations after it had reflected and debated. The Conference title, "Call to Action," implied that advice be offered both on the directions for social policy and steps to achieve those policies. Recommendations for implementation seem integral to this task.

Thus, even in the areas in which critics have charged discontinuity, it seems more apt to describe the Assembly as working within its mandate. Where the writing committees proved hesitant to focus on areas in which little testimony was offered, or on issues which were controversial, the General Assembly proved more bold and made its own choices.

5. The Assembly tried to do too much and did it superficially

The delegates were charged with the massive task of reviewing and voting resolutions which summed up two years of testimony and discussion. Their task was assisted through summary material prepared by 8 writing committees which composed the working documents.

The Conference advanced well beyond the documents of the writing committees. The special interest approach brought sizable resources of knowledge and experience to the delegates' preparation of their own final working documents. in a system that had the strengths and weaknesses of the American democratic committee system, the final resolutions were created and voted through.

Among the large majority of the delegates who formed the prevailing consensus, trust rose high enough that people of competence in one area, began to trust the experience and competence of people in other areasSince the Assembly had the task of giving broad based advice on social policy for the next five years, it gave its advice freely, trusting that the ongoing process of dialogue and planning would sort out conflicting administrative details, while preserving intact the broad policy suggestions. Although details and style reflected the swift tempo of the meetings, the overall policy directions flowed from a gathering in which delegates collectively represented vast experience. A concern for action toward "liberty and justice for all," seems to have staved in their consciousness. An expansive spirit was a consistent mark of the Conference. Wherever possible and desirable the delegates moved to extend the boundaries of the Church's action and concern.

An interesting reflection on all of these objections can be achieved by comparing the democratically-developed resolutions of the Detroit Assembly with the Bishops' Pastoral letter on Moral Values, produced after consultation with scholars. Each approach had a two year process of preparation between 1974 and 1976. The documents were voted into existence within three weeks of each other.

SUMMARY

The Detroit Conference was charged with two major themes: a "Call to Action," and "Liberty and Justice for All. " The double mandate was a powerful catalyst. The openness toward laicized priests, sexual, racial, ethnic minorities, divorced Catholics, family pressures, the arms race, the poor of other countries, due process in the Church, etc., seemed distinctly affected by the delegates' perception of their mandate. They moved with growing boldness, in a spirit of expansiveness and welcome which is a mark of the Detroit experience and its documents. While troubling a minority of those present, this style and spirit accounted for much of the sense of hope which touched both delegates and observers, and reaches out to many who read their work. Under such a mandate, to have given cautious, timid advice would have seemed incongruous, a failure in love and justice, to say nothing of nerve.

The Assembly coalesced around the mildly prophetic task of trying to see five years into the future. The group manifested a healthy sense of tradition, appreciated the, difficulties of growth and change. but did not feel shackled to present policies. There was a sense of a church. alive and growing, able to reach out beyond its present activities and internal structures, to dream new dreams of preaching the Good News to a wider world and to preach it more lovingly to its own members.

If anyone thinks that five year projections are an easy task, let them place their consciousness back to 1971 and try to project the ensuing five years - Watergate, impeachment, abortion debate, equality for men and women, women's ordination, ERA, the sudden fall of Vietnam, the whole justice thrust of the Church, etc. You might gain a sense of the difficulty of making such projections - let alone the disbelief that would have greeted your predictions, had they been accurate.

When some suggested that the Assembly should not give the bishops advice which conflicted with present practices, the delegates responded, "We understand the difficulties. But the advice we give is our honest advice. We believe that to follow these directions will be life-giving."

The members who formed the general consensus in Detroit manifested a growing excitement in their task, a belief that the advice they offered was adventurous, but sound and in accord with the Gospel. New sympathy and understanding, as well as a willingness to work together, was evident among various groups which have sometimes competed for ecclesial concern. The assembly fell it was proposing directions which would make the Church more apostolic, more universal in its concern, more united in justice. Overarching all was a sense that walking in The directions proposed would make the church more holy, more fulfilling of Christ's expansive love.

 

 

STRUCTURE OF THE CONFERENCE

Thurs. Morn.	Plenary Session 8 Section Meetings
Thurs. Aft.	30 Working Committees 200+ small groups - revise paragraphs
Thurs. Eve.	30 Working Committees - new draft
Fri. Morn.	8 Sections -vote final draft
Fri, Aft.	Plenary Session
Sat, All Day	Debate and Vote Recommendations

Reprinted with permission of the Quixote Center.