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

Commonweal Special Supplement
If the Bishops Meant What They Said

DOLORES L. CURRAN

 

When I was reminded that this was the tenth anniversary of the Call to Action, I was surprised at the memories and emotions that event triggered in me. As a member of the Writing Committee on Family, I recall the electric atmosphere of the first gathering of the various writing committees in Washington, during which we received background and instructions. Many feelings surfaced, but two - hope and skepticism - predominated throughout the whole process.

If the bishops really meant to listen to the people, we knew it would be exhilarating to be part of the process. But a strong underlying suspicion persisted that the immense effort we
were putting into Call to Action would come to naught.

I find it interesting that those same two feelings predominate in me ten years later. I can't speak for the participants in other sections, but in the committee on family we never really believed that our episcopal leaders would act on issues like divorce, remarriage, birth control, the myriad of other issues requested by the laity in the consultation process.

The late Jim Young, who was suffering attacks from many bishops and other groups for his early efforts in divorce ministry at the time, served on our committee, and his experience was a constant reminder to us of what we were likely to encounter as we got into touchy family areas. Even the issue of women working outside the home was, at that time, a hotly debated moral issue.

The Detroit meeting was a bittersweet experience for many of us. I recall sitting with Jim Young as Marriage Encounter couples, clergy, and bishops spoke heatedly against ministry to the divorced. Dire predictions surfaced: "If we accept the divorced, it will do away with the sacrament of marriage," and "Once we begin to minister to the divorced, we'll have a rush of Catholics to the divorce courts." Jim leaned over to me and said gently, "They forget about the woman at the well, don't they?"

As members of the writing committee, we were not allowed to speak in behalf of issues at Detroit. We were there to answer questions and supply information and clarification on the resolutions we helped prepare. So we were cast in the role of observers.

Some memories stand out. Diocesan delegations sat en masse so we began to watch voting patterns. In some groups, the delegates would wait to observe how their bishop voted, then they would vote likewise. In two delegations seated near us, every vote on every issue was unanimous until the bishops left momentarily. Then the votes split until the bishops returned. These bishops looked at their delegates during every vote to see how they voted. In other dioceses, however, there was much more freedom, and votes were usually split on issues. I wonder whether the results of Call to Action would have been significantly different if there had been secret balloting.

I recall the Detroit newspapers quoting Cardinal Krol's quip on the equality for women issue. He said something to the effect that a bunch of women in tennis shoes weren't going to push the church around. Spontaneously, paper tennis shoes appeared on hundreds of lapels of males and females.

I remember, too, the distinctly unpleasant and un-Christian attacks made by the Wanderer bunch on Dignity members who asked for ministry to homosexuals. Their public humiliation brought tears to the eyes of many delegates.

The high percentage of delegates who worked for the institutional church troubled me then and troubles me now. These delegates did not have to lose time from work or pay their own expenses as a more representative laity would have. Commissions and boards are still over- represented by employees of the church, which skews lay representation. It's a little like having Civil Service employees in D.C. consulted as representatives of the general voting population. Until we can come up with resources to allow laity not employed by the church to attend such gatherings, issues will continue to be judged primarily from an insider's perspective.

Family is one of the areas which evidenced significant results from the Call to Action. It was a relatively safe and non-controversial area and one the bishops chose to address as evidence of good faith in the consultation process. Almost immediately an Ad Hoc Commission on Marriage and Family was named to set up some kind of process to address issues and resolutions raised in the consultation.

Out of that ad hoc commission came the 1979 Pastoral Plan of Family Action which initiated the Decade of the Family (the eighties). Today most dioceses have Family Life Offices dedicated to developing like-to-like ministry in such diverse areas as aging, inter-faith marriage, grief, parenting, stepparenting, couple communication, family spirituality, unwed motherhood, and sexuality. No longer is family life relegated to the pre-eighties concept of marriage preparation and antiabortion efforts. We find over 12,000 local chapters of Divorced and Separated Catholics operating in parishes.

Several colleges now offer master's degrees in family ministry, foremost among them Denver's unique Regis College Masters of Arts in Adult Christian Community Development which is drawing religious, clergy, and laity from all over the country as well as Australia, Ireland, Canada, and England. A nine-year-old professional organization, National Association of Catholic Diocesan Family Life Ministers, deals with government policy which affects families and offers resources to parishes and diocese. All this in ten years.

So Call to Action was not an exercise in closet collegiality. In spite of Andrew Greeley's assessment that those involved were kooks, the kooks have made a difference in how our church regards and works with families. Gone is the traditional practice of ministering to the approved two-parent (both Catholic) parish-supportive family without major problems. Instead, we find ourselves ministering to a myriad of family structures and hurts.

In looking over the Call to Action resolutions, I notice that much remains to be achieved, particularly the incorporation of family concerns into social actions and public policy; the issue of sex and violence in the media; and the issue of remarried Catholics. Some of the early fervor is diminishing, as evidenced by dioceses that closed Family Life Offices when Renew came along. These dioceses seem to have viewed family life ministry more as a fad than a commitment. But other Family Life Offices expand annually and their impact is being felt, particularly in the area of helping families recognize their strength, goodness, gifts, and ministry to others.

Was Call to Action worth the time and emotion we invested? I believe so. There were times I questioned the amount of time I gave - four working trips of two or three days each, writing and research projects which consumed other professional writing time, Detroit, the Ad Hoc Commission, and the many hours consumed by developing the Pastoral Plan - all at a time when my children were young and family needs were many.

I confess that when I read the acrimonious editorials by non-involved critics like Greeley, I felt devalued and foolish, wondering why I bothered to care enough to give my time.

But, in retrospect, I would probably do it again because I witnessed the incredible spirit of a great number of caring people working together in our church, and I realize that in spite of the institutional politics and differing visions of church ministry, the Spirit has a way of generating change through marginal people. That's probably why we'll not have another Call to Action in the foreseeable future.

DOLORES L. CURRAN is a parent- educator and author of many books dealing with family related issues. Her Traits of a Healthy Family (Harper & Row), won the 1983 Christopher Award.

 

This Special Supplement, dated December 26, 1986 has been reprinted with permission of Commonweal Magazine.