Consulting the laity.

It's no secret that several bishops aren't very fond of Voice of the Faithful (VOTF). The organization has acquired, at least in some circles, a reputation as a front organization for standard "liberal" causes. The most emphatic criticism thus far has come from Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Lori accused VOTF of supporting the international group We Are Church, which endorses, among other controversial causes, a married clergy and the ordination of women. He explained in an August 13, 2002, press release that he couldn't support an organization that seemed to favor dialogue and cooperation but which really "prosecutes a hidden agenda," which, he said, neither he "nor the vast majority of Catholics" could embrace.

What about the "hidden agenda"? The truth is that VOTF has no such thing. Its goals are plain for all to see: to support victims of clerical sexual abuse, to support faithful clergy and bishops, and to work for those structural reforms in the church that would make such crises less likely to happen in the future. The last of these goals unsettles the bishops, because it does not spell out what the reforms might look like. Might such reforms include ending mandatory celibacy or admitting women to the ordained ministry? Maybe; maybe not; but dialogue would help to clarify this situation.

Catholic bishops tend to be uncomfortable with the idea of dialogue, at least within the church. Bishops do not dialogue with the Vatican any more than they do with their clergy, and they don't take easily to the idea that they should dialogue with the laity. Every bishop who in his heart has reservations or questions about the wisdom of mandatory clerical celibacy, for example, knows that talking about it will get him nowhere. In the present ecclesial climate, a bishop who enters into conversation with the laity is destined to become either a critic of dissent, drawing to himself the ire of the "dissidents," or a mouthpiece for dissent, bringing down on himself the wrath of the Vatican.

Episcopal aversion to consulting with the laity, then, is understandable. Assuming that lay groups opposed to church teaching are always extremist is less understandable. It doesn't take much research to learn that we're talking not about radical fringe groups here, but the broad center of the Catholic laity. Reliable surveys of U.S. Catholic public opinion show that an overwhelming majority of Catholics ignore the teaching on birth control, that a sizable majority favor an end to a mandatory celibate priesthood--usually around 65 to 70 percent--and that a similar number are open to considering women in the ministry. The polls also indicate that greater lay involvement in church governance, particularly in the appointment of pastors and bishops, also garners substantial support. So whatever we say about the merits of "dissident" opinion on these issues, it can hardly be classified as extremist. Wrong, perhaps, but hardly unrepresentative.

This raises real questions. First, just how liberal is the so-called liberal agenda? The 68 percent of churchgoing Catholics who favor an end to mandatory priestly celibacy can't all be lefties, can they? Second, how successful have the bishops been as teachers? While no one questions the teaching role of the bishops, who can honestly conclude that what the church teaches on many matters (contraception, anyone?) is persuasive to the majority of lay people? We can conclude one of two things from this: Either the bishops are teaching falsehood or they are teaching the truth, but ineffectually. Either way, they are falling short.

Whether the bishops are teaching erroneously or teaching ineffectually on matters like the ordination of women or celibacy or, for that matter, the evil of capital punishment, there is one way to find out: Let them enter into dialogue with those in "honest dissent" on one or two or all of the above. Let the dialogue be an exercise, as the philosopher Jurgen Habermas would say, in communication directed toward understanding, not merely compliance. Let the dialogue be conducted, as Ignatius of Loyola would say, in such a manner that the truth might appear. If mandatory celibacy is a good thing, there must be good reasons for it. Good reasons are persuasive. If the reasons adduced are not persuasive, they are not sufficient reasons, and if there turn out to be no good reasons, then the teaching is not good teaching. The same goes for excluding women from the priesthood, or lay people from having a voice in church governance, or for opposing capital punishment or unjust wars.

Yes, entering this kind of dialogue asks much of the bishops. It means practicing the rare skill of maintaining leadership and authority while relinquishing a measure of control. It means taking seriously what is undoubtedly the central role of the bishop; beyond administration, beyond damage control, beyond even being "the big priest," the bishop is a teacher in the faith--the most important teacher we have. We all know that the best teachers present their subject clearly, do not make themselves the issue, and are devoted to the intellectual and moral development of their students. It is also a truism that the best teachers never stop learning themselves.

Paul Lakeland is chair of the department of religious studies at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut. His latest book is The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church (Continuum).