Hear this.

For many Catholics, Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland and Cardinal John J. O'Connor seem to represent two poles within the American church. For partisan supporters of each, the church is divided between the forces of misguided reform in Milwaukee and traditionalist retrenchment in New York. But while the divergence is real, it is too often exaggerated. Equally real, as a recent public exchange between the two shows, is the fact that the combined perspectives of both are stronger than the isolated virtues of either.

Weakland caught O'Connor's attention with an op-ed piece in the New York Times (December 2, 1992) in which Weakland criticized the church's views on women, and urged continued discussion about the exclusion of women from the priesthood. O'Connor responded in a fraternal fashion in Catholic New York (December 10) but disputed several of Weakland's conclusions. Weakland rejoined in the Catholic Herald (December 31). The characteristic qualities of each man were evident in the essays. Weakland's Times piece was provocative, confident, forthright, and tinged with a note of embattled grievance. O'Connor's column was civil, cautious, forthright, and touched with a certain theatrical humility. In other words, strong and cagy personalities were marshaling their most persuasive arguments and personas. The area of agreement between the two was broad, especially about the openness of the church to the world. Responding to Weakland's suggestion that women serve in nonpriestly roles in the Vatican curia and diplomatic corps, O'Connor raised practical and canonical difficulties. But, he conceded, "the questions surely merit exploration...the status quo is never sufficient justification for its own continuance." At the same time O'Connor expressed some skepticism of Weakland's optimistic embrace of secular intellectual categories that are themselves suffering a crisis of legitimation. Excluding women from the priesthood does not presuppose any inferiority but is an expression of gender difference, O'Connor maintained, going on to warn that continued debate on the subject would create "unfulfillable expectations."

Putting the status of women in the church in context, O'Connor offered a useful reminder of the church's hierarchical and apostolic nature. Unfortunately, his resistance to expanding authority outside the priesthood verged on the legalistic. Historically, juridical power has not been restricted to the clergy, and scriptural impediments are slight.

The ordination of women is a more difficult question than either its most righteous proponents admit or Rome's appeal to precedent and obedience allows. We need better answers about the symbolic significance of sexual differentiation and its pertinence to priestly identity. Ironically, O'Connor's response demonstrates how shortsighted it is to curtail faithful deliberation on these questions. Catholics have much to talk about; most welcome an honest and fair-minded contestation of views between bishops. It sets a good example.