Shepherds speak; American bishops confront the social and moral issues that challenge Christians today.

Shepherds Speak

THE SUBTITLE: American Bishops Confront the Social and Moral Issues That Challenge Christians Today. Suspicious? Well, here are some of the bishops who, as the editors put it, "speak out" in this volume: James W. Malone, John R. Roach, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Roger M. Mahony, Rembert G. Weakland, Thomas J. Gumbleton.

And here are some of the topics: "The Church as a Community of Conscience." "Theological Diversity and Dissent within the Church." "Getting Our House in Order: Economic Justice within the Church." "The National Conference of Bishops: A New Vision of Leadershop and Authority." "Institutionalized Racism." "Capital Punishment and the Sacredness of Life." "Poverty in America: The Social Sin of Our Time." "Woman as Person in the Church and Society." "The Continuing Arms Race: Waging War against the Third World." "Apartheid: Nightmare for South Africa--Challenge to the United States." "The Bishops' Peace Pastoral."

Yep, it's just what it sounds like: essays in bland liberalism. Concentrated ennui, full of buzz words like "systemic" and "impacting."

But why is it so boring? The question loomed larger as I read this shortish volume, my will locked in shortish volume, my will locked in fierce struggel with my eyelids. And I think I found the answer.

The bishops herein the trying to avoid offending two orthodoxies at once: Catholic and "progressive." None of the essays is addressed to abortion; only a couple mention it even glacingly. None tackles contraception, pornography, or any other facet of the sexual revolution and its social consequences; none connects that upheaval in morals with the social problems. You might get the impression from Shepherds Speak that poverty had no relation to illegitimacy or divorce.

The total impression the book leaves is one of thorough evasiveness. These bishops want to reconcile Catholicism and liberalism without facing the points of conflict, or even admitting that such points exist. A Catholic needn't be conservative in the "right-wing" sense. In fact there are difficulties in being both. A book that dodged them would be uninteresting. This book dodges all the tensions that naturally occur to any reader sophisticated enough to know that Catholicism is traditionally a "reactionary" religion. It can't be quite that easy to be a "progressive" Catholic, can it?

The problem is clearest when the essays turn to foreign policy. Not one of the essays is concerned with--or even mentions--the horrors of Communism, including the persecution of Christians. Bishop John J. Fitzpatrick of Brownsville writes about "Sanctuary for Latin American Refugees: Biblical Values and the Politics of Repression," but he is interested exclusively in El Salvador and says nothing about Nicaragua. Writing about apartheid, Bishop Daniel P. Reilly of Norwich refers to "the persecuted and the persecutors." Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton of Detroit, however, refers to "the people and leaders" of the Soviet Union, all of whom are equally "our brothers and sisters." Bishop J. Francis Stafford of Memphis does mention Lenin's antagonism toward religion, but quickly cites William Buckley as "the other extreme," in a bad sense, of course.

Even as the Vatican was yanking Father Charles Curran from his teaching post is moral theology at Catholic University, Auxiliary Bishop Richard J. Sklba of Milwaukee drones about "dialogue" and assures us that "the Gospel . . . calls us to listen to diverse opinions." (Where?) And Bishop John S. Cummins of Oakland, likewise a dialogue buff, purrs about "the abundant efforts by theologians and bishops in our country . . . to establish an optimum mutual relationship." (He too offers meager evidence: Theologians supplies "active participation" in several recent episcopal statements.)

Dialogue . . . interdependent . . . respectful mutuality . . . awareness . . . commitment . . . witness . . . community . . . diversity . . . it's all here. Seldom has dialogue sounded so much like monologue.

The book is designed to present the bishops "speaking out," following a "prophetic course," but all the contributors give the impression of wanting to stay on the safe side of what they take to be enlightened opinion. At the same time, they are, after all, bishops, so they can't afford to leave the impression that they reject traditional Catholic teaching; they merely go easy on dogma. Their overt commitment is largely political, invoking Scripture and papal dicta when they can find occasion, though without special insight or rigor.

The main exception is Gumbleton, who is willing to offer hard sayings. He condemns nuclear deterrence as immoral, though he is willing to make realistic accommodations, provided we move away from deterrence in the long term. He frankly admits the lacks an alternative strategy. And one would have more confidence in his judgment if he could bring himself to condemn Communism as forthrightly as Reilly condemns apartheid.