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

A.D. 1977
Report to the NCCB
BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE BICENTENNIAL

JOHN CARDINAL DEARDEN, Chairman
November 1, 1976

Today I will attempt to make a brief report on the "Liberty and Justice for All" program concluding with the CALL TO ACTION Conference held in Detroit two weeks ago. Within the next several months the Ad Hoc Committee for the Observance of the Bicentennial will be preparing a final and significantly more detailed report for presentation to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. That report will cover all phases of the Bicentennial program on Liberty and Justice for All, the consultation, the hearings, the reports of the Detroit preparatory committees, and the deliberations and decisions of the Detroit Conference itself. At our meeting in May it is anticipated that we will discuss what actions we can and should take to respond to this program in order to develop a realistic five year plan of action for justice. For now, I will simply try to present a very brief outline of what has taken place.

The Liberty and Justice for All program encompassed seven national hearings held in various parts of the country and an extensive program of parish discussions. The hearings produced seven volumes of testimony. Many members of the NCCB participated as panelists at these hearings in which some 500 persons presented views and recommendations on current concerns and issues facing the Church and society.

The diocesan program of parish discussions produced responses suggesting the participants' understanding of the issues confronting the Church and society and the actions which people felt should be taken to deal with those issues. A number of dioceses also sponsored regional or diocesan hearings, while individuals, parishes, and organizations often submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee their own, independent reports and recommendations as well.

All of this material was referred to eight preparatory committees whose task it was to produce working papers, summarizing the material, and offering commentary and reflection on the matters brought before the Ad Hoc Committee. In addition, these committees were asked to present several recommendations for action for consideration by the CALL TO ACTION Conference. Each one of the eight preparatory committees was chaired by a bishop and was composed of scholars and persons active in the life and ministry of the Church.

The Conference which was to consider the work of these committees look place in Detroit on October 20-23, attended by some 1,340 delegates either appointed by the ordinaries of 152 dioceses or by 92 national Catholic organizations on the basis of one delegate per organization. The delegates met in working committees to consider and amend the proposed actions and to deliberate on recommendations dealing with the eight general topic areas of the bicentennial program and then in plenary sessions, to vote on recommended actions. The results of their labor are before our committee. Some have been widely reported in the press. Others, of equal or greater importance, have received less attention. These recommendations are one element of the entire bicentennial consultation. Together with the testimony from the hearings and the evaluative papers of the preparatory committees, they reflect the concerns and judgments of a wide variety of American Catholics. Neither the volumes of hearing testimony nor the 800,000 parish responses, nor the working papers, nor the Conference resolutions, can be regarded as a fully representative sample of Catholic opinion. No one has claimed that it should be. Each contains the views and considered judgment of those who chose to participate or who were appointed to represent a portion of the American Catholic community. Together, 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.

The level of participation in the bicentennial program depended on many factors. The Parish consultation touched less than half of the nation's dioceses. On the other hand, almost all our dioceses participated in the CALL TO ACTION Conference. The Committee's staff was able to meet personally with half of the selected delegates in orientation sessions around the country during the Spring of this year. From their own observations and those of the Committee made during the Detroit Conference, it could be said that the intelligence, enthusiasm and commitment of those who were chosen to attend the Conference is a testimony to the discernment of the bishops who appointed them. The considerable numbers of relatively poor persons and minority Americans give evidence that our bishops tried to see to it that those who are directly involved in issues of justice were heard at Detroit. All of this is to say that there was a rich and varied mixture of experience and background on the part of the delegates. Aware of this, the Committee deliberately designed the procedures of the Conference to facilitate the fullest participation of all. Every effort was made, for example, to see to it that the rules of the Conference did not inhibit the inexperienced and that the authority and prestige of bishops, staff and writing committees did not limit the freedom of the delegates to amend, revise or reject the proposals placed before them.

We must remember that this was our first attempt to convene such an assembly of the American Catholic community and, working in unison, we bishops were able to bring together what must surely rank as one of the more diversified deliberative assemblies in our history. The bishops of the country were asked to appoint delegations composed of equal numbers of persons with administrative responsibility, persons active in parish life, and persons who were victims of injustices characteristic of a particular part of the country. Responding to this request, the bishops were also sensitive to balancing laity, clergy and religious, men and women, and racial and ethnic groups within the diocese. While we have not yet completed a detailed survey of delegates, it was the impression of most observers that truly remarkable efforts had been made to follow these guidelines. Hispanic and black Catholics, the young and the aged, religious and lay were perhaps better represented at the CALL TO ACTION Conference than at any previous national Catholic forum. While the laity was present in great numbers, still a large portion of the delegates were priests exercising positions of responsibility within their dioceses.

In this connection a word on the recommendations which these delegates approved is in order. While the emphasis of some reports has been on the somewhat sensational features of the deliberations at the Detroit Conference, a very large percentage of its resolutions dealt with matters of parish, neighborhood and family life, personal morality and religious education - issues that concern ordinary Catholics.

Many of the recommendations to emerge from the process have a direct bearing on work already under way at the national and local level. For example, the recommendations on education and family are modest but significant, lending strong support to our continuing efforts at greater communication, sharing of responsibility, and cooperative planning and programming at the parish and diocesan level. A series of recommendations ask for greater attention to multilingual and multicultural concerns in education, liturgy and training for ministry, all of which accord well with existing efforts at the national level. The delegates endorsed our leadership in pro-life activity, they endorsed our strong statements against racism and discrimination, and they pledged their support for all our efforts to combat hunger and poverty. Social action proposals, both domestic and international, for the most part, provide solid backing to recent and episcopal statements on economic justice, political responsibility, and human rights. These proposals suggest greater integration of social action work at the diocesan, state and national level.

In reflecting upon the program of the Ad Hoc Committee with you today I wish to make a few further observations.

First, we must remember that this program has attempted to initiate a process of dialogue and consultation. From the beginning it has been clear that the program was to produce advisory recommendations which would form the basis of a pastoral plan on justice. This process of consultation and dialogue has given new hope to many who had grown skeptical of sharing responsibility in their Church. It has allowed many persons and groups long excluded from having an effective voice to be heard at last. The massive response to our invitation to speak out has given eloquent testimony to the Church's vitality and diversity, and it has helped all of us who took part to learn a great deal about each other, about our Church, and about ourselves.

As a process of consultation and dialogue, the program has been successful. As a process of decision -making, of deliberation based on mature reflection, it constituted a significant first step. Yet, the process did have some flaws. Some were inevitable: an overly ambitious agenda resulting from the open-ended nature of the consultation; a timeframe too short to allow sufficient debate; perhaps an inadequate respect for the discipline of research and study on the part of many participants at the Detroit meeting. Yet, even these flaws can be exaggerated. Almost every proposal received lengthy and lively consideration by groups of 50 to 200 persons in the working committees of the CALL TO ACTION Conference. The range of issues was quite appropriate to a program called as a one time bicentennial event. A good deal of discretion was exercised in dealing with the myriad proposals brought before the delegates in Detroit. Of the 146 amendments introduced for consideration by the plenary session, 57 were accepted, 93 were either denied consideration or rejected after consideration, and 29 were tabled for lack of time. Since the basic analysis and debate on the recommendations took place in the working committees and sectional meetings, the plenary session was the final forum for amendments. In some cases these had already been debated and rejected in the Sections; yet the supporters of a particular position had the opportunity to lay it before the entire body. In the long run, the basic common sense of the delegates seemed to prevail. Several proposals calling for the creation of new NCCB or USCC structures, possibly both costly and unwieldy, were defeated. Exaggerated demands for immediate steps to reform long standing abuses were commonly modified. In general, the actions recommended to us indicate a realism, an independence, and a critical and mature judgment remarkable in a first assembly conducted along democratic lines.

Of course this first assembly needs to be evaluated in the light of its experimental nature, the teaching and practice of the Church, and the resources that are available to us. But our evaluation and response should make clear out continuing commitment to co-responsibility. Moreover, our response to the bicentennial program should be strongly pastoral in character. In the papers composed by the preparatory committees you will find a strong pastoral, caring spirit which, I might note, was occasionally overlooked in the debates and voting during the assembly of two weeks ago. In framing our response we should affirm the freedom and diversity within the Church which was revealed at Detroit. We should try to build structures of Church life which serve and strengthen local parish communities and support Christian movements which enrich community life. And we should carefully redesign programs and retrain personnel in order to better serve local communities with the fullest respect for the experience, needs, interest, and aspirations of Catholic men and women. To the greatest possible extent we should order our own priorities as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops accordingly.

The results of the bicentennial process may at this point seem hasty, untidy, careless, even extreme. But on closer examination, it seems to me that far more often the working papers and conference resolutions demonstrate a warmth and sympathy for the problems of Church leadership on the part of our people, their enthusiastic affirmation of Christian faith and hope, their sincere willingness to share in building a stronger Church, and their firm resolve to fulfill a Christian ministry to the world. No one expects us to endorse all that transpired at Detroit. People do expect us to continue the process by responding with decisive action where it is called for, and with honest disagreement where that seems necessary. The key to our actions in the future is to continue the process, to build on the hopes that have been awakened, to act upon our clear responsibility for the unity, fidelity and vision of the Catholic community.

At the conclusion of the CALL TO ACTION Conference, I told the delegates that we would be considering the results of their deliberations, along with the other materials arising from the "Liberty and Justice for All" program. I urged them to return to their dioceses and share with their people the results of their work. For our part, we can expect that the delegates, officially appointed to represent their dioceses and organizations, will exercise their accountability by discussing these resolutions with their fellow Catholics, and by reporting back to us on the response which they receive. In this way they will be helping the Ad Hoc Committee and this assembly to act affirmatively and realistically to the many good proposals generated by this program. In beginning this process we took some risks that we would hear things we might not want to hear, be asked to do things we cannot do. While on some matters that may have happened, we can be grateful that on so many occasions during this program we have been encouraged and supported in our efforts to renew the ministry of the Church. As the time comes for us to consider concrete proposals for action, let us keep faith with the thousands who have participated in this program, let us open our hearts and minds to their proposals and to the future. Let us respond with honesty, compassion, and love.

Let me conclude with a brief outline of the process that lies immediately ahead. The Ad Hoc Committee for the Bicentennial will meet next month to prepare its final detailed report. It will reflect the considerations which I have mentioned to you.

At the meeting of the NCCB Administrative Committee on Saturday it was determined to have the President of the Conference appoint a task force to review the report of the Ad Hoc Committee in consultation with existing NCCB/ USSC office staffs. From this task force will come recommendations to be reviewed by the Administrative Committee at its meeting in February. What is approved then, will be distributed to the bishops for consideration and action at the May meeting of our Conference.

This plan of action should allow us in an orderly and responsible way to respond to the earnest faith-filled voices of our people as they have addressed us in this Bicentennial year.

 

Reprinted with permission of the Quixote Center.