Bishops Avoid Dispute, Cite Allegiance to Pope : Statement Expresses Support, Concern for Seattle Diocese Leader Who Was Disciplined by Vatican

WASHINGTON — The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, while expressing concern and support for Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, refused Wednesday to step into his dispute with the Vatican, saying their first allegiance must be to the Pope.

The Vatican disciplining of the popular archbishop followed proper church law and “deserves our respect and confidence,” the 300 American bishops said in a statement after a closed-door session to discuss the unusual restrictions imposed upon one of their own.

At the same time, the statement, read by the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops here, acknowledged that the highly publicized Vatican action removing much of Hunthausen’s pastoral authority for not enforcing strict Catholic teaching had caused pain, dismay, confusion and suffering among American Catholics in Seattle and throughout the country.

‘Offer Any Assistance’

“We are prepared to offer any assistance judged helpful and appropriate by the parties involved,” the prelates said. The statement did not suggest what assistance might be forthcoming and no follow-up committee was formed.

The bishops’ position did not criticize the embattled archbishop, but neither did they present an argument defending his case, as some of his supporters had hoped.

“We are not authorized to judge the facts. . . . The conference is not able to review, much less judge, a case involving a diocesan bishop and the Holy See,” the bishops said.

Hunthausen released a brief written response late Wednesday saying the bishops’ position was “a very hopeful sign for me. It is the kind of assurance I was seeking. . . .” However, Hunthausen’s response did not reveal how he might resolve what he had earlier called an “unworkable” sharing of power with an auxiliary bishop assigned by the Vatican.

The three-page bishops’ statement read by Bishop James W. Malone of Youngstown, Ohio, was greeted by a standing ovation from the assembled hierarchy. Its release followed five hours of private meetings Tuesday and Wednesday in which the prelates wrestled with how to affirm the ministry of their fellow bishop without offending the Pope, who is making a visit to the United States next year.

The paper, in its final form, represented at least a partial victory for Hunthausen supporters, according to sources familiar with an earlier version of the document distributed to the bishops Tuesday.

The first draft included a sentence that said the discipline of Hunthausen “was just and reasonable,” which some bishops perceived as taking sides with the Vatican rather than remaining impartial about the merits of the case itself.

That sentence was dropped in the second draft. And in another section, the phrase “in such matters the Holy See proceeds carefully and justly” was changed to read “proceeds carefully and charitably,” a source, who asked not to be identified, said.

Another shift in emphasis was the addition of the sentence offering the bishops’ help to Hunthausen and his auxiliary bishop, Donald Wuerl, according to Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahony.

‘Time to Talk Informally’

“We could have wrapped up the statement last night,” Mahony said Wednesday when he was asked why the matter had been held over from Tuesday’s executive session. “We wanted time to talk informally and pray about it.

“The statement is very positive and constructive. It touches very clearly on the hurt and suffering and difficulty. . . . I think Hunthausen was very warmly welcomed by the bishops.”

The final paper seemed to strike a compromise that pleased both strong supporters of Hunthausen’s liberal leadership as well as prelates who advocate close Vatican control of the American hierarchy.

Last September, Hunthausen announced that the Vatican had reassigned his authority in five sensitive pastoral areas to Wuerl. The Vatican faulted Hunthausen for not enforcing orthodox doctrine on such matters as ministries to homosexuals and the church’s ban regarding “contraceptive sterilization in Catholic hospitals.”

The bishops’ group made public Wednesday two papers by Hunthausen that were presented during the hierarchy’s executive session. One statement contained Hunthausen’s version of disputed events that led to his disciplining. The other--a 21-page document on a more personal note--contained the archbishop’s pleas to the bishops’ conference to help him.

Both papers included references to Hunthausen’s previous offers to Vatican officials to resign “rather than bring dishonor to our church in any way.”

But sources close to Hunthausen said Wednesday that it was unlikely the archbishop would step down in light of the support expressed by his colleagues here.

‘Particularly Grateful’

“I am particularly grateful for the conference’s expression of fraternal support for Bishop Wuerl and me as we return to Seattle to continue our ministry,” Hunthausen said in his response to the bishops’ statement.

Father Michael Ryan, chancellor and vicar general of the Seattle archdiocese, said in an interview that while “some will wish more pointed action had been taken, others will see it as a hopeful step. . . . I am happy the bishops have offered help to all concerned. I think that’s an open door.”

Father Richard McSorley, director of the Center for Peace Studies at Georgetown University and a staunch Hunthausen backer, also liked the statement presented by Malone.

“That’s strong and that’s enough,” he said. “You get the message across by saying, ‘Holy Father, we obey you.’ ”

Wuerl also praised the bishops’ stance.

“They realize I’m a brother bishop, and they want to be supportive,” Wuerl told reporters. “That’s one of the beautiful things that’s come out of here.”

Using the analogy of a family that comes together in crisis, the Malone paper noted that “a family . . . takes steps to see that . . . a painful situation does not happen again. In our case, that means working to find creative ways of presenting the church’s teaching in the best possible light, but also seeking mechanisms of responding when confusion or error occurs. . . .

“We must be seen as committed to hearing and solving the problems.”

In his own paper, however, Hunthausen defended his actions and declared, “I am not a dissenter from the church’s teaching.” He criticized the secrecy surrounding the Vatican’s investigation of his case, saying he was not allowed to see the final report or face his accusers.

‘Badly Flawed’

The investigation, he said, was “badly flawed from the very start . . . due to a process that seems extraordinarily inadequate given the kind of open church we have become since the Second Vatican Council.”

The archbishop came into national prominence in the early 1980s for his pointed activism in the anti-nuclear movement. McSorley and other church liberals have accused the Vatican of singling out Hunthausen for discipline because church conservatives have objected to the archbishop’s peace leadership. According to these critics, that is the real reason for the censure--not Hunthausen’s practices in enforcing Catholic moral positions.

While the Vatican has cited specific abuses it said Hunthausen committed, the archbishop in his paper presented here said the irregularities had either never existed, had been corrected, or were based on misunderstandings or “judgment calls.”

Hunthausen, in his paper prepared for the bishops’ meeting, defended his actions in allowing Dignity, a Catholic homosexual group, to use the Seattle Cathedral for a Mass in 1983, an item of criticism in the Vatican investigation.

The archbishop said that, at the time, he made it clear that he agreed with official Catholic teaching that genital homosexual activity is immoral. Other local Dignity groups have celebrated Mass regularly in various Catholic churches around the country, Hunthausen noted, but without penalty from the Vatican

Accusation Denied

In his account of his case, Hunthausen also denied the Vatican accusation that he had acted in bad faith in not handing over responsibility in the five designated areas to Wuerl more quickly.

“This is simply not true,” Hunthausen said. “The misunderstanding that came to light regarding the nature and extent of Bishop Wuerl’s faculties was a genuine one.”

Speaking of the transfer of authority to Wuerl, Hunthausen said that while “he is my brother and my friend,” the situation of shared power had become “unworkable” in the Seattle archdiocese.

“For the good of the church in Seattle and beyond, I am absolutely convinced that the matter of the governance of the church of Seattle needs to be returned to normal as soon as humanly possible,” he said. “I would even say at once.”

But if his fellow bishops gave Hunthausen assurance of their loyal encouragement in a difficult situation, they also said they were powerless to step in and change the Vatican arrangement.

“It’s not up to the archbishop or me or the conference to determine how long the relationship will continue,” Wuerl said with a shrug.

And at least one bishop here said he fears further Vatican crackdowns on what church authorities consider to be practices that are too liberal. “Bishops are going to be looking over their shoulders now, and that’s not a healthy way to walk,” remarked Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton.