Puebla: All Things to All Bishops

The Roman Catholic Church in Latin America once resembled a trim, taut, ecclesiastical ship. But lately it has drifted apart like a cluster of lifeboats. Charismatic renewal groups, liberation theologians, social activists, and conservatives have tried to function as the mother ship, but at the expense of church unity.

Reconciliation of factions, then, was a primary goal for the 180 voting bishops who attended the third Latin American Conference of Bishops (CELAM) last month in Puebla, Mexico. Their task was not easy. At CELAM II, held eleven years ago in Medellín, Colombia, a liberal minority had drafted strong documents on social action that evolved into the controversial “theology of liberation.” The late Pope Paul VI, who attended CELAM II, had selected the conference theme for Puebla: “The Present and Future of Evangelization in Latin America.”

Pope John Paul II picked up on the theme of evangelization during an address at the conference meeting site, the Palafox Seminary. (When speaking of evangelization, Roman Catholic theologians refer not just to preaching the gospel and conversion but also to all of the gospel’s effects on society.) John Paul said that evangelization must focus on the divine Christ—not a political prophet as preached by some who have incorrectly interpreted the Medellín documents.

He insisted that there is only one church, under the see of Peter, with one channel of teaching. The church, he said, is essentially spiritual, not temporal in its influence and mission. He called for unity among bishops, and for the priests to be obedient to the bishops.

On the temporal plane, the pontiff insisted that the church remain aloof from political ideologies; instead, it should aim for “integral liberation for man.” He asked that special attention be given the family, the serious shortage of candidates to the priesthood, and to young people.

John Paul’s conservative message was packaged with enough diplomatic finesse to satisfy both liberal and conservative factions. Interviewed immediately after the speech, archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil, a kind but firm progressive, said that the Pope had done a marvelous job. Archbishop Alfonso López Trujillo, general secretary of CELAM and a marked conservative, expressed the same view.

Some, however, sharply criticized the Pope’s cool attitude toward liberation theology, and his outright denunciation of Marxist social analysis. Attempts were made in the press to explain this by saying that he has not yet transferred his frame of reference out of socialist Poland, so was not qualified to address the situations of Latin America. Others accused the conservative López Trujillo of giving the Pope one-sided information. Nevin Hayes, auxiliary bishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Bishops’ Commission for Latin America, disagreed: “The Pope was well informed on the situation here, and has heard from several spokesmen. He said what he wanted to say.”

By all official reports, the conference ran smoothly. However, cross- and counter-currents were visible. Brazilian Cardinal Evaristo Arns was so anxious to have his viewpoints expressed that he prepared and distributed an introduction to the final 8,000-word document. His version caused a commotion but was not accepted.

At a press appearance, Pedro Arrupe, general superior of the Jesuits, fielded questions about relations between Jesuits and parish clergy and the Jesuits’ reportedly soft stand on socialism. A Peruvian bishop complained that Jesuit confidants of Peruvian President Morales Bermudez had given the president his leftist ideas. Arrupe admitted that the church had failed to influence positively three important leadership groups in Latin America: intellectuals, political figures, and the traditional ruling families of the continent. He was convinced that the most significant change in the church since Medellín was its espousal of the poor.

Indeed, the overriding concern of the entire conference was the poor of Latin America. Their economic and social situation drew far more attention than their spiritual condition.

An increasing dependence on lay ministers, due to the serious shortage of priests, was seen as a strong development coming out of the Puebla conference. In Oaxaca, the Pope publicly ordained twenty Indians, half as preachers and the others as qualified to celebrate the mass in areas without a priest. Andres Dauhajre, of the Dominican Republic, said, “This is great reassurance for a method that is already being used successfully in many countries of Latin America.”

Can the church insure that all these people will transmit Catholic doctrine faithfully? Commented Eve Gilchrist, a nun from New York, “By structurizing lay participation in the church, it [church doctrine] should be fairly safe from easy distortion.”

Rebel bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a conservative who still advocates the Latin mass, was watching the Pope in Mexico, and it may have been in the interests of a speedy reconciliation with him that John Paul II pointedly stated that lay people could never take the place of celibate, regularly ordained priests.

Ecumenism and dialogue with non-Catholics rated low priority in Puebla. Representatives of Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist churches, as well as a Jewish leader, attended as observers and collaborated on the Commission for Non-Believers. Bertoldo Weber, a Lutheran pastor, said that first drafts of the commission’s document exhibited a very aggressive attitude toward Protestants. At his insistence a more relaxed position was taken. However, the Jewish rabbi was not invited by the bishops to participate in a press conference of non-Catholics. He mused, “Their failure to include me was a strong personal lesson.”

Panamanian Cardinal Marcos McGrath admitted that ecumenical mutual respect had not progressed far among the masses, and that only at high levels between Catholic and mainline Protestant church leaders is there much contact. He, as well as Mexican bishop Genaro Alamilla, blamed Protestants for creating trouble by publicly condemning images, the Virgin, and the Pope.

“The basic problem,” said Cardinal Avelar Brindao, primate of Brazil, and a former CELAM president, “is with the prosyletizing Protestant sects—such as some Baptists, Pentecostals, and others—not with the denominations.” According to him, the evangelistic work of the Protestant church should be education, family training, and social help. When asked if he would welcome a crusade by Billy Graham in Brazil, the cardinal replied, “He has good points and bad.”

All of the Protestants at Puebla expressed concern over the evident mariolatry in the Pope’s messages as well as other documents. Exclaimed a Methodist theology professor, “If this devotion to Mary grows, it will make interaction with Catholics very difficult.” An Andean bishop who has publicly defended evangelicals against false political accusations said, “This conference will not be the basis for further ecumenical dialogue. Our relationships will remain just about where they are right now.” The bishops’ final statement, in the section on “Dialogue for Communion and Participation,” confirms that observation.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.