FALL RIVER DIOCESAN NEWSPAPER FOR SOUTHEAST MASSACHusms CAPE COD & THE ISLANDS
VOL. 32, NO.1.
Friday,-January 1, 1988
FALL RIVER, MASS.
Southeastern Massachusetts' Largest Weekly
•
$8 Per Year
January 1 World Peace Day HOn the first day of the year, I am happy to . . . ad.. . dress all my brothers and sis.. . ters throughout the world who have at heart the cause of peace. For I am deeply convinced that to reflect together on the priceless trea... sure of peace is a way to begin to build it." NC Wide World pho,o
-Pope John Paul II
U.S. bishops may review AIDS statement WASHINGTON (NC) - The U.S. Catholic bishops, divided over a statement on AIDS issued by their Administrative Board in midDecember, may review the document when they hold their next general meeting at the end of June. The chief point of controversy was a reference in the statement to condom information in public education campaigns against AIDS, acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The statement said that while not condoning either contraception or non-marital sex, the church could tolerate inclusion of accurate information about prophylactics in public education programs about AIDS. The plan for a possible review of the board statement by all the country's bishops was announced in a private letter to them Dec. 17 by Archbishop John L. May ofSt. Louis, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and U.S. Catholic Conference. In the letter Archbishop May said the statement "needs to be discussed in greater depth by the mem bership (of the bishops' conference). We might all benefit from a more complete review of the matter. I suggest that our meeting in June might include a full discussion.... We might then be able to agree on certain propositions which could be the basis for clear conference policy." The Dec. 17 letter or its contents were not revealed, however, until the communications office of the Archdiocese of New York quoted
extensively from it in a news release Dec. 28 intended to give journalists "further clarification and understanding" about the AIDS statement. Archbishop May and Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin of Chicago, one of the chief drafters of the AIDS statement, reacted sharply after a New York Times report on the May letter interpreted it to mean that the bishops "have set aside for now" the AI DS statement.
"The statement of the Administrative Board on AIDS has not been withdrawn or set aside," Cardinal Bernardin said in a separate statement issued in Chicago. "At their next meetin'g in June," Cardinal Bernardin added, "the U.S. bishops may discuss the reception that the document has received in the media and elsewhere as well as its underlying moral principles. The final decision as to its placement on the agenda of the June "At this time, the statement of meeting will be made at the March the Administrative Board stands meeting of the NCCB-USCC Adand is neither being withdrawn ministrative Board." Despite the publication in New nor temporarily set aside," ArchYork of excerpts from his letter, bishop May said in a statement released by the NCCB-USCC Archbishop May would not release headquarters in Washington after the whole text. William Ryan, public affairs the Times report appeared Dec. spokesman for the NCCB-USCC, 29. The "primary purpose" of any said Dec. 29 that Archbishop May discussion of the statement at a "intended it as a private communigeneral meeting "would be to allow cation to the mem bers of the conall the bishops to formulate clear ference and did not intend that it conference policy on aspects of the would be released." In the excerpts released by the AIDS issue to whatever extent this New York Archdiocese, Archbishis deemed necessary," he said. op May suggested the bishops deHe said his letter to the bishops vote part of their June meeting to also reviewed "in some detail the discussing "certain principles of careful preparation" that went into moral theology and their specific the AIDS statement and discussed application to the AI DS epidemic. "the widespread misperceptions" "We might then be able," he of what the document actually added, "to agree on certain proposaid. A discussion of the document sitions which could be the basis for by the bishops would be within clear conference policy." that context, he said. He invited comments and sugThe archbishop said he would gestions from the bishops and said "review this possibility with the he would review the possibilities members of the Administrative with the USCC Administrative Board when it meets in March." Board when it meets in March.
The board, which approved the original AIDS statement, consists of about 50 of the nation's roughly 300 active bishops. Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York was one of the statement's strongest critics, calling its publication a "very grave mistake." Joseph Zwilling, assistant director of the New York archdiocesan communications office, said the office's Dec. 28 press release was neither requested by the cardinal nor approved beforehand by him, however. The office received a copy of Archbishop May's letter, he said, and decided to release portions of it because of numerous inquiries from journalists. Zwilling said the communications office was unaware tha.t the letter was not intended for public dissemination. Another severe critic of the AIDS statement was ArchbishopJ. Francis Stafford of Denver, who directly challenged the theology behind the statement's toleration of condom information. A joint statement issued Dec. 12 by Cardinal Law and the 16 other bishops of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, including Bishop Daniel A. Cronin, rejected any toleration of condom education. It came one day after the USCC Administrative Board statement was released. "We cannot approve or seem to approve the distribution of information regarding contraceptive devices ,and methods which might lead some to think that they could
in good conscience ignore or contradict this teaching," the joint statement said. It said that the Administrative Board's statement and press reports on it "have generated considerable confusion concerning the church's position on the use of prophylactic devices as a protection against AIDS." Some other U.S. bishops criticized news stories for failing to capture the nuances of the statement, particularly the difference Turn to Page Two
tn
:J:
I-
Z 0
:E
12
Q) 3: .... 0 II)
c
::"'X
II)
0
11).0 II)
en
Q) .-
.... .c
-0.... -015 . W Oep1:~ 'ai .Ql (; LL. ,c ()..c~.c
3=
I-
cltlO)en -.cO) «ltl::.c
Z
I- Q).c .c: _ .~ 0)
>< W W
:J:
I-
a:: W
>
0
Q>oal=:= ,C ....
Qi3:
Q)en
c: .-
ltl'Q) '£::.0
u~
Q)
..c
~
5
:::::>~
~
0