Where They Are Going

An interview with the chairman of the National Council of Catholic Bishops, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin

Joseph Cardinal Bernardin has clearly established himself as one of the unquestioned leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in America. His position as archbishop of the Chicago archdiocese, one of the largest in the U.S. with over two million Catholics, and his involvement with the Catholic bishops and their controversial pastorals on war and peace and on the economy (still in draft form), have thrust him into the national spotlight as a soft-spoken yet determined champion for renewed spiritual commitment and social responsibility on the part of the church.

Recently Cardinal Bernardin met with CT editors to discuss the spiritual/social dynamic at work in the church today, as well as to offer some general thoughts on the challenges facing the church in the days ahead.

What are the three most critical challenges facing the Catholic church today?

The first challenge we face is evangelization. How do you proclaim Christ in a world where gospel values have become countercultural? We live in a society shaped by consumerism, materialism, secularism, and a practical, if not an intellectual or conceptual, atheism. People say they believe in God, but act as though he does not exist.

A second challenge is understanding and knowing how to put our social responsibilities into practice. When we talk about justice, human dignity, and peace, some think we’re moving away from the gospel and talking more about political matters. I don’t deny that social issues have a political dimension. But they also have a moral dimension. And the challenge today is to sensitize the Christian conscience in such a way that our social responsibilities will be recognized.

A third challenge is specifically Catholic in nature: the matter of collegiality. How do you respect those cultures where the church is present while maintaining church unity worldwide? And what is the relationship between the papacy and this international church?

People today question the place of the papacy in the church more than they have in other generations. However, I think American Catholics are very committed to the papacy. They see it as an essential element in our church, the visible source of our unity. Basically, then, it’s a question of diversity and unity. Because the church—the gospel message—is incarnated in different cultures, there’s a rich diversity. The challenge is finding ways to maintain unity within that diversity.

Will this tension grow?

What is needed is more understanding on both sides. If there’s tension, it should be a creative tension: the occasion for all Catholics to reflect on the realities of this diversity. In last November’s extraordinary session of the Synod of Bishops, one of the recommendations was that this question of collegiality be studied in greater depth.

In the wake of the widely discussed and controversial pastoral letter on war and peace, how do you perceive the relationship between the American Catholic hierarchy and the laity?

First of all, the bishops are supposed to teach and provide leadership. It’s not merely a matter of reflecting what our people think. We have to take that into account, certainly. But there will be times when we will take positions that might be unacceptable to some of the people we serve. It’s always been that way and it always will be.

Were you surprised at the intensity of reaction to the bishops’ letter?

Not really. I fully expected it. However, I was surprised at the positive reaction we got. And I’m happy to say that as time has gone on, and as people have become more familiar with what we actually said, there has been even greater acceptance. They know there are moral implications to what, on the surface, appear to be only political problems.

Will the bishops remain on the cutting edge of church leadership in the days ahead?

I don’t want to toot our own horn, but I think the bishops are key actors. They have given leadership not only in terms of the internal life of the church but also in terms of the church’s outreach to the world.

You mentioned the pastoral on war and peace. We’re also developing a pastoral on the economy. We’ve also taken strong stands regarding human rights in this country and elsewhere. And we’ve taken strong stands concerning abortion. So I think the bishops have been and continue to be key actors.

As long as we’re talking about church leadership, will you comment on the declining levels of men and women entering full-time Catholic vocations. How will this crisis be addressed?

We have fewer priests and sisters and more lay people ministering in the church today. In fact, over the last 20 years we have seen an explosion in lay ministry. Some are working as full-time, paid employees of the church, others as volunteers doing many of the things that priests and sisters used to do. And that’s the way it should be.

However, we haven’t kept in focus the uniqueness of priestly ministry or the ministry of religious [individuals belonging to a monastic order]. We’ve tended to talk about ministry in a global way. Some ask, “If you can minister in the church as a lay person, then why make a special commitment to be a priest or a sister?” We therefore need to show in a credible way that all ministries—including priesthood and religious life—are needed. We’re not talking about some being better than others. But they are different. There is a uniqueness about the priesthood and religious life that is very persuasive, and they are very much needed today.

What role has the celibacy requirement played in these declining numbers?

The church requires it, as you know, for religious reasons. It’s something one accepts for the sake of the kingdom. It’s a gift. It makes us more available for service to our people. But in today’s society, such values are sometimes not understood or appreciated as much as they should be.

Let’s focus our attention back on the laity for a moment. Some have said that faltering attendance can be attributed to reform in the church, such as the lessening of compulsory attendance at different services. Do you agree?

Church attendance is down, and has decreased in recent years among all age groups. But I don’t think that’s because, as some maintain, we’ve “made things easier.” Studies show that many of the ritual changes we have made—like celebrating the liturgy in the vernacular—are supported by a vast majority of our people even though they may not go to church regularly.

What about the charismatic movement in the Catholic church. Is it divisive? Is it growing as a renewal movement?

Let’s take the last first. It is a renewal movement. And I think it has potential. It’s much more understood today than it was 15 or 20 years ago when it first began, and much more accepted.

Is it growing? My sense is its growth in the Catholic church has leveled off. I have special masses with the charismatics periodically and they don’t draw as many people as they used to. However, many charismatics no longer see themselves as a separate group. Instead, they see themselves as part of the church; and they are consequently having an impact on their individual parishes. And that’s all to the good.

Could it be divisive? It could be. But overall, it hasn’t been. It has contributed to the spiritual well-being of the church; and most of the bishops are very supportive of it. I know I am. As a matter of fact, I am working on a pastoral letter on the charismatic renewal addressed to the church of Chicago. It will indicate where the movement fits into the overall life and ministry of the church.

What are some of the similarities and differences you perceive between Catholics and evangelicals?

I think we have many things in common. There is a missionary zeal in both of us. And we are both committed to evangelization. We both consider conversion very important, although our concept of conversion is different. In your churches it’s more a one-time event. For us it occurs in that way, of course, but we see conversion as an ongoing reality.

The way we interpret Scripture is different, too. I hope I’m not caricaturing here, but you approach the Scripture in a more literalist way than we do. We believe that Scripture comes from God; it’s part of God’s revelation, but we see it as a book of religious truth, not necessarily a book of history or a book of scientific truth. Therefore, a certain amount of interpretation is needed in order to get at the truth in Scripture.

We also believe the Scripture was given to the church and that there is an authority in the church, an authority that is inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, which keeps the church from falling into error in its interpretation of Scripture.

In terms of social issues we would be united on some things and divided on others—or at least our approach to certain issues would be different. We agree, for example, on the evil of pornography, abortion, and other issues of that nature.

On some other issues—like war and peace, the economy, some of the human rights stands we have taken—we seem to have different perceptions. I’m not saying evangelicals are for war or against economic justice, but that sometimes we differ in our approach and we see our teaching role in these areas differently.

Have you sensed a growing warmth between Catholics and evangelicals?

Yes. There has been a big change. Now, I have to make a distinction between myself and Catholics generally. I grew up in the South. My sister and I were the only Catholic children on the block. Almost all the kids I played with were Baptists or Methodists. I grew up thinking there were only a few Catholics and many, many Baptists and Methodists. I couldn’t go to church with them, they couldn’t come to church with me, but we got along very well. My parents got along with their parents. And so, in a way, we were experiencing a practical kind of ecumenism without knowing it. From what I’m told, it was very different in places like Chicago and New York where there are large numbers of Catholics—a reality that sometimes led to an adversarial relationship between Catholics and Protestants.

Now, there are still Catholics who say unkind things about Protestants, and I’m sure there are Protestants who say unkind things about Catholics. I’ve seen some terrible posters right here in Chicago condemning the Catholic church. So these fringe elements exist. But in terms of the mainstream, there is much more acceptance on both sides.

How can our readers get to know more about their Catholic brothers and sisters?

Personal contact is critical. We can read all we want, but unless we see people and talk with them, I don’t think we’re going to get very far. I would like to see more emphasis placed on dialogue at the local level. We could then explain our convictions to one another, and little by little we would see there is more agreement between us than disagreement.

This has certainly proved to be the case in the official dialogues we have had with other churches. Both sides have learned a lot. We have all learned we are human, and that in the final analysis, it’s the same Lord we believe in, the same Lord we love. While there are certainly doctrinal differences, we learn that these differences are not as extreme as we once thought, and they should not be an obstacle to a more living and understanding relationship among us.

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