By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological
Center In responding to critics of "Called
to be Catholic: Church in a Time of Peril," Cardinal Joseph Bernardin
says that "The statement recognizes the legitimacy, even the value, of
disagreements, but it also insists that dialogue about them must be accountable
to Catholic tradition and the Church's teaching authority." The 2,000-word
statement (reprinted in America, 8/31/96), prepared by the National
Pastoral Life Center in New York, was released August 12 when the cardinal
announced the "Catholic
Common Ground Project" to encourage dialogue about issues dividing
the church
Bernardin, throughout his life, has modeled his belief that "through
open and honest dialogue, differences can be resolved and the integrity
of the gospel proclaimed." As a result he has frequently been caught in
the middle between warring factions on the right and the left. "I have
been troubled that an increasing polarization within the church and, at
times, a meanspiritedness have hindered the kind of dialogue that helps
us address our mission and concerns," he explained when announcing the
project, which plans to hold conferences that bring together persons of
divergent perspectives in search of a common ground. And now, as the Cardinal
is faced with a terminal illness, there is a heightened sense of urgency
to his work of reconciliation.
The attacks on the common ground project have been directed more at the
statement than at Cardinal Bernardin. "It is unfortunate that the Cardinal's
initiative has tied itself to this statement," says Cardinal Bernard Law
of Boston. "Throughout [the statement] there are gratuitous assumptions,
and at significant points it breathes an ideological bias which it elsewhere
decries in others."
For Cardinal Law, "the fundamental flaw in this document is its appeal
for 'dialogue' as a path to 'common ground.' The church already has 'common
ground.' It is found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and it is mediated
to us through the authoritative and binding teaching of the Magisterium."
Cardinal James Hickey of Washington, D.C., makes a similar argument. "True
'common ground' is found in Scripture and Tradition as handed on through
the teaching office of the Holy Father and the bishops." He goes further
in saying that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a reliable
and complete expression of our common ground.
The language used by Cardinals Law and Hickey is similar to that of Catholic
officials prior to Vatican II when talking about ecumenical dialogue with
non-Catholic Christians: "We have the truth, you have to accept it." No
Catholic official would use this kind of language today in speaking to
their Protestant and Orthodox dialogue partners. Rather they speak of
being equal partners in searching for the truth and attempting to find
new doctrinal formulas that transcend the divisions of the past. The rules
for dialogue within the church appear to be much stricter than those for
dialogue with people outside the fold. Dialogue with the heirs of the
Reformation dissenters is permissible; dialogue with today's dissenters
is not. It appears that the pastoral response of the Vatican, Cardinal
Law, and Cardinal Hickey to dissent is to isolate and marginalize its
leaders (theologians, priests, religious, heads of organizations) in the
hope that without them the faithful will return to the path of truth.
In responding to his critics, Bernardin appears to be taking the most
controversial issues off the table. Even with these limits, the project
could be still be important and useful, but it would be much less ambitious
than many people originally thought. This strategy increases the likelihood
of episcopal support for the common ground project, but it also leaves
the really divisive issues without a legitimate forum within the church.
America, September 21, 1996
Copyright © 1996 by America
Press
All rights reserved
The Dialogue is Underway
Many may be disappointed by the responses of Cardinals Law and Hickey, since
they seem to deny the possibility of dialogue. But, from another perspective,
simply by responding the two cardinals have in fact jumped with both feet
into the dialogue. One must also admire the honesty and clarity with which
the cardinals state their positions. They do not want to raise false hopes
by entering into a dialogue when they see no possibility of changing their
minds on church teaching. "Dissent from revealed truth or the authoritative
teaching of the church cannot be 'dialogued' away," says Cardinal Law. For
them the only legitimate purpose of dialogue is to give the magisterium
a chance to explain better to dissenters established church teaching, since
the magisterium is in possession of the truth. "Truth and dissent from truth
are not equal partners in ecclesial dialogue," says Cardinal Law. "Dialogue
as a pastoral effort to assist in a fuller appropriation of the truth is
laudable. Dialogue as a way to mediate between the truth and dissent is
mutual deception."
Lessons from Ecumenism
"Called to be Catholic," on the other hand, appears to draw heavily on the
experience of ecumenical dialogues of the last thirty years. For example,
the working principles articulated in the document include:
Although Cardinal Bernardin denies he is distancing himself from the statement,
he clearly is distancing himself from dissent. Some of the criticisms of
the statement are based on grave misunderstandings, he asserts. "The statement's
call to dialogue within the church no more legitimates dissent than does
dialogue with other faith traditions," he says. "In fact, the question of
dissent in the church and whether it is ever justified is a complicated
and theologically technical one, and our statement did not pursue it." Bernardin
implies that his project is not even about dissent by asserting "that our
focus is pastoral, not doctrinal," although he later admits that the questions
"do require consideration of any doctrinal implications."
The Boundaries of Dialogue
Despite the hierarchy's allergic reaction to dissent, no one can deny that
dissent is widespread in the church on issues of sexuality, divorce, birth
control, celibacy, and women priests. While people know that we are Christians
by our love, they know that we are Catholics by our fights. Since dissent
and public arguments are in fact going on in the church, would it not be
better to structure the discussions as a dialogue rather than as a public
brawl? The criticisms of Cardinals Law and Hickey, and Cardinal Bernardin's
response, make clear that the first topic of dialogue for the common ground
project should be: "Can the hierarchy and those who dissent from its teaching
participate in a formal dialogue? About what topics and under what conditions?"
In future dialogues, Cardinal Bernardin needs to articulate more clearly
the boundaries of dialogue. For example, he has been criticized from the
left for not including women's ordination and abortion as topics of discussion
in "Called to be Catholic." Were these left out for political reasons or
for reasons of principle? And are dissenters and the magisterium to be treated
as equal partners in the dialogue? He also needs to explain more clearly
his distinction between pastoral and doctrinal questions; most of the important
issues are both.
Hopes for Trust and Understanding
Or is the Common Ground Project simply an attempt to get people talking
about less controversial topics in the hopes that this will build bridges
of trust and understanding that will be necessary in facing more divisive
issues in the future? On the other hand, Cardinals Law and Hickey need to
explain how they deal with the historical fact that the magisterium has
been in error on important issues in the past: on religious liberty, ecumenism,
slavery, usury, Galileo, the interpretation of Scripture, etc. And if church
teaching includes the development of doctrine, how does that fit into their
assertion that the magisterium has a handle on the truth?
See also