"Called to be Catholic: Church in a Time of Peril"

Remarks by Cardinal Bernardin on the
"Catholic Common Ground Project"

Cardinal Bernardin Responds to Questions Regarding the "Catholic Common Ground Project"

CALLED TO BE CATHOLIC
Church in a Time of Peril

About this statement

Called to be Catholic was prepared by the National Pastoral Life Center in consultation with Catholic men and women serving the church and society in a variety of callings and sensitive to the diversity of Catholicism in the United States.

This statement provides the basis for the Catholic Common Ground Project. The project will sponsor conferences and papers devoted to critical issues in the church and will exemplify and promote the kind of dialogue called for in this statement.

All organizations and groups in the church are invited to consider the Called to be Catholic statement and its applications to their meetings, conferences, and deliberations. Responses to the statement are welcome and may be sent to the National Pastoral Life Center.

Will the Catholic Church in the United States enter the new millennium as a church of promise, augmented by the faith of rising generations and able to be a leavening force in our culture? Or will it become a church on the defensive, torn by dissension and weakened in its core structures? The outcome, we believe, depends on whether American Catholicism can confront an array of challenges with honesty and imagination and whether the church can reverse the polarization that inhibits discussion and cripples leadership. American Catholics must reconstitute the conditions for addressing our differences constructively - a common ground centered on faith in Jesus, marked by accountability to the living Catholic tradition, and ruled by a renewed spirit of civility, dialogue, generosity, and broad and serious consultation.

It is widely admitted that the Catholic Church in the United States has entered a time of peril. Many of its leaders, both clerical and lay, feel under siege and increasingly polarized. Many of its faithful, particularly its young people, feel disenfranchised, confused about their beliefs, and increasingly adrift. Many of its institutions feel uncertain of their identity and increasingly fearful about their future.

Those are hard words to pronounce to a church that, despite many obstacles, continues to grow in numbers, continues to welcome and assist the poor and the stranger, and continues to foster extraordinary examples of Christian faith and witness to the Gospel. The landscape of American Catholicism is dotted with vital communities of worship and service, with new initiatives, and with older, deeply rooted endeavors that are kept alive by the hard labor and daily sacrifices of millions of Catholics. In the face of powerful centrifugal forces, many Catholic leaders have worked to build consensus and cooperation.

We hesitate to say anything that might discourage them or add to the fingerpointing and demoralization that, in too many cases, already burden these exemplary efforts. But this discordant and disheartened atmosphere is itself one of the realities which cannot be ignored. For three decades the church has been divided by different responses to the Second Vatican Council and to the tumultuous years that followed it. By no means were these tensions always unfruitful; in many cases they were virtually unavoidable.

But even as conditions have changed, party lines have hardened. A mood of suspicion and acrimony hangs over many of those most active in the church's life; at moments it even seems to have infiltrated the ranks of the bishops. One consequence is that many of us are refusing to acknowledge disquieting realities, perhaps fearing that they may reflect poorly on our past efforts or arm our critics within the church. Candid discussion is inhibited. Across the whole spectrum of views within the church, proposals are subject to ideological litmus tests. Ideas, journals, and leaders are pressed to align themselves with preexisting camps, and are viewed warily when they depart from those expectations.

There is nothing wrong in itself with the prospect that different visions should contend within American Catholicism. That has long been part of the church's experience in this nation, and indeed differences of opinion are essential to the process of attaining the truth. But the way that struggle is currently proceeding, the entire church may lose. It is now three decades after Vatican II. Social and cultural circumstances have changed. The church possesses a wealth of post-conciliar experience to assess and translate into lessons for the future. There is undiminished hunger for authentic faith, spiritual experience, and moral guidance, but many of the traditional supports for distinct religious identities - or for the institutions that convey them have disappeared.

Meanwhile, positions of leadership in the ministries of the church are passing to those with little exposure, for better or worse, to the sharply defined institutional Catholicism of earlier decades. Still younger Catholics, many with absolutely no experience of that pre-conciliar Catholicism, come to the church with new questions and few of the old answers.

The church's capacity to respond to these changed conditions may be stymied if constructive debate is supplanted by bickering, disparagement, and stalemate. Rather than forging a consensus that can harness and direct the church's energies, contending viewpoints are in danger of canceling one another out. Bishops risk being perceived as members of different camps rather than as pastors of the whole church.

Unless we examine our situation with fresh eyes, open minds and changed hearts, within a few decades a vital Catholic legacy may be squandered, to the loss of both the church and the nation.

II

There are urgent questions that the church in the United States knows it must air openly and honestly but which it increasingly feels pressed to evade or, at best, address obliquely. These issues include:

• the changing roles of women.
  the organization and effectiveness of religious education.
  the Eucharistic liturgy as most Catholics experience it.
  the meaning of human sexuality, and the gap between church teachings and the convictions of many faithful in this and several other areas of morality.
  the image and morale of priests, and the declining ratios of priests and vowed religious to people in the pews.
  the succession of lay people to positions of leadership formerly held by priests and sisters, and the provision of an adequate formation for ministers, both ordained and lay.
  the ways in which the church is present in political life, its responsibility to the poor and defenseless, and its support for lay people in their family life and daily callings.
  the capacity of the church to embrace African-American, Latino, and Asian populations, their cultural heritages and their social concerns.
  the survival of Catholic school systems, colleges and universities, health care facilities and social services, and the articulation of a distinct and appropriate religious identity and mission for these institutions.
  the dwindling financial support from parishioners.
  the manner of decision-making and consultation in church governance.
  the responsibility of theology to authoritative church teachings.
  the place of collegiality and subsidiarity in the relations between Rome and the American episcopacy.

As long as such topics remain inadequately addressed, the near future of American Catholic life is at risk. Yet in almost every case, the necessary conversation runs up against polarized positions that have so magnified fears and so strained sensitivities that even the simplest lines of inquiry are often fiercely resisted. Consider, for example, just two of these topics.

On every side, there are reports that many Catholics are reaching adulthood with barely a rudimentary knowledge of their faith, with an attenuated sense of sacrament, and with a highly individualistic view of the church. Some of us are tempted to minimize the seriousness of this situation out of an attachment to young people and an appreciation of their generosity - or out of loyalty to those who work, often with insufficient resources and scant rewards, to provide religious education. Others among us rush to reduce complex questions of pedagogy, theology, limited time, turnover in teachers, and the pressures of an aggressive and pervasive youth culture to some single factor and some simple solution.

The practical realities of our young people's needs are quickly lost amid accusations of infidelity to church teachings, reflexive defenses against criticism, or promotion of pet educational approaches. It is an atmosphere unlikely to generate the massive and creative effort required to meet today's crisis of religious illiteracy or link it with young people's search for a sense of participation and belonging. Or consider the church's public prayer. The faith thrives where the Eucharist is celebrated worthily, drawing the Christian community into its mystery and power. Yet in many parishes Mass attendance has plummeted; congregational participation is indifferent; and liturgies are marred by lack of preparation, casual or rushed gestures, unsuitable music, and banal sentiments in hymns and, above all, in homilies. There is widespread awareness that, thirty years after the Council, the goals of liturgical renewal have been met more in letter than in spirit.

But again polarization blocks a candid and constructive response to the situation. An informal or "horizontal" liturgy, demystified and stressing the participation of the congregation, is pitted against a solemn or "vertical" liturgy, unchangeable and focused on the sacerdotal action of the priest. The former is rightly feared as unable to carry the weight of the transcendent, and as opening the liturgy to the trivializing currents of the culture. The latter is rightly feared as becoming a concert, a show, or a spiritless exercise in rubrics, closed to the particular needs and gifts of the community. No effort to assess the state of worship or develop new translations or refresh liturgical skills escapes suspicion of moving to one extreme or the other - or pressure to move in the opposite direction as a safeguard.

The same dynamic of fear and polarization afflicts the church's discussions of other topics, from efforts to accommodate language or practice to the changing consciousness of women to efforts to define theology's relationship to the hierarchy. Unnuanced positions are espoused without encountering moderating criticism from sympathizers. Then these positions loom even more powerfully as fears in the minds of opponents, generating or justifying their own unnuanced positions. The end results are distrust, acrimony, and deadlock.

III

What will it take for the Catholic Church in the United States to escape from this partisanship and the paralysis it threatens to engender?

Jesus Christ, present in Scripture and sacrament, is central to all that we do; he must always be the measure and not what is measured.

Around this central conviction, the church's leadership, both clerical and lay, must reaffirm and promote the full range and demands of authentic unity, acceptable diversity, and respectful dialogue, not just as a way to dampen conflict but as a way to make our conflicts constructive, and ultimately as a way to understand for ourselves and articulate for our world the meaning of discipleship of Jesus Christ.

This invitation to a revitalized Catholic common ground should not be limited to those who agree in every respect on an orientation for the church, but encompass all - whether centrists, moderates, liberals, radicals, conservatives, or neoconservatives - who are willing to reaffirm basic truths and to pursue their disagreements in a renewed spirit of dialogue.

Chief among those truths is that our discussion must be accountable to the Catholic tradition and to the Spirit-filled, living church that brings to us the revelation of God in Jesus. To say this does not resolve a host of familiar questions about the way that the church has preserved, interpreted, and communicated that revelation. Accountability to the Catholic tradition does not mean reversion to a chain-of-command, highly institutional understanding of the church, a model resembling a modern corporation, with headquarters and branch offices, rather than Vatican II's vision of a communion and a people.

Nor does accountability mean conceiving of faith as an ideology, an all-encompassing doctrinal system that produces ready explanations and practical prescriptions for every human question. Now, as historically, there has always been wide room for legitimate debate, discussion, and diversity. But accountability does demand serious engagement with the tradition and its authoritative representatives. It rules out the pop scholarship, sound-bite theology, unhistorical assertions, and flippant dismissals that have become all too common on both the right and the left of the church. Authentic accountability rules out a fundamentalism that narrows the richness of the tradition to a text or a decree, and it rules out a narrow appeal to individual or contemporary experience that ignores the cloud of witnesses over the centuries or the living magisterium of the church exercised by the bishops and the Chair of Peter.

Authentic accountability embraces the demands that the Gospel poses for our public life and social structures as well as for our private lives and personal relations. This accountability implies that the church, for all its humanness, cannot be treated as merely a human organization. The church is a chosen people, a mysterious communion, a foreshadowing of the Kingdom, a spiritual family. One implication of this is that the hermeneutic of suspicion must be balanced with a hermeneutic of love and retrieval. Another is that an essential element of Catholic leadership must be wide and serious consultation, especially of those most affected by church policies under examination. The church's ancient concept of reception reminds us that all the faithful are called to a role in grasping a truth or incorporating a decision or practice into the church's life.

Finally this accountability recognizes that our discussions about the Catholic Church take place within boundaries. Exactly how the boundaries of Catholic Christianity should be formulated will inevitably be open at times to reexamination and debate. So too will our attitudes toward whatever falls outside those boundaries. But the very idea of boundaries is a necessary premise, without which no identity can exist. Inclusivity, a concept that can operate at many levels, becomes a catchword and even a self-contradiction when it impugns any efforts to make distinctions or set defining limits.

IV

The revitalized Catholic common ground, we suggested, will be marked by a willingness to approach the church's current situation with fresh eyes, open minds, and changed hearts. It will mean pursuing disagreements in a renewed spirit of dialogue. Specifically, we urge that Catholics be guided by working principles like these:

• We should recognize that no single group or viewpoint in the church has a complete monopoly on the truth. While the bishops united with the Pope have been specially endowed by God with the power to preserve the true faith, they too exercise their office by taking counsel with one another and with the experience of the whole church, past and present. Solutions to the church's problems will almost inevitably emerge from a variety of sources.
  We should not envision ourselves or any one part of the church a saving remnant. No group within the church should judge itself alone to be possessed of enlightenment or spurn the mass of Catholics, their leaders, or their institutions as unfaithful.
  We should test all proposals for their pastoral realism and potential impact on living individuals as well as for their theological truth. Pastoral effectiveness is a responsibility of leadership.
  We should presume that those with whom we differ are acting in good faith. They deserve civility, charity, and a good-faith effort to understand their concerns. We should not substitute labels, abstractions, or blanketing terms-"radical feminism," "the hierarchy," "the Vatican" - for living, complicated realities.
  We should put the best possible construction on differing positions, addressing their strongest points rather than seizing upon the most vulnerable aspects in order to discredit them. We should detect the valid insights and legitimate worries that may underlie even questionable arguments.
  We should be cautious in ascribing motives. We should not impugn another's love of the church and loyalty to it. We should not rush to interpret disagreements as conflicts of starkly opposing principles rather than as differences in degree or in prudential pastoral judgments about the relevant facts.
  We should bring the church to engage the realities of contemporary culture, not by simple defiance or by naive acquiescence, but acknowledging, in the fashion of Gaudium et Spes, both our culture's valid achievements and real dangers.

Ultimately, the fresh eyes and changed hearts we need cannot be distilled from guidelines. They emerge in the space created by praise and worship. The revitalized Catholic common ground will be marked by a determined pastoral effort to keep the liturgy, above all, from becoming a battleground for confrontation and polarization, and to treasure it as the common worship of God through Jesus Christ in the communion of the Holy Spirit.

It is imperative that the Catholic Church in the United States confront the issues and forces that are shaping the future. For this, we must draw on all the gifts of wisdom and understanding in the church, all the charisms of leadership and communion. Each of us will be tested by encounters with cultures and viewpoints not our own; all of us will be refined in the fires of genuine engagement; and the whole church will be strengthened for its mission in the new millennium.

This statement was prepared by the NATIONAL PASTORAL LIFE CENTER, Rev. Msgr. Philip J. Murnion, Director

This statement may be reproduced at will.
Additional copies may be obtained from the Center:
1-49 copies: $2 each
50-99 copies: $1 each
100+copies: : $.75 each.

National Pastoral Life Center, 18 Bleecker Street, New York, New York 10012
Phone: 212-431-7825
Fax: 212-274-9786

Remarks:
Catholic Common Ground News Conference
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin
August 12, 1996

Thank you for coming today! I am very grateful that Mr. Thomas Donnelly, Sister Doris Gottemoeller, and Monsignor Philip Murnion are with me as I announce this new endeavor.

As many of you know, I have been a Roman Catholic bishop for over thirty years. My episcopal service began shortly after the Second Vatican Council ended. In large measure my pastoral ministry has been concerned with implementing the teaching and pastoral directives of that ecumenical council, which, I believe, was truly the work of God's Holy Spirit.

In carrying out my pastoral responsibilities, I have been sustained by the example of two great churchmen who served as my mentors: John Cardinal Dearden of Detroit and Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta. I learned a great deal from them – for example, to trust that, through open and honest dialogue, differences can be resolved and the integrity of the gospel proclaimed. I have tried to do this throughout my ministry as Archbishop of Cincinnati and, now, of Chicago; as General Secretary and, later, as President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), as chairperson of several NCCB committees, and in recent years as senior active Cardinal in the United States.

More recently, however, 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. As a result, the unity of the Church is threatened, the great gift of the Second Vatican Council is in danger of being seriously undermined, the faithful members of the Church are weary, and our witness to government, society, and culture is compromised.

While these are not new realities, in the past year I have come to see them in a new light. As I have said on several occasions, when one comes face to face with the reality of death in a very profound way as a cancer patient, one's perspective on life is altered dramatically. What seemed so important before, now is seen as trivial, and what is truly important invites new commitment and a realignment of priorities.

It is in this context that I am pleased to announce today the inauguration of what is being called the Catholic Common Ground Project. This endeavor is inspired by a statement I am making public today, a statement that emerged from a series of discussions in which I participated. These discussions began more than three years ago. The paper is entitled Called to be Catholic: Church in a Time of Peril. It decries the growing polarization in the Church, which hinders our addressing important pastoral concerns, and calls for a new kind of dialogue that will engage people of diverse viewpoints in the Church. I am releasing this statement today with the invitation that other Catholic individuals and groups study it carefully and consider its implications for the way in which they carry out their responsibilities in Church life.

The Catholic Common Ground Project that the committee and I are undertaking is, therefore, one response to this statement. Using the teaching of the Second Vatican Council as its basis for dialogue, this Project will sponsor conferences that bring together persons of divergent perspectives in search of a "Catholic common ground." Working within the boundaries of authentic Church teaching, these conferences will address with fidelity and creativity the myriad challenges that we face as a Church and as a society. With this approach we should find ways to enhance our common worship, our religious education efforts, and our outreach to those in need. Our tentative plans call for a conference in early 1997 on the relationship between the Church and U.S. culture, developed in the context of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes). The conference will address such questions as: In what ways can we bring the gospel to bear on our culture? In what ways are we positively or negatively affected by our culture?

I am very grateful that seven bishops and sixteen other prominent Catholic leaders have agreed to join me in overseeing the Project's initiatives. The diversity among my colleagues demonstrates that there is a desire in all parts of the Church to pursue the goals of this Project.

I am also very grateful to Monsignor Philip Murnion and the National Pastoral Life Center for agreeing to serve as staff for the Project. I look forward to working with Professor James Kelly who will serve as Secretary of the Project. Father Michael Place will serve as my liaison to the Project.

Let me conclude by speaking directly to my sisters and brothers in the Lord here in Chicago and throughout this great land:

Our faith and our common life as members of the community of faith, which is the Church, are indeed great and precious gifts. Let us together leave behind whatever brings discord. Let us recommit ourselves to our great heritage of faith. Let us walk in communion with, and in loyalty to, our Holy Father in order to restore and strengthen the unity that has been fractured or diminished. And may our service to the Lord God and to our world be enhanced by our efforts to reclaim the "Catholic common ground" that can support renewed and revitalized lives of faith as we enter the third millennium of Christianity.

Remarks:
Catholic Common Ground Project
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin

On August 12, I announced an initiative aimed at getting beyond the entrenched positions and polarization that I believe are blocking critically needed fresh thinking about the challenges facing the Catholic Church in the United States. There have been many strong reactions to the announcement of the formation of the Catholic Common Ground Project, much of it very favorable, some of it decidedly critical. I thought it would be helpful to respond, with gratitude, to the positive reactions and address in greater detail the issues that seem to be the cause of several of the principal criticisms. A question/answer format seems best suited for this purpose.

Why did you hold the August 12th press conference?

First, to release a statement I was involved in developing: "Called to be Catholic: Church in a Time of Peril." The statement identifies some of the pastoral issues we need to address and calls for a new kind of discussion. Second, as one response to this call, I announced the formation of the Catholic Common Ground Project.

What positive reactions have you received?

We have received calls and letters from bishops, parishioners, pastors, women and men religious, professors, and individuals working in diocesan offices. With rare exceptions, they thanked us for spelling out fears and hopes about the Church that they have long entertained. Furthermore, many of them wanted to know what they can do in their own communities. I was particularly gratified by the support of Bishop Anthony Pilla, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

What are the criticisms?

Some of these have been sharp indeed. To some extent, they confirm the need for this initiative. Even a carefully framed appeal for dialogue coming from an archbishop and seconded by a broad range of distinguished advisors was met with immediate suspicion.

Of course, we anticipated criticisms from some groups on the right or left who are convinced that anything not explicitly committed to their respective agenda will only strengthen their adversaries or legitimate the status quo. They simply do not see the situation as we do.

More troubling is the criticism that mixes arguable points with what I believe are grave misunderstandings.

A lot of criticism focused on the statement, Called to be Catholic. Let's start with that. What is the statement's origin?

About four years ago, I had a conversation about parish life with Monsignor Philip Murnion of the National Pastoral Life Center. We discussed how conflicts between certain camps in the Church were hindering efforts to address serious pastoral challenges. It occurred to us that further discussion of this problem might be helpful. Over the ensuing years, the Center held a number of consultations with clergy, religious, and laity in a variety of positions in the Church. I participated in a number of these discussions. Some of us thought that a statement describing the situation and calling for pastoral discussion, which would take into account a variety of perspectives, might encourage others. The statement was developed by the Center from the contributions of a number of people. I was in touch with this effort, and in no way do I wish to be distanced from the statement.

What, then, is the advisory committee's relationship to the statement?

First, it was not our intention to ask anyone to sign the statement; that would have given it too much importance and suggested that it must be accepted in its entirety. When I decided that an effort should be made to foster the kind of dialogue called for by the statement, I felt the need for an advisory committee that would represent diverse positions and responsibilities in the Church. In inviting people to serve on this committee, I asked if they could accept the statement as a good starting point for the effort, even if not every phrase or point was to their liking. This is what they agreed to. Perhaps the best way of describing their relationship is Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb's reply that he could accept about ninety percent of the statement, which is better than usual in the present environment within the Church.

What are the main criticisms of the statement, and how do you respond to them?

As I see it, three major criticism have been made about the statement. First, that it does not adequately acknowledge Scripture and tradition as the actual common ground of the Catholic Church and reduces the Magisterium to just one more voice in a chorus of debate. Second, that it places dissent on the same level as truth and seems ready to accept compromise of the truth. Third, that it insufficiently acknowledges the centrality of Jesus.

My response to the first criticism is that Scripture and tradition are the foundational sources of Church teaching and, therefore, the basis for the "common ground." The primacy of Scripture and tradition is fully recognized in the statement. The statement also clearly calls for accountability to the Catholic tradition and rejects any approach that would ignore the "living Magisterium of the Church exercised by the bishops and the chair of Peter."

In regard to the second criticism, the statement's call to dialogue within the Church no more legitimates dissent than does dialogue with other faith traditions. 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.

The premise of our statement is that many serious disagreements among Catholics – for example, about the state of the liturgy or religious education or the role of women in the Church – do not necessarily involve dissent in the sense of a clear departure from authentic teaching. But the statement also shows full awareness that such departures do exist. 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. Likewise, the statement insists that "discussion about the Catholic Church take place within boundaries" and "defining limits." It explicitly challenges two of the most popular reasons for dismissing tradition or boundaries, the appeals to "experience" and to "inclusivity."

In a few paragraphs the statement tries to capture both the demands and the dynamism of orthodoxy. It is willing to consider the new but insists that it be accountable to tradition and the Magisterium. This clearly is not establishing truth by compromise or accommodation.

In regard to the third criticism, the statement begins by asserting that the very first condition for addressing our differences constructively must be "a common ground centered on faith in Jesus." Moreover, in the statement's section proposing a solution it again begins with the profession: "Jesus Christ, present in Scripture and sacrament, is central to all we do. He must always be the measure and not what is measured."

I am convinced that a careful reading of the text ought to reassure those who expressed these concerns.

But hasn't the very idea of dialogue become questionable? Isn't it a slogan to elude or erode Church teaching or to prevent closure on a subject? Is it sufficient to resolve all issues?

There are some legitimate fears in this area. Yes, the idea of dialogue has sometimes been cheapened by turning it into a tool of single-minded advocacy. It is also true that dialogue is not in every case or at every moment the universal solution to all conflicts.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that, in the United States today, dialogue is a critical need. The Church is built up, not brought down, by genuine dialogue anchored in our fundamental teachings. While millions of Catholics of good will cannot deny their concerns and dissatisfactions, they do not want to be drawn into some basically hostile posture toward the Church and its teaching. It is essential that we offer these faithful people guidelines and models of dialogue. We do not seek "least common denominator Catholicism." Rather, we seek to help the faithful move beyond the often unnecessary and unhelpful polarization in our community and to refocus on the fundamental principles and pastoral needs of the Church.

To move from the statement to the Catholic Common Ground Project, how would you describe its purpose? What activities will be involved?

It should be clear that our focus is pastoral, not doctrinal. We are not trying to change the Church's teachings by some method of consensus or polling. We are primarily concerned with building up the Church's unity by addressing many serious questions where Catholics may understandably disagree among themselves. These questions are not directly doctrinal, but they do require consideration of any doctrinal implications.

It is absolutely essential to understand that no one is equating the Catholic Common Ground Project with the Church itself, nor are we equating the "revitalized common ground" we seek with the faith.

The Project will sponsor conferences and other reflections in which we will seek, as the opening paragraph states, "conditions for addressing our differences constructively," or as the statement later states, "a way" to understand and articulate discipleship in our time and place. We do not see ourselves as having a monopoly on this effort or even necessarily reaching collective positions. But, if the latter happens, we would not claim any special status for them.

Who will be involved in this effort?

First, I hope that many individuals and groups within the Church will consider the statement to see if it suggests anything for their own work. Actually, this is already happening. Many have told us that they wish to take this effort into consideration in their parishes, colleges, deaneries, religious congregations, and other forums. We will have to consider how to help them do this.

In regard to the conferences or consultations sponsored by the Project, the advisory committee will be involved to the extent that their calendars and interest in the particular topics allow. We also hope to bring together many other people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives that will contribute to examination of the particular subject of each conference.

What will be discussed? Do you expect to discuss the issues that the media finds most divisive, such as abortion and women's ordination to the priesthood?

"Called to be Catholic" lists a number of pastoral issues: changing roles of women, religious education, parish liturgy, human sexuality, the strain on dwindling numbers of priests, adequate formation for the increased number of lay persons in Church leadership, the Church in political life, the responsibility of theology to authoritative ecclesial teaching, and other issues. This list is a good place to start. These pastoral matters, regarding which the local church has responsibility, will be the object of our discussion. Present plans for the first conference focus on the Church and U.S. culture.

As a realist, I expect that some participants will come to conferences holding positions at variance with ecclesial teaching or discipline regarding ordination, capital punishment, or any number of issues. But the role of authentic Church teaching will always be clear and will be upheld.

Will the very fact of the conferences suggest that certain authoritative teachings are open to negotiation?

We cannot control how people interpret our effort, but the entire approach will be different from those efforts at mediation whose goal is simply compromise and false harmony.

What do you hope will be accomplished at the conferences?

Our hope is threefold. We hope that people of faith and leadership, whose divergent viewpoints have prevented them from listening adequately to one another, will have an opportunity to deepen and broaden their understanding of pastoral matters. Second, we hope that whatever emerges from these conferences in the way of publications will contribute to discussion in the larger Church. Third, we hope to offer an example of how to engage in mutually respectful and constructive dialogue from which others might learn. As you can see, our goals are focused and modest.

How is this related to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and why wasn't the Conference the forum for such an effort?

In the Church there are numerous unofficial initiatives to address Catholic concerns. For example, there has been a recent and ongoing effort involving Catholic bishops and other individuals who issued a statement a few years ago that was intended to foster cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals on matters of public policy. Moreover, the Catholic Campaign for America is an organization of prominent Catholics, which has the support of members of the hierarchy, but it is a public policy advocacy group independent of the official efforts of the bishops' Conference. Pax Christi also brings together bishops and other Catholics in the effort to promote peace in the world. These are but three of a vast array of independent associations concerned about Catholic life. Our project is only another effort like these. The bishops' conference, on the other hand, is the official teaching and policy body of the Catholic Church in the United States.

Is it possible that the media can misuse this project to deepen divisions in the Church or to suggest that the Church should be guided by fluctuations in popular opinion?

Of course, this is true of all such projects. We are neither responsible for this result nor exempt from it, but we are trying to move beyond such manipulation by the way we drafted the statement and by the creation of forums where we can hear more clearly what is really being said.

What is the National Pastoral life Center, and why is it involved?

The Center is dedicated to serving our parishes and other forms of pastoral ministry through its publications, conferences, and research. It was begun thirteen years ago with the encouragement of the Administrative Committee of the U.S. bishops' conference and has served us well since. As I mentioned, the National Pastoral Life Center was involved from the beginning in the discussions that led to the statement and the project. The Center's entire work has been to stimulate sound reflection and responsible action in parishes and dioceses in carrying out the Church's pastoral mission. A majority of the bishops of our country have supported its work over the years, and I am confident they will continue to do so in coming years.

* * * * *

In conclusion, I assure you that I remain fully committed to this project. As I said at my press conference on August 12th, "Our faith and our common life as members of the community of faith, which is the Church, are indeed great and precious gifts. Let us together leave behind whatever brings discord. Let us recommit ourselves to this great heritage of faith."

I firmly believe that the ultimate test of this new initiative will be the one that Scripture proposes: if it is of God, it will bear fruit.