BY ARCHBISHOP PAUL J. HALLINAN

(Copyright, The Georgia Bulletin)

The brief visit of Augustine Cardinal Bea to the United States in April of this year gave many Americans a quick glimpse at this remarkable young-old prelate whose name has become a synonym for the hopes of Christians everywhere. On his return to Rome to carry on the vital work of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, he carried with him interesting views on the progress and particular problems of unity faced in the United States. While attending the spring session of the Counciliar Commission on the Sacred Liturgy in Rome, I had the opportunity of discussing these views with him.

Their cogency, in this interim period of the Second Vatican Council, prompted me to request the cardinal to approve their publication, in question-and-answer form, in our archdiocesan newspaper, THE GEORGIA BULLETIN. This he graciously did, believing that every encouragement should be given to the “benevolent explosion” in our country of ideas and energies concerned with the ecumenical movement. Since the questions also included several religious liberty and Church-State relations, Cardinal Bea’s observations, following his American visit, will be of interest to our wide audience of readers, both Catholics, and those of other faiths.

Father Stephen Schmidt, S.J., secretary to His Eminence, in transmitting the answers, wrote me that the Cardinal’s many occupations render this “as a quite exceptional case,” and asked that this be noted, because similar requests would have to be denied. He added that Cardinal Bea composed the answers and approved publication because of the importance of the questions involved, and the area concerned.

It is hardly necessary to add our appreciation of his kindness and courtesy to the readers of THE GEORGIA BULLETIN.

FIRST QUESTION:

On your recent visit to the United States, did you find the ecumenical climate favorable? In what particular ways? In comparison with European countries.

REPLY:

I find that it has improved in an absolutely surprising manner. Evidently my recent trip by itself would not authorize me to make a judgement of this type since I hardly even touched the eastern part of the United States and, even then, for only a short stay of ten days, during which I was principally occupied with the conferences and lectures which I had to give. Nonetheless, the contacts I had already indicated a great change. These indications also received ample confirmation from the unbelievable number of invitations which I received on the occasion of this trip. Even though it was already clear by the end of December that I would not be able to prolong my absence from Rome because of work for the Council, still the invitations continued to be sent me.

The number of invitations I had to decline, regretfully, rose to over seventy. While from among these there were about twenty which come from non-Catholic sources, the remaining fifty-among which there were twenty from universities and colleges-give eloquent testimony to the enormous interest Catholic have for the union of Christians. Since the invitations came from just about every section of the United States they truly give evidence of the existence of this interest for the cause of union just about everywhere.

If one wishes to make a comparison with European countries-although even here there are great differences from country to country-perhaps one could say that in these countries the interest for union has been growing slowly over a period of number of decades. In the United States, on the other hand, one feels that there has been something of an explosion which was unforeseen-though not for that reason less useful or promising-as a result of the events of the Council and in connection with it, especially as a result of more personal and direct contacts and the exchange of ideas with other parts of the Church. This type of benevolent explosion is certainly clear evidence of the fruitful energies, ready for every type of good, which lie hidden in American Catholicism and only wait to be aroused, as if freed from their bonds, and directed along the ways of a dynamic activity. And, granted the excellent quality of this Catholicism-I am thinking, for example, of the exceptional fidelity to the practice of religion, of the unbelievable achievements in the field of education and of charitable work-I would say that things could not really be otherwise.

SECOND QUESTION:

Do you think that the extensive religious pluralism in the U.S. (some 300 sects) is favorable or unfavorable to the development of religious unity? (e.g. By comparison with the European situation where usually one or two large Protestant confessions dominate the non-Catholic scene?)

REPLY:

For the present this situation renders ecumenical activity much more difficult. Consider merely the great practical difficulties which arise in organizing meetings between members of different confessions. The enormous differences, which exist among the various denominations, extending even to the point where some of them no longer recognize baptism-make the situation extraordinarily grave. In fact, what common bonds still remain if such fundamental elements are lacking? Now can there be any meeting of minds on a religious level which is specifically Christian if there is a lack of some common elements? It is obvious that, given this doctrinal situation, mutual esteem and charity also become more difficult. The many tensions and animosities which unfortunately not only exist at present, but even make their weight felt in private life and, above all, in public life, are clear proofs of that.

Nevertheless, I would also like to draw attention to the positive aspects of your situation. There is no doubt that the widespread dispersal of forces among Christians engenders and makes more intense the nostalgia of unity. The extreme intensity of the division makes more clearly apparent all the absurdity of the division itself and spurs on the search for a remedy. It is not by chance that among the pioneers of the first rank in the ecumenical movement of the past fifty years, there have been Americans such as Charles H. Brent and John R. Mott. Furthermore, the many efforts at reunification which have taken place, and are continually being carried on among various groups on non-Catholics, constitute a precious ecumenical experience. Finally, looking at things from the point of view of Divine Providence, it is clear that a serious situation always constitutes an appeal addressed by God Himself to each of His sons to direct their attention to all the members of the great family of God, not seeking their own proper interests but only those of Christ. And we know that God does not appeal nor command in vain but-according to the well-known phrase of St. Augustine-commands us to do what we can and to ask for what we cannot do by ourselves.

THIRD QUESTION:

Do the European countries which are progressing most effectively in the ecumenical sense have strong diocesan Commissions for Christian Unity? National Commissions? What do you advise in other regions, e.g. the U.S.?

REPLY:

In Europe the initiatives vary from country to country. For example, in England the Episcopal Conference has a sub-commission for ecumenical questions which studies, refers and proposes measures in the national Episcopal Conference. In France, there is a National Secretariat provided by the archbishop of Rouen, and at least a half-dozen diocesan secretariats. In Germany there does not exist a commission in the proper sense of the term but as part of the activities of the national Episcopal Conference, His Excellency the Archbishop of Paderborn has the charge of studying the question connected with ecumenical work and of referring them to the Conference. Alongside of the Commission and enterprises already mentioned, in these same countries there are sometimes also Commissions or, at times, simple secretariats on the diocesan level as, for example, in Paris and in some other dioceses of France. These organs are under the supervision of the ordinary and have the task of furnishing information to the pastors and other associations and of aiding and stimulating ecumenical enterprises.

This variety in procedure is very instructive. Actually, it is not arbitrary, but reveals the great diversity in condition which must be taken into account. Now it is clear that such a prudent manner of acting is even more imperative for the United States since it is a country which is almost as large a continent with populations which are also quite different. Consider the differences in countries, and even in continents, of origin as well as the tradition which each one of the groups brought over with it and preserves partly out of jealous interest, partly out of unconscious reaction. Consider also the differences in climate, in economic and cultural conditions, the differences of the religious confessions and the geographical distribution of these. Therefore, before establishing an organization on the national level, care should be taken to create concrete bases and stimulate initiatives on the diocesan and parochial level corresponding to immediate exigencies, to their urgency and to the possibilities and prospects offered.

In conclusion, I would say this in general about these commissions-in the present case, diocesan ones-they should properly be an organ through which the hierarchy follows, aids and stimulates ecumenical enterprises. In ecumenical work we are actually engaged, to a large extent, in a field which is new and unexplored where it is possible to make mistakes, to take false steps. It is therefore necessary to remain in the closest contact with the hierarchy, with those whom the Holy Spirit has established to rule the Church of God. This does not mean that centralization or uniformity are necessary or desirable. Always allowing for proper initiative, these commissions can give advice, give information about the experiences of others, stimulate action, be enlightened, circumspect and prudent.

FOURTH QUESTION:

In the U.S., Catholics (and many who are not Catholics) are anxious that a more accurate and modern definition of religious liberty be given by the Catholic Church. Would you think that the statement in Pacem In Terris will be a guide to more theological discussion on this and that it would lead to such a definition? Will the Council discuss and define this question?

REPLY:

I am glad Your Excellency confirms this great desire of the Catholics of the United States. As you know, it is shared by Catholics and non-Catholics of many other countries. For this the Secretariat for Promotion of Christian Unity, aware of the urgency of the matter through its own ecumenical experience, has made itself the interpreter of this desire before the Council. After long study, and ample and searching discussion, a schema was presented to the Central Preparatory Commission, which, as we informed by the official statements on the work of the Central Commission, was discussed by this Commission in June 1962. From the same statements we are informed that the schema upheld the necessity of recognizing a man’s right to follow the dictates of his own conscience in matters of religion. It consists also in recognition of the duties of civil society, in all its forms, including the state, to respect in practice the citizen’s inalienable rights to religious liberty. This right of man-as you appositely noted in your question-was very clearly affirmed in the recent encyclical, “Pacem In Terris” which said: “Every human being has the right to honor God according to the dictates of an upright conscience, and therefore the right to worship God privately and publicly.” (Vatican English Edition, p. 4).

You ask me if the Council will discuss and define this question. Without being, or wishing to be, a prophet, it seems to me that there already exists the well-known declaration of Pius XII in his discourse to the Catholic jurists in 1953. We have the even more solemn declaration of Pope John XXIII in his encyclical, as we have already mentioned. Anyone who understands the actual religious situation of the world today is aware, that in name and even more in fact, there is an ever-increasing differentiation among men in the filed of religion. This is most explained by the frequent migration and expulsions even from so-called Catholic countries. It thus becomes even more urgent that the affirmation of the dignity of the human person, from every aspect, with all his rights, of which the Church through her social doctrine becomes more a champion every day, be applied also with respect to religious liberty-and although this is already well-known, I might add the great importance of this question for ecumenical work. For all these reasons I do not doubt that those who eyes are opened to the reality of the situation of mankind today, and who keep before their eyes the intense doctrinal activity of the Church over the past few decades in the social field, will realize the great responsibility they have of being, each one in his own position and in the field of his proper activity, a light to the world with respect to this particular question which is of such fundamental importance.

FIFTH QUESTION:

The Catholic Church in the United States has flourished under our particular relationship with the state, according to her pastoral experience and the public statements of her hierarchical leaders from Archbishop John Carroll down to the present time. Can the American experience not be considered as enriching the historic teaching of the Church on this subject of Church-State?

REPLY:

Permit me to be brief and not to enter into discussing the requirements of the problem itself, since this is not my particular field. Of course, I realize that this question is intimately connected with the preceding one concerning religious liberty. I believe, then, that I can briefly say the truly flourishing state of the Church in the United States, even if due to a whole series of factors, undoubtedly constitutes an irrefutable proof that your particular experience in this area has been truly fruitful and that it can make a strong contribution to the solution of this perennial and thorny problem. I can add that this experience is particularly useful today and will become more so-since it involves an experiences which developed in a particular form of society, that is, a pluralistic society. Now since religious differentiation is becoming more and more widespread today, as we say above, the importance of your experience is clear. Consequently, without wishing to give suggestion which does not fall within my competence, - it is my desire and hope that, out of love for the Church, the leaders of the Church in your country-together with other Fathers of the Council- will, at the appropriate time and place, give to this question their strong and fruitful witness, based on a rich practical experience.

SIXTH QUESTION:

Will the work of the Secretariat for Unity be as important after the Council as during it?

REPLY:

Undoubtedly the Secretariat will be much more important after the Council. What the Lord has accomplished in the filed of unity from the beginning up the present has truly surpassed our fondest hopes and has something miraculous about it if one considers how great were the obstacles and the age-old barriers which have been torn down, broken or at least moved. But we shouldn’t forget that, even if this is a great and promising beginning, all of it still remains only a beginning. The true work of extending and deepening it-about which we have said something in our previous answers-still remains ahead of us. Now for this work there is urgent need-not of uniformity-but of prudent coordination, assistance, support and direction. There is need to receive and furnish information, to promote the exchange of experience, enlarge contacts. And perhaps the most urgent task of all is the spreading of the ecumenical apostolate among Catholics by carrying it into every diocese, every parish, to every social group, or profession, into the life, no matter how humble it is, of each one of the faithful.

The Secretariat, for its part, is already making preparations for this task. Already at the end of the first session of the Council there was announced the establishment-under a single president and a single secretary- of two district sections: one for the non-Catholic oriental Christians of various rites, the other for the communities arising out of the Reform in the 16th Century. The two sections are now already being organized. These are all reasons for making a proper comparison between the institution of the secretariat and the decision taken by the Holy See in the 17^th Century to establish the Congregation of Propaganda, that is, for the missions. The basis of this comparison naturally does not lie in the fact that non-Catholic Christians are considered in the same way as non-Christians, for certainly they are not, but only by the fact that the institution of the Secretariat shows how the Church is more vividly aware of its permanent responsibility towards Christians separated form the Apostolic See, and how she has felt the need to establish a permanent organ to take care of them and to which our brethren have been able to turn to up to now with the security that they would find not only a ready welcome but also assistance and understanding, charity, and fraternal treatment, advice and aid.

Let us conclude our conversations, then, by underlining in a special way the great obligation every Catholic has of becoming interested fraternally and practically in non-Catholic Christians and in the unity of all baptized. Let me underline also our lively hope that, just as the Catholics of America have taken to themselves with energy and vigor so many other interests and preoccupations of the Church, they will do likewise in the field of Christian unity. It is certainly a very wide and difficult field. Every Catholic is called to this sublime work; every force and energy, in its proper place, is precious and indispensable. Each contribution is a stone through which the raising of the entire edifice of the Church goes on in a well-determined order towards the formation in the Lord of the Holy Temple, in which all the baptized are themselves incorporated into the fabric to form, through the Spirit, the dwelling place of God (cf. Eph. 2,21 ss) so that there may be brought to realization the final prayer of Jesus, Our High Priest, “that all may be one, even as Thou, Father, in me and I in Thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.” (John 17, 21)