(Editor’s Note: Bishop Joseph L. Bernardin has replied to questions of National Catholic Reporter on his views of the Church and his job as general secretary of the United States Catholic Conference. He was also interviewed by Floyd Anderson, director of the National Catholic News Service. Following are some of his comments in the interviews.)

My views regarding the Church crisis. Is there really a crisis?

In a sense, the Church is in a crisis. There are various cross-currents at work which seem to be opposed to each other. As a result, there are tensions and conflicts in many areas. We can speak, for example, of a crisis of authority or a crisis of faith - just to mention two.

But I am basically optimistic about what is happening in the Church because I see it in terms of growth, development. If the Church is to speak in a relevant way to the people of every age - if the Gospel is to be effectively related to people as they are now and not as they were 50 or 100 years ago - then she cannot become static. As our knowledge and our understanding of the human situation increase, so must there be certain adaptations in the way our faith is presented. It is inevitable that in the process some tension will be created. To me this is a sign of life and vitality, not decline.

How do I see authority?

The existence of authority poses no problem for me. The human situation, if it is not to be chaotic, demands authority. The Church is no exception. This is why from the very beginning authority has been a part of the Church’s very make-up.

But the way in which authority is used is another matter. It should never be used for one’s own personal ends. It should instead always be exercised for the benefit of those over whom one has been placed in a position of leadership. Authority, in other words, is a form of service. This means that a person normally consults or listens to those whom his decisions will affect; he tries to avoid as much as possible making decisions which are arbitrary, unilateral.

I believe that if this approach is used, many problems can be solved before they become real crises.

Is the authority of the bishops being eroded?

Not really. I think that we are learning to use our authority differently. We are involving more people in our decision-making. We are becoming more aware of the necessity of exercising true leadership - that is, a leadership which convinces people of the correctness of it rather than imposes something for which they are not prepared.

In the process of changing our emphasis, the impression may be given at times that the bishops’ authority is being eroded. But I see this as a procedural, rather than a substantive change. My experience has been that people generally want their bishops to be real leaders in the Christian community.

Should the leadership of bishops be more credible?

Rather than make any comparisons, I would prefer to say simply that the leadership of bishops must be credible. If it is not, then it would be dishonest and this is certainly foreign to the mind of Christ.

Is the concern of the bishops too intramural? Some, for example have criticized the recent pastoral on the Church as concentrating too much on the hierarchy.

If this question is in reference to the bishops concentrating too much on their own prerogatives and not enough on the other segments of the Church, for example, priests, laity, etc.

There may be a few bishops who are too concerned about their own prerogatives, their own status and authority. But if this is true, they are certainly in a minority. Most of the bishops whom I know are vitally concerned about their priests and people. They spend most of their time and energy serving them. There may, of course, at times be some questions as to how a bishop can best serve his priests and people. But as far as intent is concerned, in my opinion, the bishops would rate higher.

Some have criticized the recent collective pastoral as concentrating too much on the hierarchy. There may be some validity to that criticism. But I think generally the pastoral was needed to clear the air regarding certain matters. Now that that has been done, we must go on to speak to other vital issues which are demanding our attention. I am confident that this will be done.

Is this question in reference to the Bishop’s over-concern for the Catholic community and under-concern for the community at large.

I think that in the past we were too concerned about the Catholic community. While we were certainly sensitive to the needs of others, most of our efforts were spent taking care of the needs of our own. The Church, of course, was not the only institution that had this mentality. Even nations were affected by it.

There has been a marked shift in this attitude within the Church in recent years. The Council has been responsible for this to a large extent. Recent encyclicals like Paecm in Terris and Populorum Progressio have also been instrumental in changing our orientation. This change is becoming more and more evident in the many practical Church-sponsored programs designed to meet the needs of people whether they are Catholic or not. Having said this, however, I hasten to add that we have only begun to scratch the surface. Much more needs to be done.

What priorities do I see in my work (or job) as Secretary General?

I won’t be able to answer this question fully until I have worked with the U.S.C.C. for awhile and gotten my feet on the ground.

However, there are two areas certainly which should have a high priority:

The Conference, in my opinion, needs to involve many more people in its work. While the bishops are directly and primarily responsible for the U.S.C.C., if it is truly to be a vital force in the American Church, it must involve every segment of the Church in its planning and in the execution of its plans. Otherwise, it will function in a vacuum and could well be out of touch with the real problems of today. It is my understanding that provisions will be made for an increased degree of non-episcopal involvement in the reorganization of the U.S.C.C.

The Conference must find new ways for the Church to help resolve the many social problems which exist today. If our religion is to be credible then it must address itself to the urgent needs of the entire community. It’s not enough to make statements or to issue pastorals. We must come up with specific programs and we must be willing to fund these programs. And this will undoubtedly require that we re-evaluate many of our present commitments; that we take a hard look at our resources to see how they can be used to best advantage. This will not always be easy. In many cases, it will require a change of mind and heart. But it must be done.

What is my hope for further lay influence in the Conference?

It is absolutely necessary - provision is being made for it.

What is the future of lay professionals?

They will be used more and more. We can’t accomplish the mission of the Church unless everyone plays his proper role. This means that more and more positions must be assumed by competent, well-trained laymen. In the past, bishops and priests played many roles which were not properly theirs. While this may have been necessary at the time, surely it is not now.

In this day of increased freedom, emphasis on grassroots initiative, etc., should there be a further centralization of the bishops authority in the U.S.C.C?

The reorganization of the U.S.C.C. (and whatever further centralization of authority it may entail) is surely not designed (intended) to stifle local initiative or responsibility. Quite the contrary, one of the purposes of the reorganization is to make it possible for the Conference to give better service to the dioceses so that they can develop and expand their programs and activities more effectively. By providing these services and by coordinating local efforts and pooling resources where necessary or feasible, the Church will be able to make a much greater impact on society.

What is your view regarding the pace of renewal?

Generally, I have been satisfied. I feel that we have move ahead considerably. However, I must admit that at times it has been spotty. There is some evidence too that the renewal generally has lost some of its momentum. It would be a mistake to slacken our efforts now. We still have a long way to go before the renewal as envisioned by Vatican II is completed (if it ever can be). For bishops especially to lose their enthusiasm now would be tantamount to abdicating their position of leadership, to turning over the reins of renewal to those who may not be properly equipped for the task.

Should the conference be more aggressive in its relationship with Rome?

I would prefer not to use the term aggressive. Let us say that the conference has the duty of presenting the needs of the church in the United States to the Holy See in the most open and persuasive manner possible.

When this is done I am confident that Rome’s response will be good. However, the presenting of these needs cannot be done until we form ourselves as a national unit - with a solidarity and a true understanding of our goals. There may be times when further dialogue between the Holy See and the Conference will be necessary before a problem can be resolved. But this is to be expected as long as the Church is on pilgrimage on this earth.

Do I agree with Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan (in reference to the liturgy) that if Rome says ‘no’ we should keep going until the answer is ‘yes.’

I would not hesitate to go back when I feel there has been some misunderstanding or when there is evidence that all of the facts may not have been presented. Beyond that, further factors would have to be taken into consideration before deciding whether to make another appeal.

What possible action may the Church or Conference take to meet the urban crisis this summer?

We have been informed that the Social Action Department is to make a report with recommendations to the general meeting in St. Louis. I have not seen that report so I don’t know what’s in it.

But I would think that the following could well be considered in any program. (I would like to see them part of our program.) I would certainly expect things to be included as general recommendations: -- more emphasis on inter-religious cooperation,

-- strengthening of agencies and programs we now have before creating new ones,

-- coordination on a national level of the many efforts now being made locally,

-- educational program aimed at combating racism which exists in many segments of the community,

-- action programs putting our institutions, especially hospitals and schools, to better use in the community service programs. Making sure that our economic power, especially our investments, is not used to perpetuate discrimination, for example, Project Equality. Using the influence of our laity to pass open-housing legislation. Programs designed to enlist the support of our laity on behalf of civil rights legislation, especially open-housing legislation.

What are the possibilities of resolving regional and local difficulties, for example, Cardinal McIntyre and the Immaculate Heart of Mary nuns?

I think there is a great need for having some machinery to set up an arbitration board of some kind to resolve disputes which might arise within a diocese or region. While the decisions of such a board might not be binding unless the parties mutually agreed to it, they could be very helpful in settling a dispute simply by introducing objectivity which might otherwise be lacking. Because of an increased sense of solidarity and rapid communications often have much wider repercussions. It is for this reason that it would be to the advantage of everyone to have some type of arbitration available when the need arises.

What are your views on celibacy and laicization?

I am personally convinced of the value of celibacy for a priest. I accept the reasoning of Pope Paul in favor of celibacy as expressed in the encyclical which was published last year. I am not opposed, however, to further study being given to the matter if it is done in the proper way. The bishops of the United States, for example, have authorized a study on the ministry and life of the priest. Its purpose is to define the role and meaning of the contemporary priesthood. All aspects of priestly life will be considered, including celibacy.

I am concerned, of course, about the priests who have decided that they can no longer live with this commitment. It would be well, I think, to establish a better procedure than we have now to restore these men to the sacramental life of the Church.

What are the challenges and opportunities of your new position as secretary general?

I consider this position one of the greatest challenges I have ever faced. While I personally am inclined more toward pastoral than administrative work, I see a vital need for the work of the Conference - a work that is directly related to our pastoral ministry. It is for this reason that I gladly accept this challenge which has been given to me.

First of all, the Conference is the agency through which the bishops of the United States can give practical expression to their collegiality, to their concern for the entire Church in this country. Without the Conference, the Church would easily become fragmented and her work would be less effective. Through the Conference, too, our bishops can establish an effective liaison with the conferences of other countries and regions.

The Conference can provide valuable services for the dioceses. Most often an individual diocese is ill equipped to do the research and planning to make the contacts and to tap the resources needed for constructive programs. By working collectively, by pooling and coordinating our efforts and resources, we can eliminate many duplications and accomplish more than would be the case if each diocese acted independently.

Through the resources and the talents available to the Conference, there is no limit to the imaginative and constructive programs which can be developed - programs which help bring the Church into the mainstream of our contemporary society, with all its problems and with all its hopes and aspirations.