Dear archbishop George: sit where the people sit and let God happen - new Chicago, Illinois, archbishop

National Catholic Reporter, May 23, 1997 by Tim Unsworth

Dear Archbishop George:

On Aug. 13, 1982, an open letter I had written to the new archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Louis Bernardin, appeared on the front page of NCR. It marked my first effort for this distinguished journal. It was an exciting experience. Now, with your May 7 installation behind us, I thought I'd try a letter to you.

The late cardinal and I didn't always agree. But, as you said during your first news conference, Brother Joseph always seemed to leave room, even on issues about which he could do nothing. You said that you weren't certain that you could find wiggle room on some issues, but that you would listen and attempt to persuade dissenting faithful to accept the church's point of view.

You used the words truth and tradition a lot, as if they were trademarks. I got a little nervous. In the present regulatory climate blowing out of the Vatican, there are no relatives. Everything is absolute. That may be the hardest aspect of today's senior pastors -- that is, their unwillingness to bend their crosier and to recognize ambiguity. There's too much magisterium, not enough ministerium.

One critic suggested that you are a replacement for rather than a successor to Bernardin. But I think that if you'll come and sit where the people sit and just let God happen, things will work out. At least we can all meet at the eucharistic table.

You are going to have to hit Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral sanctuary running. Pickets are already outside your pastoral center, protesting discrimination against Latinos in an evolving parish. An African-American Catholic high school, scheduled for closing in June, is fighting for its life. And, after these are settled, there will be others. The politics of cutback could consume you.

One observer, who, like others, didn't want to talk for attribution, said that you are "brilliant, absolutely brilliant." He also claimed that it's likely you were the intellectual source and author of most of the recent bishops' statements and that you are "exceedingly well-connected to both the hierarchy and the curia." He added that your appointment was conceptually akin to making the late theologian Karl Rahner a bishop.

Other accounts link you politically to Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law and pastorally to Seattle's Archbishop Thomas Murphy. It was reported that you served in a think tank near Boston, called the Center for Faith and Culture, founded by the Harvard-educated Cardinal Law. Further, I'm told that your present position on the ad hoc Committee to Oversee the Use of the Catechism is tied to the Law connection.

(Incidentally, that's a silly committee, a perfect example of the paranoid style in church politics. Ultimately, it will do far more harm than good. Resign from it. It lowers your image.)

I understand, however, that you have driven from Portland to Seattle on occasion to counsel with Murphy. During a recent visit to Chicago, Murphy spent at least 20 minutes praising both your style and your promise. That's good news. Murphy is no pallium slapper.

I've learned that, while you were vicar general of your congregation, you were deported from India and, at another time, were tailed by secret police in Eastern Europe. I understand that you have witnessed the desperate poverty in India, Brazil and elsewhere and that you were deeply moved by the experience. That's all to your credit, because Chicago has its own untouchables and its barrios.

In this connection, my friend Marty Hegarty, a close observer of the Chicago church, told me that if you spoke out strongly against poverty and racism, your priests would go to the wall for you.

Your ability to live above your eyebrows will serve you well, especially nationally, where you could replace Bernardin as virtually the only major bishop who is respected by the political community. But you will need to empathize with Catholics in the pew, especially if you are pulling the pew from under them as parishes continue to close.

At the news conference, we were told that you were surrounded by your "staff." But' all I saw was clergy, although they account for less than 8 percent of the 18,876 archdiocesan employees who were being introduced to their new boss. You will need to recognize that the laity must be involved in the conduct of your church. This will mean turning over some authority, and that has been a stumbling block. Power is rarely delegated to the laity.

I've grown weary of hearing that "the parish priest is the man in the trenches." The reality is that, while the number of full-time parish priests here dwindles, the number of priests in core administration, seminaries, special assignments and the like continues to grow. It now amounts to some 23 percent of the active diocesan clergy. One Chicago priest has opined that "the last priest in Chicago will not be a parish priest."

I would suggest that the parish priests be given every priority. Pay them more money. Recognize successful pastoring. Tell the bureaucrats who spend their time checking up on parish priests to get a life. Require all in special work to supply at least a dozen reasons why their work is to be preferred to parish work and another dozen reasons why their work could not be done by a lay person.