The Catholic Common Ground Initiative

The Catholic Common Ground Initiative was inaugurated by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin with the release of a statement, Called to Be Catholic: Church in a Time of Peril, on August 12, 1996. It originated in a concern that unnecessarily polarizing differences among church leaders and members hinder efforts to build the church community and to carry out its mission. The statement proposes working principles for dialogue within the church and expresses the conviction that such an effort will transform those who engage in it as well as strengthen the church for its mission in the new millennium. The ongoing work of the Catholic Common Ground Initiative represents both a call to renewed dialogue within the church and an effort to undertake and exemplify that kind of dialogue. The Initiative is guided by a thirty-six member committee chaired by Most Reverend Daniel E. Pilarczyk, Archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Principles of Dialogue

• 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.