Cardinal Robert W. McElroy, 68, received the red hat from Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Basilica on Aug. 27 and took part within the two-day meeting of 197 cardinals, patriarchs and senior officials of the Secretariat of State from Aug. 29 to 30.
The cardinal, who was appointed auxiliary bishop of San Francisco, town where he was born, by Pope Benedict XVI in July 2010 and bishop of San Diego by Pope Francis in March 2015, gave this exclusive interview to America’s Vatican correspondent in Rome on Aug. 31, the tenth anniversary of the death of the Italian cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, S.J.
Within the interview, the cardinal, whom many see because the American analog of Cardinal Martini, shared transient reflections on being made a cardinal after which spoke at length in regards to the two-day meeting of cardinals that Pope Francis had tasked with discussing “Predicate Evangelium,” the structure for the reform of the Roman Curia that he promulgated on March 19 and that got here into force on June 5.
The cardinal whom many see because the American analog of Cardinal Martini spoke at length in regards to the meeting of cardinals that Pope Francis had tasked with discussing “Predicate Evangelium.”
He shared his reflections and insights on the discussion that took place behind closed doors in plenary sessions and in 12 language groups. Each group appointed a moderator and rapporteur who reported to the plenary sessions.
Cardinal McElroy said the cardinals focused totally on 4 fundamental themes of their discussion of the brand new structure, which has evangelization as its top priority: the separation of the facility of governance from that of holy orders (and so lay people being given senior positions within the Roman Curia); the query of synodal and hierarchical church; the difficulty of Vatican funds and the reforms on this field; the necessity to construct a culture that ensures the protection of minors and adults from sexual abuse and harassment within the church. He said in addition they discussed the Holy 12 months 2025 within the meeting’s final session.
The interview is presented in two parts. The transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Part I
You’ve been created a cardinal. What’s the deepest memory that you just take away from this necessary moment of your life and from the consistory?
I’d say two things. One is that I used to be graced to have many individuals from my life present for the consistory: my family, people I went to high school with, people within the parishes that I had worked with who’ve turn out to be great friends over time, priests and coworkers from the Diocese of San Diego. And so it was, in a way, a recapitulation of my life and all the moments in my life coming together at that moment as I used to be made a cardinal.
Pope Francis had a distinct, specific message to provide to us; it was of encouragement and challenge for the longer term.
The second memory I’d say that was really emblazoned on me at that moment was how Pope Francis gave to every of the candidates a really personal word of encouragement and thanksgiving and exhortation, as we knelt before him to receive the ring and the red hat and the title of the church. He had a distinct, specific message to provide to us; it was of encouragement and challenge for the longer term.
Could you summarize what that non-public message was for you?
He asked me to proceed to provide witness within the lifetime of the church in the US on necessary issues which can be there and that shall be coming. That was on the core of it. Although what happened was that after I began to get up, he said to me, “How is your heart?” because I had heart surgery in November, and he knew that and had prayed for me. I used to be type of surprised at that. So I stumbled a bit bit, and I said, “My heart is ideal, but my knees aren’t so good.” And he said, “Neither are mine!”
How do you see your role as cardinal, aside from having to vote in a conclave?
I see two additional elements which can be key. One is to offer a supportive, collaborative assistance to the Holy Father in his work within the church and in addressing the problems that the church faces in every country of the world, particularly that of forging unity.
And secondly, this involves me particularly as a cardinal in the US. I’m very American in habits, tastes and attitudes, and I understand how a lot of us in the US are likely to look on reality through an American lens. So I believe one in every of the roles of the cardinals is to attempt to orient the considering of individuals in any respect levels of the church in the US toward the fact that we’re a part of a world community of religion and of a world society.
I began to get up, and the pope said to me, “How is your heart?” because I had heart surgery in November, and he knew that and had prayed for me.
You attended the two-day meeting of cardinals, at which the pope was present, that involved plenary sessions and discussion within the small language groups. What’s your fundamental takeaway from that gathering?
The very first thing for me was the small groups’ sharing—this was incredibly necessary, partly because we were in groups of about 15. So that you get to know the opposite cardinals differently in those kinds of conversations. Second, a lot of our conversations focused on the several situations that the local churches are in internationally, and the way they face these questions of reform and synodality within the situations which they confront, which vary quite a bit.
What in regards to the plenary sessions?
As for the plenary sessions, there was tremendous openness, and that was since the pope had exhorted all of the participants to say what was on their mind, and so they did so on various issues throughout the two days of meetings. And that was a crucial thing, partly because this form of meeting hadn’t occurred for a few years, and so all of the participants were attempting to determine what role this form of meeting should play within the lifetime of the church and in helping the Holy Father, and in helping the church particularly in the combination of “Predicate Evangelium” within the lifetime of the church, not only here in Rome but throughout the larger church world wide.
I believe there ought to be more of those kinds of meetings. It was a helpful, productive coming together, not only to learn more about each other but in addition to reflect upon necessary issues globally and what challenges the local churches are facing.
I understand that the small groups reported to the plenary sessions. Could people also make interventions within the plenary sessions and lift questions?
Yes. They usually did.
What particularly struck you in regards to the questions?
Well, there have been a few themes. One is that some raised the difficulty in regards to the proclamation of “Predicate Evangelium” that lay people may very well be heads of dicasteries; there have been some who challenged that.
I believe what happened each in our small group and within the larger plenary session was that almost all people got here out and said “Predicate Evangelium” is a document that lays out the vision and the framework for the reform of the Curia. They saw that the combination of that document into the lifetime of the local church goes to happen over time, and the specification of some elements of it’s going to happen over time.
There was a general feeling that certain dicasteries should consistently have bishops at their head—for instance, the Dicastery for Bishops—but there have been many others that needn’t.
I believe there was a general feeling that certain dicasteries should consistently have bishops at their head—for instance, the Dicastery for Bishops, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Dicastery for Clergy—but there have been many others that needn’t. And so the considering was that hopefully the pope goes to specify that because the document unfolds and is implemented.
Could one say that this meeting of cardinals will end in a “tweaking” of the structure?
I wouldn’t even say that. No, it isn’t a tweaking of what it’s but somewhat of the implementation of the structure. It will be helpful to know because the implementation is happening how this differentiation is being made: of some offices where it is sensible to have lay people and of some offices where it makes more sense to all the time have a bishop at its head. What are those offices?
I believe the really necessary way of the query is that this: The document has been promulgated. It’s there. It’s a superb document, and I believe it operates in two ways. One is as an orientation of the Roman Curia as to what its mission is and the way it should perform that mission. And that mission is supposed to be one in every of service, not merely to the pope but to the local churches also.
The notion of starting with the hierarchical nature of the church to me risks a retreat to the vision of the church that sees it initially as an ideal society somewhat than the pilgrim people of God.
Secondly, there’s a dynamism to the mission of the Curia because it’s envisioned on this document: The notion of missionary discipleship may be very much present within the discussion of the role of the Curia. It isn’t meant to be maintenance or stasis. It is supposed to be the involvement of the Curia and of the entire church, after all, within the expansion of the work of preaching the Gospel of Christ and the kerygma and bringing people closer to the Lord and to the church. So I believe that’s the foundational set of principles. That’s an important contribution of this document. It’s a reorientation of the Roman Curia—not that there weren’t elements of this stuff there and all the time have been—but to emphasise that.
There was very significant support for the prioritization of [the Dicastery of] evangelization, even over the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith. Some objected to it, however the overwhelming majority of those present were in favor of it. And there was plenty of support for the position of the Dicastery for the Service of Charity right near the highest, too. I might say that this was particularly true among the many African, Asian and Latin American bishops; they saw the importance of charity as a pathway for evangelization for the church.
I understand from my conversations with other cardinals that some participants were either uneasy or disagreed with the emphasis on the synodal church and seemed to be more attached to the concept of hierarchical church. Did this surface within the discussions?
Yes, it got here out within the small group discussions, nevertheless it didn’t appear to me that that sentiment was predominant in any one in every of the small groups. It was noted within the reports from the groups, nevertheless it was not noted because the dominant feeling.
Nobody, or not less than no one which I heard speaking, is against an affirmation, a vigorous affirmation of the hierarchical nature of the church.
There have been numerous interventions on this query within the plenary session, and I used to be puzzled partially by this. I used to be not puzzled by the query of the hierarchical nature of the church and the need to see that affirmed. That is sensible to me. But I used to be partly puzzled due to theology of synodality because it has been consistently proposed by Pope Francis in his statements, by all the documents which have come from the synodal office in preparation for the synod and by the international theological commission: In every one in every of those there may be a really significant affirmation of the hierarchical nature of the church. So the theology of synodality affirms the hierarchical nature of the church. It doesn’t begin with that idea; it begins with the concept of synodality. But it surely is actually present there; it’s embedded there and positively affirmed explicitly.
I even have to say the notion of starting with the hierarchical nature of the church, somewhat than with a synodal concept or something near synodality, to me risks a retreat to the vision of the church that sees it initially as an ideal society somewhat than the pilgrim people of God. I believe that’s the issue with the critique of synodality because it’s been presented.
So that you see this critique as a departure from the Second Vatican Council?
Yes! And again nobody, or not less than no one which I heard speaking, is against an affirmation, a vigorous affirmation of the hierarchical nature of the church. The theology of synodality is doing that, nevertheless it doesn’t begin with that; that’s not the place to begin however the reflection of synodal theology.
In your view, due to this fact, there was widespread support on the meeting for the synodal approach?
Absolutely!