Cardinal DiNardo on History, the Church, and Help to Ukraine

Why do we celebrate 1,700 years of the Council of Nicaea? Why is this anniversary so important? We are not marking the anniversaries of the other Ecumenical Councils—all seven of them—so why this one?

First of all, because what it addressed was so essential, and also because it was the first time so many bishops came together—mostly Eastern bishops, but some Western bishops as well—to discuss one of the most crucial matters: the identity of Jesus and His relation within the Holy Trinity. In the talk last night, Deacon John, speaking from the Orthodox perspective, noted that Nicaea represents a key moment in the ongoing continuity of the Church.

From our point of view, the most important issue is the doctrine on Jesus Christ—one in being, one in essence with the Father. But the bishops also discussed the date of Easter. Is there anything more central for Christians than Easter?

Nicaea still lives in us today, if for no other reason than the Creed they formulated—that same Creed we recite every Sunday. People may not realize it, but the beauty, the debates, and the intrigue of that Council are embedded in every word we say on Sunday.

Bishops in Nicaea were fighting over one letter [homoousios or homoiousios]. What would present-day bishops fight about with such intensity?

Today, the debates often involve aspects of the Church’s social teaching, where a variety of viewpoints can lead to intense disputes about how we articulate that teaching. We all agree that the “common good” is central to the Church’s social doctrine. The concept itself is not disputed, but how it is applied in particular situations can be.

For example, debates about immigration are, of course, quieter than Nicaea, but they are significant. Immigration is extremely important. The rights of people to immigrate—for reasons that seem obvious today, such as persecution or the need for food and employment—are clear. But how we deal with immigrants, manage national borders, and implement these issues in practice can be points of disagreement. We agree on the principle of the common good; we do not always agree on its practical application.

So yes, there are issues today that are similar in nature to Nicaea, though not doctrinal in the same theological sense—rather, they concern the doctrine of social teaching.

Can you explain when this shift occurred—when bishops stopped debating major theological issues and began focusing more on social ones?

Doctrinal issues, at least in the United States, have become somewhat obscured. Perhaps we simply do not pay enough attention to their importance. It could also be that there is insufficient formation in patristics and Church history to help us fully understand why these major theological issues are so significant.

Another factor is that as the Church becomes more established within a culture, new questions emerge. We are fortunate to live in a place of freedom. Not all Christians have that privilege. Yet within this culture of freedom, questions arise: Are we attentive to those who cannot fully exercise their freedoms because of immigration status or race? These questions take on greater urgency because the Church seeks the common good for every human being.

The human person is made in the image and likeness of God. This principle is highlighted today in debates about abortion. Every human life is immensely valuable, yet in the United States, a kind of “throwaway culture,” as Pope Francis has called it, exists. We must remain attentive to this culture and consider how we can address it, confront it, and guide it toward life-affirming values.

Archdeacon John Chryssavgis mentioned yesterday that the bishops at Nicaea likely did not understand the historical role they were playing. They probably did not see themselves as the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. You have participated in two conclaves and many assemblies of bishops. Do you think of these gatherings as historical events? Do you ever reflect that, perhaps a thousand years from now, people might look back on them and call you a Father of the two conclaves?

We do not know the future and we live our lives trying to make things as ordered, easy, and common as possible. The conclave is a very sacred time. I think there is no cardinal who attended either conclave who wasn’t impressed by the importance of the work we were doing. But we do not see ourselves as the Fathers of the conclave, because that would sound too vain. We simply do not view ourselves that way. We want to do what the Lord asks of us. It will be for people in the future to look back and say, “Well, they really did pretty well in doing this, even if they didn’t understand everything.” That is how history unfolds.

Were there moments when you thought, 'This is history—what I’m doing feels like living on the pages of a history book?

I think that is truer for the first conclave I participated in than the last one. When the cardinals said that the Holy Spirit had chosen someone from outside Europe—when they picked someone from the Americas, Pope Francis—I think we all recognized that this was going to move the Church in a different direction. Now, indeed, there is no cardinal in the Church who cannot be elected pope. It was once assumed—it was always going to be an Italian, a European. Once those molds are broken, that is historic. And it shows that the Catholic Church is truly a universal Church. It gathers all nations, and that is a beautiful thing.

The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston you led until recently is the largest donor to the Ukrainian Catholic Metropolia in the U.S. Humanitarian Funds. What do you think inspired people to be so moved that they decided to help those so far away?

In one sense, I was happily surprised. But in another sense, I’m not surprised, because the people in my Archdiocese, if you ask them for something, respond incredibly generously. They really do—across so many causes.

Among Catholics in Southeast Texas, almost half are immigrants from South America. They know what it is to live under oppression. So when they read about the horrors happening in Ukraine, our people responded with great generosity and compassion. It was Palm Sunday, and I am happy that they were attentive and responded so well.

Are they still as sensitive to what is happening in Ukraine?

The situation in Ukraine has—unfortunately—become, for many people in the United States, background news. You hear about it all the time, so perhaps it has lost some of its initial impact. Maybe our media do not report as intensely on what is actually happening in Ukraine. I’m retired now, but if I were to go to our people and say that the situation has really worsened or that more help is urgently needed, they would respond.

By Mariana Karapinka