Church needs renewed Petrine
ministry By BERNARD
HÄRING
This is the second of 11 articles exploring the future of the
papacy. The essays, edited by Gary MacEoin, will be expanded and published as a
book, The Papacy and the People of God, by Orbis Books, in the near
future. This essay was translated from the German by Fr. Francis X.
Murphy.
A sudden hope filled me as I watched in 1978 while John Paul II
was being installed as pope. After the oft-quoted, You are Peter, and on
this rock I will build my church, I heard the warning, Get behind
me, Satan. You are a scandal. Will this papacy, I asked myself, initiate
a truly biblical and ecumenical renewal of the Petrine ministry?
The past two decades, however, have disillusioned me. An
increasingly uncompromising Vatican centralism, together with punitive control
mechanisms, have dashed my expectation. We must still hope, nevertheless, that
John Paul will go down in history for his courageous encyclical Ut Unum Sint
(That They May Be One), a prophetic sign, an invitation to all
Christians to join in a search for a universally acceptable Petrine
ministry.
I have intentionally said Petrine ministry rather than papacy.
Overtones associated with the latter word unfortunately inhibit authentic
attempts at dialogue.
Motivated by Vatican Council IIs ecumenical advances, many
Catholics entertain an ardent desire for a Petrine ministry in keeping with the
gospel, the primitive church and the signs of the times. The many Christians
represented by the World Council of Churches, a body that has removed all major
obstacles to Christian unity, share that desire.
Vatican II, supported by John XXIII and Paul VI, called for
elimination of more than minor defects. We need a conversion and structural
changes in the papal office to return us to the biblical beginnings and the
historical experiences of the first Christian centuries.
Peters ministry
The New Testaments astonishingly meaningful picture of the
person of Peter and his original activities help us understand his specific
ministry. That Jesus entrusted him with a specific ministry is beyond doubt.
Peter shows himself as spontaneous. He possesses initiative and goes directly
to Jesus, his master, on occasions that were decisive for the working of the
Spirit. Still, his betrayal, resulting from a false, all-too-earthly
misunderstanding of the Messiah, is shocking. Jesus qualified it as a
Satanic scandal.
Seeing through Peters appalling lack of understanding,
however, Jesus promises him a fundamental conversion. The Acts of the Apostles
(1:15-26), for example, depicts Peters role in electing a replacement for
Judas Iscariot. Having announced that the symbolic number Twelve has to be
restored, he leaves the search to the whole community. And when two acceptable
candidates are identified, instead of hazarding his authority, he gladly has
the issue decided by drawing lots.
Peter and the primitive church were not shocked when Paul
opposed him to his face on an important question, since Peter was
at fault (Galatians 2:11). At the so-called Council of Jerusalem in 51 A.D.,
Peter plays an enabling role but again without exercising decisive authority.
Earlier he had opened a new perspective by baptizing the pagan Cornelius and
his whole family (Acts 10:2). Nevertheless, this does not give the impression
that Paul had taken precedence because of his pioneering activity.
The bishop of Rome performed a special function from the beginning
-- not, however, as successor of Peter but because both Peter and Paul had
preached the gospel and given witness with their martyrdom in Rome. He clearly
exhibited a responsibility for the entire church, as did the patriarchs of
Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.
Worldly trappings
The church is neither a monarchy nor an oligarchy. It is, as
Vatican II declares, the pilgrim people of God, exemplary through
its intimate relationships, its history, its ability to dialogue with
confidence in the workings of the divine Spirit in all and through
all, and always in full view of all.
Since Constantine, however, the church has gradually taken on
monarchical -- even at times absolutistic -- structures, worldly trappings,
triumphalistic pomp and ridiculous titles of honor. Equally harmful to her
image has been the tendency to sacralize these propensities. The church that so
convincingly calls for conversion of the individual must recognize that she
herself needs an in-depth renovation of structures, forms of address and
mindsets, in a word, an authentic conversion.
Over the last century this church has created a sound social ethic
and the basic principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. Current structure and
practices, nevertheless, involve activities that progressively contradict these
principles. Everything in government and teaching comes from the top down, from
above to below, with singular tendencies to monopolistic power. The church even
claims a monopoly of the truth and an all-embracing method of interior
control.
At Vatican II, the church had declared herself explicitly of a
synodal or collegial structure. Yet the Roman Synods of Bishops, being limited
to an advisory role, have had almost no influence. Their majority decisions are
treated as simply nonbinding. The 1980 synod, for example, decided almost
unanimously that the Roman Catholic church could, in its pastoral care of the
divorced and remarried, follow the example of the oikonomia or practice of the
Orthodox churches. [The Orthodox churches permit the innocent party to remarry;
in pastoral practice, both parties may be considered innocent.] The record of
the synods decision, as set out in the encyclical Familiaris Consortio
was more than surprising. There the pope decided -- without explanation or
advice -- that the divorced and remarried could not under any circumstances
receive the sacraments without a declaration of nullity.
Vatican I had placed clear limitations on papal infallibility.
Without the explicit inclusion of these limitations the constitution Pastor
Aeternus -- on papal infallibility -- could not have won the necessary
votes.
Pope John Pauls declaration that women cannot be ordained as
priests was at first labeled definitive, then upgraded by the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith to infallible. It is evident, however, to the
countless dissenting men and women theologians and many bishops, that the means
provided by divine providence to ensure the entire Churchs participation
were not employed before the papal declaration . We need no change in the dogma
of infallibility, merely its authentic interpretation. Only thus will it be
clear that the papal magisterium is fully joined in solidarity with the
churchs worldwide faith community.
What Vatican I taught on the primacy of papal jurisdiction is
still in effect; and it is bound in with the notion of collegiality in all
phases of the churchs being. This was a singular concern of Vatican
II.
The papacy, nevertheless, remains a serious obstacle, one that can
be overcome only by a new praxis that observes the principle of subsidiarity.
No explanations of papal rule can overcome this obstacle to unity as long as
such practices as Romes naming and deposing of bishops are continued.
In the churchs early centuries no one thought that the
bishop of Rome should name other bishops. Even today no such idea -- let alone
practice -- exists in any of the principal patriarchates of the East.
Centralized bishop-naming and its accompanying system of central control is a
carryover from an era of political centralism and authoritarianism. In
todays democratic culture that recognizes the principle of subsidiarity
for the whole secular world (including the papacy), this system constitutes a
serious case of historical alienation.
John Paul II applies a simple criterion in naming bishops and in
the rigid control of men theologians (and even more of women theologians): a
strict conformity with his interpretations on contraception, the pastoral care
of the divorced and remarried, and the irrevocable exclusion of women from
priestly ordination.
For selecting bishops, the starting point should be the practice
of the first thousand years. One single process or pattern is not needed for
the entire church. Bishops conferences can now fulfill the function of
the ancient patriarchates, setting the rules not only for naming bishops but
for such activities as certifying theology professors. Canon Law for the entire
church can and should be less rigid. Synodal structures must be strengthened
and be seen to function everywhere, thus assuming different forms in various
cultural situations. Watchfulness and responsibility must replace the
centralized control system.
More than a symbol
Peters successor is more than a mere symbol of unity. His
office is a positive service to the unity of all Christians. Because of the
collegial nature of the office, we cannot go back to the election of the bishop
of Rome by the Roman clergy along with the Roman people and neighboring
bishops. Electing a pope is a universal church activity of the highest
importance.
The process has a rich history with light and dark sides. The
circle of electors was gradually widened, but it was not until Nicholas II
(1059) and Alexander III (1179) that the cardinals became the sole electors, a
process that developed by analogy to and in imitation of the monarchical
heredity principle. The cardinals, then few in number, were considered the
sons of the pope, who thus created a dynasty by naming a small
circle of heirs.
The history of the predominance of the cardinals -- as well as
relatives and so-called celibate sons -- in selecting the pope
includes periods that were utterly shocking, the atmosphere of the gospel
hardly recognizable.
Given the popes fundamental role as bishop of Rome, it would
be appropriate that the Eastern churches and the traditional metropolitan
churches in communion with Rome be invited to make specific suggestions for
future elections, and also contribute some of the electors.
The presidents of the worldwide conferences of bishops should
likewise participate in the churchs selection of a new pastor, as should
outstanding men and women. That women be included seems to me an unavoidable
advance on the realization of the Petrine ministry for the entire people of
God, in view of the updating of the church in keeping with the signs of the
times.
Given the universal desire for Christian unity, the Petrine
ministry is more important today than ever before. For the sake of its
gospel-oriented form, the Petrine ministry must be fundamentally simpler than
the tradition-burdened papacy. Its qualifications should not go beyond the
talents of a well-endowed individual.
This ministry must be completely freed of historically foreign
accretions, from secular decorations and ridiculous pomp. Titles such as
your Holiness belong to the past. How grotesque it is for the pope
to name prelates of honor to His Holiness! Everything
about such titles is false. The word prelate signifies predominance over
others: and the pope calls himself My Holiness! Not only must the
pope not name any more wearers of the purple. He must end the whole
complicated and often ridiculous system of titles of honor and
advancements.
The sophisticated system of rewards and punishments in the papal
service has endangered the purity of motives. The future pope must renounce his
role as a political leader among world rulers, an action that will eliminate
the entire system of nunciatures. The witness of the gospel will be stronger
when pope and bishops refrain explicitly from political involvements. Liaison
of local churches with the papacy will then be maintained by the bishops
conferences, which will send representatives to the Apostolic See. Channels of
information will inevitably be more open and free of political
interference.
Many people believe that the Catholic church, in view of its
ecumenical commitment, should courageously reconsider the two dogmas defined by
Vatican Council I, namely infallibility and papal primacy. In my considered
opinion, this is not necessary. It would suffice -- and be universally useful
-- if the entire church and in particular the pope realistically recognized the
principle of subsidiarity. The popes authority could then be reserved for
the most pressing emergencies, retaining its validity without any suspicion of
a desire for power or predominance.
Regarding infallibility, I have already compared this dogma to a
safety net put together by Vatican Council I in its final hours with its
dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus.
Vatican II insisted emphatically that the Petrine ministry and the
papal magisterium are linked indissolubly to the belief of the entire people of
God. This linkage includes the collegial activity and teaching of the whole
college of bishops with the pope as its head.
In consequence of the many outspoken personal positions I have
taken, I believe I should make myself perfectly clear. A radically renewed
Petrine ministry means much more for the entire church and for the
re-establishment of Christian unity than a tradition-bound papacy.
Fr. Bernard Häring, now in retirement in the Redemptorist
monastery in Gars, Germany, has been called the most significant figure
in Catholic moral theology in the second half of the 20th century. The
author of numerous books, he continues to speak out and publish on topics of
concern.
National Catholic Reporter, October 17,
1997
|