Inflated papacy is stumbling block to
unity
By ALAIN
WOODROW
The papal role has grown over time, concentrating ever more power
in one man and his court -- the curia.
The sole gospel text to use the word church is Matthew
16:18. For many scripture scholars, this text means that Peters primacy
is one of service, not of jurisdiction. And nothing in the New Testament
indicates that Peter was to have a successor. The early church was a loose
federation of episcopal churches. Rome, together with Antioch, Alexandria and
Jerusalem, gradually became a reference in matters of faith.
Polycarp, second century bishop of Smyrna, and his disciple
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, attest to the growing role of the Petrine church as
arbiter in matters of doctrine, at least for the Western church. But the
question is, Whom to believe? not Whom to obey?
Bishops retained their independence. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage
(250), was unequivocal: There is no bishop of bishops. When
Constantine moved to Byzantium (Constantinople), the pope remained in Rome as
Patriarch of the West. As temporal leader of the imperial capital,
he began to legislate, publishing decretals with the force of law.
The West became papalist while the East remained
conciliar. The gradual decline -- and fall in 476 -- of the Roman
Empire freed the pope from the emperors jurisdiction and consolidated his
power.
Leo I (440-61) expounded a theory that would develop in later
centuries: As vicar of Peter, the pope has charge of the universal
church, governing it as the emperors governed the empire. Gelasius I (492-96)
went further. The apostolic see, while subject to no human
tribunal, can judge each local church. This view, understandably, was rejected
by the Eastern church, for whom the pope is simply the first among
patriarchs.
The Great Western Schism (1378-1447), with as many as three rival
popes, led to the theory that sovereignty resides in general councils convoked
regularly, not in the pope alone. The Councils of Constance (1414-18) and Basel
(1431-48) defined this quite clearly. But the reunified papacy (1417) soon
re-established its power over the council.
It was in this context that Luther and the other great Protestant
reformers attacked the papacy. To counter Luthers teaching on the
universal priesthood of all Christians, the Council of Trent (1545-63)
reaffirmed the masculine, celibate priesthood and began a profound Counter
Reformation. But the religious wars, the rise of Jansenism and Gallicanism, and
the Aufkl rung (Age of Enlightenment), with its insistence on the
primacy of conscience over authority, all gravely weakened the papacy.
Pius VI (1791) and all his successors until Leo XIII condemned the
French Revolution, freedom of opinion, the Enlightenment and all forms of
democracy, whether in church or state. Pius IX listed the 80 principal
errors of our time in his famous Syllabus of Errors (1864).
Vatican Council I (1869-70) is crucial to the present prestige and
power of the Vatican. The liberal minority criticized the document De Romano
Pontifice for defining the popes jurisdiction as ordinary and
immediate. It wanted to link his infallibility more closely with that of
the church.
After a relative liberalization by Leo XIII (1878-1903), Pius X
turned the clock back with his war against Modernism, the mother of all
heresies. A far-reaching witch hunt had a disastrous effect on Catholic
scholarship, and led to the muzzling of some of the churchs finest minds
(Alfred Loisy, George Tyrrell, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Yves
Congar).
Pius XI attacked communism in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris
and Nazism in Mit Brennender Sorge, both in 1937. He opposed birth
control (just after the Anglican Lambeth Conference had given a cautious green
light) and womens emancipation, but he also created Catholic Action to
encourage more active lay participation in church life.
Pius XII, elected on the eve of World War II, remains the subject
of controversy for his public silence about the Holocaust. Within the church he
was far from silent, issuing statements, speeches and encyclicals on every
possible topic. In 1943 he lifted the ban on modern historical and critical
methods in scriptural exegesis. But his encyclical Humani Generis
(1950), directed against the new theology in France -- especially
the writings of Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin -- put the brake on
creative thinking. Politically more anticommunist than antifascist, he
condemned communism as intrinsically perverse, but signed a
concordat with Francos fascist regime (1953).
John XXIIIs election (1958) marked a watershed. His inspired
decision to convene the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) -- against the advice
of the prophets of doom -- provided a refreshing wind of change,
opening the churchs windows onto the contemporary world.
The largest council in the churchs history, the 2,640 voting
participants soon divided into an open-minded majority and a conservative
minority. The councils major challenge was to restore the balance between
the pope and the rest of the church. Overturning the schema on the church by
putting the laity (the people of God) before the hierarchy was a
first victory. But the third chapter, on the collegiality of the bishops,
attempted -- in vain -- to counteract the excessive power given the pope by
Vatican Is definition of his infallibility and primacy.
In spite of his intelligence and broadly progressive mindset, Paul
VI vacillated, removed certain controversial subjects from the councils
agenda (such as clerical celibacy) and finally weakened the reforming thrust of
the council under the pressure of 200 or 300 reactionary bishops closed to all
change.
His greatest failure was over collegiality, preferring
affective collegiality to an authentic episcopal force that might
threaten papal prerogative. Vatican I remained the norm for papal primacy, as
John Paul II was soon to prove.
John Paul IIs election (1978) brought the conciliar era to
an abrupt end. The first non-Italian pope since 1522, the charismatic and
vigorous Karol Wojtyla has achieved a general restoration in the
church, notwithstanding continual lip service to the council. He has appointed
numerous conservative bishops, often against the express wishes of the local
churches, and he has adopted a hard line on sexual ethics.
His theological vision of the pope as an absolute monarch is both
contrary to the gospel and impossible to put into practice. Contrary to the
gospel, because it leads to an excessively centralized, bureaucratic church
that tries to control every aspect of Christian life from a narrow European --
and even Roman -- viewpoint.
Born in the Middle East, the gospel is increasingly imprisoned in
the narrow confines of a Western, Latin vision of the world (deprived of the
oriental contribution to Christianity since the schism between East and West in
1054) and the juridical straitjacket of Roman canon law.
Impossible to put into practice, because a single man cannot run a
worldwide church of 976 million people and, as in all autocratic, nondemocratic
institutions, the popes administration is tempted to speak in his name --
often without his knowledge.
Thus the fiction of papal documents (usually drawn up
by committees) and papal condemnations (often instigated by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which accuses theologians without
due process). The older a pope gets (and he is elected for life),
the less he can personally oversee the running of the church.
John Paul II consults widely but decides alone, often in
contradiction to the advice given. In Spain, for example, he ignored the
episcopal conferences criticism of the controversial Opus Dei and changed
its status from secular institute to personal prelature. In Italy, he
encouraged the politically right-wing Communione e Liberazione, in spite of the
warning issued by the Italian hierarchy. Furthermore, the synod of world
bishops held regularly in Rome has become a mere rubber stamp for the
popes views.
He rejects the anti-triumphalist, democratic, pluralist and
tolerant approach rediscovered by the council and much closer to the teaching
of Jesus of Nazareth, who came to serve, not to be served. But he is swimming
against the tide. In spite of ambiguities, the council promoted a certain
number of ideas -- such as the pre-eminence of conscience, religious freedom,
the truth found in non-Catholic and non-Christian religions -- that have
steadily undermined the fortress erected by the Council of Trent.
No going back
For many Catholics, especially those born since Vatican II, there
is no going back. They do not hear John Paul IIs doctrinal message. If
the faithful still turn out in vast numbers to cheer the pope on
his travels, it is to applaud the charismatic figure, the hero who helped
demolish the Iron Curtain and braved the assassins bullet, not his
retrograde message. The crowds admire the singer, not the song.
John Paul IIs prohibition of clerical engagement in politics
(that is, left-wing politics) does not apply to himself. His constant voyages
have been criticized for their cost (usually borne by the country receiving
him, including non-Catholic taxpayers), for their triumphalist trappings (open
air rallies, the parading of the pope in a bulletproof popemobile, excessive TV
coverage) and for their one-man shows (the pope, omnipresent, is the only one
to speak, to warn, to admonish, rarely to learn and listen), but their purpose
is primarily political.
This inflated papal persona is also a serious stumbling block to
Christian unity. The image of the pope as supreme authority in matters of
doctrine and discipline, a media superstar who occupies all
functions and settles all disputes, religious or secular, private or political,
is hardly one to reassure Orthodox and Protestant Christians. Many would accept
the spiritual role of the bishop of Rome as symbol of unity, but certainly not
as absolute and infallible monarch leading a disciplined army.
I would argue for a return to early church practice, a pope
accepted by his brother bishops as primus inter pares, first among
equals. As bishop of Rome, he was a role model and final arbiter in doctrinal
disputes. As servant of the servants of God he fulfilled a humble
service rather than a magisterial role. The church is not a worldwide
multinational organization with the pope as its director, but a communion of
individual churches, each governed by its bishop, successor of the apostles:
Ubi episcopus, ibi Ecclesia (where there is a bishop, there is the
church).
The pope is first and foremost the center of unity of the church.
To be Catholic (as an individual, a bishop or a church) one must be in
communion with the bishop of Rome.
There are several ways of overturning the top-heavy, hierarchical
pyramid. First, implementing the principle of subsidiarity (a higher authority
should never accomplish what a lower echelon is capable of doing). Second,
accepting more democracy (the local election of bishops by priests and
faithful, legislative authority restored to local and general synods, a greater
role for the laity in the parish, women in all ministries, and so on). Third,
promoting the inculturation of the gospel (allowing local liturgical rites, the
development of non-Roman theologies, respect for the diversity of cultural
traditions). And fourth, greater delegation of authority (allowing the laity,
deacons and catechists to hold services and administer the sacraments in the
absence of priests; entrusting more pastoral work to religious -- especially
nuns).
The next pope, I believe, should convoke a synod of the
worlds principal archbishops to examine two priorities: to define the
respective roles and authority of pope and curia and pope and synod; and to
rescind the canon on papal appointment of bishops. The papacy is ready for a
new metamorphosis. After pagan pontifex maximus, Renaissance
prince and modern CEO, why not try the gospels job
description? A dispute also arose between them about which should be
reckoned the greatest, but he said to them: Among pagans it is the kings
who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the
title of benefactor. This must not happen with you. No; the greatest among you
must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who
serves. For who is the greater: the one at table or the one who serves? The one
at table surely? Yet here am I among you as one who serves (Luke
22: 24).
Alain Woodrow, who lives in Paris, is a graduate of Oxford
University. He was an editor of Pax Romana journal (Fribourg,
Switzerland), Informations Catholiques Internationales (Paris) and
religion editor of Le Monde (Paris). He is the author of seven books,
most recently The Jesuits: A Story of Power (London: Geoffrey Chapman).
This is the sixth of 11 articles, edited by Gary MacEoin, that
will be expanded and published as a book, The Papacy and the People of God,
by Orbis Books, in the near future.
National Catholic Reporter, November 14,
1997
|