Posted on 04/06/2004 6:06:33 PM PDT by ninenot
LOOKING FORWARD:
An archbishop examines himself & church structures
COMMONWEAL/August 15, 2003
"From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required" (Luke 12: 48). That admonition weighs heavily upon me. My personal failings are now public knowledge. I have apologized to the local church of Milwaukee and to the larger church for my transgressions, and I have begged forgiveness. The thousands of letters, e-mails, and phone calls I have received since stepping down as archbishop of Milwaukee convince me that the church's faithful in the United States remain incredibly strong in their understanding of human frailty, sinfulness, and the need for healing and forgiveness.
Still, I recognize that a credibility problem will arise for many when I attempt to write, as I will here, about the need for reforming church structures. For, as I have acknowledged publicly, I failed not only against chastity but - rather than face public embarrassment - agreed to an out-of-court settlement that was motivated, in part, by a desire to limit the archdiocese's financial liability. That said, I am acutely aware of how these actions have contributed toward erosion of trust in and for the church. I have learned, all too painfully, how valuable new institutional checks on a bishop's control over church resources could be. Financial transparency in the church will benefit everyone - especially bishops.
In writing about the renewal of church structures, I do so in light of these recent experiences and my thirty-nine years as a leader in the church - fourteen as an abbot and twenty-five as an archbishop. How can the church better serve all its members, including bishops? How can it more effectively and honestly project its redeeming message to the contemporary world?
My starting point is that the church's present structures were designed for a different period, before the church became an institution composed of many diverse cultures with their own traditions and insights. The centralized structures of the Roman curia, especially as they have evolved from the mid-nineteenth century, served a purpose but are no longer flexible enough to meet the needs of today's church. In the twenty-first century, we must find new ways to maintain unity while permitting local churches the freedom to solve their own problems. No single solution for the church's renewal and mission can be equally effective in North America, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe. Nor can a few understaffed offices in Rome meet the problems of over a billion people practicing their faith in vastly diverse cultures. The Catholic Church is trying to face the future with medieval structures developed for a different kind of reality.
Just as all politics is local, for most Catholics the deepest expression of their faith is found at the local level. That is where they live, worship, and pass on their beliefs. And, increasingly, that is where they rightly seek more of a voice in how the church functions.
Following Vatican II, renewal of the church in the United States centered on the parish. American Catholics look to their own parish for spiritual nourishment, gospel challenge, and support. Today, they experience a threat to the vitality of their parishes because of the growing priest shortage, and they experience it not just in diminishing numbers but also in the lack of leadership qualities. American Catholics worry about the shrinking pool of priestly vocations and about the heavy demands placed on those who courageously give their all. They are also concerned that within a few short years they may lose the good pastors they have, and that the church itself may revert to a form reminiscent of pre-Vatican II days. Furthermore, they see a shrinking of the means available for the formation and Catholic socialization of their children and teens. Having experienced acrimonious divisions over liturgical, theological, and social issues, they seek freer, more open forums for working out these divisive problems. Like me, they sense that the American experience is not understood or appreciated in Rome, and that the Vatican's top-heavy, centralized mode of administration has proved impractical. Of late, liturgical issues have been the touchstone of such unrest.
I sense a malaise, an unhappiness among the faithful and their clergy, a feeling that they are expected to run a race, but with hands and feet tied. This is one reason American Catholics are demanding a greater hearing on matters that touch them deeply.
How often have we heard it said that the church is not a democracy, that truth is not determined by popular vote? We know this to be true, but we have also learned that this does not mean responsibility for the church's mission can't be more widely shared, especially in areas not determinative of the content of the faith. Moreover, from church history we can enumerate many examples of democratic processes that are employed to discern the actions of the Holy Spirit. The selection of a new pope, for example, takes place by means of an election. In the early church, the faithful often selected their bishops.
Bishops also feel caught between their loyalty to Rome and the demands and concerns of their priests and people. They feel frustrated and isolated in their attempts to work out solutions that will respond to the needs of the faithful. Many feel that the vitality of the local church is often sacrificed to the maintenance of consistent universal policies. One hears bishops ruefully falling back again and again on the phrase, "But that is the way Rome wants it."
Bishops are keenly aware that the church is not a democracy. Perhaps more than other members, they are the ones who experience the church as a single-party system. In the last half century, political scientists have thoroughly examined the pitfalls of authoritarian systems. Particularly during long reigns, the negative aspects of such systems - the desire, at all costs, to maintain order and control - become evident. Priests and bishops who decide to court the favor of those in power can move ahead easily, breeding clericalism and careerism. Under such a system, bishops, clergy, and theologians are usually divided into two groups - insiders and outsiders. Outsiders, especially if they are critical or pose new ideas, are ignored until they mend their ways or die out - or the system collapses. As a result, the inner life of the church stagnates and no new ideas can enter. And if this is true under enlightened papacies, one can only imagine what happens under more repressive ones.
In the United States, most onlookers, particularly in the press, assume that it is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) that governs the church here. This is not so. National conferences of bishops have no jurisdiction over local dioceses, and each bishop reports directly to Rome. As a body, the USCCB meets for only a few days twice a year. Since more than three hundred bishops participate, there is little time for extended free debate on the many thorny issues facing the church. Moreover, the meetings are not meant to be a support group for individual bishops. During my first ten years as a member of this body, I never felt I was an outsider. The presidents - and especially the secretaries of the Conference - made sure this did not happen to members. After the conference issued its historic pastoral letters on peace and on economic justice, however, a decided change took place. Rome intervened more often at the beginning of significant conference projects, and the nature of episcopal conferences was downgraded. Personally, I began to feel more and more like an outsider in the conference.
Lay participation at the level of the conference was limited but it was taken seriously. Lay groups from each region were selected to review the agenda before our meetings, and invited to share their comments in writing. Still, they had no voice, no vote. Priests, too, were just observers. In all honesty, history, particularly Gallicanism and the struggles associated with the French Revolution, taught Rome to be wary of sharing power with lay forces, and the church - particularly in Europe - rightfully worries about relinquishing the freedom it acquired through great sacrifice. Furthermore, Rome does not want to become just another congregationalist, post-Enlightenment body, swayed by popular opinion and public relations campaigns. Fear of outside lay control has fostered a reluctance to grant lay people any significant role in decision-making.
After working twenty-five years under these limiting structures, I have reached the following conviction: Because the church around the world is highly diversified, some form of legitimate decentralization must take place, and soon. Any restructuring must give local churches the freedom they need to employ all the faithful - clergy and laity alike - in finding solutions to their problems, taking into account the cultural milieu in which the faithful live and work.
In thinking about structural reform in the church, two issues are critical. First, any change must respect the tradition of the church. Thus, the role of the pope and the college of bishops must be honored and maintained. Although Catholics would agree that the Holy Spirit is the source of unity, the bishop of Rome is more than simply a symbol of that unity. Catholics are rightfully wary about the lack of visible unity that characterizes our Protestant brothers and sisters. Catholics desire a strong, effective authority, and we believe in the primacy of Peter. At the same time, the role of the local bishops and the concept of collegiality must be further examined and enhanced. We may not have yet determined the exact formula for the dynamics that should exist among bishops and the pope (the synods of bishops are too controlled to be an effective instrument of collegiality), but we do not want to eliminate either the pope or the college of bishops.
Second, structure follows vision and mission. In talking about genuine structural reform, we must keep in mind Friedrich Von Huegel's classic description of the church in its institutional, mystical, and intellectual dimensions. We must be on guard that none of these critical elements of the church's life and mission are diminished. I believe the mystical or spiritual dimension needs special emphasis now, and that finding a spirituality that corresponds to the needs of Catholics in the twenty-first century must be our primary concern. And since spirituality is vitally influenced by particular cultures, there won't be a single solution for the whole church. Moreover, since spirituality has been influenced traditionally by the religious orders, their renewal must be strongly encouraged.
Von Huegel's notion of the intellectual tradition must include rededication not only to scholarship but to the aesthetic elements of the church. Large numbers of theologians, especially women, seek to make major contributions. This phenomenon represents an ideal situation for an intellectual renewal. Unfortunately, the ferment needed for aesthetic development in art and in music lags. In liturgy, we have fallen back on rubricism. In art, there has been a return to kitsch. Ditto in music, where the market has determined what is sold, used, and fostered. Since renewal of the intellectual and aesthetic aspects of the church's life will be determined by particular cultures, any attempt at centralized renewal will prove self-defeating.
Von Huegel also saw the need for structural renewal. Before this can take place, however, there must be a clearer analysis of how the visible structures of the church relate to the societies in which they are incarnated. Perhaps no other question is so divisive as how the church as an institution and its individual members ought to position themselves in relation to contemporary society. How countercultural should the church be? How we answer that question will determine how the church ought to be structured and what kind of priorities we will settle on in each locality.
As we begin the twenty-first century, there are powerful elements in the church that seem to be harking back to the mid-nineteenth century, hoping to recreate the church as a society apart. At times, Rome seems to be telling us to participate in the local society, but only as a means of indicating what an ideal society should look like. Compromises are not encouraged, and gradualism is frowned on, but even these efforts cannot be determined on a global basis. The cultural pluralism in which the Catholic Church finds itself implies different degrees of participation on the part of the faithful in the society where they live.
Nevertheless, the overarching vision for the church, one that will mark its inculturation into every society, is that it is a pilgrim church, a humble one that seeks solutions and strives for holiness precisely where it is. To my mind, the notion of a "perfect society" is not achievable in this world. That the church represents such a society - to be emulated by society in general - is perhaps the most harmful notion the church has promoted in our day. We are, and always will be, a pilgrim people of sinners and saints.
In recent times, most of the discussion about structural change in the church has taken place in the context of ecumenical dialogue. For example, in his 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint, John Paul II clearly stated that there is a need for the papacy to function in a new way if it is to be an instrument of unity rather than a hindrance to it. A decade earlier, also in an ecumenical context, Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner had reflected on the exercise of papal primacy (Unity of the Church: An Actual Possibility, Fortress Press, 1985). They affirmed that there was nothing to prevent the pope from voluntarily limiting the exercise of his jurisdiction in areas that are de jure humano. Perhaps the most thoughtful reflection on structural change that followed publication of Ut unum sint was Archbishop John R. Quinn's The Reform of the Papacy: The Costly Call to Christian Unity (Crossroad, 1999). Quinn rightly highlights both the role of bishops and the need for collegiality. In his carefully nuanced study, he seeks to diminish the role of the Roman curia while creating more direct lines between the pope and bodies of local bishops. Quinn also argues that the role of cardinals, which has no theological basis, should be reduced, and points out how cardinals have become an obstacle to true collegiality.
Among other interesting suggestions for the reform are those of Archbishop Vsevolod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (We Are All Brothers, Eastern Christian Publications, 1999). He believes the West needs to reinstitute the precedent of patriarchates, reappropriating some structural elements from the church's first millennium. Must the pope be the only patriarch of the West? he asks. In this, Vsevolod takes up a theme raised at Vatican II and later elaborated by Yves Congar (Istina, 1983, 374-90). These ideas need careful analysis. They offer creative possibilities for implementing both subsidiarity and decentralization. What is important is not the term patriarchate - it could prove offensive to some modern ears - but the ideas behind it. These can help address our present needs.
The qualities of patriarchates, outlined by one participant at Vatican II, include (1) collegial governance on a more local level, with an emphasis on the local synod; (2) power over liturgy and discipline; and (3) the naming of bishops for the region. These three points deal with the areas of greatest tension stemming from overly centralized governance. Furthermore, there is no reason the laity cannot be brought into the dynamic when liturgical adaptations are made, when bishops are named, and in dealing with local pastoral concerns.
The configuration of patriarchates and other forms of primacies in the first millennium merit lengthy and detailed discussion. Given the cautions of history, making patriarchates coincide with national conferences of bishops would not seem wise. More important, they must not become added layers of bureaucracy. Positively, patriarchates and elected primacies could constitute permanent bodies to assist the pope, each being well informed as to the needs of the local church. Each would be collegial in structure and have its own local synod. The only added bureaucracy, then, would be to take care of liturgical matters and the naming of bishops. Local bishops' conferences could work together or in various groupings with their clergy, religious, and laity to outline the pastoral needs of the region. I can imagine, for example, a patriarchate that would include Canada, the United States, and Mexico, where pastoral concerns, for example, immigration and the specific needs of the Hispanic population, could be worked out together.
As a result of these new structures, many curial offices in Rome would be unnecessary. Rahner and Fries concede that an institution, analogous to the present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would have to be maintained, but such an office, they note, would have to function with absolute transparency (to which I would add, it would have to cooperate with the local patriarchates). Historical precedent indicates that Rome should be the last - not the first - court of appeal, only after all attempts to solve a dispute on the local level have failed.
Consider how the restoration of patriarchates might deal with two issues confronting the church in the United States today: English translations and the shortage of priests. A more decentralized church would mean a different approach to translating Latin into the vernacular. Only those who speak a living language as their native tongue know all the nuances and subtleties of that language. Thus, even when a text is translated literally and correctly, it can still fail to convey the full meaning of the original, not to mention its beauty and dignity. By bringing together the very best local scholars, poets, theologians, and liturgists - both women and men - the local church can eventually offer the kind of translations that the liturgy deserves and demands.
As for the priest shortage, the causes vary from one part of the world to another, and therefore, the solutions will have to differ. In the United States, the sociological pool from which vocations once sprang has changed dramatically. Any return to large ethnic rural families is unlikely. Furthermore, even denominations with married clergy are facing shortages. Is the problem of spiritual leadership in the United States deeper than we had at first imagined, and what does this say about its future? At the same time, other parts of the world have their own distinct concerns. Each region should have the freedom to examine the causes openly and to develop its own solutions. Under more regional structures, such matters could be confronted more honestly and local solutions developed.
This brief discussion of patriarchates is one way of indicating that decentralization is not foreign to the church, even in the West, and it corresponds to how the church functioned in the first millennium. Other arrangements are possible, of course, and I have presented these ideas only to stimulate thinking, to take into account the historical tradition of the church, and to meet the demands of the faith in light of the needs of the contemporary world.
Is all this just a dream? Years ago, I would have said yes. Today, I believe the church is ready for structural change. It has moved from being a church that was synonymous with Western culture to a truly global church. As such, Catholicism needs structures that are flexible but also assure that the church's essential unity will not be lost. I believe that the faithful are ready for such changes, that they should demand them, and that there are suitable and tested historical models on which to base such a renewal.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29 | Indiana | 220.00 |
3 |
73.33 |
|
|
55.00 |
5 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
Rembert is a great antecdotal example of the high correlation betweenh heterdoxy and homosexuality.
So, basically he wants to see more young men wearing pink dresses and have endless discussions about social justice and homosexual "rights".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.