September 2,
2012
David
Timbs
Taking
the local Church seriously
Retrospect
The
Second Vatican Council took the local church very seriously indeed. It was not
doing its thinking, conversing, debating and compromising in a vacuum. The
bishops and assistant theologians were conscious of the continuum of ecclesial
history, of the things that came to be valued and preserved during that expanse
of time, and the things which were secondary, the things which are core to
belief and those things which are peripheral.
The
Council discovered anew its own inner dynamism with all its qualities:
inspiration, strength, resolve, courage and prophetic edge. As the Council
progressed and its ‘Fathers’ grew in confidence they became increasing
conscious of just how much excess baggage the
Church had accumulated. They had to contend with the conservative bloc,
especially those in the Roman Curia with its own self-interests, who were so
locked into the scholastic categories which typified Roman
theology that they found it extremely difficult to distinguish between the
Church as the believing community and its ecclesiastical structures.
Consequently, the resisters, led by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, had conceptual
problems separating core doctrines from the
philosophical and theological scaffolding which supported them. It became
a matter of Curial outrage and resentment when the Council emphatically insisted
on making these distinctions despite the wall of dogmatism erected by a
bureaucratic regime held fast in a thousand year old frozen moment.
It
was a time not only for a radical re-assessment of internal ecclesial life and
practice, but for the difficult and risky decisions which necessarily had to be
made about the Church’s future standing and mission in the modern world. It is
now just under fifty years since the beginning of Vatican II and it is time for
a fundamental re-evaluation of its legacy and for a re-focusing of its vision.
Governance:
some things to ponder
In
the very early second century Ignatius of Antioch, when speaking of the role of
the local Christian community, affirmed that where Jesus Christ is, there is
the Catholic Church. The centrality of Christ is the corner-stone of his
ecclesiology. The bishop and faithful are not the focal point of attention. They
point away from themselves. A couple of centuries later, in the early days of
the new Christianised Empire, Ambrose of Milan shifted the centre of attention,
albeit unwittingly. In what must go down as one of the great hyperboles of
Church history, he proclaimed Ubi
Petrus, ibi Ecclesia
– where Peter is, there is the Church. The servant replaces the Master; Christ is eclipsed by the
Bishop of Old Rome, precisely because he is the occupant of that seat, the
centre of the Western Empire. Galilee had become a backwater once again.
For
many concerned stakeholders, it has become increasingly obvious that the many of
the key reforms and restructuring set in train by Vat II have been subjected to
radical historical revisionism, reinterpretation and regression.
Many are also acutely aware of a gradual and systemic non-reception of the Council at the highest levels of leadership.
Several
years after the Council some of the key theological minds of that period,
including Joseph Ratzinger, lost their collective nerve. Effectively, they
determined that Vatican II was too risky an adventure for the Catholic Church to
entertain any longer. The ‘traditional’ unquestioned and unexamined divine
foundation and immutability of the Church had come under scrutiny serious
theological scrutiny. The stakes were judged to be too high. The reaction was
entirely predictable. Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, affirmed quite
unambiguously at the Consistory for new Cardinals last February that the divine
structure of the Church could not be tampered with let alone changed.
A
principal teaching of Vat II was on the central role the college of bishops. In
union with the Pope, they are entrusted with the animation and governance of the
Church. Their role is a shared one, a ministry of co-responsibility. It is a
role which comes as a direct consequence of episcopal ordination. Its authority
derives not from the person of the Pope but from Christ present in the Christian
Community. This distinction has been constantly blurred over the past two
pontificates. During this period the Church has witnessed the reappearance of
unchecked papalism unprecedented since the ‘reforms’ of Gregory VII. This is
a profound distortion of the Church’s constitution and identity. A fundamental
corrective is urgently needed.
Cardinal
Ratzinger of the CDF promoted this ecclesiological excess in the doctrinal
support he gave JP II. Understandably, he eagerly adopted his own cultural
creation on his accession to the papacy. He was also the principal architect of
the regressive policy which has marked a disturbing shift away from the theology
of Vatican II. The Council, while reaffirming the office of Peter, equally as
strongly affirmed episcopal collegiality as a vital reality central to the
meaning of the Church. The members of the next Conclave might well reassess the
opportunity cost of having two pontificates during which this truth has been so
monumentally distorted.
The
Laity: not just an audience
While
Benedict has effectively affirmed the ecclesiastical stratification codified by
the reforms of Gregory VII and insisted that there is no possibility of changing
this divine order and structure, he continues to send mixed messages. In recent
days there has been a tantalising invitation by the Pope for the laity to
embrace their roles as not just collaborators of the clergy but as co-responsibles.
He goes on to explain,
“Co-responsibility
requires a change in mentality, particularly with regard to the role of the
laity in the Church.” Laity should
be considered “persons truly co-responsible for the being and activity of the
church.” Benedict proceeded to address his audience in direct speech,
“Feel
the commitment to work for the Church’s mission to be your own, through
prayer, through study, through active participation in ecclesial life, through
an attentive and positive gaze at the world, in the continual search for the
signs of the times.”
Benedict
certainly has his ecclesiology right but there is a certain lack of congruity
when Church policy and praxis are obviously quite at odds with the vision. He
leads a hierarchy which in many ways operates contrary to the spirit of the
Gospel. Instead of taking the laity seriously as co-responsible in the life of
the Church, they are consistently treated with disregard, condescension, even
contempt. Their baptismal dignity is repeatedly diminished by being subjected to
a paternalism which relegates their value almost exclusively to the level of
blind obedience and juvenile compliance.
A
kind of amnesia has gripped the papacy and much of the hierarchy over the past
thirty or so years. Benedict, a keen student of John Henry Cardinal Newman,
seems to have forgotten a central element in his ecclesiology: the vital
importance of the laity as custodians of memory
and gatekeepers of the Faith. In his
study, Arians in the fourth Century,
Newman observed that when the faith of the bishops failed it was the sensus
fidei of the laity which endured and prevailed. Despite Benedict’s
recent remarks emphasising this ideal, the communion of the laity with bishops
has not always been ‘cordial’ by any stretch of the imagination.
Newman
also warned Church leaders against possible arrogant presumptions about the
laity, especially that they might be treated as only marginal to ‘real’
Catholic life and faith. Again he draws on his deep sense of Christian history
to emphasise the point.
He
cautioned the hierarchy against thinking that, even when all might seem well in
the Church, that despite sound doctrine and fidelity flourishing, “the laity
should be neglected and relegated to an audience, or at best, playing a
supporting role.” – On Consulting the Faithful in matters of
Doctrine, 205.
In
recent times, sadly in Australia and other countries, petitions and
representations have either not been heeded or worse still, smugly dismissed. It
is not inconsequential nor insignificant that an increasingly educated and
discerning laity have registered dismay and disappointment at this sort of
treatment. It has generated a not unexpected sense of suspicion which has
attached itself to their baptismal Sensus
Fidelium – the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. Catholics
increasingly are perceiving and judging that it is the leadership of the Church,
not they, who have broken faith and lost their way.
Sacraments:
authority and praxis
It
is a given that the Catholic Church, particularly in the West, is facing an
unprecedented crisis in Sacramental and pastoral ministry. It is a problem
largely self-generated as a result of a theological system which is locked into
fundamentalist premises. A standard feature of Catholic apologetics is that the
whole sacramental economy was consciously instituted and established by the
historical Jesus. There is little or no room in this paradigm for the
post-Pentecost action of the Holy Spirit. There is no manoeuvring space for the Jesus
Community to express its identity and mission in those particular
ritual ways which are now called the Sacraments.
The Second Vatican Council was quite clear about the origins of sacramentality,
Jesus
“rising from the dead, sent his life-giving Spirit upon his disciples and
through his Spirit has established his body, the Church, as the Universal
Sacrament of Salvation.” – The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,
# 48.
It
is the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which expresses the
mystery of Christ in the ways it judges to be appropriate and effective. It’s
time the Church revisits its own Spirit-given authority and mission to re-shape
and re-express the saving grace of Christ in drastically changed circumstances,
even from fifty years distance.
An
obvious area for desperately needed reform is the ministry of the Eucharist. The
thousand year tradition of celibacy in the Western Church has lead to a
situation where the Baptismal birthright of millions is held hostage to a
clerical discipline and to considerations of gender exclusion. This has been and
is still hotly debated, at least outside the walls of ecclesiastical
officialdom. An American blogger, Colkoch, recently made some pertinent
observations in her postings. On the intractable issues of Eucharist being
shackled to sacerdotal clericalism, she wrote,
“Ordination
is the pinnacle of Catholic expression, not the Eucharist. It is the priesthood
which will be protected at all costs, not the Eucharist. Until that changes,
nothing else in Catholicism can be reformed.” Enlightened Catholicism,19/08/12.*
She
has a very important point here. Before sweeping, effective pastoral reform can
be first contemplated then put in place, the entire theology of ordained
priesthood and its links with the Sacramental life and practice of the Church
needs to be reassessed. An example or two are in order.
Reconciliation
and Anointing of the Sick
With
the growing shortage of priests in many places the impact on the ongoing daily
pastoral care of many Catholics is nearing crisis point. It might well be time
to re-examine a key Sacrament most commonly affected, Anointing of the Sick. Unlike most of the other Sacraments, the
origins of this ritual are traceable to two New Testament texts and its
reflected practice in the early post-apostolic Church. Neither examples have
anything whatsoever to do with an ordained priesthood.
The
earliest reference is found in Mark’s Gospel. In his narrative, Mark depicts
Jesus choosing his closest disciples, the Twelve (3: 13-19). His commission is
threefold: to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and to have power to cast
out demons (14-15). In Mk 6: 7-13,
Jesus activates and empowers this commission. He sends them out two by two with
authority (exousia) over the demons,
those evil which oppress and strip people of their humanity. Mark’s narrative
speaks for itself,
So
they went out and preached that people should repent, And they cast out many
demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. (12-13)
Only
the most ideologically driven of fundamentalist theologians and apologists would
attempt to argue that the Twelve were ever ordained priests, and yet they do
even to the present day.
The
practice of anointing the sick with oil is also documented in The
Letter of James, written in the post-apostolic period in the late first
century, possibly in the 80’s.
“Is
there anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi) of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing
him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick
man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be
forgiven.” (5: 14-15)
It
should be noted again that up until the early second century there is no
evidence from the Tradition that there was any notions of either ordained
priesthood. The presbyters
mention here are exactly what they are, community Elders, the guardians of the oral tradition who were regarded as the
true successors of the Apostles, not the episkopoi (bishops). This is critical in considering any changes
about who can and might be the ministers of this ritual. It is also of central
importance that it is only in the ninth
century that this ritual is regarded as a Sacrament.**
Some
fundamental reforms?
A
sticking point in any discussion about expanding this ministry beyond ordained
priests, is the fact that in the current ritual there is an integral link
between the anointing with oil and sacramental absolution of sins. The two texts
above have nothing to do with the theological justification of these two rituals
as sacraments or priesthood. Both these were later developments in Church
thought and practice. They can be undone. The Church is the ongoing sign or
sacrament of salvation in human history. It has the authority of Christ’s
Spirit to express the channels of grace in whatever ways it sees fit.
Since
Vatican II, it has become common practice for the non-ordained to exercise
ministries in the Church previously reserved to the ordained. Lay women and men
are special ministers of the Eucharist; they preach, catechise, perform
baptisms, conduct funerals. Pastoral associates are animators of parish
communities, ministers to the sick, dying and alienated. A further extension of
these functions is possible under Church law governing the office and ministry
of deacons. In 2009, Pope Benedict
made a formal clarification in Canon Law to distinguish the diaconate, whether
permanent or transitional, from the sacrament of Holy Orders.
It
is completely within the Church’s authority to extend some priestly
commissions to include areas previously excluded from the laity, namely to
minister sacramental anointing to the sick and to reconcile the sinner.
Paradoxically,
perhaps besides the power-conscious diehards of the clerical subculture, it will
be the small remnant of self-loathing laity who will be most resistant to urgent
and necessary changes in Sacramental reform and practice.
*For
Colkoch’s comment see her blog on Two
views of priesthood scroll down to 19/08/12 and other items, click [Here]
**For
a more detailed study of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick in Church
history and practice, click [Here]
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
02/09/12