Tag Archive for ‘structures of governance’
Here he describes how a new canon law excludes the laity from governance of the church.
“On the one hand, the pronouncements of Vatican Council II brought remarkable results and opened the door for an increased promotion of the laity. On the other hand, the official policy of the church based on a recent theological opinion that found its way into the revised Code of Canon Law excludes the laity from any major decision-making processes–reversing an immemorial tradition.” (p. 35)
“… the Council acknowledged the right of the laity to proclaim the Good News and to witness for Christ on the strength of their baptism, without any need ‘to be mandated by the hierarchy.’ … After the Council, however, a new provision in canon law (Canon 129) moved in the opposite direction. It excluded laypersons from significant decision-making processes where ecclesiastical ‘jurisdiction’ is in play. … In sum, no layperson is admitted ‘into the inner sanctuary’ that is to have a significant role in building the church from within.” (p. 38)
It did this by stating that only those who receive sacred orders (e.g., are ordained) are qualified for the power of governance; lay people can only “cooperate” in the exercise of this power.
Here is the Canon.
“Such a neat and radical exclusion of the laity from any participation in the power of governance is discontinuous with an immemorial tradition.” Then he points out that lay people participated in the ecumenical councils of the first millennium, participated in the Council of Florence, abbesses had “power of jurisdiction,” etc. “History is not on the side of Canon 129. Therefore, the restriction can hardly be grounded in dogma.” (p. 39)
“Until 1972 tonsure, not ordination, made a cleric. In the new regime ordination to the diaconate does it. Tonsure was a purely ritual act, not a sacrament; the theological status of the tonsured person remained exactly what it was. he continued to be a layperson. Yet from the moment he received the tonsure he could participate (and many did) in the exercise of the power of governance … which is now the exclusive domain of the ordained persons.” (p. 41)
“If the present situation becomes a norm for the future, the church will be more clerical than it ever was. Since the laity will have no part in any major decision-making office or process, much of their God-given gifts and talents will lay fallow. The hierarchy will stress to them that obedience ought to be their principal virtue. Sure, the laity will be promoted in many minor ways, but the line between the ordained and non-ordained will remain sharply drawn.
“In particular, no woman will ever have the opportunity (or capacity) to have a share in major decision-making processes–not even when the subject matter of a decision does not require the sacramental power of ordination.
“We need to think afresh.” (p. 41-2)
He says that the idea of “the laity” as a separate category is meaningless because we never “become” lay people at any point and you wouldn’t define a group by what it’s not (e.g., not the ordained). So he says “in order to understand the place and role of the laity in the church, we must not look at the laity as a distinct unit in the church. We must focus on the entire people as a whole.” (p. 43)
Lay people could and should be voting members of synods or councils, be members of decision-making bodies in the Curia, be in charge of the administration of the assets in the church, or (if qualified) be preachers. The basis for all this is baptism.
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
This post lays out Orsy’s thoughts on collegiality, especially on how the collegial vision of Vatican II has been compromised by John Paul II’s apostolic letter Apostolos suos.
This apostolic letter creates a definition and framework for episcopal conferences (i.e., territorial associations of Bishops like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). Since by this letter they are constituted by the papacy, they serve at the pleasure of the papacy, their power flows from the papacy, they are regulated by the papacy and their actions must conform to the intentions of the papacy.
Yet “Vatican Council II was form in asserting that bishops are not the delegates of the pope. But if the Holy See creates their conferences and has the exclusive right to invest them with collegiate power, it surely follows that much of their effective power is given to them by the same See; that is, their effective power originates in the office of the pope.”(p. 17)
However, Apostolos suos does recognize the power of the full episcopal college (i.e., a meeting of all the bishops in an ecumenical council) to speak with an inspired voice, which is consistent with the theologically recognized way in which the Holy Spirit guides the Church. And if the bishops meet in legitimate but partial gatherings, they maintain the power of their collegial voice and the recognized guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet Apostolos suos declares that if these legitimate, partial gatherings of bishops happen to meet regularly based on territory (e.g., the regular meetings of all the bishops in the US), their collegial power and guidance by the Holy Spirit is not recognized. Apostolos suos treats such regular, territorial meetings of bishops essentially as papal committees whose work is subject to papal review and approval unless one hundred percent of the bishops vote to agree on the matter under question. Even a vast majority of bishops agreeing on a teaching is insufficient to avoid the need for papal review and approval on the work of the bishops in conference.
“The consequences are far reaching. Although within the same cultural region it is a theological necessity for the bishops to deliberate and decide together (otherwise their contribution to the church’s diversity remains ineffective), the moment they wish to work as a collective body, they can do so only as an institution created by the Holy See. While it is Catholic doctrine that individual bishops are not delegates of the Holy See, their conferences exist and operate on the basis of a power granted by the Holy See. (p. 22)
Gotta love it. Here’s a copy of Apostolos suos.
An alternative to Apostolos suos
“… the universal law should acknowledge the fundamental right and duty of the bishops, flowing from their ordination, to assemble for pastoral purposes. This must not be a concession from the Holy See; it can only be an affirmation of what exists by divine institution. … The Holy See can and should retain the ultimate supervisory authority over the conferences but more in the manner of a court of appeal (which is very traditional) than in the way of an ever-present director of all their actions. …On careful analysis, the structures and norms recently imposed by the Holy See on the episcopal conferences do not conceal but rather reveal a deep theological imbalance in the life of the church: the function of the episcopate has been taken over to a great extent by the primacy. This is the truth.” (p. 30)
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
This post discusses Orsy’s take on communio, the theological underpinning of all forms of organization in the Church.
The bishops at Vatican II “ … stated that the church was first and foremost a ‘communion,’ communio, a union of persons in a unique sense–created by the Spirit of Christ. … Briefly but substantially, this is the theological reality of communio. All external manifestations of unity, such as collegiality and solidarity, flow from it.” (p. 4,5)
“This spiritual communio is an ontological reality and the origin and prototype of any other communio in the church. It is not a hypothesis; it is not an opinion. It belongs to the core of Catholic doctrine.” (p. 6-7)
Ordination incorporates a person into the communio of “servant shepherds” which includes bishops, priests and deacons. Orsy says they are a community not a military organization. “None of the three orders alone has the full intelligence and prudence needed for the proper care of a local church (a diocese). The bishop needs others to govern the diocese.”
“To have a priests’ council is not a concession; it is a theological necessity.” (p. 8 )
The Bishops have their own communio – the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head. But since the 12th century the church has evolved a centralization that gives the pope powers above and beyond those as head of the college of bishops. The Orthodox church doesn’t have this structure. But it’s not just the papacy that needs reforming; bishops, priests and the rest of us need to take responsibility. The whole church needs to be reformed. “…reform in the exercise of primacy is possible only if it is balanced by corresponding transformations within the community at large.” (p. 12)
“Gregory VII is remembered for having initiated a movement toward a strong centralized government. Perhaps in a millennium from now, John XXIII will be remembered for having changed the course of events and set the church on the path of communio. Blessed be his name.” (p. 15)
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
If you want to understand why it’s theologically and morally indefensible for the church to maintain it’s current highly centalized and authoritarian structures of authority, this is the book for you. It describes specific actions taken by the popes and the Roman Curia since the end of the Vatican Council and how these actions have moved the Church in the opposite direction of where it needs to go if it is to really understand and implement (or as Orsy says, receive) the Council.
Ladislas Orsy, S.J., is a theologian and canon lawyer who is on the faculty at Georgetown Law and was formerly a professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America.
He talks about the theological understanding of the Church as a communion and how operationally everything should flow from that. He explains how the current structure of episcopal conferences compromises the proper communion of bishops (and why this goes against tradition and is theologically invalid), how a recent canon law excludes the laity from governance of the church (and why this goes against tradition and is theologically invalid), how canon law should be received and the underlying theology of this reception, and how development of canon law has been paralyzed since the Council (and why this goes against tradition and is theologically invalid). He addresses the issue of the administration of justice in the church by setting it side by side with secular legal wisdom and showing how short it falls in comparison. He then takes apart “definitive doctrine,” a new category of doctrine created by John Paul II which is not infallible but which nevertheless can’t be changed.
His precise descriptions of the events that have moved the Church towards a strangling authoritarianism in the years since the council and the misreading of traditon and flawed theology upon which they stand point the way to future reforms to undo the damage.
He says, “I wish to present my opinions as insights, proposed for debate. Nothing more, nothing less. … In probing the insights, a good step forward is to offer them to the living community: let the believers’ sense of faith judge them. let the insights become disputed questions. Disputations in the spirit of openness and charity always had a place of pride in the intellectual history of the Christian community. St. Thomas of Aquinas was a supreme master of it. He liked to preface his affirmations by contrasting questions. “Such a venerable tradition should not become extinct. After all, the entire body of the faithful has been entrusted with the fullness of the evangelical message. Hence, no one should ever be left out of the process of seeking its fuller understanding.” (p. xii)
“We need an environment where Christians are increasingly free to use their gifts of grace and wisdom and where the Holy Spirit is not hampered by our rules.” (p. xiii)
“To cling to structures and norms that were historically conditioned and that the church is leaving behind would be to opt for stagnation and demise. … Excessive attachment to the ways and means of a remote past is a deadly apostasy from the life-giving present.” (p.13)
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
You can go back to the previous page
