Principle of subsidiarity?
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has sent a letter to the primates of the Anglican Communion on the present difficult situation in the life of that communion.
It includes the following paragraph:
But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don’t compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.
This reminded me of the discussion of whether the principle of subsidiarity should apply within the Church. When Roman Catholics advocate it, it usually is with the idea that it will promote local decision-making. But when the principle is discussed within the Anglican Communion, where local provinces enjoy a good deal of autonomy (so much that it seems to have provoked the present crisis), there are some who do not wish to see the principle of subsidiarity applied because it admits the need for some intervention of a superior authority if an autonomous local authority fails to live up to its responsibilities. The archbishop’s letter allows Catholics to look at the question from the other side.
One of the “proofs” that the Catholic church is led by the Holy Spirit is the fact that it HAS the kind of central authority that ensures people “are still talking the same language,” as ABP Rowan put it.
It is the nature of Protestant churches to break away when they disagree. It is THE central difference between Catholics and Protestants, in a practical sense at least.
This is not to say that the central authority in Rome and its teachings are perfect or completely and fully reflect God’s will for His people. How can they? The central authority is only human, after all.
Neither is my obedience to that teaching perfect or without criticism and grumbling. I’m only human.
But there is enough elasticiity among lay Catholics and Church authority to prevent it from becoming too brittle and broken over every major crisis that occurs.
Sadly individuals do leave. More sadly, misguided Catholics calling for a “smaller, more faithful” Church want those who disagree to leave.
I think this is why Cardinal Ratzinger the firebrand has made a much milder Pope Benedict. It’s one thing to be God’s rotweiler in the CDF, it’s another thing to be the Pope of Everybody, as Pope John XXIII once wrote.
I think this post raises some excellent points. Like many others, I have some concerns about the trend of the last couple of centuries to centralize control of the appointment of bishops in Rome. I’d like to see more authority for this devolved to the metropolitan sees and ecclesiastical provinces. These views are by no means original and are hardly radical.
But those of us who feel this way have some obligation to figure out how such a devolution would avoid the kind of problems that have emerged during this crisis in the Anglican Communion. We also need to figure out how we avoid falling back into the problem of local political authorities having too much influence on the appointment process. Anyone who thinks this is only a concern of the past should look at the current struggle in China over episcopal appointments.
Any ideas, Fr. Joe?
I think that Catholics of the more conservative bent tend to equate all issues as being equal, i.e., no hierarchy of truths. This leads to a definitely “(Biggest Possible) Father Knows Best” attitude. They simply cannot stand for unity to be able to expressed in a non-uniform manner for those things that are not essential to the doctrine of the Faith. That’s why there is this constant childish haggling about the way we say things and what kind of music we use in our worship. Simply said, power is more important than an emphasis on catholicity, i.e., universality.
Universality, properly understood, means a unity in the essential wherever the Church exists in the world. It does not mean that everything should be the same everywhere. In reality that uniformity is an imposition of European modes of expression in non-European locations and cultures. This denies a true universality of the application of the Gospel in all times and all places to all peoples..
Peter:
I can’t address those big questions at this time. But a word or two about the principle of subsidiarity. One sometimes sees it invoked almost as if it were a magic wand that we could wave over a problem and see it solved! But in fact, it is a purely formal principle, without specific content. It says, in one abbreviated version: “As much freedom as possible, as much intervention (by higher authority) as necessary.”
But what are the criteria by which it is settled how much freedom is possible and how much intervention is needed? But even if we discover some, what about applying them? Won’t that require the exercise of intelligence, reason, responsibility? As Bernard Lonergan said, no allegedly “objective criteria” will substitute for intellectual, moral and religious conversion.
The difficulty in settling the issue is not confined within the Church. It is at the heart of conversations between the European Union and the member states, a discussion which demonstrates, by the way, that subsidiarity is no longer, if it ever was, simply a “Catholic principle.”
(Results of Google searches: “principle of subsidiarity”: 516,000 sites; “subsidiarity-principle”: 184,000; “subsidiarity”: 1,900,000l “subsidiarity and European Union”: 883,000)
Back to the Church: Perhaps it would help if we were to try to identify and name what it is that makes the Church the Church, point to elements that must be present for us to speak of the Church in the full, catholic (and Catholic) sense. Archbishop Williams mentions these in his letter: “the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons; a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are,” he goes on, “the signs that we are not just a human organization but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in the ministry and Bible and sacraments.”
If we were to start from that point–what is the substance of Church-communion?–rather than from an organizational or institutional standpoint, we might discover the reality in which both freedom and authority can be exercised.
Fr. Komonchak, I sense you have something in mind when you say: “If we were to start from that point–what is the substance of Church-communion?–rather than from an organizational or institutional standpoint, we might discover the reality in which both freedom and authority can be exercised.”
Care to elaborate?
This is a topic I see as an escapee from fractiousness of Protestantism rather than as a fully formed Catholic.
That is, the Church’s authority looks great from “outside the tent,” around which any number of denominations and factions therein are squabbling.
Once IN the tent, however, the amount of arguing is unexpected and somewhat staggering.
It is staggering but the point may be that from WO to Opus Dei, all of us want to stay in the tent. Joe K ‘s reference to the ‘substance of church communion’ can fit in nicely with that.
Basically, what is pertinent here is that each parish is fully the church just as all the parishes together are the church. And there is nothing wrong with authority in each facet of the church, as long as the essential ingredient is service.
The key is that the central theme must be on service rather than dominion. Augustine, Cyprian, Athanasius etc. may have placed it on dominion and that is where the problem may be.
Kung, was smart enough not to leave the tent. Unfortunately, the authorities hoped he would. (Not only is he not given credit for the reforms of the 2nd Vatican Council, he is given virtually no credit.)
So subsidiarity without charity is useless, just as authority is, without charity. Charity makes authority believable as well as it also covers a multitude of sins.
As I can sense while attempting to put my thoughts together on this subject the comparison between the absolute authority of the Catholic church and the subsidiarity of the Anglican church is not easy to quantify.
Despite Anglican problems the Vatican Council did incorporate some of its practices as it did from other churches of the Reformation.
What disturbs me about Kasper in his reaching out to the Anglicans is his certainty that he has it right while the Roman Catholic Church’s contemporary major identifications seems to be its opposition to Abortion, homosexuals and same sex marriage.
Finally, there is a plethora of activity going on in the RCC that is not that visible on the surface. I wonder how much that is factored in when we evaluate things.
And would one imagine such a thing being said about the RCC as Jean’s statement: “But there is enough elasticiity among lay Catholics and Church authority to prevent it from becoming too brittle and broken over every major crisis that occurs.” Somewhere to start at least.
And naturally, don’t we all want to know what Joe means by: “I can’t address those big questions at this time.”
And at this time I will not proffer a guess.
To talk of the principle of subsidiarity in Church governance is to talk of changes that cannot take place without the action of the Bishop of Rome. No one nor any set of members of the church, not even all the bishops in council, can compel the Bishop of Rome to do anything. If that is so, then everything rests upon the prudential decision of the Bishop of Rome. Of course he might be persuaded, if approached in the right way. But he cannot be compelled. Am I correct in believing that this is orthodoxy, or not?
Peter and Jean:
Here are some first thoughts in answer to your questions:
I had in mind that you can’t approach the kinds of questions for which the principle of subsidiarity is invoked without first exploring what kind of community it is within which these questions arise. What I find often happens is that people almost automatically, instinctively, borrow other ideas of community and assume that they must be realized within the Church, too. When it comes to freedom, for example, the ideal of the modern democratic state is often taken for granted, and people wonder why the Church does not acknowledge the same freedom of opinion, speech, press, etc., as is guaranteed in a state like our USA. But if one were to follow John Courtney Murray in his analysis of developments already underway in the middle of the 20th century, one might say that over the last fifty years or so, American society has become less and less convinced that it needs to be “sustained and directed by some body of substantive beliefs.” Instead a purely procedural consensus is considered to suffice, an agreement to disagree about the substantive issues. Murray wrote: “It involves no agreement on the premises and purposes of political life and legal institutions; it is solely an agreement with regard to the method of making decisions and getting things done, whatever the things may be. The substance of American society is our ‘democratic institutions,’ conceived as purely formal categories. These institutions have no content; they are simply channels through which any kind of content may flow.” It is, he said, “the contemporary idolatry of the democratic process.”
Well, whatever the validity of Murray’s analysis of what was happening (and I incline to agree with it, in our postmodern age), I would argue that you cannot conceive of the Church as a community without “substantive beliefs”: substantive beliefs about God, the world, humanity, sin and death, grace and freedom, etc. are constitutive of the Church, and define a community of meaning and value that differs from all others. That is the point about the three questions asked at baptism to the person who wishes to join the Church: Well, Do you believe what we believe? Do you believe in God,..and in Jesus Christ,… and in the Holy Spirit? If you do, you are welcomed and belong? If you don’t, you don’t belong. If at a baptism the candidate were to say, No, I don’t believe that, the ceremony would come to a screeching halt.
Distinct communities of believers are a single community of believers if they share these substantive beliefs. The many Churches are one Church; the one Church only exists in and as the many Churches. Just as for an individual to cease believing the substantive beliefs of the Church is for him to cease being in the Church, so for a local Church to cease believing the substantive beliefs of the entire Church, is for it to withdraw from that communion of Churches.
Now I know there arise all sorts of questions about what these substantive beliefs are, but that there are some (or ought to be some) I don’t think can be denied. It might be of some help if people were to agree that certain beliefs constitute the substance of the Church (I take that to be the meaning of “substantive beliefs”), and to keep in mind that freedom exists and operates within that community of belief, which also defines its limits; that authority exists and operates within that community, which also defines its limits; that a principle like that of subsidiarity can be applied as a way of preserving or regaining a proper balance in the life of the Church only if the substantive community it is designed to serve is never lost from mind.
Fr. K. explains:
“What I find often happens is that people almost automatically, instinctively, borrow other ideas of community and assume that they must be realized within the Church, too. When it comes to freedom, for example, the ideal of the modern democratic state is often taken for granted, and people wonder why the Church does not acknowledge the same freedom of opinion, speech, press, etc., as is guaranteed in a state like our USA..”
Jean says: Yes, I presume this is what my Catholic friends mean when I say something doesn’t seem fair and they reply, “The Church isn’t a democracy, ya know.”
A political state is a group of people trying to get along and, ideally, promote the common good. A Church is trying to do the will of God. So the principals that make the political state work aren’t necessarily going to work in the religious realm.
Where I get a bit fuzzy is when you say this: “Now I know there arise all sorts of questions about what these substantive beliefs are, but that there are some (or ought to be some) I don’t think can be denied.”
Isn’t this what the Catechism does? Though, of course, some of the teachings are considered more “authoritative” (for lack of a better term) than others, but these are pretty well spelled out, aren’t they?
RCIA made it all sound so simple.
Fr. Komonchak:
I see now what you mean, but I also see a grave diffculty which you have actually anticipated. The work of assembling a list of things that are necessary will turn out to be considerable. Lists have a way about them. Something is likely, in somone’s opinion, to have been left out.
But I think an approach by way of a list of things that are variable is doable. Not necessarily complete, but still a useful start. I would start with all the variations now exemplified in the Eastern Rites. I would than add variant practices found among the Eastern Orthodox before the Great Schism. Thus would have the advantage that one could show that a practice had a venerable past and this in turn would appear to show that some variation in that area was possible, and uniformity not necessary. The only difd\ficulty I can see is that some people might view with the idea that eastern practices, or variations upon them, could be introduced into the Latin rite. It would seem to me that such an objection would be purely political. But then, sadly, that often seems to be the case.
Joe Gannon:
On your first post, it’s true that a decentralization in the light of the principle of subsidiarity would require decisions of the Bishop of Rome which he cannot be forced to make. It would be progress, however, to have it stated that individual Churches, and groups of Churches, should have a responsibility for their own lives, and that it should only be by exception that this self-responsibility is limited. (Think, for example, if restoring the early practice, which fifth-century popes vigorously defended, that the selection of a bishop should be in the hands of the local clergy and people, and that it should be only in rare cases that the one selected is not from the local Church.)
As for you second post, I think that, in terms of disciplinary matters, it would be very useful to compare practices in the western Church, so dominated by an over-centralized Rome, to those in the eastern Churches, in full communion with Rome. In fact, such a comparison is going to be one of the papers prepared for the next meeting of the North American Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation, of which I am a member.
And Jean, the Catechism is a safe guide to what the Church believes and teaches, but it does not distinguish very clearly with what degree of authority the various teachings are taught, that is, how fully the Church has committed itself to them. And, of course, how the central beliefs are to be expressed has always been a major source of controversy. My point is that it might go some long way to serious conversation if we could all agree that certain beliefs are constitutive of the Church, that is, agree that the Church is more than a group of people gathered together by warm fuzzies, by a commitment to certain social or political causes, or by merely ethical or (worse) merely procedural agreements.
One of the reasons it is difficult to agree on certain substantive beliefs is that there may be too many beliefs. The belief in the special mission of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection coupled with the beatitudes, the prodigal child, the Good Samaritan and the publican in the temple, along with an authority of service, may be enough for core beliefs.
No one should be sacralized and the ancient role of women should be restored.
If the above are done, then perhaps the problem dealing with such things as abortion, gays, marriage, war and the death penalty , will be easier.
Notice that the above beliefs necessarily incorporate ethics.
In practice, we have had some very bad examples of Christianity. When Theodore Hesburgh implored ministers in Alabama to speak out against abuse of blacks they responded they would be run out of the state if they did that. Likewise prior to the French Revolution the clergy was well fed while the general population was starving.
Doesn’t the above make sense according to what Longergan said that: “no allegedly “objective criteria” will substitute for intellectual, moral and religious conversion.”
Bill:
No, I don’t think your list suffices. In fact, it’s a watered-down version of what the Christian Church has believed since NT times.
Lonergan’s stress on the importance, indeed necessity, of conversion, intellectual, moral, and religious, was not purchased at the expense of commitment to Christian dogmas and doctrines.
I referred to his comment about “objective criteria” in opposition to the view that a principle like subsidiarity is a yardstick that one can hold up by which to measure what’s right and wrong in the Church. It requires the exercise of intelligence, reason, and responsibility, and a little bit of love wouldn’t hurt either.
Joe,
That love does cover a multitude of sins. Watered down or not, the sorry fact is that even the “watered down” version, (which is most necessary) has not been practiced.
Many of the unnecessary doctrines, in my opinion, have been involved in Christians killing Christians, therfore violating the most essential tenets.
Christian history would have been much better if the Good Samaritan lesson was stressed more than conformity. The shining moments have come when those basics were practiced.
Fr. Komonchak:
Certainly the pronouncements of the Councils on the Trinity and the Incarnation as well as on the propriety of calling Mary the Mother of God are absolutely basic.
One problem with making a list of all the substantive constituents is the loquaciousness of certain recent Bishops of Rome. It seems pretty clear that much of what has been said falls outside the realm of the certainly irreversible, but the cult of the oracular papacy would create obstacles. But perhaps I am being too pessimistic.
I think that the practices of the Eastern churches when they were still in union are also significant here. The pope, if I have heard aright, has suggested that they could enter union and continue what they have been doing. What about the practice of the Orthodox on divorce. I believe the three strikes and you are stuck rule precedes the Great Schism. It could hardl;y be allowed to some churches and not to others.
A while back, a friend told of his pastor announcing there was something really new and important that all must attend to. “Some major doctrinal or moral issue?” my friend wondered. The pastor announced that all must stand when the priest prays “Pray that our sacrifice…”
At our liturgy on the feast of Corpus Christi, our shepherd was at great pains to tell us something really important – one should genuflect to the tabernacle when entering Church.
When everything is important, nothing becomes important.
And people clamor for subsidiarity than listen to being dragged back (as Eugene Kennedy recently noted) to the 1925 Church. Then it was the duty of the laity only to folow all directives. but as Luke timothy Johnson pointed out in Trust the Laity (Commonweal, 3/24/06) the laity are frequently smarter than the voice from the altar.
Disconnects with their experience becomesmagnified. I guess the original tipping point goes back to Patti Crowley et al and Humane Vitae and has grown since.
The problem is not the big tent that’s followed but the balkanization within the big tent that keeps us from agreeing on what really is important.It might be helpful if we could all breath deeply and admit with Pogo that we have met the enemy and he is us.
As Joe K points out, the agreement as to what is substantial is not easy. I do support intelligence reason, responsibility and love in the proclamation of Christ.
But if one were to posit a sine qua non, the crucifixion must be in the forefront since it is Christianity’s distinguishing feature.
The distinguishing feature of Christianity as opposed to the ancient world religions and the modern humanisms as one examines closely the proclamation, behavior and fate of Jesus, –the ultimate distinctive feature of Christianity is quite literally according to Paul “this Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ crucified.
Without faith in the cross, faith in the risen Christ lacks its distinctive character and decisiveness.
Without faith in the resurrection, faith in the crucified Jesus lacks confirmation and authorization.