A number of the issues we have been discussing lately--the Boston Catholic Charities situation, the removal of Tom Reese as editor of America, etc.--involve issues of ecclesiology. Specifically, they raise the question about the circumstances under which the Holy See should intervene in the affairs of a particular church (or in the case of America, the local chapter of an international religious order). There's no question that--canonically--the authority to do so exists. But under what circumstances should it be exercised?

Imagine the following situation: a Catholic charitable organization in central Africa is trying to place a large number of children orphaned due to AIDS. In some cases, the organization has placed children in families where the husband has more than one wife. Clearly, such a family situation is contrary to Catholic teaching on marriage. The position of the Church is that a man with multiple wives cannot be admitted to the sacraments. But given the large number of orphans to be placed and the need to provide them with stable homes, the agency proceeds with the placements.

What if the Holy See demanded that this practice cease? I can imagine the local bishop--presuming he was equipped with a certain degree of intestinal fortitude--saying something like the following: "We're well aware of what the Church teaches on marriage and this is reflected in our sacramental discipline and our catechesis. But we have a unique situation here that we have to contend with, given the large number of children orphaned by AIDS and long-standing tribal customs regarding multiple marriages. If we were to consent to your request, it would probably be misinterpreted as something we were doing under orders from Rome, and could prove a setback to our ongoing efforts at evangelization. It would be better if youallowed us to deal with this problem locally."

It seems to me that this was, in fact, how the Church operated for centuries. Local issues of various types were sometimes referred to the Pope for resolution, but there was no expectation--nor ability, given the state of communications technology--that the Pope address all manner of local issues. There is a certain wisdom in the Church's principle of subsidiarity, which suggests that local solutions are to be preferred to those made by bodies at a higher level.

What would have happened if, in the Catholic Charities situation, the Holy See had said to the MA Bishops: "Look, we see a potential problem here, but we're open to ways of resolving it that take into account your specific situation." Or, with respect to the situation at America,"This seems to be an issue between the U.S. Bishops and the U.S. Jesuits and our preference would be to let the two groups work this out in a way that respects the cultural norms of the United States."

Would the ultimate outcome been different in either of these cases? Perhaps not. But there is no question that Roman intervention in the affairs of the church in the United States does not always sit well with American Catholics or Americans generally. That does not mean it should never happen. Sometimes it is necessary. But it should probably be used judiciously and sparingly, with an eye toward the impact on our overall efforts at evangelization.

Thoughts anyone?