Authority

When we discuss the nature of authority in the Church, should we not ask ourselves: what did Jesus have in mind?

Does the way the Church is governed in our own days correspond to what Jesus wanted? .

Is our ministry first and foremost focussed on bringing about that inner, spiritual transformation in people?

Are we too much preoccupied with the externals of governance, with burocracy, with imposing rules, with administration? .

The power of the keys is interpreted wrongly as top-down hierarchical power as practiced in feudalistic societies.

Are we aware of the spiritual dimension of this power? .

Do we sufficiently acknowledge that Church leaders, including Popes, have proclaimed errors?

How can this be prevented in the future?

Are we sufficiently aware of the fact that church authority is spiritual authority?

That means a different sort of authority, authority that derives from ‘God’, the deepest dimension underlying the universe, the mysterious power that pervades reality as we know it?

Do church leaders realise that a general ministry to the multitude – through sermons at Sunday mass, brief sessions in the confessional or pastoral guidance in print – will not do?

That they should create opportunities to meet people in person?

That they should give time to listen to people’s individual stories and solve their specific issues?

Do church leaders realise the special role they should play in this? That without underestimating the expertise of professional psychiatrists, spiritual guides can and should make their own contribution?

That they can wipe away guilt, reassure waverers, put those who stray back on the right path? That they can speak in the name of God who is love?

Do Church leaders honour what was priority for Jesus?  Do they focus on educating people to a spiritual transformation within their minds and hearts?

Do they encourage them to live by unconditional love, to listen to the Spirit, to be faithful to their conscience?

Would Jesus have agreed to the misguided reasonings of Greek, Roman and medieval scholars?

Did he, when he conferred spiritual power on his successors in the ministry, not clearly intend to include women?

 Ordination to the priesthood or the episcopacy does not impart theological knowledge, in spite of bishops presumptuously claiming the title of ‘Doctor of Divinity’. This also applies to popes. They should therefore listen to the advice offered by scholars who have studied Sacred Scripture and other sources of doctrine in depth.

Though guided by the Spirit in their own way, priests or bishops do not enjoy the specific insights acquired by biologists, psychologists, sociologists and other academics. These too are guided by the Spirit.

Is it not true that recent Popes, such as Paul VI, John-Paul II and Benedict XIV, have unleashed a reign of terror against Catholic scholars? Publicly condemning some, demanding an ‘oath of loyalty’ to papal teaching before allowing scholars admission to teaching posts in seminaries, colleges and universities.

Recent teachings by popes on the use of artificial contraception in family planning, on the ordination of women, on same-sex unions and-so-on, are strongly contradicted by Catholic scholars. Should church leaders not rather carefully listen to them?

Why do church leaders usually act as if the gift of prophecy has been lost in our time? Do they sufficiently realise that they should pay attention to that voice?

Of course, discernment is required. Some honest persons may give advice which on careful examination proves to be misguided. But may a multiplicity of voices be so easily dismissed? If, for instance, as polls indicate, voices calling for the priestly ordination of women are supported by more than 70% of Catholics in major countries, should they not be listened to? No prophetic authority in their voices?

Why do church leaders not inform the faithful that, in special circumstances when no priest is present, any competent member of the community can preside at the Eucharist?

Why are chaplains in hospitals and prisons not routinely taught that, in special circumstances, they too can hear confessions and absolve people from their sins?

Fidelity to Christ’s teaching requires that both aspects of the church are kept intact: the authority of the ministers and the authority of the community. An assembly without Christ’s minister, like a Council without Pope, or a diocese without bishop, cannot stand as a community of Christ. But can the minister replace the community? Can the Pope overrule the Council? May a bishop ignore his diocesan faithful?

Has the Second Vatican Council’s emphasis on the collegiality of the bishops, on bishops’ conferences and the need of pastoral councils not been largely ignored? Has Pope Paul VI not emasculated the authority of pastoral councils by laying down in church law that their decisions are only consultative, not deliberative?

Has the ‘teaching authority’ of the Church not during recent centuries in actual fact totally ignored the ‘sense of faith’?

And why reject information provided by polls? Many polls are quite sophisticated. If, as they reveal, up to 70 % of church going Catholics in major countries believe women should be ordained priests, may these results just be dismissed out of hand?

The Church in our day has re-affirmed the essentially equal dignity of all its members. Have we really absorbed the full implications of this? :“There is in Christ and in the church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex… And, if by the will of Christ some are made teachers, dispensers of ministries, and shepherds on behalf of others, yet all share a true equality with regard to the dignity and to activity common to all the faithful for the bearing up of the body of Christ” (Vatican II, The Church, no 32).

If we think that a loss of social status necessarily implies a loss of authority, could it not be that we have misunderstood the kind of authority Jesus is thinking about? If Jesus’ authority did not involve the claim to a higher status, why do we think leadership in the church profits by it?

In recent years the official position on clerical immunity has changed, but do we show it in action? If bishops or priests harm another person, are we on the side of the cleric or of the victim?

Do we cooperate fully with secular authorities investigating misbehaviour or crimes committed by ordained persons?

Our science-driven technological world creates fresh possibilities which also pose new moral dilemmas. How should spiritual authority respond to such challenges of our modern age?

In this new climate, do Church leaders also listen to the Spirit speaking through experts – biologists, psychologists, sociologists you name it?

Why are church authorities still reluctant to ordain women as deacons – in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to their validity?

Why deprive Catholic communities of the leadership and service that such women could provide?

Have finances become entangled with authority in the Church?

Who controls the finances in parishes and dioceses?

Is it financially attractive to become a priest and/or bishop? Has this not become a motive for joining the ministry in some countries?

Are priests and bishops accountable to the community for their financial dealings?

Since Vatican II much has improved in the Church. No longer is the Pope’s palanquin surrounded by imperial ostrich feathers as was done in the past. No longer do Cardinals drag a ten-meter red trail along the floor of the cathedral, as I still saw in pre-conciliar days. Much ostentation has been turned down. But does the underlying feeling still remain: “I’m different from you. I inhabit a higher sphere than you do …”?

Do our honey-tongued Sunday homilies really proclaim Jesus’ message to people of our day and age?

Our teenagers and educated adults are facing serious assaults by the religion-ignorant, or often religion-hostile, media of our secular age. Should we through our sermons not confront the challenge and proclaim our faith in a way that makes sense to our contemporaries?

When Church leaders in our time believe they have to condemn certain views as erroneous, how do they at the same time provide pastoral support to the persons who hold those views?

What do Church leaders do to bring members of the two opposing wings together in a friendly and fruitful exchange of views?

Are we prepared to accept a slow process of reforms? Do we realise that any changes in present Church ‘doctrines’ and practices will need to be accompanied by explanations, by a series of instructions that address both traditionalists and the body of the faithful?

Do we admit the necessity of introducing alterations in stages, like ordaining women as deacons before ordaining them as priests?

Are church leaders aware of the enormous cultural and social differences between various countries and continents?

When reforms in church practice are agreed upon, should the implementation of these reforms be imposed everywhere at the same time? Or should the bishops’ conferences in those countries and continents not be allowed to introduce changes gradually according to local needs and requirements?

On all levels of the Church there are traditionalist groupings. They often form closed circles in which members continuously push each other to resist change. Can we, somehow, break into those circles and initiate a meaningful discussion?

Vatican II reforms were often not accepted by people because the justification for them had not been properly explained. Will Church leaders now take care to provide extensive briefings on motives and reasons when introducing reforms?

Do we mistakenly believe that being faithful to Sacred Tradition means holding on to the way things were in the past? Do we not realise that, on the contrary, Sacred Tradition which goes back to Jesus himself, implies the authority of church leaders to deal with new challenges and walk new paths?

Do we have the courage to listen to the Spirit and pursue responsible reforms?