The Church and its Structure: The Challenge of Reform

(Sources taken from Gerald A. Arbuckle's book:

Refounding the Church: Dissent for Leadership

Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, U.S.A. 1993)

i. Introduction

The Church and its structure have undergone many trials, and tribulations. It was often a heated and debated topic when the question of power and authority in the Church is being tackled. The Church being a hierarchy is the source of many question and sometimes conflict from the early times of Church’s history to the “makalipang” sessions of a BEC group in a small parish. How come the church structure if made this way? For sure, is a product of historical development within the Church itself guided by the movements of the Holy Spirit.

The Council of Trent in 1563 declares that the Catholic Church is a hierarchy instituted by divine ordinance, which consist of bishops, priest, and minister (ND 1719). The same council also declares there exist in the Church ecclesiastical grades, beside it the bishops, who have succeeded the apostles, principally belongs to this hierarchical order and have been, as the same apostles says, “established by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of the Lord (ND 1711).

In the First Vatican Council in 1870 defines the primacy of the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching function. Vatican I emphasizes on the Church’s hierarchical structure is through the definition of the papal primacy in its Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus on the Church of Christ. (ND 818-830) In this council it was defined that the Holy Catholic Church is a hierarchical society with the Pope, the Supreme Roman Pontiff as the head, using, as its theological bases, Matthew 16:17-19 to support the divine constitution of Peter by Christ.

In the Second Vatican Council in 1963, Lumen Gentium 18 reiterated, following the steps of the First Vatican Council, teaches and declares that the Church on which Christ set-up is a hierarchy. However, Vatican II places emphasis on the ground of the episcopacy rather than the papal supremacy. The teaching of chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular, the episcopate both compliments and qualifies the teaching of Vatican I on the primatial office of the bishop of Rome. Vatican II says that the hierarchical structure of the church is a constitutive element of being church as a visible body. Though, hierarchical in structure, LG 21 teaches the sacramentality of the episcopate, also defines the nature, meaning, and implication of collegiality of the bishops (LG 22-23). This is probably the most important chapter of the entire Constitution. The council teaches that the bishops are successors of the apostles as shepherds of the flock, forming a college, are united with its head, which is also the subject of full and supreme authority over the Universal Church (ND 836).

Nonetheless, despite of what Vatican II has contributed in the Structure of the Church, it is still put into question, because there are still plenty of inadequacies, overlooked insights and imperfections. The Church, being also a community of human beings, is subject to fallibility, which is why it is always challenge by reform.

This paper tries to explicate the many challenges and questions put forward to the Church for a reform of its current structures. Even the term “hierarchy” somehow makes many people perturbed and queasy inside. So, are there any solutions to such call of reform? Does Vatican II’s idea of collegiality enough to solve the structural problems that dismays many people? How would ideas like democracy, subsidiarity, accountability, and rights of the laity be entertained in the so-called “structural reform” confronting the Church nowadays?


ii. The Church’s Hierarchical Structure in Question

We cannot deny the fact the Church, in its institutional history, has adopted the feudalistic and monarchical structure for so many years. The popes and the bishops remain for a practical purpose and for a long time where exclusive rulers of the church, combining the legislative, execute and judicial powers. This monarchical structure concentrates the power at the top where decisions are formulated there in secret, where the rank-and-file among the laity, religious, and clergy have become largely indifferent to the operations of the church. In the monarchical structure of the church, there is an over emphasize of the papacy in the life and mission for the Church.

Of course, we knew that after sometime, in the history of the church, she was able to strip off its regal robes of monarchism and be community of the People of God as what Vatican II had defined. But did the church adapted to the world’s current structure as an institution? Can the church be a democratic institution? In Pope Paul VI encyclical Ecclessiam Suam, he points, “The Church is not a democratic association established by human will.” Several elements of church structure, usually seen as essential to the very nature of the church, contrast profoundly with democratic legal forms. The church’s innermost authority structure includes hierarchy. We knew that in Vatican II, when it teaches that the hierarchical structure of the church is a constitutive element of being church; nevertheless, such hierarchal structure is still put into question. Why was it so?

One big possibility is that, despite the changes made by Vatican I and II, the hierarchy still shows a system that exemplifies numerous qualities of an absolute monarchy. The church nowadays still shows remnant of the once regal governance and absolutist monarchy in its institutional dealings. This is where the challenge of reform comes in, how could the church be relevant in the current times of the world? Contemporary theologians suggest four agenda of structural reforms for the Church for it rethinking. These would be the: (i) reformist option; (ii) constitutionalism; (iii) the non-institutional church.

iii. Agenda of Structural Reform

iii.i Reformist Option (democratization not democracy)

Reformist wants an ideal democratization of the Church. They do contend, however, that the church, is not a democracy since ultimate sovereignty does not rest of the people. Expressed through majority vote, however, as an institution like in other societies is pressured toward greater democratization. We have therefore to differentiate democracy as a form of governance and the ethos of democracy. Here, the emphasis was on the ethos of democracy which espouses “mutual respect, readiness of members to make the common interest one’s own and to listen to one another, a discussion in which all who are affected by a given decision are accorded a hearing. The churches own theological self-understanding contains strong analogues to crucial elements of democratic ethos. In the absence of democratization, church will suffer a crisis of legitimation. These theological understanding of the church as a hierarchical communion instituted by Christ and governed by norms of collegiality, subsidiarity and justice as participation.

Collegiality

Though the church is not democratic in its self-understanding, she however, applies the ethos of democracy to its structures and behaviors. The church own idea of equality is rooted in the notion of universal priesthood of believers, the universal call to holiness, rooted in baptism and we all share a true equality with regard to dignity and to the activity common to all the faithful. The church in Vatican II it defined as “the people of God,” of which it is a collegial communion.
The collegial communion mean that the church is not an absolute monarchy rather the pope is the head of the episcopal college, who himself is a member of the said college. Then episcopacy is also in communion to the ordained ministry. The bishops are instructed to listen to their priests, to ask their advice and to consult them. Collegiality applies also to the laity in the church. Since the hierarchy cannot take upon itself the whole mission of the church, the laity has the task share in the mission of the church according to his/her abilities and charism.

Subsidiarity

Subsidiarity favors intermediate associations between the individual and the highest organs of governance in the given system. It can be applied to the church, since if it holds true to all and every healthy human community, it must also hold true the a special community we call church. It enhances a principle of local freedom and initiative in the local churches. Subsidiarity follows necessarily from truly understanding the universal church as a communion of local churches, a communion of communions. No authority has the right to interfere with activities of individuals and social ends as long as those responsible for those ends are able and willing to cope with them. Subsidiarity is also connected with the laws of common good.

Justice as Participation.

Subsidiarity and collegiality is link up with a larger sense of justice as a participation in any community, especially the church. The church is not exempted from this norm cause the church sees itself as “the sign and sacrament of the unity of human race.” The church therefore must embody of what it means to be a just society by enabling and inviting a mature participation of all the adult members for the good of the church.

These three central themes of collegiality, subsidiarity, and justice as participation reinforce of what will be the future theological self-understanding of the church. With his secular movement for democratization in today’s society, will the church adopt to the growing pressure of democratization of its structure?

A reformist program for improving the participative governance in the church would look to improving already existing forms of participative governance in the world church, in national churches, diocesan and in the local parishes. Still such agenda of reform still run up against several impediments towards a genuinely participative governance structure in the Church; the absence of the genuine system of accountability based on checks and balance built upon a tripartite system of governance; i.e. executive, judicial and legislative. A reformist option for reforming the church is to look for new opening and try to fine-tune them, improve their functioning, or open them wider. Reformist do not need to devise new structures or totally reform the canon law but use more judiciously and wisely the opportunities in the participative structures that already exist in the church. Let us look at collegiality in the terms of the following structure: the synod of bishops and the conferences of Bishops.

The Synod of Bishops

Reformist is always asked whether the synod is a council – deliberately or merely an advisory body. Because of the overriding emphasis on the prematial principle, synods have been viewed by the popes as merely instruments for offering advice. Canon lawyer Remigiusz Sobanski argues: “However important advice may be, the meaning of collegiality does not lie here.” He sees rather that collegiality of the bishops in the synod derives from their root of participation in the worldwide episcopal college. There participation in the mission of the whole church and co-responsibility for the whole church does not allow us to make the bishop’s contribution as a mere advice. This claim is contained in the bishop’s witness among their colleagues. Their testimony which would correspond to the truth and the needs of the times is what collegiality is all about.

Reformist argues that various structural changes in the synod of bishops would be instrument for accountability and democratization of the church. These changes are the following: there are calls to open up synod in the presence of theologians chosen by the member bishop for advice and consultation; there must be observers from other churches and religions to be invited during the synod; envisions the restructuring of the present Council for the Secretariat of the Synod; and the last would be reform of procedures for further democratization of the synod of bishop entails freedom for the bishop’s conference to publish their responses to the Lineamenta of the respective national journals.

Episcopal Conferences

The meaning and theological status of the episcopal conferences comes under close scrutiny. The theologians endorsed what Ratzinger claimed that they are “one of the possible variants of collegiality which experience partial realization than, in turn, point to the whole.” Canon law sees episcopal conferences as legal institution, a legal subject – a middle authority or hierarchical immediate authority – which represents an authentic hierarchical and collegial authority. John Paul II describe them as an instrument in accord to the needs of the times, effective in ensuring the necessary unity of action by the bishops. However, in the 1987 draft document of the Congregation of Bishops, they were viewed a “non-necessary structure,” needing regulation by law and lacks dogmatic foundation.

Karl Rahner argues that the “idea of the conference of bishops arises out of the nature of the church itself.” The conference of bishops is “a mediation in human law of that for which the foundation is laid by divine law.” Reformist argues that by strengthening the organizational unity, communication, competence, and procedures for these national, regional, and continental bodies will further help in the democratization of the church by furthering collegiality, subsidiarity and participation in the world church. It is in these local freedoms embodied in immediate bodies, immediate hierarchical authority of the episcopal conferences will guarantee and take effective institutional guarantee for democratic freedom in the Church.

Reformist saw the need of collegial reforms at the national and diocesan levels. These structural embodiment should further collegial co-responsibility between local bishops and the clergy and between the priests and his parish community. Parish Pastoral councils should make decisions and its implementation among themselves rather than waiting for the discretion of the bishop. Finance council in parishes should be mandatory rather than optional to assist in the financial administration of the parish. And such Financial council will act as true decision makers having executive jurisdiction when its come to planning the budgeting and financial programs of the parish. In addition, the presence of a democratic process must be made further at the parish level by acknowledging of team ministry, assigning role to deacons, laypersons, and community sharing in true pastoral care of the parish.

Episcopal Appointments

Since there are widespread dissatisfactions in many parts of the church about the method of electing a bishop, this structural area of the church needs to be look on to and is challenge to reform. Pope Celestine I stated badly; “let the bishops not be imposed upon the people whom they do not want.” Pope Leo I put it this way: “He who has to preside over all must be elected by all. Let the person not be ordained against the wish of the Christians and whom they have not explicitly asked for.”

Reformist suggest that in choosing a bishop – it must be done that respects collegiality, subsidiarity and participation – which means we need to poll the people of a diocese of a profile for an ideal bishop and consult them, the presbyterate and the neighboring bishops. Another suggestion might be in a form of nomination of bishops by cathedral chapter or by the senate of priest that will give two names; the metropolitan bishop gives another two names then the body of bishops will give one name. These find nominations will be given to the Pope to chose (with the help of the Nuncio) and return the list for a second round then a third round until one is left. At the moment, the selection of bishops in the church is a complete violation of the tenets of collegiality, subsidiarity, and participation in the governance of the church and its flows against the ethos of democracy.

Coalition, lobbying power and public opinion

The most radical options for democratization are the application of coalition, lobbying power and public opinion in the church. The Vatican Degreed on the Lay Apostolate decrees concerning freedom of association in the church and freedom of public opinion. The lay faithful has the right and duty to manifest to the pastors their opinions on matters pertaining to the good of the church, also to make it known to other faithful with due regard for the integrity of the faith and morals and reverence toward the pastors. It the church who entertain democratization then it also entails the forging of effective coalitions. Some agues that lobbying, coalition-building and effective access to public opinion is more important to a society that is democratize than just mere exercise of vote.

By coalition-building and lobbying for a major decisions in the church where the public opinion is respected, entertained and all the elements of the church (bishop, clergy, laity and religious) are involve in such decisions. In this sense, we honor the unique nature of the church as a hierarchical communion by insisting on seeing the church as a community of communication of spiritual goods, a circulation of saving truths, actions, and behavior among brothers and sister.

iii.ii Constitutionalism

One agenda for structural reform suggested would be constitutionalism and the democratic governance of the Church. If the church chose to adopt constitutional form of structure to reform herself, she would be using a system not foreign to her but is very much part of her inheritance in the early apostolic churches. Constitutionalism involves three basic elements: the limitation of power, accountability, and openness to correction.

Limitation of power would involve division of power between central and regional governing bodies; separation of legislative, judiciary, and executive powers; and a guarantee of individual rights. Accountability is ensure by an electoral processes; freedom from information, where exercise of power is a matter of public record; and freedom of discussion and debate on policymaking and performance of office holders. And, the openness to correction is ensured by regular meetings of legislative bodies, interpretation of laws by tribunal and a permanent commission charged with the responsibility of proposing legal reforms.

The principle of participative management is inoperative in the church nowadays. Decisions from the authority that are not receive with enthusiasm as frequently ignored and the officeholder appeals it its divinely given authority and reminds its members of their duty to obey. The Church should honor its time-honored practice of subsidiarity and there must be a decentralization of power which restores to particular churches their ancient freedom to adapt the discipline of the Christian life and ministry of their own distinctive needs and ministry. Parish councils, diocesan pastoral councils, and national pastoral councils should have intrinsic merit. This means that there should be policy-making bodies for their own ministries. There should be also committee that would dedicate itself to research and planning in which the current church is not having. Social research and data gathering are essential in policy-making and long-range development programs in the local church.

When it comes to papal and episcopal power, there are big issues to be considered. There has been an italization of the papacy in the Church. Many Catholics have the idea that all the Pope’s judgments at all level are to be accepted as true. For all practical purposes, the Pope is never wrong but to criticize him, however, is always wrong. This is the problem of the papacy; that he has been identified too much with Christ. The church should therefore, demythologized its idea of the papacy bring it more to the conformity of the New Testament. He should be more a symbol of faith and unity of all the churches of the world.

This is also would hold true to the office of the episcopacy wherein we should also demythologize. He should also be the symbol of faith and unity among the local churches. In the diocese community the bishop should govern together with the pastoral council and decisions should be a consensus between the bishop and the council. Accountability is ensure by an electoral processes and in the selection of a bishop, the church should throw away its criterion of conformity; instead, a position should be in accord to the ancient canonical principle that “he who governs all should b elected by all.” The Church must return at once to these principles and practice it. In this sense, in selection of a leader in the Church, it is essential that the electoral process include all the major elements within a given local community, selected by the diocesan pastoral council from its own member; diocesan priest, religious men and women and layman and women, which serve as the committee for the selection of bishops. This committee should have limited term of office, all information about the candidate should be made available, and public discussion should be encouraged. A bishop should be the choice of the community where he is to serve. In the end the Pope accepts rather than approves the decision of the local church.
Concerning the ordained ministry, the church on the other hand, should recognized three basic principles that must be translated into practice these are the: the collegial character of the Christian priesthood; the principle of subsidiarity and the priest’s personal rights as a member of the Church. Consultative decision-making should be practice through the senate of priest in the diocesan pastoral council. Bishops in their diocese should allow a priest to go free if he wish to leave, in corollary, not refuse in grave reasons, those who would like to work in their diocese. With regards to their pastoral ministries, bishops should encourage and empower his priests to be inventive, creative innovation and experimentation, for the good of the souls.

Part of the accountability is to ensure freedom from information, where exercise of power is a matter of public record; and freedom of discussion and debate on policymaking and performance of office holders. Neither does the church have any agency or office committed to supervising the collective operations of the whole ecclesiastical machinery. Big and small decisions affecting the whole church concerning people and money is made day after day without the knowledge of many people but are made in secrets. Accordingly, the church needs a public adversary system that will provide a check and balance in this area. These monitoring body take charge top oversee each projects and activities funded by the leadership and assess them for fidelity to the interest and mission of the whole church. This agency should also be responsible for effective investigations of sloppy performance, hidden expenditures, and anomalous procedures in the church programs. To avoid bureaucracy, this office should at least exist for three years only, then be abolished and replace by another. A project team will assess the performance of the agency during its three-year existence.

The openness to correction should also be present in the Church by ensuring regular meetings of legislative bodies; interpretation of laws be made by the tribunal and there should be a permanent commission that would take charged with the responsibility of proposing legal reforms. Many Catholics ignore the Church’s marriage tribunals since their cases are usually shunted aside for two to three years leaving many in dismay. With this, the agenda of reform proposes that the church’s official matrimonial procedures and its own court system is mandatory. Regional court should be developed under guidance of the episcopal councils, criterion of personnel should be professional competence and should not be disqualified on the ground of sex, gender or lack of clerical state. Judges are appointed for a term of years and are removable from office. In accordance to the principles of subsidiarity, diocesan and regional tribunals power should be limited giving was to the exercise of the local tribunals in the Local churches headed by the parish priest and a board of lay people. Procedure of marriage cases should be simple, flexible, and expeditious as possible.

For years, many individuals are fighting for their individual rights in the Church. Many Catholic laity, religious, and clergy are vulnerable to arbitrary administrative action against their own interest. Where they spared from unpleasantness or it is more of benign paternalism rather than of legal protection. Freedom is demanded for the church outside but it is not always granted inside. Accordingly, a bill of rights ought to be formulated and pro­mulgated throughout the Church, in accordance with an open, collegial process already suggested above, specifying those areas where the protection of Christian freedom is of absolute necessity.

• The right to freedom in the search for truth, without fear of administrative sanctions.
• The right to freedom in expressing personal beliefs and opinions as they appear to the individual, including freedom of communication and publication.
• The right of individuals to access to objective information, in particular about the internal and external operations of the Church (information such as an adversary agency might re­quire).
• The right to develop the unique potentialities and personal­ity traits proper to the individual without fear of repression by the Christian community or church authorities.
• The right of the Christian to work out his salvation in re­sponse to the unique challenges offered by the age and society in which he lives.
• The rights of persons employed by, or engaged in the ser­vice of, the Church to conditions of work consonant with hu­man dignity as well as the right to professional practices comparable to those in the society at large.
• The right to freedom of assembly and of association (such as the formation of an association of priests, even alongside the established senate of priests in a given diocese).
• The right to participate according to our gifts from the Spirit, in the teaching, government, and sanctification of the Church.
• All the rights and freedoms of Christians without discrimi­nation on the basis of race, color, sex, birth, language, political opinion, or national or social origin.
• The right to effective remedies for the redress of grievances and the vindication of their rights.
• In all proceedings in which one of the parties may suffer substantial disadvantage, the procedure must be fair and impar­tial, with an opportunity for submission to boards of mediation and arbitration.
• In all procedures administrative or judicial, in which penal­ties may be imposed, the accused shall not be deprived of any right, office, or communion with the Church except by due process of law; said due process shall include, but not be limited to, the right hot to be a witness against oneself; the right to a speedy and public trial; the right to be informed in advance of the specific charge against him; the right to confront the wit­nesses against him; the right to have the assistance of experts and of counsel for his defense; and a right of appeal.
  

Women are positively and completely excluded from every position of ecclesiastical leadership. This is an assumption that before God women are inferior to men. With this, we must abolish at once, the decisive and pedagogical direct: by admitting women to ordination, to the deaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy. Since theologians see no insurmountable biblical or dogmatic obstacle to the ordination of women, then this should be part of the life of the church. Women should have a voice in policy and decision making in places of power in local, regional, national and international levels. Seminary education should be open to women and eventually admitted to ordination.

iii.iii The Non-Institutional Church (Holy Anarchy)

Another agenda of reform would be, seeing the church not as an institution, since in essence, the church is not one. Rudolf Sohm contends that whereas in Rome it is an institution, the Church of Christ was in no sense an institution. Every Christian receives it charisma and gifts and these is what constitutes the church. The spontaneity of Christians itself creates order. By living in the Spirit of God, everybody pays attention and accepts one another. Nothing is laid down and everything brought about by the actions of men. Fellow Christian itself induces a degree of spontaneous mutual subordination.

Since there is no formal authority, relations of everybody is free from dominations and co-ordination is achieved by the Spirit of God through the charisma or love of action. The absence of an institution is the expression of a living community in which freedom and true equality prevail. As a result, there would be a holy freedom from domination (a holy an-archy). The community filled with the Christian spirit lives by “pneumatic anarchism.” This would be the Church of Christ is all about; at least the governing principle would be a holy an-archy. Adaptation to existing social conditions means that the church is not true to its nature. For this reason, it is wrong that the church ever becomes an institution.

The church could therefore be turned into the institutionalization of freedom domination by working out the truth and admitting its mistakes; that the church would be tolerant to others and not meeting attacks with force by becoming a non-violent system of community; by stipulating love of freedom and attacking all form of domination as inhuman; by giving people free play in spreading the kingdom of God; and by following Jesus Christ as the “way the truth and the life.”

iv. Conclusion

It should be understood however, that the Church’s structure is neither a monarchy, democratic nor anarchy. However, faithful to the teachings of Vatican II, the church by its structural nature, is a community of fellowship and a communion of local churches. It must be emphasize and be given importance that the church’s structure should be in accordance of its mission, where equal dignity of everyone is respected and protected by everyone at all times. Disturbances and upsets in the structural balance would definitely upset the mission of the church itself. Truly, the Church remains to be a fellowship of the people of God and disturbances to this fellowship is inevitable, however should always to anticipated and make necessary repairs. Once there is an abandonment of the Church of her structural fellowship; she will lose its mission and stops becoming a church. For her only mission is to continue to strive the prayers of Jesus: that all maybe one.

(this article is a report i made on my class in ECCESIOLOGY)