Beyond jurisdictional authority
I’m currently knee deep in readings related to the question of the status of the “local church” in Roman Catholic ecclesiology and how local churches (understood in different ways of course) relate to the “universal” church. This issue of course involves explorations of the meaning of “catholicity” and the exercise of authority at the various levels of the church. Indeed, much of the reading has me coming back to the idea that the church has been struggling to get beyond a pyramidal and territorial view of ecclesial authority toward an understanding rooted in the image of ecclesial and episcopal communion. The latter is a much more open (or “deliberately vague,” in Roger Haight’s terms) concept that allows for a richer sense of episcopal authority, leaving behind the mechanical and rigid jurisdictional view of Christendom.
So in the midst of this focus of study, two stories involving bishops in “discommunion” jumped out at me this week. The first was the case of Richmond bishop Francis DiLorenzo refusing to allow the local Pax Christi USA group to meet on diocesan property. The story has circulated a bit through the Catholic blogosphere already, often pointing out that one of the meeting’s featured speakers was retired Richmond bishop Walter Sullivan, a well-known and much admired bishop to folks involved in Catholic social justice ministries in Appalachia. Anyone familiar with the views and record of Pax Christi should know that this kind of heavy-handed exercise of authority is without just cause.
While this case indeed involved two bishops, the real conflict was between a bishop and a Catholic organization. Another bishop was simply caught in the crossfire. The second case that struck me was similar, but a bit more interesting. A Catholic social justice group in Marquette, Michigan invited Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a well known peace activist, to speak at one of their events. In response, Marquette bishop Alexander Sample has denied Gumbleton, a fellow bishop, the opportunity to speak in the diocese under his care.
Turf-war scuffles are nothing new in the Catholic church, especially in the united states. Bishops and lay groups, for example, have periodically duked it out in ways that are probably healthy and to be expected to some degree. It seems to me, though, that bishop-to-bishop turf wars are growing more and more common in the american church, reaching an intensity that is bordering on pathological. The sad (and justifiably infuriating) case of former Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino is still fresh in our minds.
I don’t mean to rely on naive notions of ecclesial “unity” that ignore the real and often painful divisions in our church, divisions that need to be concretely worked out in our communities. But is it too much to ask that our bishops not devolve into a jurisdictional exercise of authority that quite simply belongs to another era of church history that we have rightly tried to leave behind? A “police-force” approach to the episcopacy that could result in such utter disrespect for a fellow bishop in good standing is a scandal and has no place among the college of bishops, a body whose authority is meant to be very much unlike the authority wielded by the territorial powers of this world.
Comments are closed.
Rather than echoes of “another era” I wonder if the move to a more communion based approach is what has allowed these more recent turf wars to bubble to the surface. If there is less of a top-down authority telling bishops to play nice.
I think that’s the other side of a “flatter” Church, less authority means more diversity of opinions both negatively and positively.
My favorite turf war was over Jerusalem and Alexandra with Origen in the crossfire; you are right, there is nothing new about them, but I think the one on Origen reveals much about what was to come down in history afterward.
Origen was a layman, went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He was already known as one of the leading intellectuals of his time, and the bishop wanted to hear him speak. He gave a homily. When he got back home to Alexandria, he was told he had no business giving a homily as a layman in front of a bishop, even though the bishop requested it. There was a lot of stink which went on with this.
Origen eventually had another trip to Jerusalem. The bishop there remembered what had happened before, and, wanting to ease the situation, ordained Origen.
Of course, this caused more stink, and probably the main reason why rumors about Origen began to be spread, the kind which ultimately led to his being ignored for canonization.
I hadn’t noticed the Marquette decision. The counter argument is that a lot of these groups are bishop shopping, like many people parish shop. And then you have people argue against one bishop’s teaching by citing another.
On the other hand, I seem to recall Weakland was not being officially banned from the parishes in Milwaukee.
“Bishop shopping” can be a problem for sure, but it is pretty understandable why Pax Christi has certain bishops speak, as they have historically had bishop members.
On the other hand, “bishop shopping” can be a good thing, and is another example of what I mean by getting beyond jurisdictional authority. The black bishops of the u.s., for example, have written pastoral letters and it is understandable why black americans would recognize them as being their shepherds, alongside their regular diocesan bishops. This is not to deny the importance of territorial structures in the church, but if we get beyond jurisdictional thinking, the recognition of the authority of multiple bishops looks very different and could/should even foster communion.
I happen to believe that an installed Bishop has the duty to preside over his particular diocese in these matters, and that what Iafrate describes as “jurisdictional thinking” could as easily be described as “localism,” which is a virtue that is sorely lacking in our world. Had, for example, President Jenkins privately consulted Bishop D’Arcy over Obama’s invitation to Notre Dame, the whole fiasco might have been averted by simply having Obama deliver the commencement address without receiving an honorary degree (this was, from the start, the Bishop’s preference). Not respecting local structures of authority led to a circus-show, in which all parties basically made asses of themselves. Bishops exist, in part, to prevent this kind of thing from happening in their dioceses.
That being said, I am as wary as Iafrate that–in America especially–a bishop’s pastoral prerogative over his diocese can too easily become a mask for ideologically driven political decisions. (And, if I am not mistaken, political allegiance and maneuvering was as much, if not more, a part of the Origen controversy than anything pertaining to Origen’s theology per se).
Bishop Martino, alas, seems to have done this repeatedly, and this is no doubt one reason why he was retired. (It is also why so many of the Catholic Right became his supporters, even in the face of his very many questionable decisions while in office).
Suppose there were a Catholic bishop who declined to allow Hugh Hewitt or George Weigel to speak in a church of his diocese on the grounds that they were likely to mislead his flock into aligning Catholicism with Republican Party politics; that they had insufficiently acknowledged their role in the murder of thousands of Iraqis, and that in general they were apt to confuse the distinction between the City of God and the City of Man to the detriment of the audience’s spiritual well being. Suppose such a bishop also declined to allow Gumbleton or Nancy Pelosi or to speak for different, though easily analogized, reasons. I would think this would be a good thing.
I happen to believe that an installed Bishop has the duty to preside over his particular diocese in these matters, and that what Iafrate describes as “jurisdictional thinking” could as easily be described as “localism,” which is a virtue that is sorely lacking in our world.
I’m actually very much in favor of “localism,” in the church and in politics, but it depends on what one means by it. I don’t equate “localism” and “territorialism.” It also depends on what one means by “authority” and how one thinks it should be exercised. Police-force bishops are in the business of exercising authority in a very this-worldly way. This approach in fact ends up undermining their authority.
Suppose there were a Catholic bishop who declined to allow Hugh Hewitt or George Weigel to speak in a church of his diocese… Suppose such a bishop also declined to allow Gumbleton or Nancy Pelosi or to speak for different, though easily analogized, reasons. I would think this would be a good thing.
I disagree. I would not be in favor of a bishop not allowing Weigel to speak. Bishops don’t fulfill their teaching role by silencing others. They teach by teaching. I would be in favor of allowing various Catholic figures speak and then the bishop is welcome to weigh in as the authoritative teacher of the diocese, issuing corrections or concerns the way the u.s. bishops did in response to Pelosi (of course, the Pelosi case was not a matter of her speaking in a particular diocese, but the bishops’ response is what I’m pointing to here).
I would love to see Weigel’s face as the local ordinary gives a pointed rebuttal to his presentation in the parish hall. Or Pelosi’s for that matter.
Bishops don’t fulfill their teaching role by silencing others.
I would strongly disagree with this. While it may not be the most satisfying form, from an intellectual standpoint, of correction and it is certainly prone to abuse, it is very much a fulfillment of the teaching role.
They teach by teaching.
This seems to be analogous to the cure for bad speech is more speech. You haven’t always been sympathetic with this.
Suppose there were a Catholic bishop who declined to allow Hugh Hewitt or George Weigel to speak in a church of his diocese on the grounds that they were likely to mislead his flock into aligning Catholicism with Republican Party politics; that they had insufficiently acknowledged their role in the murder of thousands of Iraqis, and that in general they were apt to confuse the distinction between the City of God and the City of Man to the detriment of the audience’s spiritual well being.
Praise God! That said, there should be forums for debate. I don’t believe a pep rally at the parish is one of those forums.
I would love to see Weigel’s face as the local ordinary gives a pointed rebuttal to his presentation in the parish hall. Or Pelosi’s for that matter.
Well, Rowan Williams certainly skewered him at one point in a response to a Weigel piece on why the Bush administration had a certain “charism” for discerning whether or not the Iraq War would be just.
To Michael: it seems to me that what I am describing as “localism” you are describing as “territorialism.” Of course, part of my understanding of localism as it pertains to the Church is that, in fact, the Bishop *does* have authority over his diocese and should exercise that authority with attention to the pastoral care of his flock. On account of this, it is *certainly* the case–as M.Z. says–that denying certain speakers a diocesan platform is part of his duty. Perhaps in some Habermasian dream-world, the bishop would “teach” in the manner you describe: but it seems to me this is neither plausible, given the demands and range of responsibilities the Bishop has, nor prudent, as it would encourage some members of his flock to interpret the event as a “disagreement” about Weigel and the Bishop on Catholic Just War thinking, rather than a *correction* of erroneous teaching.
Perhaps it is true to say that you want ecclesiastical localism to be imbued with a democratic ethos, whereas I don’t.
Of course, part of my understanding of localism as it pertains to the Church is that, in fact, the Bishop *does* have authority over his diocese and should exercise that authority with attention to the pastoral care of his flock.
I would agree with this except I would say that a bishop has authority in his diocese rather than over his diocese. Again, it’s a question of how that authority is exercised. And the particular question I have in this post is how authority is exercised in relation to other bishops. Should it be reduced to a territorial dispute? I don’t think so.
Perhaps it is true to say that you want ecclesiastical localism to be imbued with a democratic ethos, whereas I don’t.
No, I said nothing about ecclesial “democracy.” Democracy is another word that can mean different things. Democracy can in fact be compatible with territorialism. I’m in favor of ecclesial and episcopal communion which admittedly is a less precise image than the bishop-has-jurisdictional-authority-over-this-territory mentality.
Adam – To clarify, I’m not in favor of “less authority” but authority exercised differently. I don’t think we can point to a “communion” model of authority as a source of the problem of jurisdictional bishops who do not act in a spirit of communion. That explanation doesn’t make much sense to me.
These bishops who feel they have the right to review and approve every panelist at a forum held in in a parish hall or speaker at a Catholic college really need to get a life. It is petty and unchristian.
Well, I’m in favor of “ecclesial and episcopal communion” too. But part of my understanding of what constitutes that community is a bishop at its “head.” Does this mean that a bishop has ecclesial jurisdiction “over” his community or “in” his community? Is this a distinction without a difference? If not, why not?
I characterized your stance as “democratic” because I suspect–on the basis of this post and others–that you are (rightly) suspicious of the abuses inherent in top-down governing structures. And because I was grasping at a way to conceptually delimit what you agree is an imprecise “image” of the form of ecclesical localism you prefer.
The general academic tendency is towards egalitarianism. Here is yet another example of this movement.
The general academic tendency is towards egalitarianism. Here is yet another example of this movement.
Zach – Once again, the concern that I expressed here is about the relationship that bishops have with one another. I said nothing about “egalitarianism.”
And please, the anti-academic nonsense is played out.
I get what you are saying about it not making sense, but sometimes changes play out in a counter-intuitive fashion. I think that was what I was suggesting with my earlier comment (one day I’ll learn not to comment after a certain hour). I count the move to a more communion based ecclesiology, which I feel is a positive development that can still maintain some form of episcopal authority, as a more recent development and sometimes the uncharted (as you said “intentionally vague”) territory of newer developments can produce contrary and even contradictory expressions. That’s all.
These bishops who feel they have the right to review and approve every panelist at a forum held in in a parish hall or speaker at a Catholic college really need to get a life. It is petty and unchristian.
I think that’s not fair. Even when they make the wrong call, and in the examples Michael cited they have, if there was something truly and universally acknowledged to be egregious with a speaker at a Catholic University or parish I would expect and even demand that the Bishop be involved. If I saw that happen my first though would be, “Where’s the Bishop? Why isn’t he doing his damn job?”
Adam – Yep, I agree with that and you certainly could be right. It’s certainly a much “riskier” ecclesiology than an authoritarian one. Analogously, democracy is much much “riskier” than fascism!
Good thoughts and discussion. Bishop-hopping has become an increasing issue lately, during the election and the ND fiasco. Ideally Bishops should exercise servant-leadership. The laity should follow the guidance of their bishop, but what happens when servant-leader is trying to shepherd a herd of cats or when half the herd wants to follow a different shepherd because he leads them to more conservative or more liberal pastures? I’m not sure…my thoughts are still fuzzy on the issue.
These bishops who feel they have the right to review and approve every panelist at a forum held in in a parish hall or speaker at a Catholic college really need to get a life. It is petty and unchristian.
adamv Says:
I think that’s not fair. Even when they make the wrong call, and in the examples Michael cited they have, if there was something truly and universally acknowledged to be egregious with a speaker at a Catholic University or parish I would expect and even demand that the Bishop be involved. If I saw that happen my first though would be, “Where’s the Bishop? Why isn’t he doing his damn job?”
I don’t disagree. IF it is a matter that is truly and universally acknowledged to be egregious. The two bishops in question, papally approved organizations like Pax Christi, are not such cases.
The problem is bishops insisting their personal whims or discernments be imposed everywhere.
I should probably stop there, but on the point “universally acknowledged”, I will note the Universal Acknowledger of the Catholic Church invited President Obama to speak to him in Rome. Therefore, I don’t see the problem in inviting him to speak in South Bend. (I know the response — the Pope has the intellectual maturity to hear from a man like Obama while the ignorant lay faithful must have their little minds protected).
Hey Michael,
You’re right, I shouldn’t have qualified my remarks by restricting the worship of equality to academics. It’s the dominant religion of the West these days.
You didn’t use the word egalitarianism, but your remarks are those of someone who has an great disdain for hierarchy. I think this is a very common disposition, especially in academia. Inequality implies superiority and inferiority, and these are terms uncomfortable for someone who thinks equality is the summum bonum.
Michael,
Does your thinking here about collegiality apply not just to bishops outlying on the left, but also to bishops outlying on the right? I’m thinking here of the situtation of the Society of St. Pius X, who share with a person like Bp. Gumbleton a lack of jurisdiction.
Not they have had their faculties suspended by Rome, where Grumbleton has not, but would you say that bishops who are ordinaries of diocese owe them some minimal cooperation?
I have in mind a particular case in Colorado, where annually a group of pilgrims from the SSPX chapel in Watkins walk 50 miles over 2 days to the Shrine of St. Frances Cabrini in Golden, only to celebrate a mass of thanksgiving out on the highway because Abp. Chaput won’t give them permission to celebrate mass at the shrine.
ben – As you seem to understand, from what I can make of your comment, there is a clear difference between Gumbleton who is a bishop in good standing and the bishops you are referring to who are not. I would say that we should be in dialogue with the bishops you are concerned about and hope that they return to a position that has some semblance of communion with the universal church.
Aside from that distinction, what I am saying here has nothing to do with “left” or “right.” I am in favor of authentic collegiality in the form of dialogue among all bishops of the college.
Michael,
Since the excommunications have been lifted and these bishops have been invited to an official dialogue with Rome, I don’t belive that we can honestly say that they have no semblance of communion with the universal church.
Their status would be more akin to that of Fernando Lugo Mendez of Paraguay–lacking jurisdiction and suspended faculties.
Now wouldn’t you think local prelates should be cooperative if a group of lay people were to invite him to come and speak?
Ben – You are right about their level of communion with Rome. I certainly don’t think that they have “no semblance” of communion. I stand corrected. There are indeed various degrees of communion.
Nevertheless, the comparisons you are making don’t hold up. Gumbleton’s status as a bishop is not in question. Although excommunications have been lifted in an attempt to invite greater communion, you seem pretty optimistic about their current status. They in fact not only lack jurisdiction and not only have suspended faculties, but there is a deep rift in communion such that, despite lifting the formal excommunications, they are still not in full communion with the universal church.
Lugo lacks jurisdiction and faculties, but for completely different reasons. There is no rift in communion in his case. The comparison does not work. Of course local bishops should approve if a group of lay people or a pastor or whoever invited him to speak.
I cross-posted this at my personal blog, and a reader replied with the following example in the combox:
The news about Fr. McCarthy is troubling. Everything I’ve every heard about him is so positive. From what I have heard he is one of a small number of people on the national scene who truly have a seamless garment approach. He walks the walk on the life issues as much as the peace issues.
We need more like him.