 |
About Woodstock | Programs | Publications | Search |
"Peter and Paul Seminar": The Unfinished Work of Collegiality
[Woodstock Report, March 2005, No. 81]
Editor's note: Last June, the Woodstock Report carried an item about a "Peter and Paul" seminar that brought together 60 Catholic lay leaders, clergy, and religious for a discussion of collegiality, or shared authority. The distinguished convener of that meeting has prepared this account of Peter and Paul's work in the form of an imagined interview with himself. In questions and answers, he speaks of the organization and inspiration behind the gathering as well as the wider conversation in the Catholic Church.
From April 14 through 17, 2004, under the joint sponsorship of Georgetown University Law Center and the Woodstock Theological Center, the Peter and Paul Seminar held a meeting at Georgetown University on the topic of "Collegiality in the Church." The papers will be published in two issues (in 2004 and 2005) of The Jurist, the canon law journal of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. The convener of the meeting was Fr. Ladislas Orsy, S.J., Professor at the Law Center. The following is an interview with him.
Q: What is this "Peter and Paul Seminar"? Who are its members?
A: The Seminar is a team of a dozen scholars, theologians and canon lawyers, from different universities in the United States, Canada, and Europe. They have worked together for some six years.
Q: Why is it called "Peter and Paul"?
A: From Peter the Apostle, we ask the grace of fidelity; from Paul the Apostle, we demand the gift of creativity. This should tell you about the spirit and aspirations of our group.
Q: What is the purpose of the Seminar?
A: It is to help the church to achieve greater harmony between its theological vision and canonical legislation.
Q: Why is that so important?
A: Because life is important; whatever happens in reality, it takes precedence over any theory - because it deals with existence. The church is what it is in practice, not just what it wishes to be in a beautiful vision. And legislation deals with practice. A vision is worth as much as it is lived in the community.
Q: Has anyone commissioned you to do that?
A: Not beyond the commission that every baptized person receives from the Holy Spirit. We are volunteers in the church.
Q: Can you tell me about your work?
A: As I said, we are interested in the relationship between doctrine and law. Or, we wish to investigate how the church moves from theological vision to canonical legislation. Let me explain it by an example. Over some two thousand years, the church has developed a vision of the papacy; this is doctrine. Over the same period, the church also produced structures and norms through which the papacy operates; this is practice. Clearly, if there is harmony between the doctrine and practice, the church is healthy, it experiences "order in tranquility," its life is well balanced, and people are contented. If the laws demand more than what the doctrine requires, an unnecessary burden is put on the community, and some relief therefore is warranted. If the norms do not give enough scope to the wealth of the vision, new structures and rules may be needed. You see now why our team is composed of theologians and canon lawyers.
Q: Why did you undertake this work?
A: Because we felt that it was needed. True, Vatican Council II has given a new vision to the church, but much of it is still in need of implementation. The tensions that we experience today originate to high degree in a lack of balance in the social body: people are attracted to an ideal image of the church and they are frustrated by its daily operation. An example tells the story: the intelligence and responsible freedom of the faithful at large has been asserted and exalted by the Council, but in the following decades God's people found little opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes of the church. They are lifted up by the vision and depressed by the lack of implementation.
Q: What was the specific topic of your conversation at Georgetown?
A: It was the issue of collegiality.
Q: Why collegiality?
A: Because it was a central issue at Vatican Council II and ever since there have been calls for the increase of its practice. In every way it appeared to be an issue crying out for investigation.
Collegiality provoked probably the fiercest debate among the bishops at the Second Vatican Council.
Q: Would you tell me briefly what you mean by "collegiality"?
A: Yes, but with a caution. It is a seminal term, not well defined but pointing far and wide. We keep progressing in its understanding - rich concepts yield their content slowly. For this reason, I cannot give you a final definition but I can offer a fair explanation - enough to work with. "Collegiality" is a term used mainly in the Western church; it means to operate in a collective manner, as distinct from a strictly and exclusively monarchical government. Let examples speak: whenever an ecumenical council is in session, namely, when all the bishops are deliberating and deciding as a "corporation" with the pope presiding, they are acting collegially. Similarly, when the bishops of a territory gather in conferences, or when the priests of a diocese assemble around their bishop, or when the faithful participate in a pastoral synod, they are working collegially, although in various ways and to different degrees. (The idea of collegiality does not exclude an internal hierarchical structure: the bishop of Rome has the role of the head in the bishops' college with a power that the members do not have. His eminent power, however, needs to be integrated organically with the power of the others without being subordinated to them.)
Such collegial actions, in truth, are the external expressions of an internal unity that we call 'communion." This internal and invisible unity is created by God's own actions.
They who receive the Word of God through the teaching of Christ and accept the grace of God through the Holy Spirit become one "communion" - a mysterious organism whose head is Christ and whose soul is the Spirit. There is the hidden and real unity of the church.
Q: You said collegiality was a central issue at the Council. Can you say more?
A: Certainly. Collegiality provoked probably the fiercest debate among the bishops. Interestingly, the preparatory documents hardly spoke of it, but once the Council was in session, the majority kept insisting - with increasing strength - that the council should affirm it. A minority opposed the motion passionately because they thought that it would undermine the dogma of the papal primacy. Eventually the bishops reached a measure of agreement (or a sensible compromise) and asserted episcopal collegiality as clearly part of our Catholic doctrine - without closely defining it. They left much to theologians to work on.
Furthermore, the Council has reshaped the image of the church. It rejected the conception that the "assembly of God" has a pyramidal structure where all good things are given from above, mediated by the hierarchy. The Council affirmed that God distributes his gifts directly to every single member of the body. Thus, lay persons are not any more in need of a mandate from the bishops to proclaim the Gospel, as it was assumed before. The sacrament of baptism is their mandate, which is a commission from the Spirit. Further, the bishops do not receive their power from the pope, but from the Holy Spirit who anoints them in their ordination. They are called to govern the people and bring order and harmony into the distribution and use of God's gifts. To perform their task well they must consistently watch the community, learn about God's action among the people, and listen to the seedsof wisdom present in the local assemblies.
Our conversation at Georgetown consisted first in trying to deepen our understanding of the church as "communio," second in assessing how far the present laws do express and promote this communio through "collegial operations," and third in suggesting new legislation to have a better balance between vision and action in the church.
If we believe that the Spirit initiated a great process of renewal through the ministry of Blessed Pope John, we should believe also that the same Spirit intends to bring it good conclusion.
Q: Were you successful?
A: Yes, as far as our conversation went. But to talk about needed laws is not the same as to enact binding laws. Such capacity we do not have. All we have is the ability to put some sound ideas into circulation. You recall the parable of the good seed? Well, a sound idea is like a good seed. It looks little and dry. But in a seed there are hidden energies in abundance. Let it fall into the right soil, it will erupt with life. It will strike roots, unfold, blossom out, and bring fruit hundredfold. There is our hope. We hope that if we are able to articulate some good ideas, they will travel and eventually reach receptive minds and willing hearts, and - overcoming prejudices and ideologies - they will be put into practice and refresh the church. We are sowers; we are not harvesters. We do our job, and then we hope that God's time will come. History tells us that good ideas travel far and wide and that they have strength to vanquish resistance.
Q: Let us look now beyond the borders of the Roman Catholic Church. Has your work any ecumenical significance? Or, are you concerned mainly with the church's internal renewal, aggiornamento, to use a word dear to Pope John XXIII?
A: Few movements in our church are more important for promoting the union of Christian churches than the effort to give more scope to collegiality. The intense practice of it would not only bring our church to its full potential but it would also attract the attention of other churches. They would be far more ready to seek union with us than they are now. Barriers that long dialogues could not remove may just fall down. There can be little doubt that the one church of Christ that we all want and search for can be only a church that is built on a vision of communion and that leads to practicing collegiality.
Q: To round off the interview, is there anything you would like to add?
A: Yes, I would like to add an observation that can be helpful to understand the state of our church - the Roman Catholic Church - forty years after the Council. The Council lasted four years, from 1962-1965. For many bishops it was a painful process: their task was to preserve our ancient traditions and to find new ways to proclaim the good news to the modern world. As they gradually accepted the call, they went through a veritable conversion.
During those four years, the universal church heard about the Council but did not really participate in it. No wonder that when the fruits of the Council became public, the people were taken by surprise and became troubled. They never experienced the struggles and the pain that generated the resolutions. It was - and still is - the people's turn to be converted to new ways of thinking and acting. It is bound to be a slow process.
In our days some of the conciliar debates are history, but they are replayed in the church. The scenarios are similar: it seems that conservatives are fighting the progressives and vice versa. In truth, another description is more fitting: there is a struggle between minds held captive by old formalities and minds open to the signs of new times. Should I say also that the "prophets of doom" are as active as ever: by spreading fear they try to strangle our hope.
The final outcome, however, can hardly be in doubt. If we believe that the Spirit has initiated a great process of renewal through the ministry of Blessed Pope John, we should believe also that the same Spirit intends to bring it good conclusion - but he will do it in his own time. Meanwhile - mystery of mysteries - he needs our help.