Discussion:
the desacralization of church power

 

1. The crushing sacred authority

As a young teacher in Catholic schools in my 20's, my first pastor/parish priest warned us that we would be fired if he ever saw our cars parked outside our girlfriend's houses overnight. Meanwhile he had a secret mistress/"wife" and teenage children on the other side of the city where he lived a double life.

The Catholic secondary school where I coached in the 90's (Salesian College in Melbourne) is now in the news 25 years later for systematically abusing young boys in the boarding school. Bishops in Australia consciously and willingly used every legal manoeuvre and ploy to cover up, avert the course of justice and emotionally destroy and ruin the courageous people who came forward as abuse victims.

Just recently the Archdiocese of Cincinnati expanded it morality clause for employees who must choose between work and family when publicly supporting their loved ones who are homosexual. How can a church employee not attend their child's gay marriage ceremony for fear of being sacked? I had workmates with gay children, who have been threatened by the church to disavow themselves from their children's lives or risk being fired. That is not Sacred Authority!

I worked for Holy Family Catholic Community in Inverness, Illinois, from 2006-2012 and have been saddened by the news of late. My friend Colin had been living with his partner for years and the Archdiocese knew of it. When Colin married, which the church doesn't recognize anyway, they fired him after 17 years of dedicated service. I wish Daniel McCormick, pedophile priest and abuser of children in the Chicago Archdiocese, had been removed as quickly. The Chicago Archdiocese covered his tracks and did nothing to protect the innocents in its care while McCormick destroyed lives. Victims since have taken their own lives with little or no help from the church. That's "Sacred Authority" at work once again.

As a man who seriously considered entering the seminary, I'm glad I didn't. I have lost trust in the church. Bishops are no less fallible than you and I. They are weak human beings just like you and I. Their power comes from their office and not from respect. They can choose to be pastoral, or they can choose to destroy lives from their ivory tower.

If I sound like a disgruntled ex church employee, you might be correct. I do not work for the church anymore after 25 years of service. Perhaps God is leading me to another sacred authority? Perhaps the most sacred authority is that of a parent's love for their children.

Paul McMahon, paul.mcmahon@live.com
Sydney, Australia

2. A Rainbow of hope

Well said, Paul.
I am truly sorry that you and many others (including myself) have become disillusioned with some of the people in hierarchical leadership who have misused authority and power to serve themselves instead of others. I, too, pursued a year in a major seminary to be a diocesan priest, but left when it didn’t make sense for me. That being said, I have met some saints among the priests who have served that I look up to.

In 2004, I self-published a book titled "The Rainbow Chronicles.” The story involves an 11 year old girl who is summoned by her king to restore the Rainbow’s End to her land, which had been stolen by an “enemy.” The story is an allegory. One of the main themes and questions the story raises is, “Who is sitting on the throne?” The corollary is, what are they doing while they are sitting there? I thought it would be interesting to contrast the thrones of the leaders with the Throne of the Almighty.
I intended the book to offer a way to look at ourselves and our motivations. It certainly applies to hierarchical leadership, that seeks to serve itself instead of others.

Dave Pipitone, dave_pipitone@wowway.com
Streamwood, IL

3. The need of a desacralizing religion

One of the primary thrusts of the Second Vatican Council was to legitimate and celebrate the moral separation of church and state and engage its faithful in a still evolving DESACRALIZATION OF POWER in Nation States, which Max Weber defined as those entities claiming a monopoly of violence.

Most Catholics are oblivious to the Nation State’s powerful but encrypted need and efforts to sacralize itself. In terms of a powerful sense of the need to desacralize the power of the Nation State, Stanley Hauerwas prompts us to see how America prepares us for war by making war efforts and memories sacred by turning them into a sacred liturgy.

We can see how war becomes liturgy on Memorial Day, or when we hear the Gettysburg Address recited, when we reverence its 272 words as comprising a sacred national text, or when the American flag becomes an icon, or when we reverentially hush at sports events to hear the star spangled banner. Hauerwas’ war-as-liturgy point is that war is far more (or far less?) than reason or realpolitik: the inevitability of war first exists in the collective imagination and without the counter-liturgy that Christianity proclaims we cannot even imagine a world without war. The best the Nation State imagination can offer is pauses (hopefully long) between inevitable wars.

The only secure sustenance for nonviolence is a community tied together through liturgy and gospel stories that present Jesus as accepting suffering rather than seeking power over his enemies ”. Only a consciously eschatological liturgy can subvert a subconscious national liturgy. War exists first in the imagination. Imagining a world without war is a requirement for authentic discipleship. As the Second Vatican Council has begun to teach us, authentic discipleship is nonviolent.

Jim Kelly, jkjrkelly@gmail.com
Fordham University.

4. The social need of sacralization

Sacralization is inevitable in human affairs. We elevate some things above others as special and worth our reverence. Sociologist Emile Durkheim suggested the sacred are those things set apart from mundane, everyday reality. Psychologist William James thought the sacred is revealed in the respect with which people approach the sacred. Rudoph Otto had a term for the reaction we have around sacred objects, symbols or places -- "mysterium tremendum" -- a sense of awe that lifts us outside of ourselves.

Sacralization both impedes and provides expression for personal and social transformation depending upon context and audience. The dark side of sacralization is to provide disguised worship of social inequality and human oppression whether this comes in the form of a bearded white judge in the sky or what my students now like to call a benevolent and personal "higher power" in this spiritual but not religious era. Sacralization of power inside or outside organized religion routinizes human oppression in some cases. A good example is race in the U.S.

Focus groups conducted at Purdue University in the 1990s showed post-Vatican II persons raised as Catholics described their faith in non-institutional terms and emphasized personal relationships with God. Very similar to Sheila Larson in Robert Bellah et. al (1985) Habits of the Heart who described her personal religion as "my little voice in side of me". Other Catholics ignore or oppose doctrines like Humanae Vitae (1968) on birth control but still retain Catholic identity and communal ties. Sacralization of power has its limits under conditions like those in the U.S. where moral issues are seen as personal decisions by many Catholics and access to God is a direct pipeline unmediated through the Church except as a personal choice or matter of taste.
Anonymous.

5. New forms of power

In my own work and experience I have witnessed the evolution of new kinds of power from within religious communities. These include collective action that can entail lobbying, manifestations, or the exercise of moral suasion that emerges out of consensus decisions (as in quaker communities) and power that makes itself felt in the mobilization of individuals and resources in social movements and coalitions of all kinds, on issues ranging from abortion/birth control etc. to housing, health, education, nutrition, rights. Quakers of course ground their practice and their exercise on consensus and specifically on the absence of hierarchical leadership. But they do a lot in generating other forms of power. Many other religious communities (not only separate churches and denominations but also groups arising within such churches and denominations) articulate and express forms of power and authority that can go beyond the simply hierarchical, even if (as with many catholics) they acknowledge and want to remain within the larger structures.

Daniel Levine, dhldylan@umich.edu
University of Michigan

6. Sacred authority is a denial of our humanity

When I think together “sacred” and “authority” I instantly become uncomfortable for several reasons. First, it's unnecessary and, secondly, it is dangerous and borders on idol worship.

When something is authentic, rooted in a kind of honesty, goodness, truth, and beauty... it carries it's own authority, wherein we recognize some touch of the Holy. While we may wrestle with what t/g/ or b are, the engagement forces us to hone and to question our assumptions and understandings. For example, the Catholic Church declared that we should not even talk about the issue of women priest... In the past, this "sacred authority" has approved slavery, the oppression of native peoples, etc.

Why do we so often try to make things "sacred cows" and why do people in power sometimes lean toward wanting unquestionable authority? Who through history has had such power and what usually came of it? "Sacred authority" is a denial of our humanity and of all the effort, discernment, collaboration, and communal dimensions of the sacred path of Christianity. There is certainly a place for authority, but it should never be unapproachable or sealed in stone. When something is sealed as such, it can be frozen, whereby further research and search for deeper meaning and understanding is stifled.

Mary-Paula, Cancienne, mary-paulacanciennersm@msn.com
Georgian Court University

7. Why do Catholic scholars struggle with authority?

The very visible authority structures within Roman Catholicism are just that—visible. The Yale “postliberal” school, led by George Lindbeck and Hans Frei, sought to address theological concerns using “Christian self-description,” ie., language generated within and by the Christian community. The Roman Catholic self-description is necessarily going to involve authority—from the papacy through the clergy down into those who lead and coordinate parishes.

Perhaps this inescapability—combined with the Church’s very visible problems—prompts anxiety over authority. “Christian self-description” involves the texts, traditions, ideas, and practices that, taken seriously, should admonish those in the Church’s authority not to confuse their position with power. They are not authorities in, of, and by themselves. Whether it’s Pope Francis’ Twitterfeed, Benedict’s few but profoundly moving encyclicals, or the expansive career of St John Paul II, the past three and half decades of the papacy alone give us plenty of material to consider. “Christian self-description,” though, as even those three popes themselves would acknowledge, extends far beyond their work.

In the academy, we are free, but that freedom remains incomplete when, in the Christian tradition, it remains independent of the truth. Christian freedom, therefore, serves as well as liberates. This Gospel truth includes precisely those parts of Christian self-description—mercy, fidelity, justice, and charity—that curtail our all-too-human temptation to grab and assert power self-righteously.

Jeffrey Marlett, marlettj@strose.edu
The College of Saint Rose

8. Respect of authority in disagreement

As Jeffrey Marlett says, the Catholic tradition includes as part of its DNA an authoritative center, the episcopacy, with the Vatican as its current focus. But there are different ways of exercising authority. At times when Rome has spoken, it has reminded me of a parent saying “because I say so,” or “because I have the authority.” Other times Rome seeks to give good reasons. The latter is far preferable for a community of adults, able to listen and think and judge as best they can.

Giving reasons is also helpful because it can expose the mind or attitude of the person(s) exercising authority. When John Paul II declared that the priest must be male because the priest presides as the image of Jesus, it exposed an attitude I would consider sexist – an assumption that the Incarnation brought forth a boy not just because that was what the first century Palestinian culture could deal with, but because somehow God would not ever choose a girl as a form of self-expression, so even today the Mass cannot have a woman presiding to symbolize a fuller rich possibility of divine created presence.

Even when we strongly disagree with opinions delivered with authority, we can still respect the authority. The U.S. Supreme Court has come up with weird decisions, but it is still good that there is a court of final appeal and that the courts in general conform to its judgment. The rule of law is good. Respect is not the same thing as agreement. Especially when there is always a tomorrow, and the tomorrows of the past have seen some significant changes, from Rome and from the Supremes (gay marriage comes to mind in the latter case).

Michael Barnes, barnes@udayton.edu
University of Dayton

9. In post-modernity “obedience” should probably be abandoned

I exercise most of my church-related activities in a liberal Protestant tradition (UCC) where there exists almost no authoritarian control of one part of the church over another. The only exception is the Committee on Ministry’s control over the ordination and standing of clergy. We operate in a context, then, of diversity, pluralism, and extreme voluntarism. If people are unhappy with stands the national church takes, they can freely and openly ignore them or even condemn them. Certainly people leave our denomination fairly readily, and rarely feel the kind of nostalgic loss that I’ve noticed among some ex-Roman Catholics.

We rely a lot on the biblical concept of “covenant” to affirm our relationship to one another, between the congregations, associations, conferences, and national body of the church—all of whom enjoy autonomy within the UCC. It makes for interesting debates and abuses sometimes. It also makes it easy for individuals and congregations to leave the denomination. So I think I’m aware of the drawbacks of a tradition that for all practice purposes no longer even thinks in terms of obedience to some authority. (I'm not sure anyone in the UCC would know what "sacralized power" could possibly mean.)

I have argued in several contexts that, given the realities of a postmodern world with our acute awareness of the contingency and historical-cultural relativity of all human institutions and traditions, that the concept of “obedience” should probably be abandoned. In a world of democratic values, individualism, negotiated orders and realities, our collective responses to the reality of God need to come to grips with the radical freedom in which we find ourselves. I would guess that my argument has huge implications for Roman Catholicism.

Anton K. Jacobs, antonkjacobs@earthlink.net
Kansas City Art Institute

10. On beliefs and assumptions

A religion that has undeniable Truths cannot be open to all questions. As a Catholic, I must believe without question in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

The same commitments apply in the life of an American citizen. Under our Constitution, adherents of our political creed must believe that all men are "created equal" and have equal rights under the law. A racist may say that blacks are by their nature inferior to whites , such as one finds in the KKK viewpoint. Under our laws such a view may be publically advocated but would find no support in our courts. Same for the view that our planet is flat. Few political , religious or scientific enquires are presented to the inquirer as a tabula rasa . Even atheistic scientists have their "beliefs" or "presumptions" which deeply influence their research.
Richard J. Clarkson, r.clarkson_law@yahoo.com

11. Theology and the social order

Religions are in a continuous interaction with the rest of society, exchanging ideas about authority, right and wrong, participation and so on. Core religious values such as divine creation or the relation of Jesus to God are compatible with all kinds of secular patterns. Is there a unique theological principle at work here? I don’t think so

Can we find a theological basis for democracy, for gender equality, for learning, for an end to slavery? I do think so and the historical record supports it

Daniel Levine, dhldylan@umich.edu
University of Michigan

12. Sacred authority and individual freedom

The question of sacred authority is a very lively one for me this weekend. I was commissioned by a major Catholic magazine (directed at a lay audience) to write an informative article on what the Curia is. As I tried to craft this piece for this centrist publication, I could not get past Pope Francis's statement in 2013, “The court [the Curia] is the leprosy of the papacy.”

The editor three days ago insisted on what for me is a major reorientation of the text, indicating that the article is more a negative commentary than an informational piece, and that they wanted a positive article, since “readers likely view the Curia as a ‘mystery’ of sorts and rather than point to the ‘corruption’ we could give them insight into its makeup.”

I have been asked to remove the papal quotation, because it is too shocking! I am deeply perplexed that a centrist publication is reluctant to acknowledge what ended Benedict's papacy (serious curial corruption) and the mandate of Francis's papacy (reform of the Curia). It is a grave deficiency in our ecclesiology, when a blunt papal critique of the Curia cannot be used to aid lay Catholics in understanding the need to desacralize the Curia.

Kenneth

13. Alternative vision of church authority

I agree with M.P. Cancienne. "Sacred" authority is a spooky notion, and it pervades talk of the Church about itself . What to do about it is no easy problem. There are numerous ways of approaching the problem, from the modest but important reformist moves of Pope Francis to more radical moves to excise the term "sacred" altogether. I have a few suppositions as I approach it:

1. All authority, sacred and otherwise, must be received as well as claimed. When reception evaporates, so does the authority. When Catholics abandon the authority of popes, curia and bishops, the authority ceases, sacred or not.

2. All Christians are members of the one, holy Catholic church which can in no way be identified with the (authoritative) Roman Catholic Church.

3. All communities of Christians are free to create church governments in forms which are helpful to Christian life. It isn't easy but it can be done. Mistakes will be made.

4. Church leadership may term itself sacred but if so they are badly mistaken, as the Catholic hierarchy has done. No particular form of church government is ordained by God. The Catholic form isn't a mistake but it remains one of many with no claim to divinity or sacrality.

5. Sacred Popes and bishops, "sacred synods" and the like, mistaken as they are in their self-designation, may be helpful to Christian life, but when they become a burden they must at least be desacralized if not chased out and replaced by other people who are not sacred and perhaps by another form of government which is more responsive to the churches.

 William M. Shea, wshea@holycross.edu
College of the Holy Cross

14. Hooray for authority! But hooray also for the gift of freedom!

In one of his books David Kelly made a great distinction between what is universal law–physics might be a good example–and what is positive law–stop at the red light. Problems arise when one confuses the two, as Catholic magisterial statements–particularly those having to do with sex–sometimes do. It is hard to claim that everyone in the world is subject to ecclesiastical positive laws that claim universal knowability and therefore universal assent. The same is true when one invokes Sharia law as universal.

Going in another direction: As a Catholic I respect the pope for his sacred office and must respect and abide by doctrinal teaching. As a Catholic I believe that God holds me responsible for trying to understand what is binding teaching and what is temporal interpretation–as someone has said already–conditioned by the exigencies and new discoveries through history. God is at work there as well certainly. Having said that, I believe that what wears the costume of "teaching" is not always so.

Hooray for authority! But hooray also for the gift of freedom. An awesome gift it is, to respect and use with care and discernment.

Dee Christie, dlchristie@aol.com
John Carroll University

15. Conscience and the sensus fidelium

The words "conscience" and "sensus fidelium" are the key to the ascendency and infallibility of the laity on so many of the controversial issues facing the modern Roman Catholic Church. I am reminded of a response made by Blessed Cardinal Newman to the Duke of Norfolkwhen the Duke proposed a toast to the infallibility of the Pope: "To the Pope, but to conscience first". Another authority of even greater weight is St. Thomas Aquinas. In his response to Peter Lombard, the "angelic doctor" stated that one must follow one's conscience even if it leads to heresy. Some day this may come to the aid of Martin Luther and others. Pope Francis spoke of the infallibility of the faithful "as a whole".

I am a retired lawyer. As Pope John XXIII said, open the windows and let in sunlight and some fresh air.

Richard J. Clarkson, r.clarkson_law@yahoo.com

16. Hierarchy-community-conscience, not: hiearchy vs. conscience

Often we dichotomize hierarchy- versus (or with) conscience. This leaves us with perpetual risk of a gap or fissure. Better to speak of hierarchy-community-conscience. Conscience can't just opt out when it feels like it nor can hierarchy simply command what it wishes. Both have an accountability to the community of believers. The Church as international organization will not be able to come up with a universal set of meanings or descriptions of what we believe or what as Catholics we are bound to do–morally speaking. The consensus of the people is a very broad concept whose import and "message" unfolds over a very long period. It is not the same as an opinion poll that takes a snapshot of views among Catholics at any given point in time.

This approach requires some intelligence on the part of bishops to respect the adulthood of non-clergy who are committed disciples. It requires effort on the part of pastors to begin to communicate that such a discernment is even possible and that the norms so reached are valuable to the life of the parish. It requires Catholics who are willing to join with others in the sometimes arduous practice of discernment recognizing that what they do will involve probably only a small fraction of the entire parish, but will be a witness to the Gospel Calling and a leaven in the community.

The Church is not a democracy neither is it a personal fiefdom of a royal hierarchy. It is an organic community–with head and heart, with feet and hands, and with "less noble" parts–none of which is more important that the others and none of what acts like the powers of this world where one group lords it over any other.

Richard Shields, richshields@sympatico.ca
University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, ON