Is Church authority dependent on popular mandate?

Media

Part of The Cross

Title: Is Church authority dependent on popular mandate?
Language: English
Year: 1972
Rights
Fulltext: Current Comment Disenchanted comments of Catholic correspondents at the close of the Synod revealed a collective mentality that sate authority in the Church as residing in the People of God and its decisions as made by popular mandate. In comment on this mentality, F at her Crane notes its contradictions and warns of its dangers. Is Church Authority Dependent On Popular Mandate? NOTHING BECAME Catholic cor respondents at the Synod less than their concluding comments on it. These were revealing to say the least. The collective mind portrayed was that of a group wedded to change for its own sake; petty in the tantrums displayed when change was not granted on the terms it de sired; arrogant in its assumption that what it desired was identical with the hopes of clergy and faith ful throughout the world — hopes that were dashed in the end, the cor respondents would have us believe, by a clutch of reactionary and/or unrepresentative Churchmen, most especially the nineteen Cardinals of the Roman Curia and a further twenty-five Fathers who were at the Synod by special invitation of the Pope alone. In other words, the Sy nod, in the mind of the correspond ents, was a fix. The voice of the People of God was stifled by a fid dle. The questions at issue remain ed, therefore, despite the adverse (in the eyes of the correspondents) voting. The decisions taken were, in fact, invalid because unrepresen tative; this is the implication that appears to have underlain the disen chanted writing in final comment on the Synod. Thte assumption is sinis ter. It is that authority in the Church derives not from God, but from the People of God: its deci sions carry weight, therefore, only when representative of or ratified by the popular will. This is heresy. There is, naturally enough, no trace of it in the documents of the second Vatican Council in whose name May-June, 1972 these outrageous claims were made. Synod not a Popular Assembly It is precisely because this wrongheaded theology was present in the minds of many correspondents at the Synod that they tended to regard it as a species of popular assembly whose decisions would be made by majority vote and draw their bind ing force from the majority that made them. This view is totally false and doctrine within the Church can never be made on its basis. Father James Tolhurst put the point very well in a letter to the Universe on November 19th, 1971: "The result of the Synod was hardly good press material. How ever, this may have been be cause it was regarded as a ‘par liament*. The inevitable conno tations are that the bishops are M.P.’s and lobbies must be form ed to ensure a good majority. "In fact, the Synod is merely an expression of collegiality in which the magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) attempts to deepen its possession of the truth revealed by Christ. "The college of bishops and the Pope who is their head and often their spokesman (cf. Acts 15/7) are not ‘representing’ any one but Christ the high priest whose leadership and witness they assume by virtue of their office. “It may be very democratic to talk of forums and parliaments, but the deposit of faith cannot be decided by a majority vote.” Hoisted with their own Petard There is, of course, no reason why the vote should not be used as an indication of opinion for reference to a Bishop, a Conference of Bishops or, indeed, the Holy Father himself. It was so used at the Synod, but the Holy Father is not bound by it though, in his wisdom, he will in deed take count of it. He is not res ponsible to Parliament. This is so because his authority does not derive from the Synod or, indeed, the Church. It comes to him direct from God. The Synod Fathers showed their clear awareness of this by de livering to the Pope, at the end of the Synod, the documents on the priesthood and world justice for emendation, completion and publica tion as and when he saw fit. The decision, in other words, is the Pope’s because supreme authority is his. In fact, such voting as there was at the Synod went massively in favor of a celibate priesthood. Very naturally this infuriated the Pro gressives who wanted it made option al at the very least and whose low view of papa) authority had brought them to Rome hoping to see the Holy Father "mandated” in this direction by massive majority vote. In fact, the voting on this question (which, as I have already explained above, was merely indicative and in no way binding, as Progressives chose to be lieve) went totally against the pro gressive position. Thus, they were Page 7 hoisted with their own petard. Their reaction was typical. They took immediate steps to write down the value of the decision, attributing it to the presence of a reactionary and unrepresentative element within the ranks of the Synod Fathers. In other words, according to them, mandated decisions (of which, as we have seen, there can be none where Church Authority is concerned) are valid only when set in a progressive direction. This is the height of hy pocrisy. It is, I am afraid, typical of the progressive outlook in all fields. Liberal democracy is splen did when it works in favour of libe rals. If it does not, then you talk about "structures of violence” and use violent — i.e. non-democratic — means to destroy it in order to get your way. The rules, in other words, are fine so long as they work in your favour. If they don’t, then change them; accuse those who make them of being unrepresenta tive and so on. Thus the progres sive correspondents at the Synod, whose hopes were dashed by its findings, and progressive partici pants like Cardinal Suenens. Im mediately after the Synod, at a din ner given him by the corps of Span ish newsmen in Rome, he comment ed that “representation suffers be cause the vote of the Brazilians, with millions behind them, is the same as the vote of the Malta dele gation”. In other words, because the rules worked against Cardinal Suenens and his friends at the Sy nod, the first moves are being made to change them so that, in future, they work to the Cardinal’s advan tage. Grounds for the change are found in the unrepresentative nature of a selection that gives Brazil, with eighty million Catholics, the same representation as Malta, with three hundred and ten thousand. The Progressives, it would appear, are opting for representation at future Synods to rest on a basis of nume rical equality. This, they feel, will work in their favour. I bet there would have been no complaints from them about lack of representation had the Synod gone their way. Smear and Derision The Progressives, however, went further than this, as they usually do. In their anger at seeing their hopes dashed, they brought to their aid two other weapons whose com bined effect was to discredit the Sy nod and, in consequence, its'deci sions. They made use of the smear, Page 8 A disturbing thing to note about the mentality represented by Progressives in general is their seeming determination to thrust upon us all their desired reforms irrespective of the cost. It is time it is driven back. which is the lowest weapon of all, the ultimate, I think, in verbal nas tiness. In this case, low motives were attributed by a leading Dutch Progressive to those whose views prevailed over his own at the Synod. They made use also of derision, branding a leading personality at the Synod as out of touch, implying thereby that his opinions were valueless. In evidence of the smear, one need only take an address given by the Dutch Dominican, Father Edward Schillebeeckx, at the University of Liverpool Catholic Chaplaincy, as reported in the Catholic Herald for November 19th last year. Many of the Bishops at the Synod, Father Schillebeeckx was reported as say ing, were concerned not with human and Christian values, but with power. "Without the law of celi bacy”, he maintained, “they (the Bi shops) would have less power.” There could not be changes in the structure of the Church without changing the law of celibacy. There fore, they refused to change the law of celibacy. This, I think, is a shock ing attitude. It is not, I am afraid, the ultimate. For that we must look to Father Rene Laurentin, the French progressive priest, writing in Le Figaro. The weapon he em ployed was derision. This is what he said about the Cardinal Archbi shop of Cologne, chosen specially by the Pope to present to the Synod an all-important paper on the priest hood, ffi which he came down heavily on the side of celibacy: "On Saturday morning I posi tioned myself at the exit to see the triumphant hero of this third Sy nod; Cardinal Hoffner. It was ea sy because he came out on foot, alone and with no pomp, although he is in charge of one of the world’s wealthiest dioceses. The Archbishop of Cologne, who for a long time taught social doc trine, remains what he was before his election: a simple little pro fessor, friendly moderate in his deeds as in his smile. His strength lies entirely in his ability to fit everything into narrow categories, within which he cultivates a sa tisfied perfection. "A majority of bishops, breath less at the present changes and giddy before the endless problems, found in him a sign of security. They liked above all his reassur ing perspective, which wipes away the nightmares of ‘new so ciology’ and ‘permissive society’. For Cardinal Hoffner the height of dialogue is the university di rected by a competent professor. This is his model for the next Sy nod.” The contempt is thinly veiled. This is derision—mockery—used to per fection by one who is obviously adept at it. One can only say that the kind of writing in which Abbe Lauren tin indulges here is contemptible be yond words. One remembers a little of his history and one is not sur prised. The technique used here is, of course, as old as the hills; the arrogance quite nauseating. The ef fect, thank God, cannot be lasting. The pretensions of the avid selfseeker stick out like so many sore thumbs from every word the Abbe writes in this passage. He will end up. as I wrote some years ago Charles Davis would end up, drowned in a sea of his own unlovely elo quence. Illiberal Liberals An interesting and rather sad—in deed, disturbing—thing to note about the type of mentality represented by the Synod correspondents and, in deed, Catholic Progressives in gen eral, is their seeming determination, despite setbacks, to thrust upon us all their desired reforms irrespective of the cost. This mentality has been very much in evidence since the close of the Second Vatican Council. It is time it was driven back into the hidihg from which it emerged so May-June, 1972 shabbily in recent years. The men tality extends to all fields and it is in flagrant contradiction of the de mocratic ideal advocated so loudly and with such vulgarity by those in possession of it. Here, once again, we have the old story; liberalism is alright so long as it works to the ad vantage of Liberal Progressives: let it work against them and it becomes an instrument to be discarded. There is, for example, the matter of cleri cal dress in, say, developing of mis sionary countries. In many cases, progressive priests in African coun tries have abandoned overnight, as it were, their cassocks for a bush shirt and a pair of slacks. Sisters, in many cases, have done the equiva lent. Now, the thing, I think, to re member is that the African people do not like this. Speak of this, how ever, to those concerned and they say, "We think this is the best thing to do”. We are determined, in other words, to give the people what we think best for them whether they like it or not. Thus the progressive mind where its own innovating practices are concerned: all is based on the premise that the progressive knows better than the People of God what is good for the People of God. Know ing this, there need be and is no dis cussion. Nanny knows best. What is this if not the old paternalism, which Progressives affect to despise, in new and vulgar form? So, cassocks and habits and, in general, clerical dress are discarded, statues are pitched out of churches, the rosary relegated—all without discussion and all by unilateral imposition on the part of progressive priests and nuns, who are constantly calling for discussion within the Church and profess themselves outraged when its opportunity is denied them. What they really want, however, is not dis cussion, but the imposition of fast and further changes on a now longsuffering and patient Catholic peo ple. Unable to secure all of these by single-handed fiat, as in the case of the discarding of clerical dress and the downgrading of the Blessed Sa crament, they are forced into at tempts to secure what they want through discussion and dialogue, which they seek to pressurize into channels they consider desirable because leading to the realization of their progressive goals. Thus, they are all in favour now of dehiocracy and majority rule, knowing that their best way forward is to manipulate both to secure what they really want, which is not the true interests of the May-June, 1972 NEW BOOK NOW ON SALE “Father Jose Burgos — Priest and Nationalist” By John N. Schumacher, S. J. This year the Knights of Columbus in cooperation with Ate neo de Manila University Press published a book about the life and writings of one of our distinguished Filipino patriots, Father Jose Burgos. Father Burgos was not only a priest but also a Nation alist in the real sense of the word. If you want to learn more of the life of this great hero, kindly fill out the subscription blank below. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS OF THE PHILIPPINES Dlmsco Building, Arzoblspo Street, Intramuros P. O. Box 510, Manila Subscription Order ------------------------ , 19---Gentlemen: Please send me------------- copy/copies of your book entitled “Father Jose Burgos—Priest and Nationalist” at the following address: Name ________________________ Address ---------------------------------Enclosed is a check/PMO No._______ dated_____________ in the amount of P---------- for the same. Signature Hard cover—P17.00 Soft cover—P12.00 plus additional P1.00 for mailing outside Greater Manila. Church, but the imposition on the Faithful of a whole host of their own pet ideas whether they are want ed or not. There are no true demo crats; in the finest sense of the word, amongst the Catholic Progressives who clamour for democracy only when it suits their purposes to do so. All you have are little men in search of power, which they find in bending others to their will through the im position on them of alien devotions and practices of their own devising. These are harsh words. History, I feel, will reveal them as true. Hope for the Future No one is more illiberal than the Liberal Progressive in pursuit of his liberalism. He'is by nature a destroy er. What we have been feeling in the Church since the Council is the im pact on us all of his inbred aptitude for destruction. By the Grace of God alone have we been spared its full effect. Evidence of the power of the Spirit in the Catholic Church today is not in the mass prophetic utter ance that is said by some to have taken hold of it; this is mostly non sense. It is to be found, rather, in the fact that the Church has not and, we know, will not crash in total con fusion despite the all-out attack from within at present being made upon it. There lies the hope for the future. It is to be found nowhere and in nothing else. By PAUL CRANE, Page 9