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.
“gotta find a way, a better way, a better way.” – Kurt Cobain (Territorial Pissings)
Just a thought – it seems clear to me that the territories being “defended” are not merely diocesan but theological, that is, what we are seeing here is the physical manifestation of certain theological boundaries. I am new to the Church but already it is plain to me that many Catholics love nothing better than to play the “authority” of certain priests, bishops, or whomever over and against others with whom they disagree, and of course this gets worked out into real physical divisions – to the detriment of all involved and especially to the detriment of any kind of common witness. At times I am so glad I became Catholic and at other times I feel frighteningly smothered by these “territorial” wars. Again, being new to the Church, I am still discovering the vast diversity that exists within her, but at times I feel surrounded by folks who say “There is only one way to be Catholic.” Many others may feel the same way, and then what “territorial” choices are they left with?
As a member of a (very) reformed Protestant church, I find these discussions to be quite interesting.
Where the United Church of Canada is completely decentralized, democratized and congregationalized, I find that we have no sense of unity of purpose. We get occasional “mission” reports from other jurisdictions (even other congregations in the same city!) but there’s no sense of unity. Hence, individual members tend to align with the opinions of the secular world, and do not identify with a national church as such.
Though, I’m not sure a top down approach as in the Catholic case would be better… thoughts?
I could add another case to this. At the anarchism and Christianity conference we held in Nashville this summer, Fr. Emmanuel McCarthy was invited to speak for the closing session. He’s well known as an advocate for pacifism.
The bishop over Nashville got word of it and forbade any Catholic parish from allowing Fr. McCarthy to stay on church property while he was in Memphis.
Luckily, we had good people around who could give him adequate accommodations. But it struck me that the bishop was playing a very petty game with his power and authority.
Andy, that’s probably the best example of the three! Thanks for sharing it.
There was no room for the night at the inn, so He had to make do with a stable…
Puffed up power- mad hypocrites…
They project the wild imaginings in their warped brains on others and thereby deny basic decency…
How many complaints does it take to send a Bishop for a long rest break???