Feature Article

Power to the bishops

The role of the bishop will be the theme when the synod meets in Rome this autumn. According to Vatican II, it is the college of bishops, with and under the pope, that governs the Church. But how to implement that vision? The professor of philosophy of law and canon law at Georgetown University urges a rethink.

I RECALL the event as vividly as if it had happened yesterday. At that time, I was professor of canon law at the Gregorian University in Rome, assigned to teach the course on The Structures of the Church. As it happened, the Second Vatican Council was struggling with the same issue, debating the document which was to become the dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. On 30 October 1963, the bishops took a series of indicative votes on the issue of collegiality ? the doctrine that it is the college of bishops, with and under the pope, that governs the Catholic Church. The next day I walked into the classroom, and I announced to the students (in Latin, as it had to be): Yesterday, the council fathers made history; they signalled their intention to proclaim episcopal collegiality as Catholic doctrine; we can expect significant changes.

I was not alone in believing that history had been made at St Peter?s. After the session, John Wright, the (then) Bishop of Pittsburgh, later a cardinal, and a member of the theological commission, said at a press conference: The vote is of the greatest importance massima importanza], for the large majority of the Fathers have clearly indicated the trend of the council in this matter. A couple of weeks later, Cardinal Ottaviani issued a statement and called the resolution a misfortune, sfortuna ? that is, in plain English, a disaster. For him the propositions voted on were ill-prepared and improperly brought to the floor; he blamed the presidents of the sessions for not giving a greater role to the theological commission in preparing them. For or against, no one doubted the importance of the event.

One year later, on 21 November 1964, the Second Vatican Council solemnly and irrevocably affirmed episcopal collegiality: effectively proclaimed it as an integral part of the tradition of the Church. Thus the bishops left no doubt that collegiality was a fact ? but they were less precise in articulating its content. Some ambiguity, of course, was useful: it helped the passage of the draft; besides, it excluded rigidity by leaving room for different interpretations.

This October, 37 years later, the representatives of the worldwide episcopate will gather in Rome for a synod. The topic of their discussions will be The Bishop. Undoubtedly the doctrine of collegiality will be brought to the floor again. What is its meaning? What is its proper practice?

We can discern two main theories in understanding the meaning of episcopal collegiality, both with far-reaching practical consequences.

First, the official Roman position. It asserts that the bishops can act collegially, in the proper sense of the term, when gathered at an ecumenical council. They can also act collegially, without being assembled, when the pope calls on the universal episcopate to perform a collegial action (to deliberate and speak with a common intent under his guidance).

According to the Roman view, partial gatherings of the bishops, legitimate as they may be, such as particular councils, synods, and conferences, have no collegial power. They, of course, can and must operate in a collegial spirit and with collegial affection. But there is a clear distinction between affective and effective collegiality. The latter signifies authentic collective power in an assembly, the former indicates merely a spiritual disposition in the individual members of a group.

It is this official Roman position that the Holy See has adopted in the years after the council, and it is this understanding that has shaped the structures and laws applicable to the synod of bishops in Rome, the episcopal conferences, and the regional synods. No assembly of the bishops can have any collegial power emerging from their communion; each individual bishop is in possession of his own power, and that is where it stops. If an assembly does have any collective (corporate) power, it is through a grant from the pope ? from his plenitude of power.

This perspective is behind the norms that regulate the operations of the synods of bishops which meet in Rome, and their relationship to the See of Peter. Since no synod can have any authentic collegial power, it cannot deliberate and decide collegially with the pope; the member bishops must function in an advisory capacity.

But there is a second ? respectable ? theological opinion which is well within the framework of the Catholic tradition. It affirms, of course, that authentic episcopal collegiality exists and is operative at an ecumenical council or in a similar situation. But it holds also that whenever a group of bishops gather ? in communion with their brother bishops and the bishop of Rome ? to fulfil their pastoral task, they also act as a college, and have a collective power in the proper sense of the term, although not in its fullness.

Behind this understanding there is the sound and wholesome doctrine that when a bishop is ordained, he receives more than an individual gift. He is incorporated into the pre-existing communion of bishops, not unlike when a person is baptised and is incorporated into the pre-existing mysterious body of the Church sustained by the Spirit.

But how are we to understand a real collective power that is not exercised in its fullness? Through the doctrine of participation.

This doctrine of participation, or partial activation, is not an outlandish concept. Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas all had recourse to it, not counting the legion of scholastics over the centuries. Officials of the Church, high and low, make use of it every single day to explain the operations of the papacy. And the rest of the Church accepts it without a murmur.

We believe that the power of primacy is fully operative whenever the pope speaks ex cathedra ? a rare event. We believe the same whenever he formally legislates for the universal Church ? not a daily occurrence. But that is not all. We hold that the pope has the authentic power of primacy even when he teaches with lesser authority or gives directives less formally. We do not contend, ever, that he is speaking and acting in the mere spirit of primacy, or that he is exercising only affective primacy. Rather, he always has authority but does not always use it fully.

The theologians are well aware of these nuances. They distinguish various degrees of authority in the exercise of the papal teaching authority: it can be extraordinary and infallible, ordinary and fallible, authentic and reformable, and so forth. Canon lawyers, too, distinguish between apostolic constitutions, decrees, instructions, and other directives ? all issued with authority, yet with differing degrees of binding force.

If the papal power operated only when it was used in its fullness, the daily government of the Church would become impossible. Participation is a sound doctrine, through and through. Interestingly enough, the departments of the Holy See never hesitate to stress that they somehow participate in the power of primacy although not fully. Yet the same departments deny that the episcopal conferences could have true collegial power but not fully.

To put it more directly: the second theory holds that there are degrees in the operation of the collegial power of the episcopate ? no less than in the operation of the papal power. It is fully activated within an ecumenical council (or a similar event), and it can be partially activated in lesser assemblies. It can exist, truly, properly, and authentically, in varying degrees. Thus, according to this second view, the bishops? lesser assemblies (always in communion with Rome) are theological realities and are by their very nature endowed with a collective power.

The initial indication for identifying the source of this collective power in the episcopal assemblies is a saying of the Lord: For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Mt. 18:20). That is, the Scriptures tell us that when there is an assembly, however small, of the faithful, the intelligence and strength of the group is enhanced by a mysterious divine presence. Of course, this saying of Jesus is not a dogmatic proof that episcopal gatherings have a corporate power; but surely it is a hint, and an inspired one at that. If such a promise holds for all the faithful, why would the bishops be exempted?

Further, church history offers plenty of evidence that Christians of all times have recognised a collective power due to the effective presence of the Spirit in the assemblies of bishops, even in partial ones. Numerous particular councils have been accepted as authentic witnesses of tradition. Theologically it would be absurd to say that the bishops at the Council of Orange (529), which has become a landmark in the history of the doctrine of grace, did not deliberate and decide on the the strength of a collective power.

TWO theories, then, two interpretations of the Second Vatican Council?s teaching. They are mutually exclusive. Which is the correct one?

If the first interpretation is correct, no assembly of bishops below the level of an ecumenical council can ever have a corporate charism, not even if the pope is presiding over the group. The bishops can play an advisory role, no more.

If the second interpretation is correct, bishops? assemblies, provided they are in communion with the See of Peter, have their own corporate charism. They can bring their charism into their deliberations and decision-making processes.

For a sound choice between the two theories, we should seek light from the best source, the Second Vatican Council itself. It would be a flawed approach, however, to assume that we can find the full and true meaning of the texts through an analysis of the words and sentences only; we must take into account the environment that bore them and the debates that produced them.

The proclamation of episcopal collegiality was preceded by one of the most extensive and fiercest debates at the council. The question was intermittently on the floor in three sessions, and the arguments continued during the intermissions.

The intensity of the debates and the emotional climate surrounding them show beyond any possible doubt that all the parti-cipants believed that they were handling an issue of immense importance for the renewal of the Church. (For example, Archbishop Dino Staffa, then secretary of the Congregation for Universities and consultor of the Holy Office, circulated a long memorandum ? I received it, was it over 100 pages? ? among the professors of the Roman academic institutions denouncing collegiality as a false doctrine.)

Yet if the council intended to affirm no more than the common doctrine that the episcopal college has collegial power at an ecumenical council ? if that was all ? the fierce debates made no sense. In that case it is inconceivable that Archbishop Staffa would have denounced the doctrine of collegiality or that Cardinal Ottaviani would have called the indicative votes a misfortune.

Clearly, the bishops at the council (and their experts) were convinced that something more was at stake, notwithstanding the fact that they did not articulate a precise definition. They were not remiss in that: they left the theologians to work out the details ? an old custom.

The second theory asserts that this something more was collegial power potentially present all the time in the episcopal college and operative ? really but not fully ? in the legitimate gatherings of the bishops.

If we accept the first theory as the correct interpretation of the council, logically we must affirm that the council had nothing to say about collegiality beyond what was already well known and peacefully held throughout the Church. In this case, fierce debates would be misplaced.

If, however, we accept that the council intended and meant something more (as described above), logically it follows that the first theory is not an interpretation but a nullification of the council?s doctrine of episcopal collegiality. And the evidence suggests that this is the case. The council has been reinterpreted by the officials of the Holy See and all the earlier structures and norms concerning the episcopate have been preserved ? even reinforced. But it was the council?s intention to surpass them.

NEARLY 40 years ago, it pleased the Holy Spirit and the bishops to affirm the doctrine of episcopal collegiality.

Had I to teach the same subject again today, what would I tell the class?

I would say: The bishops at the council made history; they proclaimed that it pleased the Holy Spirit and the bishops to proclaim episcopal collegiality as Catholic doctrine; we can look forward to immense changes.

Then, I would acknowledge that in the practical order the immense changes are still to come. But I would remind them of the parable of the mustard seed. Has anyone ever seen a mustard tree grow instantly? The seed has been sown, and is putting down roots slowly and painfully; some tender shoots already are appearing (yes, the episcopal conferences and the synods already exist) but their internal energies (power given by the Spirit) are latent and hardly used.

Then I would warn my students ? as John XXIII warned the people ? about the prophets of doom who are no less active today than at the time of that blessed pope. As always, they try to instil fear in the hearts of faithful: to let the bishops exercise any collegial power would be a sfortuna, disaster, leading to the fragmentation of the Church. I would certainly quote John Paul II: Have no fear. The Spirit can preserve and protect the Church no less through the corporate operation of the episcopal college (over which the pope presides) than through activities of the pope as a single person. I would even add that because the Church is a reflection of the communion of the three divine persons in one Godhead, to let the Church be led and governed by the communion of the bishops (with and under the Vicar of Peter, as Vatican II proclaimed) is supremely fitting. Aquinas, for one, would have appreciated this type of argument ex convenientia: it is an argument grounded in the belief that this created universe, the Church included, mirrors the beauty, harmony, and balance that can be found in God alone.