Church governance

[didymus]

It’s often said on these forums that the Church is not a democracy – true, but neither is it an autocracy. I try to explain to friends how the Church works but I’m not sure how good a grip I have myself.

Outsiders seem to imagine the Church as a monolith controlled directly from the Vatican, thus the Holy Father must have known about clerical child abuse or could have just sacked defrocked the priests and fired the bishops responsible.

Without rehashing all that, how often does a Pope “fire” a bishop? A lot of folks (myself included) have posted that the Irish bishops should be sacked, but that hardly seems practical.

Likewise with bishops – they can lead, but how much can they discipline? When +Gomez takes over in Los Angeles I doubt he will just run all the liturgical dancers out of town – not least because giving orders he know will be disobeyed hardly enhances his authority.

On a practical level (not canon law or whatever) what can the Pope do to bring the bishops in line or bishops to reform priests and parishes?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a 2006 story about Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo being excommunicated. By canon law, excommunication automatically removes a cleric from office.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that you’re definitely on to something. The Church is definitely not a democracy. But it is equally wrong to view the Church as some sort of corporation with the Pope as the acting CEO.

For me, the most helpful thing to keep in mind to put it all in perspective is the principle of subsidiarity: that which can be solved at the lowest level should be solved at the lowest level.

The Pope does not micromanage. The bishops have real authority that belongs to them by virtue of their apostolic succession, not because the Pope gives it to them. Pastors also have certain authority, too, by virtue of their ordination. Much of this is outlined in Canon Law, if you have the desire to read through it.

When we forget these things, we start to have unreasonable expectations of our bishops and the pope. We shouldn’t expect Gomez to waltz into LA and make immediate, heavy-handed reforms. That would be a disaster. The Bishop has authority over his priests, but it’s not absolute authority. And it’s a heck of a lot easier to make headway if the priests are behind you. Just look at what Martino went through in Scranton. He made a lot of decisions that needed to be made, but without the support, his job became impossible.

 

[Scoobyshme]

It’s often said on these forums that the Church is not a democracy – true, but neither is it an autocracy. I try to explain to friends how the Church works but I’m not sure how good a grip I have myself.

Outsiders seem to imagine the Church as a monolith controlled directly from the Vatican, thus the Holy Father must have known about clerical child abuse or could have just sacked defrocked the priests and fired the bishops responsible.

Without rehashing all that, how often does a Pope “fire” a bishop? A lot of folks (myself included) have posted that the Irish bishops should be sacked, but that hardly seems practical.

Likewise with bishops – they can lead, but how much can they discipline? When +Gomez takes over in Los Angeles I doubt he will just run all the liturgical dancers out of town – not least because giving orders he know will be disobeyed hardly enhances his authority.

On a practical level (not canon law or whatever) what can the Pope do to bring the bishops in line or bishops to reform priests and parishes?

If your friends are into the Bible, etc., refer them to Matt. 16:13-19. Here, Jesus is gathered with the Apostles, and asks them, “Who do men say that I am?” They answered, and all the answers were wrong. If “men” had gotten it right, there would have been reason to have a democracy governing the Church. But, they didn’t. Then, Jesus asked the Apostles, collectively, “Who do you (plural pronoun) say that I am.” Had they all answered like Peter did, then there would have been reason to have an autocracy. Simon, alone, answered correctly, and Jesus renamed him to Rock (Peter) and gave him (Peter) the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” The keys, to a first century Jew, were very significant. They knew that the king always had a second-in-command over the kingdom, for whenever the king was unavailable (sick, off fighting wars, visiting other kingdoms, etc.). This second-in-command ruled with the king’s total authority. Whatever he bound, the king held bound. Whatever he loosed, the king held loosed. When this individual died, he was replaced by another (this means the office was to have successors). This office which Jesus created by giving Peter the “keys” is the office we call Pope. The Pope is our King’s (Jesus is our King) second-in-command. Jesus knew He would be ascending back to heaven and needed someone to run things down here.