John W. O'Malley the Jesuit historian is one of my favorite authors. He is an authority on both the Council of Trent and Vatican II. This article is from America.
How popes became so powerful—and how Pope Francis could reverse the trend
In 2000, Thomas Reese, S.J., then the editor in chief of America, asked me to write an article on how the church differed between the first millennium and the second. I found the assignment easy because one difference stood out like no other: a new centrality of the popes in the church of the second millennium.
I called this phenomenon the papalization of the church.
some of the most important and symptomatic steps in the process were the results of direct actions taken by the popes themselves. The popes were in fact the single most important agents in the papalization process. I describe their actions as self-conferred upgrades.
The authority to depose rulers
Early in the history of the church, popes argued that their authority was greater than that of secular rulers because it was a spiritual authority. The spiritual was in principle superior to the temporal.
Gregory had based his claim on a sprawling ideology that he articulated in a document known as the “Dictatus Papae” (“Memorandum About the Pope”), composed in 1075. Although never promulgated, it revealed a mindset that, while it presumed to be based on tradition, was a radical departure from it. Here are three of its 27 headings: “That the pope may be judged by no one”; “That the pope is the only one whose feet may be kissed by princes”; and, most important, “The pope has the authority to depose emperors.” Although Gregory tried to find precedents for that last claim, he was unconvincing. His action against Emperor Henry IV constituted a major self-conferred papal upgrade and gave subsequent popes an increased sense of the deference owed them in the church.
Vicar of Christ
Pope Gregory VII consistently, almost obsessively, referred to himself as the vicar of Peter; in that regard, he was in line with the mainline tradition that originated with Pope Leo I (r. 440-61). Gregory saw himself invested with all the authority Christ had conferred upon the prince of the Apostles. But in so doing, he imbued Peter with an authority new in its force and in its far-reaching scope, a force and scope few of his contemporaries accepted. Yet even with Gregory’s extreme interpretation, it never occurred to him to take the momentous step of referring to himself as vicar of Christ.
In the 12th century, theologians and canonists brought the term into a certain restricted prominence, but they did not consistently attach it to the papal office. That changed dramatically with Pope Innocent III (r. 1198-1216), who claimed the title for himself. He must be given credit for this major upgrade. Beginning with him, the title came into currency and became standard. The move from vicar of Peter to vicar of Christ was not simply new window dressing for the papal office, but a major enhancement of its dignity. It seemed to imbue the papacy almost with divinity. Pope Innocent conferred this upgrade upon himself and, as an almost inevitable consequence, upon his successors for the centuries to come.
Infallible teacher of doctrine
As Catholics know, the First Vatican Council (1869-70) defined that the pope was infallible when under certain conditions he taught that a teaching was of divine and apostolic origin and thus an essential element in the deposit of faith. Some Catholics inside and outside the council challenged the definition, but to no avail. “Pastor Aeternus,” the council’s decree on papal primacy and infallibility, carried the day.
Rarely do we hear much about Pope Pius IX’s (r. 1846-78) role in the matter; indeed, when the council opened he seemed rather indifferent to the possibility of a definition of infallibility.
Yet another action by Pius allows us to see infallibility as a papal self-conferred upgrade. In 1854, well before the council opened, Pius, in the apostolic constitution “Ineffabilis Deus,” infallibly defined as a divinely revealed dogma that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived. No pope had ever before defined a dogma. In this way, the pope anticipated the council’s definition by 16 years. It can be argued, therefore, that in “Pastor Aeternus” the council confirmed the authority the pope had already claimed for himself.
My Analysis
One of the management gurus (Deming I think) once praised Catholicism for the simplicity of its management structure from Pope to Bishop to Pastor. However, that ignored a lot of complexity.
First both Pope and Bishops have Curias (courts) through which they manage things by delegation. Those curia officials in dioceses as well as Rome often become the notorious fiefdoms of powerful individuals when the Pope or Bishop really does care about a particular area. I have noticed a similar problem in our parishes. The pastor often entrusts a ministry to some reliable person so that he no longer has to deal with those issues. Coordination among Vatican departments, Diocesan departments and parish ministries often become issues.
One way to get more coordination is to introduce some form of synodality. Vatican II tried it with the concept of collegiality. The bishop of Rome as the head of the college of bishops, the bishop of the diocese as the head of the college of presbyters (priests). The notion of Synod of bishops came out of that but quickly lost steam since the Vatican officials always ran the show. The national conferences of bishops had more success. For a while the conferences even tackled difficult issues. The American bishops wrote documents on nuclear weapons and economics. When they then drafted a document on women in the church, the Vatican said that was too much, and striped conferences of their teaching authority unless they had unanimous approval or two/thirds plus the approval of Rome.
All the above ignores two strong forces in the church. First the religious and then the laity.
In the Eastern Churches the monasteries have been safely tucked under the authority of local bishops. That authority remained strong because cities remained strong. In the West monasteries escaped the authority of bishops because they took over the rural areas. They become powerful landowners rivaling bishops and lords. Originally independent monasteries became even stronger by forming federations and promoting dependent priories that extended beyond the control of individual lords and bishops. Eventually some of these placed themselves under the authority of the bishop of Rome. That was the beginning of modern international religious orders subject only to the Pope.
Laity were also independent if they were Kings (Queens), Dukes, etc. They could be excommunicated and interdicted by Popes and Bishops. But they had armies of knights that could imprison Popes and Bishops. Once cities were back in business, laity had guilds and confraternaties as a source of power, and spirituality in the Renaissance.
Francis seems to recognize that we have to have a way to get both religious orders, laity and lay organizations back into the process of synodality. Our governance processes are just too clergy oriented. Frances recognizes the need to empower not only bishop conferences but more importantly continental and regional synods. The synod of the Amazon was a prelude, expect many differences to emerge among the continents in the synods that will take place before the world synod on synodality. Synodality may need to be expressed differently on different continents.
Power hates a vacuum; the diminished authority of the Pope has to be replaced by a new more complex government suitable to such a large and diverse organization.
That is pretty interesting stuff. Originally, the pope wasn't really the ruler of the papal states; that was the emperor's job. If I'm not mistaken, when the Vandals, Visigoths et al were successively sacking Rome, the line of emperors was broken and the pope more or less stepped into the power vacuum.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Francis has formally relinquished any of the power of the papacy, as defined, for example, in Lumen Gentium. But he is choosing to wield it in a servant-leader way, and he's encouraging/ordering the bishops to do the same via synodality.
Human nature being what it is, I think it's likely that some future pope, maybe even the next one, will find synodality too difficult, and/or inconvenient in some other way, and will let it die a natural death. It is a rare leader who voluntarily agrees to trim the scope of his power.
One of Francis four principles for building better community is to take initiatives that will change things irrevocably rather than trying to occupy spaces.
DeleteI think he would classify Benedict’s resignation as one such initiative that has a high probability of changing things irrevocably, i.e., all future popes will be judged by how they handle the resignation issue. Francis right now is being challenged by that very issue. Is it essential to the Papacy to be able to travel? Maybe not? Francis will have to answer
.
The way that Francis has chosen cardinals may also be such a game changer. He is doing his best to erase the course of honors whereby one becomes and auxiliary bishop, then bishop, then archbishop of a major city and finally a cardinal. He had chosen cardinals from all the ranks of the bishops. Now future popes can also follow Francis new model that allows a Pope to surround himself quickly with like- minded advisors rather than slowly changing the church. I think they will likely do that. Maybe we will evolve a model in which the tacit understanding is that a Pope gets a decade to try to accomplish certain things, and then are expected to resign to make way for new blood. Maybe Francis is preparing the College of Cardinals for the process of selecting a new Pope at the end of the Synod on Synodality or shortly thereafter. That seems the logical place.
More importantly he has redone the Curia so that it needs no longer be an honor but rather a service to the whole church as well as the Pope. Surely if the next Pope undoes that he will likely hear strongly from bishops and cardinals. Making the Curia into servant leaders was what the cardinals asked of Francis. Whatever else they may disagree with, Francis has surely done that.
"I think he would classify Benedict’s resignation as one such initiative that has a high probability of changing things irrevocably, i.e., all future popes will be judged by how they handle the resignation issue. Francis right now is being challenged by that very issue. Is it essential to the Papacy to be able to travel? Maybe not? Francis will have to answer"
DeleteYes, that's a great example. It's surely a good deal easier to applaud Benedict's innovation from "outside" than it would be to actually emulate his example when one is actually perched upon the throne of Peter. I find it easy to believe that a reformer like Francis could say to himself, "Even though my health is declining, it's too early for me to step down. I haven't fully executed my agenda yet."
"Now future popes can also follow Francis new model that allows a Pope to surround himself quickly with like- minded advisors rather than slowly changing the church."
DeleteYes, that's interesting. I confess to being somewhat conflicted about this reform. Conceptually, I truly don't care if a cardinal is based in New York City or Newark or Saginaw. And ultimately, Francis seems to be picking cardinals who would be friendly to his reforms. And if he genuinely believes his reforms are the right thing for the church, then perhaps it would be an injustice to say, as his enemies surely have, that 'Francis is picking his cronies.'
The guy who ordained me, Cardinal George, followed the course of honors you described. But in his case, it was an accelerated course. In the space of less than a year, he went from being bishop of Yakima to archbishop of Portland to archbishop and then cardinal of Chicago. The upshot of all that is, he was the kind of guy JP II (and presumably his coterie) wanted as an elector. It was a different route to the same endpoint that Francis's appointees are following. If George had been left in Yakima and had been Francis's kind of guy (which he surely wasn't), Francis might have chosen him as a cardinal without the bother and churn of the successive reassignments.
It is important to have checks and balances in church government. The innovation of choosing cardinals from anywhere among the bishops (and thus being able to hand pick your collaborators and those who will choose the next Pope) could be balanced by the equivalent of term limits (e.g. after a decade or more you are expected to resign even if in good health and give someone else a chance).
DeleteWhile Francis' electors surely choose him to deal with the Curia problem (actually they had hoped Benedict as an insider would have done it) Francis has felt strongly called to lead the Church on the path of synodality. That will peak but not be completed with the world synod. There will be two years of world-wide followup. Surely somewhere in those two years it will be time for Francis to resign.
In my own life I have felt very positively the call to give up important responsibilities when it was time.
Surely my four years a voluntary pastoral staff member in Toledo in the eighties were the "community" highpoint of my spiritual life. Yet I felt perfectly free to leave that position and the parish when I took a new position with county government. Part of the grace of giving up such an important part of my life was that I was totally focused upon the people whom I was serving and never thought about myself. It was only afterward that I began slowly to recognize how important I was to many people in that parish.
Similarly in the mental health system I was perfectly ready to retire at when I planned at age sixty even though I had accomplished many important missions. Again, I was so focused on serving others that I gave little or no attention to the important role that I played in the system. A lot of that became apparent to me only after I retired.
In summary, my experience of the grace of God has been that it has made me loose so much of my own self-awareness that I am willing to not only do things but also to give up doing them when it is time. I can only expect that God is doing the same for Francis and that he will not need a stroke or heart attack to get the message "it is time."
Having said all those positive things about the grace to retire, I will have to say that one of the sadness of both professional and ecclesial life is to see so many people who have done so many good things not recognize that it is time to go. Rather they hang on continuing to apply their past accomplishments inappropriately to new situations. All leadership is very situational, past successful leadership is not a good predictor of future success.
DeleteFrancis in an interview said he intends to appoint two women to the Congregation that selects bishops. I suspect they will be women religious. They could come from excellent management backgrounds in a variety of organizations, and with a rich network of information about what goes on in dioceses from other women religious.
ReplyDeleteThat could be a game changer. Now bishops and bishop candidates will have to worry about what women religious know about them and the administration of dioceses. Perhaps fitting punishment for those American bishops who were eager to investigate women religious.