WE, THE PEOPLE--OF GOD.

The church needs a constitution

What do you think, an interviewer asked the noted theologian Charles Davis, "is the greatest challenge facing the church at the present time?" Davis was a peritus at Vatican II but, on becoming disillusioned over the church's lack of commitment to reform, left the priesthood in 1966 for a teaching career.

"My answer will surprise many," Davis replied, "but I regard the most important task at present a juridical one, namely the establishment of a democratic constitution for the church."

A constitutional reform was viewed by Davis as our communion's most pressing need because, "since the fifteenth century, the church as a community has been struggling to embody the Christian values in a juridical constitution that is based on an absolute monarchy."

Well said. When recent observers of the Vatican write about its internal workings, they stress that the pope is not just the leader of a worldwide faith institution but also the reigning head of a papal court. A court!? Still?

Jesus explicitly instructed his followers not to exercise authority as the pagans do. Authority is instituted among Christians for the sake of loving service and ordered unity. The Christian faithful should follow the spirit of truth in humble and familial respect for one another's dignity of conscience.

For the first thousand years, Catholics usually chose their leaders and lived by the dictum voiced by Pope Leo the Great (d. 461), "Let him who will stand before all be elected by all." Another traditional Catholic maxim in these matters from the monastic tradition is expressed as "What touches all is to be discussed and approved by all." Modern democracy and inclusive democratic institutions can find their roots in the Christian doctrine of the moral equality of each human being created in the image of God. Now those inside the church can retrieve and renew the Catholic human-rights tradition.

Recent popes have praised secular democracies and vigorously defended human rights. Yet most of the Christian faithful have little voice in the decisions that govern their church. Religious orders are one good example of participatory decision making within their communities, and national conferences of bishops discuss issues and vote to decide things; but both may be overruled by Rome. In Rome itself the college of cardinals votes to elect the next pope. Yet to come is any move to follow recommendations made after Vatican II that the pope be elected by representatives from all of the world's national churches along with the College of Cardinals.

Neither has the hope of many of the framers of the reformed 1983 Code of Canon of Law been fulfilled that administrative tribunals be set up in every diocese.

Church historians have noted that it takes a century or two of transition and turmoil before a council's reforms become fully assimilated into the church's life. Oh please, say it's not so. At this point the church is preaching "a civilization of love" and asserting with Pope Paul VI that "justice is love's absolute minimum," but we are not rushing to set up democratic procedures within the church.

In the new code of canon law the laity are enjoined to take up their right and duty "to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the church." But where is there any time or place for consultation or participatory decision making on matters that affect us all? You can write a letter to your bishop or to Rome, or sign a petition, but that's about it. Occasionally there is a diocesan synod or hearings are set up by a group of bishops, but nothing need necessarily happen afterward. Our leaders have no accountability to the people and secrecy reigns at most levels of church governance.

Lack of dialogue or of open, inclusive due processes of law, retards our abilities to resolve the intracommunity conflicts we face. Our renewed ecclesial theology remains at odds with the remnants (and resisting forces) of monarchical governance. Have Vatican II reforms been partially aborted? All too obviously, factions, politics, and patronage play a part in the naming of bishops.

New bishops or new cardinals, along with new pastors, appear on the scene, duly introduced as "our" leaders. Until recent centuries, the pope and the Roman curia seldom claimed the absolute right to name all local bishops throughout the world. This practice makes it appear as though the bishop were sent as an agent or representative (or franchised product) from the Roman pontiff rather than being the leader of and for the local church. Ever greater centralization of power and efforts at control are the marks of out-moded authoritarian principles.

Why can't we move on to new institutional structures that reflect our renewed theology and our experiences of what works best in just, democratic communities? Surely, through listening to the Holy Spirit, the church has evolved theologically. Doctrine develops, and sometimes teachings are reversed and/or tactfully discarded. Today, there exist no defenders of slavery, inquisitional torture, crusades, women's inferiority, the perfidy of the Jews, the damnation of unbaptized babies and those outside the church. Our councils, bishops, and popes proclaim an inclusive gospel of equality, peace, liberty of conscience, democracy, and human rights. They convincingly ground this gospel on deeper, fuller understandings of Scripture. But if Christians are committed to bringing God's kingdom here on earth, we have to get busy reforming our own household of faith. Why not complete the work of Vatican II before the next millennium?

A good account of past struggles, developments, and recommendations for new democratic church reforms can be found in Leonard Swidler's Toward a Catholic Constitution (Crossroad, 1996). There you learn of the early church's democratic practices and see how church authority became deformed during the medieval papacies, those supremacists pushing their own papal divine right over the divine right of kings. Subsequent reform movements are detailed which culminated in Vatican II. And Swidler goes on to describe the ever-reforming pilgrimage of the church in the present. A multitude of reform groups spring up in the church because more and more persons are suffering, and becoming concerned about abuses of authority.

Happily, democratic structures encourage successful communities because persons who have a stake and a say in a group work harder to remain faithful. Group morale, esprit, and energy are liberated by increased participatory decision making. When democratic authority is exercised appropriately for the common good, the faithful cooperate.

Working for structural reforms and the restitution of collegial authority in the church may not seem to be a heart-gripping cause. But if we do not live the gospel we preach to the world, the salt will have lost its savor.