Cardinals debate church's future.
At the end of the largest gathering of cardinals in history, the Catholic church is no closer to knowing the name of its next pope, but at least his mandate seems clearer.
If signals this week mean anything, near the top of the next pope's agenda will be sharing power with national bishops' conferences and local churches, and above all taming the papal bureaucracy the Roman curia.
Though not universal, the call for decentralization, for a curia that issues fewer edicts and a pope wino works more in collaboration with the rest of the church, was nonetheless persistent at the May 21-24 gathering of 155 of the world's 183 cardinals. It was the sixth "extraordinary consistory" of John Paul's pontificate.
The session was convoked by the pope to solicit advice on the church's future in the third millennium.
Given the sprawling nature of that agenda, cardinals made a wide variety of points. Some were familiar and largely tame, such as invocations of a "universal call to holiness" and exhortations to missionary work, defense of the family and better use of the mass media.
Others were more visionary, such as English Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's idea for a council of all the Christian churches that could meet in Jerusalem, or the old pilgrim stop of San Juan Compostella in Spain -- or even, he added modestly, in England. If such a meeting were to occur, he said, the Vatican could not set the agenda by fiat, and the pope could preside only "in love" rather than as a kind of spiritual CEO.
The proposal was, indeed, a bit too visionary for some. Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna told reporters after lunch with the pope on May 24 that Murphy-O'Connor's idea is an "eschatological dream," a fancy way of saying it will never happen.
But the most intriguing issue to surface regularly was "collegiality," a term that in Catholic theological parlance means decentralization. At least nine cardinals argued that the balance of power in the church is currently out of alignment.
"The theme of collegiality in the church is, whether you like it or not, at the top of the agenda of public opinion in the church and in the media," Godfried Danneels of Belgium told his brother cardinals.
The consistory took place behind closed doors, but many cardinals, like Danneels, either made their texts available or responded to questions from reporters.
Several cardinals urged changes in the organization of synods, when bishops from around the world gather in Rome to advise the pope, in order to make them better organized and more free from curial manipulation. Danneels went so far as to suggest that reports prepared after small group discussions at the synod are "frankly deceiving" because they tend to be heavily sanitized by Vatican officials. He said the church needs instead a "culture of debate."
Other cardinals came at the collegiality issue in different ways. Thomas Winning of Scotland insisted that curial offices do a better job of consultation with bishops' conferences and local churches before they put out documents. Without mentioning it by name, Winning alluded to recent Vatican norms for liturgical translation as an example (see accompanying article).
Winning did not release his text, but other sources confirmed his remarks.
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier of South Africa told NCR that Winning wasn't speaking for himself alone. "A lot of what he said would have been the view not only of himself but also of other bishops' conferences," Napier said.
The drumbeat came at times from surprising quarters. Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston -- certainly not a name associated with church progressives--suggested that synods be held once a year with an open agenda.
At least two curial cardinals offered suggestions for reform.
One was Cardinal Marlo Francesco Pompedda, head of the Apostolic Signatura, a church court. He argued that local churches should have a greater role in the selection of bishops.
The other was Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the office for Christian unity. According to sources, Kasper argued that the church must reform along the lines of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) if it expects to make ecumenical progress. He specifically mentioned the synods, the Roman curia and episcopal conferences.
Other cardinals stressing collegiality included Carlo Maria Martini of Milan, Murphy-O'Connor, Syrian Ignace Moussa I Daoud (who heads the Congregation for Eastern Churches), and Italian Achille Silvestrini (former head of the same office).
Outside the consistory, Cardinal Aloisio Lorscheider of Brazil told a French newspaper that he thought the pope was "imprisoned" by the curia, "who seek to undermine him," and that John Paul's attempts to change the situation had not succeeded. "All of us suffer from a faraway bureaucracy that seems ever more deaf," he said.
In the end, it was not clear what immediate difference any of this would make. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, for example, told reporters after the pope's May 24 closing Mass that the cardinals expected changes in the synod structure before the next session begins Sept. 30.
Yet two hours later, Schonborn said changes in the synod are impossible in such a short time. "It will certainly function as it has in the last decades," he said.
Moreover, not everyone was ready to join the decentralizing chorus. American Cardinal Avery Dulles defended a strong papacy, arguing that other Christian denominations sometimes miss such a unifying center.
Schonborn struck a similar note, saying Catholics should be grateful for the "bond of unity" offered by the successor of Peter.
Information about the consistory was hard to come by. Officially, the only channel was a daily press briefing delivered by papal spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls. However, the briefings for the first two days were largely useless, as Navarro delivered "impressions" of what cardinals had said and a few quotes without context. The session for the third day was cancelled without explanation.
The Vatican press office never even produced a list of the cardinals in attendance and after the first day stopped telling reporters who had spoken that day.
Some attempts at controlling information appeared unusually clumsy. On May 22, veteran Italian journalist Giancarlo Zizola asked Navarro if any cardinal had discussed curial reform.
A flustered Navarro said: "Not that I recall." His lapse of memory was difficult to take at face valde in light of what emerged about what had been discussed, in many cases from the cardinals themselves.
As for the papal sweepstakes, no clear frontrunner emerged. Observers noted, however, Danneels' smooth PR apparatus. On the afternoon of May 23, he moved from one language group of reporters to another at Rome's Belgian College, handing out copies of his speech. Handlers kept the cardinal on task and on time.
If one didn't know better, the 67-year-old Danneels would have seemed like a candidate on the stump -- and not a bad one.
RELATED ARTICLE: Liturgy document invoked as example
Over the last several years, few debates have highlighted the problem of collegiality in the English-speaking world more than the liturgy, especially control of how liturgical texts are translated.
Two years ago, the curial office responsible for liturgy asserted new controls over a translation agency sponsored by English-speaking bishops, called the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. More recently the office issued norms insisting that translations stick to a uniform Roman model.
For more than two years, Chilean Cardinal Jorge Medina, the curial official responsible for liturgy, has declined repeated requests from English-speaking bishops for a meeting to discuss the issue. That reluctance has drawn criticism.
South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napiertold NCR that English-speaking prelates were able to make some progress on this front at the consistory. "We had a meeting [with Medina] over coffee and arranged to have a meeting at a later stage," he said. No date was set. "We were just trying to find where we stood, what the possibilities were of a real, proper meeting. That's as far as it got," he said.
Despite the seemingly definitive nature of the new norms, Napier said the Vatican will have to show flexibility.
For example, Napier said, the document's insistence on using the Latin edition of liturgical texts as the base for translation is unrealistic in South Africa, where a number of tribal languages are widespread in addition to English.
"A lot of our work would be more or less arrested," he said. "We can't use Latin, we don't have people with a knowledge of Latin. If we do, they won't have a knowledge of the local language. Hence it would be virtually impossible to produce a vernacular translation."
Napier also said issuance of the document was mishandled. "Many of us haven't even gotten it in our hands, and normally we get documents directly from the Vatican as they hit the public. In this case I've got a summary, which I took off the Internet, but I haven't got the document. In itself this says there's something wrong."
Napier said he does not think the document means the death of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. "Before we can start talking about what happens, we have to wait until the presidents of the conferences are called together to have a meeting," said Napier, who is president of the South African bishops' conference.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said that liturgy and translation was the most frequently invoked example at the consistory of the need for collegiality.
"I understand Rome's concern is that texts be authentically and accurately translated. But it seems to me that it's best done by the church leaders in the countries where the texts will be used. We know better how language is used in our own areas."
--John L. Allen Jr.
The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is email@example.com
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||ALLEN, JOHN L. JR.|
|Publication:||National Catholic Reporter|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2001|
|Previous Article:||Obstacle ahead? Step on the gas!|
|Next Article:||Rome conference offers `new' feminism.|