Two Hierarchies

June 2011

Two hierarchies? Isn't one more than enough?

Actually, two may be better than one.

In practice, there are two discernible, distinct, yet overlapping hierarchies in the Catholic Church. One is a structural hierarchy and the other, a service hierarchy. Though related, these two hierarchies are different and at times in opposition with each other.

The structural hierarchy is the one we all know. It is still a pyramid, despite the efforts of Vatican II to make it circular, or at least a little rounded off, with some softer lines and not so stark. But recent decades have sharpened the top of the design and have reinforced the middle of the pyramid with rebar that solidifies the upper half of the structure. The three sides of the pyramid all look the same, black with a little white collar in the middle, and as you gaze up the sides, they turn episcopal red, then cardinal crimson, and the very top is papal white. Colorful, but still a pyramid.

The structural hierarchy has really just one central concern: doctrine. Other issues pale in comparison. Whether it is HIV/AIDS versus condoms, a so-called abortion in an Arizona hospital versus the life of a mother, Bishop Morris in Australia versus a reference to ordination of women, etc., the pattern is clear: doctrine trumps everything. Faith must be expressed in clearly delineated creedal formulas, and morals are determined by preset rules that allow no deviations.

The lay base of the pyramid shows signs of wear and has not been reinforced, which seems ominous if you look at the structure from a distance. It appears that the people in the middle of the structure keep looking up, toward the top, so they miss the view of the bottom. Since the pyramid has lasted a long time, their assumption is that it will last forever or at least another very long time.

But will the crumbling base continue to support the weight of the reinforced top?

Not a chance. In a time of an Arab Spring, a China that is interwoven with democratic countries, and an Internet world delivering global awareness, a pyramid will not survive in the long run. People who live in pyramids will be ignored, shrunken to a quaint miniature, and quietly entered into a museum along with plaques of the Roman Empire, King Tut, and some very intriguing Neanderthal bones.

Service hierarchy refers to pastoral ministry, all those services that make direct contact with people. Parishes, hospitals, schools, relief agencies, social services, etc. are all included. They remain a hierarchy because they are governed, for the most part, by the clergy, usually, the "lower" clergy. The service hierarchy is driven more by the needs of people than by doctrine, though that is not always the case.

The tendency of some of the service hierarchs is to ignore the structural hierarchs when doctrinal issues interfere with service needs. By the same token, the structural hierarchs impose the doctrine regardless of the service needs.

For example, the Eucharist. The structural guys (there are no women) insist that a celibate male is necessary to consecrate and to transubstantiate (their word) the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. The doctrine crushes all other considerations. The service hierarchs focus on the needs of the people and believe that Eucharist is a crucial source of faith, hope, and love so they see the value of including married men and women as celebrants of the Eucharist. Maybe even add a temporary priesthood. Doing so would simply provide better service to the people. The doctrine interferes with needed service, so change the doctrine. Jesus clearly agrees with the service-first model.

The advantage of making the distinction between a structural hierarchy and a service hierarchy is that both groups remain a part of the hierarchy. It isn't the hierarchy versus the nonhierarchy. The hierarchy remains with the structural guys emphasizing doctrine while the service proponents put service as the highest priority.

You can't put a round peg into a square hole or a pyramid. On second thought, you can put a pyramid into a circle; you just have to make sure the circle is big enough to surround the pyramid. I like circles.

And two hierarchies are definitely better than one.

Institution Versus Community

October 2009

Avery Dulles, SJ, said it so well in his little book Models of the Church. He outlines five models of the church, which taken together provide a limited but valuable description of the church. His models are: institution, community, sacrament, herald, and servant. The church is each and all of these, and to eliminate one of them would be to deny an essential aspect of the mystery of the church.

But let's not be naive. As helpful as this analysis is, to experience these five aspects of church as a balanced reality is rarely, if ever, achieved. Dulles calls for a creative tension among these five competing impulses, but experience shows that the tension can be destructive and mean-spirited as well as creative. Church as sacrament, herald, and servant get along together pretty well. But the miter meets the pew in the clash between church as institution and church as community. And a mighty clash it is.

The institutional church refers to its hierarchical structure, its decision-making process, its policies, and the teachings that support its structures and policies. The church as community includes the fellowship of its members, love, faith, hope, spiritual journey, and the elusive but indomitable presence of the Holy Spirit. Dulles summarizes these two opposing models by pointing to external factors in describing the institution and internal (spiritual) factors for the community. He, of course, insists that we need both.

That's a nice, valuable intellectual distinction. In real life, however, it's a struggle between control and freedom, conformity and diversity, obedience and intuition, rules and conscience. The problem is that most people are unable to juggle these two, paradoxical dimensions of church in a way that gives value and provides limits to both of them. As a result, most people lean one way or the other and in practice, give much more credence and behavior to whichever way they lean.

This conflict between institution and community is not surprising, and it is not new. Institutions and the people who run them tend to protect themselves and the institution. Any dictator illustrates the political use of this self-protective principle, and within the church, the sex-abuse cover-up is just one example of the church institution protecting itself.

I am and will remain a Catholic. I know enough church history and doctrine to insist that the current church would be a much better church with less institution and more community, and that there have been times and places in history when community was predominant.

Fortunately, people in the pews are basically ignoring many of the exhortations of the hierarchy. This casual dismissal of the teachings of the pope and bishops is not a denial of a hierarchical church but a simple wisdom that in many cases the pope and the bishops just don't know what they are talking about. The days of blind belief in the hierarchy are over. Leadership is now required but clearly lacking. The birth control encyclical in 1968 gave great impetus to this attitude in modern times, but a whole series of statements and papal/episcopal pronouncements since then have reinforced it. The people of God aren't buying it, and we're forcing more community on the institutional church, whether they like it or not.

The people know the institutional church is way out of balance, and we are gradually taking care of it by ignoring much of the institutional self-serving nonsense and developing faith community experiences in our parishes and on our own. History will thank us.

The Vatican Catholic Church

June 2012

This is a side issue. With the recent attack on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious; the ongoing, simmering resentment of the unnecessary, forced imposition of the liturgical changes last fall; and the persistent, damaging reality of the clergy sex abuse/cover-up disaster, this issue is very minor.

Here it is: I suggest we no longer refer to the universal church as the Roman Catholic Church, but we call it the Vatican Catholic Church. The Vatican is not part of Rome anymore, so why taint the unique, beautiful city of Rome with the machinations of the Vatican? Let's at least be honest enough to keep the Romans out of it.

I told you it was a minor issue. So, end of chat?

Well, let's see. What difference would it make if many of us started using Vatican Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church? Many of us just say Catholic Church anyway. In that case, what would happen if we added the Vatican label in our chatting about church?

First of all, and this is a side issue to a side issue, just how catholic are we? Catholic means universal, and I get the part about Catholics in all parts of the world. But in terms of how and what we believe and how we express those beliefs, it seems the Vatican Church is becoming less and less universal.

I agree that we need some parameters on what we believe. Being Catholic must have some definable content to it. But those boundaries can be broad or narrow. Catholics in previous ages who believed in heretical superstitions were still considered Catholics. But today the tendency is to narrow those parameters if you are a pre-Vatican II conservative and to widen them if you are a progressive.

How catholic is that?

Anyway, back to the primary side issue: the Vatican Catholic Church. When we use "Roman" as the adjective describing the church, we attach the history, power, and prestige of the Roman Empire, ultimately the Holy Roman Empire, to the church. By association, the church absorbs the unearned gravitas, the respected accomplishments of a dominant, political government and culture.

The only reason we are identified as the Roman Catholic Church is because the Roman Empire was there first. Sure, it made sense that we would headquarter there during those early centuries. But Italy is not a world power these days, not by any standard. Do we need to remain there today because we have some famous buildings in the neighborhood?

Maybe the Avignon popes had a good idea: get out of Rome. Remember that the popes were in Avignon, France, for about seventy years during the fourteenth century? How about a papacy today that headquartered in different parts of the world every ten years? It could be done with digital technology and rapid communication. Now, that would be a symbol of universality. Besides, it would break the Italian stranglehold on the Vatican (despite the two recent popes being non-Italian. Check the ratio of Italian cardinals compared to any other nationality. Once again, how catholic is that?)

The least we can do is to name our church correctly. When we refer to our headquarters by where it is, we must say Vatican City. Vatican City is about 110 acres with a population of a little over nine hundred people, and it is the smallest independent state in the world. Sounds much humbler than "Roman," doesn't it? Sounds a lot more like Jesus of Nazareth, doesn't it?

When we insist on being Roman, we assimilate the baggage of the Roman legacy: the drive to political power and control over nations. We mimic Roman organizational structures. We freeze the times and customs of the early Middle Ages and transport them into the twenty-first century, even to the point of petrifying something as transitional as fashion (vestments and clerical dress). Being Roman means being domineering, institutional, ponderous, and downright stubborn.

As far as I know, the Romans of today do not have aspirations of becoming the Romans of old. It is only the Vaticanistas of today who want to become the Romans of old. What a shame! Being humble and insignificant in the presence of world powers is precisely what the church needs and the gospel commands. That posture is not likely when we are Roman. It is possible when we are Vatican.

Maybe this side issue is more central than I thought.

Francis Follow-Up: Amazingly, Pope Francis seems headed in this Vatican-better-than-Roman direction. While he would never change the official designation of the Roman Catholic Church to the Vatican Catholic Church, he is living the lifestyle and giving witness to the humility, simplicity, and compassion of a Jesus born in Bethlehem and who grew up in Nazareth. He is de-Romanizing the Catholic Church as I had hoped when writing this chat.