No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
The Problem
It is not difficult to show from the New Testament that dialogue is built into the structures of the Christian community. Ep. 4:11-16, for example, ‘proves that in the New Testament there is no opposition between ministerial authority and an emancipated laity. Rather the relation between the two is the fact that the first gives rise to the second.’ Other texts (for example, Rm. 1 :12; 2 Co. 1 :24; 1 Pt. 5 :3) show that the apostles’ authority over the local communities was not all one way: the latter had something to give the apostles. The same conclusion follows, too, from the fact that the Word of God has been committed to the whole community. As Augustine once said, God speaks to every member of the Church ‘from the bishops right down to the last of the faithful’. There is thus a pooling of experience, a fruitful interchange of opinion.
Now there is a sense in which this dialogue in the Church between ministers and laity takes the form of preaching on one side and obedience on the other. The official proclamation of the Gospel in the community provokes a response which Paul calls ‘the obedience of faith’ (Rm. 1 :5; 16:26) and Peter ‘the obedience of truth’ (1 Pt. 1 :22), so that to genuine exposition of the Gospel message the people respond by accepting the Word in faith. However, no human dialogue can be totally active on one side and totally passive on the other. Every form of communication involves a giving and a receiving on both sides if it is not to degenerate into monologue and silence.
1 H. Berkhof, in IDOC, Pour une nouvelle image de ľEglise, Duculot, Gembloux, 1970, 128Google Scholar.
2 Schlier, H., Wort Gottes, Werkbund‐Verlag, Würzburg, 1958, 80‐1Google Scholar.
3 De praed. sanct., 14, 27, PL 44,980. Cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum 10, and C. Butler, ‘Ecriture et tradition’, in Au Service de la parole de Dieu (Melanges Charue), Duculot, Gembloux, 1969, 231‐43;Dewailly, L., Jésus‐Christ Parole de Dieu, Ed. Cerf, du, Paris, 1969, 168‐74Google Scholar.
4 The reader may usefully consult the issue of Concilium devoted to this subject (Vol. 3, No. 7, March 1971). For a contrary view, see Canon L. Dewar, ‘Christian thinking bedevilled by democratic ideas’, The Times, 5 February 1972, 16, and the ensuing correspondence; R. Schnackenburg, ‘Die Vollmacht Jesu und die heutige Autoritätskrise’, Der kath. Gedanke, 27 (1971), 105‐9 (reprinted in Glaubensimpulse aus dem Neuen Testament, Patmos, Dttsseldorf, 1973, 64‐74); P. Hacker, ‘Christian maturity and immaturity’, Internal Cath. Rev., 6/73 (Nov.‐Dec. 1973), 348‐53. R. A. McCormick has some pertinent remarks in ‘Notes on Moral Theology’, Theol. Stud., 33 (1972), 100‐4. Any parallel between the present study and the ideas of Edmond Richer (1559‐1631) on Church democracy (for which see, for example, J. Delumeau, Le catholicisme entre Luther et Voltaire, Presses Universitaires, Paris 1971, 172‐3) should not be pressed too far. To take just one point: Richer remained a steadfast episcopalist.
5 24 December 1944, AAS, 37 (1945), 10‐23, at p. 18. Cf. P. Eyt, ‘Vers une Eglise democratique’, NRT, 91 (1969), 597‐613. By democracy I mean self‐rule by the people. This is to say that in a democracy the members of society are not passive recipients of social life but its creators.
6 These are the conclusions of Légasse, S., ‘ľexercise de ľautorité dans ľEglisé?après les évangiles synoptiques’, NRT, 85 (1963), 1009‐22Google Scholar. Cf. Freyne, S., ‘The exercise of Christian authority according to the New Testament’, ITQ, 37 (1970), 93‐117Google Scholar; Kung, H., ‘Participation of the laity in Church leadership’, JEStud, 6 (1969), 51Google Scholar Iff; Huizing, P., ‘Divine law and Church structure’, Theol. Dig., 18 (1970), 144‐50Google Scholar; Rahner, K., ‘Democracy in the Church?’, The Month, 40 (1968), 105‐19Google Scholar; Sesboué, B., ‘Autorité du magistère et vie de foi ecclésiale’, NRT, 93 (1971), 337‐62Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Founder of Christianity, Collins, London, 1971, 93Google Scholar. It is also pertinent to point out that as Pope Kiril remarks in Morris West's novel, The Shoes of the Fisherman (chap. 2), ‘One does not grow old in office without some hardening of heart and will’.
7 Despite St Paul, I do not share Joseph de Maistre's view (quoted in Kolakowski, L., Marxism and Beyond, Paladin, London, 1971, 229Google Scholar. Cf. also Friedrich, C. J., Tradition and Authority, Macmillan, London, 1972, 30‐2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the sentiments of the ‘admirable Crichton’ (Act 1): ‘There must always, my lady, be one to command and others to obey’) that ‘God created authority’. Such a view of God is the product of patriarchal and authoritarian societies, not, it seems to me, the content of a divine self‐revelation.
8 Address to the new cardinals, 28 February 1946, AAS, 38 (1946), 144‐5, quoted by Calvez‐J, J. Y.Google Scholar. Perrin, , Eglise et sociétééconomique, Aubier, Paris, 1959, 1961, 166Google Scholar. Cf. Bishop Höffner of Münster, in Council Speeches of Vatican II, Sheed & Ward, London, 1964, 57.Google Scholar
9 Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, C.U.P., 1955, 1968, 49Google Scholar: ‘According to one text of the Decretum’, the maintenance of the true faith was a matter ‘quae universalis est, quae omnium communis est, quae non solum ad cleros verum etiam ad laicos et ad omnes pertinet Christianos’ (Dist. 96, c. 4)’.
10 Die Demokratisierung der kirchlichen Autorität, Herder, Vienna, 1969, 94‐Google Scholar5. This is only one of many recent works from different countries in the same vein.
11 ‘ľEglise dans la crise actuelle’, NRT, 91 (1969), 588Google Scholar.
12 R. H. Tawney has rightly emphasised the positive aspects of freedom: ‘Freedom, to be complete, must carry with it not merely the absence of repression but also the opportunity of self‐organisation’, etc. Quoted inChomsky, N., Problems of Knowledge and Freedom, Fontana, London, 1971, 52Google Scholar. Cf. Coreth, E., ‘Problem‐geschichte der Freiheit’, ZKTh, 94 (1972), 257‐89Google Scholar.
12 By law I mean any injunction or prohibition, or more widely any principle of guidance, that can determine behaviour and command obedience under pain of sanctions.
14 Libertà cristiana e nuova legge, Favilla, Nuova Ed., Milan, 1963Google Scholar.
15 Sermo, 23, 3, 3, PL 38, 156.
16 Cf. Newbigin, L., Honest Religion for Secular Man, SCM Press, London, 1966, 138‐46Google Scholar.
17 Cf. F. R. Barry, The paradox of Christian freedom: ‘a religious not a political concept’, The Times, 8 July 1972, 16.
18 Khodre, G., “Christianisme dans un monde pluraliste”, Irenikon, 44 (1971), 191‐202Google Scholar.
19 Cf. the discussion of theological language by John Macquarrie in his God‐Talk, SCM Press, London, 1967, 79‐101Google Scholar.
20 Kasemann, E., Jesus means freedom, SCM Press, London, 1969, 16‐41Google Scholar; Bourgeault, G., ‘Fidelité conjugale et divorce’, Sc. Esp., 24 (1972), 155‐76Google Scholar.
21 Tanquerey, A., Précis de théologie ascétique et mystique, Desclée, Paris‐Tournai 195811, 1057‐74Google Scholar (E. T. Desclée, Tournai 19302). Cf. Vercruysse, J. E., ‘Autorität und Gehorsam in Luthers Erklärung des vierten Gebotes’, Greg., 54 (1973), 447‐76Google Scholar; and Macfarlane, L. J., Political Disobedience, Macmillan, London, 1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 A. Tanquerey, loc. cit., 1059 and 1065 respectively.
23 Ibid., 1061.
24 ‘Cristo modello dell’ obbedienza sacerdotale', in Nuovo Stile di Obbedienza (Symposium), Ed. Ancora, Milan, 1968, 19692, 13–31Google Scholar. Cf. Id., ‘Was heisst Ordens‐gehorsam?’, GuL, 46 (1973), 115‐26Google Scholar (reprinted in Wagnis des Christen, Herder, Freiburg i. B. 1974, 159‐74).
25 Cf. Mueller, A., ‘Authority and obedience in the Church’, Concilium, Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1966), 40‐3Google Scholar.
26 Perhaps I may be permitted here a quotation from Kung, Hans, Wozu Priester?, Benziger‐Verlag, Zurich, 1971, 89‐90Google Scholar: ‘A blind obedience contradicts the dignity and freedom of the rational man and of the Christian’. In a radio talk on the Jesuits, 6 September 1973, Louis Allen suggested that it is in disobedience rather than in obedience that creativity lies. And Pascal noted quite some time ago that excessive ‘submission’ betrays an inability to know when personal judgement is apposite: Pensées, Brunschvic 268, Lafuma 170. Should this be thought ‘heresy’, one would like to reply in the words of Flecker's Ishak:’ Courtier: “This is sheer heresy”. ‘Ishak: ‘Then a plague on your religion’’: J. E. Flecker, Hassan (1922), Act 3, sc. 3.
27 Epist., 1, 4, PL 13, 1055.
28 Contrast this with Peter Damian: ‘True freedom consists in obedience and discipline’: Opusc, 24, Contra clericos regulares proprietarios, chap. 5, PL 145, 487.
29 Ignatius, Ad Smyr., 8, 1, PG 5, 713, and his letters passim; Cornelius, Epist. ad Fabium, in Euseb., Hist, eccles., 6, 43, PG 20, 616‐20; Jerome, Epist., 146, PL 22, 1192‐5; Theodoret, In Phil, 1, 1‐2, PG 82, 560; etc.
30 As St Cyprian indignantly asked (Epist. 73): ‘Is custom to be of more value than truth’?: quoted in Héfélé, C. J., Histoire des conciles (translated from the German). 12 vols., Paris, 1869, I, 103Google Scholar.
31 Decr. Quatt. Cone. Prov. West., 1852‐1873, Burns Oates, London, n.d.2, 233, 306‐7Google Scholar.
32 It could I think be proved from history that democracies ‘work’ in a sense in which dictatorships and allied forms of government do not. For the moment the following quotations must suffice: –‘The sovereign virtue of Democracy is demonstrated not only in a single particular but in a general way by the experience of the Athenians. Under despotic government the Athenians did not evince a military superiority over any of their neighbours, while they had no sooner got rid of their despots than they won by a long lead. This demonstrates that, so long as they were held down, they deliberately malingered out of a feeling that they were working for a master, whereas, after their liberation, each individual citizen felt the impulse to achieve victory for his own advantage’: Herodotus, Bk. V, cc. 78 and 97, in A. J. Toynbee, Greek Civilisation and Character, Mentor, New York, 1953, 1961, 99. –‘Bureaucracies, in spite of their seeming indispensability, are by their nature highly resistant to change. The motto of most bureaucracies is, Carry on, regardless”. There is an essential mindlessness about them which causes them, in most circumstances, to accelerate entropy rather than impede it. Bureaucracies rarely ask themselves Why? but only How?’: N. Postman‐C. Weingartner, Teaching as a subversive activity, Penguin, 1971, 24. –‘But this has given the Church (like other long‐established institutions) a vested interest in stability, and a corresponding fear of change as a double threat to its identity. For if it is not the same as what it was, what is it at all’?: Robinson, J. A. T., The difference in being a Christian today, Fontana, London, 1972, 12Google Scholar. –‘Solid traditional institutionalism, for all its orderliness, can be just as heretical as the intolerant rejection of all that is not commanded by direct personal inspiration’: Haughton, R., Act of Love, Chapman, London, 1968, 118Google Scholar. –‘It is no use to attempt any bolstering up of institutions based on authority, since all such institutions involve injustice’: B. Russell, Principles of Social Reconstruction, Unwin, London. 1916, 1971, 25. –‘Institutions create certainties, and taken seriously certainties deaden the heart and shackle the imagination’:Illich, I., The Celebration of Awareness, Calder & Boyars, London, 1969, 1971, 11.Google Scholar
33 Philip Nobile gives a diverting account of many more in his Catholic Nonsense, Doubleday, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
You have
Access