The newness brought about by Vatican Council II was very real. In last Sunday’s article I referred to Pope Paul VI’s address to the Roman Curia on the subject. The fortress model of the Church gave security. The windows opened on the world by the Council shook this security.
The Roman Curia remains unaccountable to the episcopate- Fr Alfred Micallef
Certain traditions of the Church had contributed to the identity of Catholics. For many, Latin Mass and fish on Friday formed part of the Catholic identity. With these markers gone, many experienced a crisis of identity. This was to be expected, as Pope Paul had anticipated. More surprising is that even now, 50 years later, the newness of the Council is still experienced as threatening by some.
The years following the Council began to see the break-up of the Church. One census after another marks a reduction in Mass attendance. Add to this the abandonment of religiousness, the drop in vocations, and the introduction of unchristian values.
As this happened after the Council, some are blaming the Council for it. A number of monolithic associations and movements began to flourish. Most of these find the backing of Rome because of their ‘orthodoxy’.
It was hoped that through them the haemorrhage of the Church would stop. Well, it hasn’t. Maybe one should see whether greater zeal in implementing the Council would have fared better.
One aspect of the Council which is being ever more sidetracked is collegiality.
Collegiality, or the Pope together with the bishops, has its roots in the Gospel. Our Lord entrusted authority not only to Peter but also to Peter together with the other apostles. Similarly, the onus of governing the Church falls not only on the Pope but also on the Pope and the bishops.
This idea was frightening. What about the Pope’s primacy?
Pope Paul himself seems to have been concerned and he did two things: he added an ‘Explanatory Note’ to Lumen Gentium emphasising – because it was already in the text – that “the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands”, and instituted the Synod of Bishops whose role, in his own words is, “to counsel and help the Supreme Pontiff in the exercise of his ministry”.
Pope Paul VI convened five synods. Pope John Paul II continued to convene the synods. However, under Pope John Paul, the nature of the synods began to change. The agenda was controlled by the Roman Curia; prefects of the Curia are members; the deliberations are secret and interaction is very limited. The responsibility for the final document has passed on to Rome.
The style of Pope John Paul II did not help matters. He preferred to go directly to the people and left the administration almost totally in the hands of the Curia. In this way the Curia assumed a lot of power and, rather than the Pope and bishops together governing the Church we have the Pope and the Roman Curia governing the Church. Among other things this shows in the appointment of bishops, often chosen without an adequate consultation with the local Church.
More than heads of their churches in communion with the Pope and with one another, the bishops look more like representatives of the Pope; he governs the local churches through them, much as branch managers.
The Roman Curia remains unaccountable to the episcopate. As Nicholas Lash laments in his article Vatican II: Of Happy Memory – and Hope?, Pope Paul VI’s plans for the reform of the Curia and the establishment of the Synod of Bishops were never fully carried out. Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, in his interview/testament, referred precisely to this anomaly.
The accent is on uniformity and diktat – the recent imposition of the new English Missal is a case in point. This centralisation of power in the Church is felt even more in our time because of the efficiency of the means of communication.
As Pope John Paul II himself had pointed out in Ut Unum Sint this is proving to be one of the hurdles in the ecumenical process.
As Mgr Martini’s swan song goes, “Why doesn’t the Church shake herself up? Are we afraid rather than courageous?”
alfred.j.micallef@um.edu.mt
Fr Micallef is a member of the Society of Jesus.