#360: Not a Democracy?

While re-reading the Declaration of Independence this 4th of July I was reminded of that puzzling expression we hear every once in a while: “The Church is not a democracy.”

Perhaps I know what people mean by this, and even why they say it, but it remains a strange notion nonetheless. “Democracy” is a political term, and those of us who think of the Church as the People of God or the Body of Christ--that is, as a spiritual reality--tend not to think of the Church in political terms.

Yet it is true that the Roman Catholic Church has evolved a vast and complex institutional structure which makes it the largest organization and the world. And that structure also includes a system of governance—a polity.

In addition, the Roman Catholic Church includes the Holy See, or Vatican City, which is a sovereign city state. Thus the pope is not only the Church’s spiritual leader, but also a head of state recognized as such by other states around the world, including the US and the UN and the European Union.

But I suspect when people say “the Church is not a democracy,” they’re not referring to the Holy See. They are referring to decisions or teachings of the institutional church. Often they are saying these things cannot be determined by surveys, polls, or ballots. The implication is that the opinions of rank and file Catholics do not matter--even if those opinions are deep convictions rooted in conscience.

To clarify, let’s begin with a concrete focus: not on the administration of Vatican City, nor on the spiritual lives of one billion Catholics comprising the People of God, but on the way the institutional Church shapes those lives by the decisions it makes. This focus leads to three questions: who make such decisions? How did they make them? And if the church’s governance is not a democracy, then what is it?

We immediately encounter a paradox. Sometimes in my parish work I present a pyramid-image of leadership development in the church. Often someone objects to the “top-down” connotation of the pyramid shape. They are surprised and pleased when I point out that every pyramid ever build was built the same way: from the bottom up!

Similarly, many perceive the Roman Catholic Church as top-down, and begin their view of church polity or governance with the pope. But the proceedings of Vatican Council II (1962-1965) reflect a different view.

In preparing its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), the Council commission drafting the document did an about face. The first draft began, predictably, with the hierarchy—pope, bishops, and clergy—then moved on to religious orders, and finally mentioned lay people. But the final document alters the order; first it treats the Church as a mystery, then it focuses on the Church as the People of God, recognizing the common lot of all the baptized faithful, drawing on the famous body-imagery from St. Paul:

As all the members of the human body, though they are many, form one body, so also are the faithful in Christ. Also, in the building up of Christ's Body various members and functions have their part to play. There is only one Spirit who, according to His own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives His different gifts for the welfare of the Church.

Only later does the final draft describe the hierarchical structure of the Church. This editorial history suggests an important truth: the Church is the entire body of Christ and the Church’s hierarchy serves that body.

True, this vast body is personified by one person positioned at the “top” of the organization: the pope. But that is also true of most secular democracies, including the US with its presidency atop the executive branch.

Nor is the papacy a hereditary monarchy presided over by a royal dynasty. It is an elective office, often held in the last century by men of modest means (in contrast to our presidency, now monopolized by millionaires). In both the US and the Church, election is not by popular vote (or Al Gore would have become US president in 2000) but by a small group of electors.

The main difference: the Electoral College is chosen in state-level balloting, but the College of Cardinals is chosen by previous popes. Similarly, the pope also selects bishops who preside over dioceses, and they in turn select pastors who preside over parishes (in effect, the full-service local branches of the world’s largest organization).

So at first glance it does seem clear that the Church’s operation is a top-down affair. But two facts reveal a more complex truth: (1) the church has not always had the same structure in the past, so it may not always have it in the future; (2) even this present structure does not justify the idea that the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of the rank and file do not matter.

One example: during the ordination rite of priests, after candidates are presented to the bishop but before they are actually ordained, there is a moment reserved for the “acclamation” of the congregation. By the 21st century this is merely a polite, pro-forma affirmation of the candidates by their families and friends, usually accomplished by applauding them.

But in fact this part of the ritual is a remnant of history. It originated in a time when clergy were popularly chosen, and the “acclamation” was made by a congregation of locals who functioned more like a town meeting or party convention to nominate those men whom the bishop would then ordain.

My point is not that the old way was better. My point is that the old way was just as Catholic as the new way is. The lesson: we might be right saying “the Church is not a democracy” if we are merely describing our current system. But we are wrong if we mean that the Church cannot ever run more democratically. It was in the past, and could be in the future.

Indeed, Edward Schillebeeckx built much of his career as a titan of 20th century Catholic theology making just this point: the way the Church operates today is the product of human history, not divine will. The institutional Church has adapted to changing times, and will continue to do so. There is no one, absolute way to run the Church.

Now, how does this affect questions of Catholic belief and practice? The chief factor here is also a matter of human history: although the institutional structure of the Church has not radically changed in recent centuries, its power has.
The papacy was once a political force capable of coercing kings and queens. Then it lost that power and hibernated behind its own walls, a prisoner in the Vatican. Now, since Vatican II, the papacy’s outreach to the world (first with John XXIII’s open heart, then with Paul VI’s travels to the Holy Land and the UN, finally with the globetrotting of both John-Paul II and Benedict XVI) has reshaped it into an international moral authority.

But while political force can coerce people’s behavior, moral authority must secure their compliance. Because church officials depend on their moral authority, they cannot govern unless people are willing to comply. In other words, the hierarchy’s governance depends on the “consent of the governed”--which just happens to be Jefferson’s definition of democracy in the Declaration of Independence.

The willingness to comply depends on many factors, and we all know that such consent is no longer automatic. Shifting secular cultural values, the side-effects of Vatican II, the fallout from Humanae Vitae, the scandal of hierarchical malpractice revealed by the sex abuse crisis--all these have combined to reduce the willingness of rank and file Catholics to comply with church authorities.

So “the Church is not a democracy” remains a curious expression. I know no one who believes that voting can decide what is true or false, right or wrong.

But “democracy” is a kind of government, and governing always means getting the people to follow the leaders. Rank and file Catholics do not get to vote on church doctrine, but when it comes to their own behavior within the Body of Christ, they do get to vote with their feet.

While polls cannot determine church teaching, and while the Church’s governance is no longer “by the people," still the governance “of the people” is always “for the people,” since in the Body of Christ every single member matters:

But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. --1 Corinthians 12: 24-26