The Church was never meant to be a democracy - Th203 Theology of Church assignment from 2003

"Jesus preached the kingdom, (hu)man(kind) formed the Church." A pithy quote, with a kernel of truth, and a contradiction of scriptures. Jesus preached the reign of God, but according to the Canon, he also named Peter as 'the rock on which I build my Church' (Matt 6:18).

This Church is many things - institution, community of disciples, servant to the world, herald of the Good News, mystical Body of Christ, People of God etc. Democracy is about political organisation, so this question involves it primarily as institution, and a little as community.

The Church is 2000 years old. How it is meant to be now is influenced by how Jesus meant it to be, and human understood of our relationship with God today.

How Jesus intended things is not obvious - scripture and early tradition do not have direct instructions about how to organise ‘the church'. But it does have the principles Jesus taught, eg love of neighbour, concern for the poor. However historical evidence provides views of how early Christian communities operated, and viewing scripture in light of its political and cultural context provides insights into how the disciples interpreted Jesus intentions for the institutional structures they needed.

The Roman empire was powerful, and authoritarian. Governors ruled of local areas, according to the will of the Emperor. Slaves had no legal rights. Against this, an organisation which took seriously complaints of powerless members eg widows who were missed in the daily bread distribution, appears almost revolutionary.

History indicates the organisational forms which must have been known to the disciples as they organised the first churches. The Greek ideal democratic state involved land-owning adult males in decisions on a one-man, one vote basis. Historical sources show that some of the local early churches used voting methods to select their leaders.

Thus, while the early Church was not democratic in either the classical Greek model (widows voices as well as those of men were heard, and the Patriarch of Rome who became acknowledged as the ultimate source of 'truth' was not elected), it was certainly strongly influenced by democratic practices.

The Church through the periods between the early centuries and today was clearly not democratic, whether or not it was meant to be. Once Constantine converted, the church was aligned to government. Often it wasn’t possible to distinguish between the two. Democracy did not feature in secular politics until the French Revolution. Pius IX, in Mirari Vos, made it clear that democracy was not favoured by the Church. Bishops were appointed in various ways (by the monarchy, the nobility, the Pope) - but certainly not by popular election.

Today's Church is clearly not democratic. Bishops are appointed by the Pope, who is elected by officials selected by the previous pope. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section on 'Christ's Faithful-Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life" which makes it clear that Bishops solely govern their diocese. Selected laity and religious are consulted, but it is not always clear if their views influence decisions. Lumen Gentium discusses the role of bishops at length, describing them as "placed in charge of particular churches" (para 23). It also states that the apostles appointed their successors and that Bishops today are result of apostolic tradition (para 20). Canon Law makes it clear that priests have ultimate pastoral authority over their parishes, with the power to over-rule pastoral councils (democratic or otherwise).

Whether today's Church is meant to be democratic is more complex. Secular politics do not point towards democracy as particularly efficient (though neither do they suggest a better method). Democracy requires educated voters, and while the baptised today are better educated than 100 years ago, they do not live and breathe scripture as the Jewish people did, for example. There are certain democratic aspects that are clearly supported by Catholic social teaching. The ‘common good’ says that the needs of all people must be considered - this is democratic in a sense. The same social teaching, though, points out negative aspects of the 'tyranny of the majority'.

Overall, I must conclude that the church is not democratic, in either the original sense of the word, or in today's broader adult-franchise sense. But the church clearly is meant to embrace certain aspects of democratic tradition, and has done so in a number of occasions.

Bibliography

Lumen Gentiuum - the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Documents of Vatican II, 1964.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994. CEPAC edition.

A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Bokentoter, T. 1990.Doubleday, New York

Will theology study essays come up in search results?

As an experiment, I've decided to start posting essays that I wrote while studying theology almost ten years ago.

Will be interesting to see if they get any search hits - and what I've changed my mind about since then.

Knowing God through rhythm

I like this post from Steve Warner of Notre Dame Folk Choir fame.

He says, in part:

I work in the world of sound and prayer ... Through sound, we express our heart's desire – the most intimate of our needs, the thing we call prayer. ...
Using musical sounds to embellish our prayer ... elevates our speech to something far beyond mere language – our words become acoustic imagery.... With the help of music, our mere words take on color and emotion and disposition, organizing our thoughts into patterns of aural brilliance – again, making them far more than what they might be as just spoken word.
This is what we should be doing, we musicians who work in the sacred fields of prayer.

While I don't disagree, I'm convinced that there is something spiritual about rhythm.   And I'd guess that the tribal drummers from various different cultures agree with me, even if they don't buy into the Christian god concept from either a head or a heart level.

I don't understand it, but when I'm working through a jig or reel, the constant driving pulse is what underpins the spirit.   No colour and emotion or patterns of aural brilliance, just a solid steady beat that keeps the thing on track.   That's the essence of God at work, I think, operating through the most unlikely of characters.

Kids have a right to be in church

Loved this blog post:   Your Screaming Kids Are Distracting Me

It really disturbs me when I see parents banished to the "crying room" - or even worse a self-important so-and-so telling a parent that they have to leave Mass 'cos their child is making noise.   I haven't done it yet, but there's a real chance that I'm going to ask a particular nun who does this if "devil has got her tongue this morning?".    (God, please give me the grace not to say it ... )

Why?

Well if a child (or a person who's disabled or suffering from dementia ... or just ordinarily confused) is making noise, and this is distracting me - then it's my problem, not theirs.   I'm the one who needs to learn to focus, or to experience the message that God is presenting to me through them.

Of course that doesn't mean that children should be allowed to act up:  they have a right to be gently taught how to behave in situations, and to be taught how to experience God in common worship.   But for most real-world children, that teaching takes years, not days or weeks, and the rest of the community needs to accept this.   And we have no right to cut them off from the community while it's still a work-in-progress.

A theology of Irish trad music?

I'm looking for any reflections about the theology of music - and in particular Irish traditional music.

I'm convinced that a complex tune played at a steady pace is a type of "centering prayer" for the musician - or at least it can be if they're open to it - no matter what external distractions are going on around.

Comments / links / references very welcome.

Mute witness as the normative stance to the joy of the Eucharist

In interesting comment about Ireland from an American visitor:

For generations, this nation has accepted mute witness as the normative stance to the joy of the Eucharist, even though the compass-point documents of the Second Vatican Council state clearly: "full, conscious, active participation".

... [these documents] were written as a global exhortation.. There was no asterisk at the end of the statement, saying "Oh, by the way, a few of you English speaking countries are off the hook". The documents were written as a worldwide standard: a standard of participative, encouraging, collaborative joy, irregardless of the nation or the nation's history.

Ref:  NDGuitarPilgrim - http://ndguitarpilgrim.blogspot.ie/2012/06/most-profound-gesture.html


Sadly most of the Irish people I've met don't actually see worldwide standards as applying to them - unless they can make money by applying them (eg GMP etc in the medical device industry).  I can't help but wonder if the idea of a worldwide standard doesn't actually just make them turn up their noses and think "No" - just to oppose what's suggested, rather than to understand the wisdom of how it could apply to them.

One day, I watched as a cantor who, having tried lots of other approaches, said to a congregation "If it was the pub, ye would sing" - and it's true, they would have.   It wasn't difficult music, they had the words, I'm sure they knew it - they just didn't want to participate in anything except silent individual prayer (at best) so no one , but no one, could make them.

Hello World, meet Mary, OLP

My name is Mary, or Marie depending on who you talk to.   I'm a very ordinary lay Catholic, living in the west of Ireland.   Sometimes I register for conferences and the like as "Mary, OLP", standing for Ordinary Lay Person.

The OLP was suggested by a Mercy sister years ago, when I was at and event with lots of nuns.   I like it.

I'm a theologian, just everyone else, with a lower case "t".   But mine's in 4-point font.   I can follow long convoluted arguments if I really need to, but would short words and non-technical language to describe the meaning in my life if I possibly can.

Why now?

Well I'm one of the seemingly-few lay people actually going to the Eucharistic Congress later this week.    In 1932, the EC permeated almost the entire country.   Now, I'm explaining to my Irish Catholic-background workmates what it is.   I want somewhere to share my thoughts during the week, but I don't want it under my own name:   as I read earlier this week, it must be hard living your spiritual journey in the public eye.

Onwards.