Religion: Catholic Freedom v. Authority

(5 of 10)

of Democratic Institutions, argues that the present crisis in Catholicism stems from a disparity between theology and structure. "We have the structures which fit a theology that is no longer accepted," he says, "but we don't have the structures to fit the emerging theology." The new understanding of the church as an organic spiritual community implies a spirit of democracy; of shared authority. Yet it is the firm view of Pope Paul—backed overwhelmingly by the bishops—that the church was founded by Jesus Christ as an absolute monarchy, and cannot be changed without doing violence to God's intentions.

Michael Novak has defined this attitude toward church structure as "nonhistorical orthodoxy." It is not supported by an analysis of Christian origins. The papal claim to monarchic supremacy is based, in part, upon Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Today, the majority of New Testament scholars agree with the view of Bishop Francis Simons of India, who notes in his new book, Infallibility and the Evidence (TIME, Nov. 1) that the sentence simply singles out Peter as first among the Apostles and says nothing at all about the rights and privileges of his successors.

The first Christian cells—under ground churchlets in constant fear of persecution—were united by a common faith rather than any formal organization. Initially, there was no strong distinction between clergy and laymen; bishops were frequently chosen by the people at informal assemblies. In the post-Apostolic period, the special place of Rome came to be recognized by other churches—not as having any monarchical jurisdiction but as a symbol of Christian unity and court of appeals in doctrinal disputes. Even so, the epoch-making decisions on heresy that beset the early church were resolved by general councils in Asia Minor; the bishop of Rome usually ratified their decisions but otherwise had little to do with their formulation.

During the fifth and sixth centuries, the spiritual prestige of Rome's bishop became complicated by the fact that he was a secular power as well. At the time of the barbarian invasions, the Popes emerged as Rome's most prestigious leaders. Leo I, who stopped Attila the Hun at the gates of Rome, was the first to use the term primacy in reference to the papacy. The Prankish King Pepin gave the Pope jurisdiction over central Italy—and for the next 1,000 years bishops of Rome were land-governing princes as well as the spiritual leaders of Western Christianity.

During the Middle Ages, the political strength of Popes ebbed and flowed with the tides of growing nationalism, but there was never a serious challenge to their position as head of the church. The Emperor Henry IV knelt penitentially in the snows of Canossa before Pope Gregory VII; France's King Philip the Fair, a few centuries later, made a virtual prisoner of Boniface VIII. Both monarchs acknowledged alike that the Roman pontiff was their spiritual overlord. Popes seldom made major church decisions apart from consultation with general councils, which assumed special importance in preserving unity during the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), when there were as many as three rival claimants to the title of Pope.

From Secular to Spiritual. With the breakup of