The Catholic Church, aka the western church of the Latin rite, trades
on tradition.
That is what so fascinates many people: the lure of its
continuity, the certainty, the serene provision of answers.
As
anyone mildly acquainted with its history will know, this is a series of
illusions. Christian history, like all history, is a delicious
Smorgasbord of unintended consequences, paradoxes, misunderstandings,
sudden veerings in new directions.
If you like to call that the
work of the Holy Spirit, then fine, but do note that the Holy Spirit
delights in confounding human expectations and going its own way.
The
church of Rome, having been around from near the start of the story,
illustrates this general truth particularly well. Its prestige derives
from possessing the tomb of the Apostle Peter, who probably never
visited the city.
This Palestinian fisherman, who would have
spoken a version of Aramaic, plus enough street-Greek to make himself
understood in the forum, may have been illiterate in either language,
but he is represented among the books of the Bible by two
elegantly-penned Greek letters written by two different authors – he
himself was neither of them.
The current position of the Roman
Catholic Church as the largest section of world Christianity depends on a
variety of later accidents. One of these – the French Revolution of
1789 – produced the modern papacy. Until then, the pope was one Italian
prince among several others.
Certainly he was equipped with a
dozen centuries and more of ideological baggage, bulging with his
aspirations to be something universal.
But he shared his power in
the church inescapably with European Catholic monarchs, prince-bishops
of the Holy Roman Empire and a host of other fiercely independent local
jurisdictions in cathedrals and the like, all of which were themselves
the products of the happenstance of history.
The revolution dealt
them a devastating blow. As its consequences unfolded, it swept nearly
all away, and the first World War delivered the coup de grace.
To
begin with, it looked as if the revolutionaries would do for the pope as
well. Poor Pius VI died in a revolutionary prison in France, his death
in 1799 being recorded by the local mayor (with chilling Jacobin wit) as
that of “Jean Ange Braschi, exercising the profession of pontiff”. But
the papacy drew on its historical resources and on revulsion in much of
Europe against revolutionary brutality and destructiveness.
It
very successfully played the tradition card to create something brand
new: a monarchy for the whole western church, which increasingly
eliminated competition from rival jurisdictions. The 19th century
revival of Catholicism laid the foundations of the rock-star papacy of
John Paul II, kissing airport tarmac and thrilling crowds with the force
of his exceptional personality.
While popular participation in
secular politics has grown throughout Europe and America over two
centuries, precisely the reverse has happened in the church of Rome: it
has eliminated any wider participation, even that of kings.
The
post-revolutionary Vatican remodelled the church across the world, to
eliminate independence in church government, local initiative or
scholarship.
In Ireland, the process took up the later 19th
century, to produce the variety of Catholic Church still easily within
the memories of many, embodied by such prelates as the late and widely
unlamented John Charles McQuaid.
The reforming work of the second
Vatican Council (1962-1965) looked for a moment as if it would roll back
this 19th-century innovation, but the curia’s bureaucrats in the
Vatican were left to implement council initiatives, and we all know the
results of that in the two pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict
XVI.
Benedict, arch-traditionalist, expounding even this week a
narrative of Vatican II in which nothing much happened at all to the
church, has by his resignation set the church on yet another new path.
It
is paradoxical but admirable that this sensitive and learned man has
recognised the limits of his office. The all-powerful, all-providing
papacy constructed after 1789 has simply been too much for any one man
to embody, regardless of whether he is frail or old.
The cardinals
whom John Paul and Benedict appointed to parrot the myth of enduring
tradition will no doubt resist the implications, scrabbling around to
find the most convincing representative of the post-French Revolution
state of the hierarchy. But it is just possible that the Holy Spirit
might seize them afresh.
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful surprise for
the Christian world if they reached beyond the conclave and chose
someone from beyond their ranks? That’s a big ask at the moment.
But
look back before the French Revolution, and we can find stories to help
the church in framing a more workable version of its future than the
present dysfunctional structure.
At the moment, the debate between
Catholic “liberals” and “conservatives” is stuck around the second
Vatican Council: what happened there? Not much? A lot? Even more than a
lot, but frustrated by the Curia? Let’s recognise that the debate is
much older than that.
A great many Catholics over the centuries
have considered a monarchical papacy a very bad idea: particularly all
those monarchs, prince-bishops, cathedral chapters. They constructed
coherent theologies out of their convictions.
Historians use
labels for these ways of thinking which have become merely pieces of
historical jargon: Gallicanism; Cisalpinism; Conciliarism.
It’s a
pity that these words now seem off-putting and archaic, because once
they were living affirmations that the church’s future should be decided
in broader arenas than a few chambers in the Vatican palace.
That
future won’t resemble the past – it never does – so I’m not suggesting
we restore the Holy Roman Empire, or the heirs of Louis XVI to the
French throne.
But history has rich resources to offer: showing how they
did things in the past, so Catholics can find sensible solutions for
what to do next.
In the middle of what any fool can see is a deep crisis in Catholic Church authority, let historians ride to the rescue.
*
Diarmaid MacCulloch is fellow of St Cross College and professor of the
history of the church, Oxford University. His book Silence: a Christian
History (Penguin) will be published in April.