Is the Ecumenical Vision in Need of
Structures?
Myriam Wijlens
( Dr Myriam Wijlens is a Roman Catholic. She is
assistant professor of Canon Law at the Theological Faculty of the University of Tilburg and
a staff member of the tribunal of the diocese of Munster. She is the author of several books
and articles dealing
with ecclesiological-ecumenical-canonical issues.)
When canon lawyers
are invited1 to reflect on the Lord's prayer 'That all may be one' (John 17: 21)
theologians often feel some apprehension, because laws and lawyers
evoke associations such as 'holding on to the familiar', being inflexible
and uncreative, running behind the facts of life. Some theologians might
have made experiences that confirm these perceptions: in their
ecumenical engagement they possibly encountered people who were opposed to
ecumenical progress and invoked laws and norms so as to prevent a further growing together. Others might have even met (canon) lawyers
who themselves thought that the only task they had in responding to the
Lord's prayer 'That all may be one' would be to sit and wait for the
(telephone) call with the message: Now that we have found a total agreement,
could you please draft some statutes for the Church? Or to put it in theological terms: Now
that we are in full communion, please draft a constitution for the one Church!
Those who have been
engaged in ecumenical dialogues know that the issue is not that easy
also because this understanding displays a model of unity that for many
ecclesial traditions is not the model they work with. The model of organic or
corporate union2 might indeed leave the lawyers or those responsible
for writing statutes with the task of drafting such a constitution for the new
Church that arises out of existing ones.3 Other models, however, such as 'unity in reconciled
diversity'4 or the communio model5 do not foresee that new statutes for a
constitution of the
church are to be written in the near future_
Yet, the ecumenical dialogues of the past century
and the research on the history of separations do reveal that after
these dialogues focused initially very much
on the doctrinal issues that caused the separations, there is now also a
need to attend to - what may be called - the constitutions of the Churches: the
dialogues reveal that with the separations
each denomination emphasized specific aspects and by intending to demarcate one's own position, the
different denominations developed their own confessional profile and
identity. This had consequences not only for the professions and doctrine,
liturgy and spirituality, but also for the
constitution of the Church and for church order. What are the consequences?
Actually, the different ecclesial constitutions caused different types of
Churches to develop. After the schism of 1054 the Orthodox preserved the communio
structure of the early Church: through the communio of the bishops
the communio of the local churches
realizes itself and through that the unity of the Church. The Roman Catholic
Church emphasized the position of the Pope vis-à-vis the bishops, which found its peak at Vatican I. With
Vatican II, however, the Roman Catholic Church returned to the more communal
structure of the early Church. The Reformation also developed different
ecclesial constitutions: the English reformation kept to the threefold ministry
of bishops, priests and deacons and is,
therefore, characterized by an episcopal structure. The Lutheran
reformation kept, where possible, an episcopal office as well. The Calvinist
reformation, however, accepted laity in its
governmental structure and thus developed a presbyteral-synodal
structure. Unlike the hierarchically constituted Churches, where the ministers
enjoy the power of governance, the Calvinist reformation locates the power with
the presbyterium and synod in which laity and ministers enjoy equal
rights. In the 19th and 20th century the Anglicans,
Lutherans and even the Orthodox Churches accepted the synodal participation of
laity in the government of the church.
Hence, currently the dialogues reveal an increased
awareness that the ecclesial constitutions have contributed as much to
the building up of an ecclesial identity as the differences in faith and
doctrine have done. Therefore, now that tremendous progress has been made in
dialogues on the doctrinal issues there is a
need to address matters related to the concrete, institutional and
constitutional form of a future unity of the church(-es). Hence the question
for the ecumenical movement today is according to Georg Hintzen of the Johann –
Adam - Möhler Institute in Germany:
How can the different types of Churches, which
arose over the course of the separate development of confessional Churches, be
brought together into the one
Church of Christ?6
In this
study I would like to focus on that question but from the perspective of the role that structures themselves
play in the Church. I will attempt to answer the question: If there
is a vision, namely that the Church of Christ is one, what can be the
contribution of structures, of norms, in acquiring that unity? Or to formulate
it differently: Is the ecumenical vision in need of structures? And if so, how
can structures contribute to that ecumenical vision?
To answer these questions I will attend first to the
dynamics that exist between a vision on the
one hand and structures to support and protect that vision on the other.
In a second step I shall explain how such an understanding could apply to the
ecumenical vision and to the process of acquiring unity. I shall have recourse
to some of the ideas of the Groupe des Dombes.
In a third step I shall address
the question how these thoughts can
be applied in the three activities associated with law, namely legislation,
interpretation and the application of laws.
I will reflect here as a theologian and canon lawyer belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, and more specifically, to the Latin Church sui iuris.7 I have no intention to impose my understanding on others and in fact I would like to see these reflections as an invitation to enter into a dialogue with colleagues about the relevance and role norms play in the different denominations.
The
Dynamics between Vision and Structures
On January 25th, 1959, on the feast of
St. Paul, Pope John XXIII informed the
world that he would convoke an Ecumenical Council and that he wanted a revision
of existing legislation. The purpose of the Council would be to reflect about the faith of the Church
in the light of the current time. When after the closing session of the
Council in 1965 the Fathers departed from
Rome they left the Church with documents expressing their many new
insights.8 They are for example:
·
The doctrine of the
common priesthood of all the baptized which precedes
the divisions into clergy, laity and religious. All the baptized
participate in the threefold ministry of Christ as king, prophet and priest.
Hence there is a true equality in dignity.
· The teaching that through baptism all Christians are
incorporated in Christ and that thus faith and baptism are so deeply united
that the bonds are stronger than the divisions between them. The Council gave
expression to this insight with the word 'separated brothers' (fratres
seiuncti).9
·
The recognition that baptized non-Catholics are
not to be considered so much in their individual relationship to the
Catholic Church,10 but that we are to see them as belonging to a
Church or ecclesial community in which they receive and live their faith.
· The Catholic Church has a relationship with these other Churches and ecclesial communities. It expresses that relationship with the concept of communio; or more specifically, that relationship is qualified as a communio imperfecta. Related to this is the doctrine that the Church of Christ subsistit in the Catholic Church.11
· The doctrine of collegiality of the bishops and the relationship of the college of bishops to the papacy.
The Council formulated the faith of the Church and left
it at that. It expressed beautiful insights, but what happened to the insights
after the Council? What did and does the Church do to see to it that these
insights become a lived reality? What can and does it do to see to it that
these insights do not remain words on paper, but actually give shape to the
life of people and to the life of the Church? After all, is there not a natural
desire in people to live in accordance with what they believe and hold? Is it
not true that there is peace in a person or in a community when what is said
corresponds to what is done? Do not norms and structures have something to do
with this? Do they indeed not assist persons and groups to appropriate and
protect what they value?
How can we understand
the dynamics between a vision and structures? An observation of persons might help: those who consider health as a value might exercise regularly because they see
this as means of acquiring or keeping health. Such persons are perceived
as integrated persons because they live in agreement with what they believe. On
the other hand persons who see health as a value but nevertheless smoke
and drink, are not acting in agreement with their expressed convictions or beliefs. They are not perceived as integrated or
harmonious persons. Thus normally
there is to be a correspondence between the insight and the action. The
action flows naturally from the insight and needs to do so, for otherwise the
insight does not shape the life of that person.
A group of
persons, a society or a community is not unlike individuals: first, it
determines what it believes and what it values, and subsequently it wants to
live in such a way that what is valued is indeed becoming a lived reality for that society. An example: A society
values health for its members and
concludes that sport contributes to the healthiness of people. In order to assist the members of a society
in acquiring or preserving health,
that society will issue several regulations that will make the
acquisition of health possible, such as the obligation of children to attend
hours of gymnastics at school, or it will oblige cities to provide for public sport complexes, swimming pools, etc. Another example: a society values knowledge and concludes that a minimal level of knowledge
contributes to the welfare of the whole society. In order to achieve at least
this minimal level, it will provide regulations such as prohibiting child
labour and stipulating school attendance for a certain number of years. Hence, with the help of norms, people are invited - and
at times urged - to appropriate what their community values. Laws and regulations are issued to assist a community in
acquiring what that community values,
or - to put it in other words – they are issued so that the community
can live in agreement with its insights. Thus, if we were to reflect
about the different laws and regulations we know, we could analyse which values
they support and promote.
Do laws only regulate
what has already become common practice in a society or do they also
direct people in their behaviour so that certain insights might be
appropriated? An example of laws that intend to direct and/or change the
behaviour of people are environmental laws: a city wants to contribute to the
environment and determines that in order to achieve this, garbage is
to be separated by way of glass bottles, paper, plastics, etc. A garbage
bin which contains all garbage together is simply not emptied by the garbage
people. Thus, through laws in which a certain modality of appropriating a
value is proposed, the behavior of people is influenced so that the
value shall be appropriated. Another good example concerns the project of
the European Union where laws are issued with the intention to contribute
to and bring about the desired unity between the member states: there are
common laws for the whole Union and the national states are not to
issue laws that are opposed to the common laws. Thus national laws also support
the unity of the European Union.12
These examples
reveal that there is a natural flow from insights to action, and that laws and structures assist a
community to live in accordance with its
insights and beliefs. When people live in agreement with their insights there is peace and
tranquility in the community.13 Thus, there is an organic
relationship between a vision and a corresponding
action. Norms assist a community to appropriate its visions.
Does the Christian
community differ in this? No it does not. The Christian community too
wants to live in agreement with its insights and beliefs and thus it issues
norms and regulations that assist the community in appropriating its insights. In all the Christian communities there are norms and structures that reflect the theological
insights of that community.14
Thus, when I earlier mentioned that the constitution of the Orthodox is in particular based on a communio structure and that the Calvinist reformation tends
to have a presbyteral-synodal structure then we can see that these
structures are governed by a certain theological reflection and understanding.
Hence, in the
Christian community there is a relationship between theological insights and
canonical norms and this relationship may be qualified as an organic
one.15 They are two steps in one organic process. Yet, these two steps are
also to be differentiated, because there are different intentions in
each step. In the first step the Church seeks to understand faith (fides quaerens intellectum). The Church ponders on God's mighty deeds in human
history and proclaims how God reached out to humanity throughout
the ages and how people responded. Among the tasks of theology is to identify what is relevant for growing in Goa's grace, building the
kingdom of God and obtaining eternal salvation.16 In the second step, the Church
is prompted to act in agreement with its faith Odes quaerens actionem). Laws and structures are
means to assist the community in acting upon the insights so that these may
shape the life of the community. The vision and the subsequent action thus
stand in an organic relationship, but they are two different steps in one
cognitional-decisional process.17 Hence, norms intend to assist the
community in appropriating and protecting its vision, because insights that are not supported by norms that will shape the life of the
community will remain insights no matter how beautiful they are. On the other
hand, norms that are
not governed by the insights and belief of the community will probably not be received. Thus, there is a close
connection, an organic relationship
between insights and norms, or between theology and Church order (canon law). There is an organic
relationship between them, and yet they
differ and are to be differentiated, because they have different intentions
and goals.
The constitutions of
the different Christian denominations can be understood in this way: they are expressions of
the theological understanding of a
particular denomination. Thus the norms reflect, for example, how a specific community believes what
rights and obligations flow from baptism, who can accept someone in
ministry, what qualifications a minister
must bring, who is (theologically) responsible for the authentic preaching and teaching of the faith, who is competent
to decide on doctrinal issues – thus who could, for example, sign the Declaration on Justification – and who decides in
penal cases. The constitution might
display whether the local or the universal dimension of the Church is decisive
in understanding the Church18 and the decision to have a mainly synodal or hierarchical structure
will display a certain ecclesiological understanding as
well.
The actual order and
constitution of a denomination thus display certain theological
insight& This understanding of the relationship between a vision on the one
hand and structures and constitutions on the other hand has an impact on
legislation, interpretation and the application of the law. I will explain
this, but will do so in light of the prayer of the Lord 'That all may be one.'
Unity as a Decisive Hermeneutical Criterion
There is no question that the prayer of the Lord, 'That all may be one' should
be a decisive criterion in the way the Church understands itself. The unity of
the Church itself is a value which should be an over-riding principle among the different goods that a
denomination has to attend to. To
work and to structure the community in such a way that unity is preserved
and
brought about should be a prime concern. Pope John Paul II expressed
this forcefully through the publication of the encyclical letter Ut
unum sint.19
A
key aspect in this turn towards unity is 'conversion'. The conversion (metanoia)
towards
unity, as the Groupe des
Dombes, a group
of Reformed, Lutheran, and Catholic pastors and theologians in France, have
stated, is not just to be undertaken by individuals, but by the churches
themselves as well. In all and everything they do, there should be a conversion
to the unity of the Church of Christ.20 Such a conversion is not
just a spiritual attitude, but it should be followed by renewal and reform, as
Vatican II has affirmed.21
The Groupe des Dombes considers its reflection about conversion in relation to the identity of a church: identity
and conversion are interdependent:
Far from excluding each other, identity and conversion
call for each other: there is no Christian identity without conversion;
conversion is a constitutive of the Church; our confessions do not merit the
name of Christian unless they open up to the necessity of conversion.22
The Groupe states that every
denomination has several identities: there is an identity in space: a church
might exist over the whole earth or over a certain territory, such as a nation.
It may display differences in its way of life and its operations: thus there is
a unity in diversity. It also has an identity in time: it extends from the
beginning of Christianity to the very end of time. It includes the history of
the community which shaped it and holds a future that only God knows. This
identity also exists at different levels which in the proposal of the Groupe
des Dombes corresponds to a conversion.
First, there is a Christian identity, which
consists in God's initiative to make himself known to humanity through the
message of his Son Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The
corresponding conversion is the appropriation through faith and practice of the
mystery of baptism, which is grace open to mission.
Second, there is an
ecclesial identity, which signifies that the Church is the Body of Christ where,
because of the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of God to humanity in Jesus
Christ becomes manifest. The ecclesial identity must stand in service of the
Christian identity. The ecclesial conversion corresponds to this.
Third, there is a confessional identity which refers to many elements that exists and that
emerged only after the Churches separated and that were often caused by
historical events that have lost their significance. The corresponding
conversion consists in giving up those elements that are neither foundational
nor indispensable. They could be sacrificed for the sake of unity, for the
healing of the broken body of the Church of Christ. Institutional conversion
consists in such a sacrifice. This, however, can be phrased positively, namely:
the conversion of the churches consists in a strengthening of each one's
Christian and ecclesial identity at the expense of confessional identity. It
implies bringing new dynamics into the ecumenical endeavor where there is a
change from the inside for the sake of the others and for the sake of the
whole.23
Considering the fact,
as mentioned in the opening section of this study, that it is necessary
to attend to the ecclesial constitutions themselves, because they have
contributed to the building up of what may even be seen as different 'pillars' and kinds of Churches, the proposal of the Groupe
des Dombes appears to be a good one. What does this proposal mean in light of
the understanding that there is an organic relationship between insights and
structures? What does it imply on the level of legislation, interpretation and
application?
How Unity might Govern Structures
A. Legislation
The
act of legislation is a rather delicate one. It consists not just in
promulgating a law, which is a mere procedural action by which a law is issued
by the one who is competent – that is the legislator - to do so. Although from
an ecciesiological perspective it might be interesting to determine who again is competent to act as
legislator, at this point I would like to focus on the work and task of
the legislator. The act of promulgation is preceded by a phase in which the
legislator has to determine that it is
necessary or appropriate to issue a law and what shall be the content
and the text of the law. 24 This drafting stage of the law is an
important one. What happens in this process?
Those who are
responsible for a community have the task of seeing that the community
grows in wisdom, faith and love.25 They are to set up structures that will assist the community and its
members in this. In order to do so, they will have to answer several
questions:
1. Which values would be beneficial for the individual members and for the community?
2. Do the identified values need the support of norms and structures so that the community can appropriate these values?
3. What is a fitting modality for this particular community here and now to appropriate that value? Hence, the modality is to be such that the community indeed is able to receive the norm. This implies that there is an awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the community, for example in relation to its spiritual, financial, emotional, and cultural resources.
It is important to
differentiate between the identification of a value and relating it to the concrete
community on the one hand, and the modality chosen on the other hand, because such a
differentiation helps to understand both the
reception or non-reception of a norm as well as to envision the possibilities and limitations of a
unity in plurality. Let me explain.
The non-reception of a norm could indicate that the community does not
appreciate the value behind the norm, but this need not necessarily be the case. It could also be that the community appreciates
the value that is proposed, but that
the modality is unfitting for them, for example, because they lack the finances
or personnel to appropriate it.26 Hence, when there is a non-reception of norms, it should be checked whether
it is the value behind the law or the modality that is not appreciated. When the latter is the case, there
should be a change in the modality: after all, different communities might have
different needs and possibilities.
That then leads to the second aspect, namely that of diversity in unity. The unity between the communities
consists in that they all appropriate
the same insights and values; there is diversity because there are different modalities to assist them to do so.
Hence, we see here a unity in diversity. The differences in modality
might not only exist simultaneously, but
they may also exist in the course of history: what at one point was a suitable modality becomes
obsolete at a later time.27 Or it may well be that a certain community is in need of an emphasis on
certain aspects, whereas other
aspects still play their part, but are for the time being of less relevance. The hierarchy of the
different insights and goods involved
will then change and thus possibly also the modalities chosen to appropriate
them. These considerations imply that those who are responsible for the community are to evaluate regularly whether the values and the hierarchy of the values proposed to
the community are to be kept or whether they need a correction. The same
goes for the modality chosen: does it guarantee an optimum appropriation?
An example might
illustrate this: Vatican II reaffirmed the doctrine of collegiality of bishops.
The question is how this concept can become a vital force in the
community. The bishops clearly exercise this collegiality when they gather in an ecumenical council, but
such a council is convoked only rather
seldom. If the community at large is to benefit from the collegiality of the bishops, the question must
be raised what other forms can be
found to make it a lived reality. How can the bishops of the local
churches together with the bishop of Rome exercise their responsibilities and tasks? It seems that many
thought that the synod of bishops
might be such an organ, but in fact the synod, as it was structured by Pope Paul VI was not to be an expression of the
collegiality of the bishops. He
perceived it as a meeting of local bishops who deliberate and consult with the bishop of Rome over how he
fulfils his task for the Church.28 Accordingly, the structure does not
foresee the possibility of the bishops making decisions with the bishop of Rome,
but the synod solely advises him.29 In fact, there is therefore still a
need to set up a structure that allows for a more continuous exercise of collegiality. Another example
concerns the affirmation by Vatican II that all the baptized share in the threefold ministry
of Christ and enjoy equality in dignity. How
can this be translated into the governmental structure of the Church? Would a more synodal structure be better
suited for that?
These examples
testify that there is a need to differentiate between a value and the form or
modality chosen to appropriate the value. That also leads then to another
aspect, namely to the hierarchy of values involved. Theologians will have to
assist the legislator not only in identifying the values that are in need of
appropriation, but also of their hierarchy: not all values carry the same theological weight.30
As the Groupe des Dombes has pointed
out some issues belong to the heart of Christianity, others to the ecclesial nature of a confession and again
others to the confessional identity of a Church. Indeed, some of the insights
are part of our creed, even if they
are not inserted into it. Other insights carry the weight of theological affirmations: the authority of the
believing Church is not behind them,
only that of a theological school. At times, they may be representing a high point in the development of
doctrine, but they are not part of
the profession of faith. Some insights might be closely related to a particular
philosophy. Again other insights might be more on the level of desirability
or belong to the level of good order. Especially when legislators are drafting norms and providing for structures, theologians
will have to point this out and assist them in this.
Let us return to the
proposal by the Groupe des Dombes: they spoke about a conversion by
which confessional identity is sacrificed for the sake of ecclesial and Christian identity. They
ask that through a conversion towards the
unity of the Church of Christ, the churches sacrifice what does not affect their Christian or ecclesial identity.
Based on the dynamics of insights and
structures that assist the community in acting in agreement with its insights, we can now see how norms can make
a contribution towards acquiring the unity of the Church.
I have shown that
insights need to be followed by structures that will assist the community in
appropriating values. It is not difficult to envision that our current
structures can be evaluated in light of the need to contribute to the unity of
the Church. The questions that would have to be raised for every institution should be the
following:
1.
What values does
theology propose on a certain issue?
2.
What values are
supported in the current structures?
3.
Do the current norms uphold and promote the values
proposed by theology? If not, how should they be changed?
4.
Is the modality
chosen the best for the community?
It
is not difficult then to see how theologians and (canon) lawyers are to work together in this.
Within each Church theologians identify the values that the community
needs to appropriate in order to grow in wisdom, in faith, hope and
love, and thus to build the Kingdom of God. Theologians are to point out that
among the values involved the unity of the Church of Christ must
take a pre-eminent position. In a way it should become a hermeneutical
criterion for determining the other values. This task of theologians is not
a mean one: at times it might be difficult to determine what is mere
accidental and what is more constitutive. The assistance of historians,
including experts in the history of institutions, will be required.
The
lawyers are to participate in these deliberations of the theologians so as to be able to search for and offer
creative models for the appropriation of the
insights. It is only in participating that the lawyers might become sensitive to the language they use
in their models which in itself is a
modality through which unity is appropriated.31 Lawyers may ask theologians questions about the nature of the
values they propose: is it part of
the doctrine of faith or is it, for example, a matter that expresses a certain
school of philosophy? Such clarifications may have an impact on the answering of the question: how much unity is
required and how much plurality or
diversity is allowed? The legislator is aware that the modality that is chosen is not for eternity. In fact, the
model ought to be such, that it
allows and stimulates a further growing into unity. The model can be adapted
whenever there is a need for it.
In recent times we
find a beautiful example of what I have tried to say so far. In the encyclical
letter Ut unum sint Pope John Paul II calls for
a reflection
on the way he may exercise the primacy which is open to a new situation, 'while in no way
renouncing what is essential to its mission'.32 Thus, he differentiates
between what belongs essentially to the primacy -and indicates that this is
the office of unity - and the form in which this is exercised. He,
furthermore, indicates another value, namely the unity of the Church of Christ.
Thus, the search for the form for the exercise of the primacy is to be governed
by the desire to have a visible unity, that is, the form is to be such that the 'office may
accomplish a service of love recognized by
all concerned'(UUS 95). Now maybe the dialogue has to start with the understanding of what is essential,
but you can see here the difference between the insight and the
modality.33
We might still be
far away from this, but is it unthinkable that the churches together in the
meantime might agree on some principles (values) to be honored in their legislation?
Principles such as
·
issuing only
norms that promote unity,
·
using
a language which favors unity,
· confirm and promote what Christians have in common,
· consider other Christians not so much as individuals, but as members of other churches and ecclesial communities,
· create a climate that is favorable to the Holy Spirit and for fruitful dialogues, etc.
Once such
norms are agreed on, subsequent norms or actions would be declared null and
void when they are contrary to or not in agreement with these principles. Maybe
the rules issued by the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at its plenary meeting in
Balamand in 1993 was an attempt to formulate such an agreement.34
That document, however, was not received by the respective churches and it
remains thus on the level of a moral exhortation. The lawyers or those
responsible for norms could nevertheless
already practice this. They could investigate different subjects and
make proposals for how the current norms could be changed.35
B. The Interpretation and the Application of
the Norms
Once a norm is officially
issued – in canonical terms: the law is promulgated
– it can begin to shape the community. This is done by those who live in
accordance with the law, and it is done in administrative and judicial
decisions. In each of these cases, the norm must first be interpreted. This
implies that a good interpretation means to ‘dis-cover’ the insight and value
behind the law.36 The first question is then: what is the value
behind the law? Within the whole set of laws there might be several different
values and each of these values might carry a different theological weight.
Some values indeed belong to the core of Christian belief;
others are merely for good order.
When laws
are applied, not only are the values of the laws to be considered, but also the
value arising from the concrete situation. Thus, through administrative or
judicial decisions the norm is applied as well which means that the norm meets
real life and the two are brought into a relationship: the generality of the
law meets the particularity of the case in its concreteness. The administration
of justice requires skilled persons in judging the situation and the law. Even
when the law is the same, the concrete situation might ask for differing
responses. An example might illustrate this.
The law of the Catholic Church determines that the Supreme Authority may erect a particular church
(c. 373). How, when and where this norm is applied is not determined.
The erection of some dioceses on the
territory of the former Eastern Germany in the mid-nineties of the 20th
century was received positively, even with great enthusiasm: it implied a
recognition of the new political situation of a reunited Germany and it contributed to the sense that Eastern Germany was
equal to
Western Germany. When, however, in 2002 the Holy See erected some dioceses in Russia,
the response was characterized by turmoil. The questions raised did not concern at all the legal
right of the Holy See to do so, but they touched on the application of this norm at
this time in history and in this territory. The ones who decided to establish a diocese had
to take
into consideration several aspects and one of them was certainly the impact this decision
would have on the relationship with the Orthodox Church. That then is a value, which does not come
from the law, but from the case
itself.37
Another example
concerns the existing norms on sharing the Eucharist with other Christians. The
current legislation does not differentiate between the spiritual need
of an individual baptized non-Catholic and the need that a baptized non-Catholic person living
in an interchurch marriage might feel. When
the latter person is to attend a first communion of a child from this marriage, the application of the norms might have
to take this special situation, and
the grave spiritual need that it might evoke, into consideration.38 Hence, the values
involved originating from the case itself might have an impact on the
application of the law.39
Within the Catholic
Church only a few theologians and canon lawyers reflect on the application
of laws from a theoretical perspective. Recent reflections reveal that in
the application of norms, be it in administrative or judicial decisions, the
so-called technique of subsumption, by which the facts of life are
squeezed under the law, is not favoured, but there is a call for a
hermeneutical approach in which the values underlying the law and the ones originating
from the case are placed in a relationship.40 It might be very interesting
if Orthodox colleagues would bring to bear on this point their knowledge, experience and
wisdom relating to the application of the principles of oikonomia and akribeia.41
Within the Catholic Church, provisions such
as dispensations can only be explained by way of values arising from the
concreteness of a case.
The aforementioned reflections reveal that the understanding of the relationship between theological insights on the one hand and norms or structures on the other hand has an impact on the interpretation and application of the law as well. The technical language of the norm requires well-trained interpreters to discover the values behind it. After all, the law is often a short-hand message. Thus, interpreters (and appliers) should be familiar with and know how to handle the text. It is not difficult to see that those who are familiar with the theological issues involved and e.g. the history are likely to arrive at different interpretations and certainly at different applications from those who are not. It is equally not difficult to see that persons who are sensitive to ecumenical issues might give a different interpretation from those who are not.
In the light of the proposal of the Groupe
des Dombes and in combination with the
results of Vatican II, there are some values that need to be taken into consideration whenever the
law is interpreted. There are
probably criteria that need to be taken into consideration as well, when
drafting a law and they are:
·
Arguments that display a connection to the newness of the doctrine of Vatican II should
have precedence over other arguments;
·
Arguments that
are related to the ecumenical movement should take precedence;
·
Those who give an interpretation that goes against the development of ecumenical relations should carry the
burden of proof.
Conclusion
The question examined in this study was: Is the
ecumenical vision in need of
structures? If so, how can it be envisioned?
When insights and norms,
when a vision and structures are seen as standing in an organic relationship and when the
unity of the Church is seen as a pre-eminent task of the Church, then structures can assist
the community
in bringing about that much-desired unity. When the Church is willing to enter into
a disposition of continuous conversion, that is, when it orients itself completely towards the
visible unity of the Church of Christ, norms can assist in bringing about that
unity. The structures can assist the community to protect and promote the vision of
a one visible Church of Christ. This may be done in legislation, interpretation
and in the
application of the norms. A proper awareness of the understanding of insights
and norms will allow for a responsible unity in diversity, because it can differentiate
between the guiding principle of a norm and the modality that is chosen to bring the vision alive
in a concrete community here and now.42 There is no need to wait for
others to start this: every denomination
can start on its own, commit itself to a conversion, determine what belongs to its confessional identity and see what can be
changed in its structures. There is no need to wait for any one else. This then is a conversion ad infra. There can
also be a conversion ad extra: Churches could reach agreements on
the issuing of norms. Is it unthinkable
that they would arrive at such an agreement? Could the European Union, where the member states have
agreed on some common norms which the national states in their
respective laws may not contradict,
function as a model?'" For that dialogues are necessary. Possibly
also dialogues on the role of law in the community.
The
conclusion of this study is therefore that the vision can be supported and
promoted by structures; yes, the vision would even benefit from it when there are structures to support and
promote it. There is however a great 'but' to this conclusion: it will only work, so to
speak, when
those who are in charge of structures — i.e. (canon) lawyers — are converted to the
ecumenical vision. Those in charge of structures and norms must undergo a
conversion and commit themselves to the prayer of the Lord: 'That all may be one.' When they do
so, they will draft, interpret and apply
the law in such a way, that they will contribute to the visible unity of
the Church of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The content of
this article was originally presented as the 24th Paul Wattson
Lecture given at the University of San Francisco on January 27,
2003. The Paul Wattson Lectures honor the memory of the Rev.
Paul Francis Wattson, SA (1863-1940), founder of the Franciscan Friars of the
Atonement and Pioneer for the cause of Christian Unity.
In 1908 Paul Wattson began the Church Unity Octave, now known as the Week for Prayer for Christian
Unity.
2 An example of this model is the Church of
South India.
3 According to Georg
Hintzen the model of organic/corporate union was the leading model in Faith and Order up till the 1970s. It is built on the idea
that in every territory there should be
just one church. The different religious bodies existing within a certain
territory are replaced by one new body with its own 'new identity (which implies the death of the others). This radical newness becomes most
visible in a new name.
Characteristics of this model are: 1) a communion in the profession of faith;
2) a governmental union (often a general council) is to see
to it that decisions are made together and that
there is common action; 3) a unified ministry which in its inner meaning and outer action, is an organ of the one body; and 4) there is
common witness and ministry to the world. See
Georg Hintzen, "Verwirklichung kirchlicher Einheit unter reformatorischen Kirchen" in Georg Hintzen, Wolfgang
Thönissen (eds.), Kirchengemeinschaft
möglich? Einheitsverständnis und Einheitskonzepte in der Diskussion. Thema Ökumene, vol.
1 (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2001) pp. 21-24. See also Angus Dunn, The Meaning of Unity (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1937) pp. 39-42.
4 This model has the following
characteristics: 1) the churches keep their own name and their confessionally
specific liturgy, spirituality and order, but they do not build a new ecclesial identity which was
not existing before; 2) since the churches remain independent they also keep their
own governmental structures, but the unity between the churches should. be guaranteed
through the cooperation of the individual governments of the church (principle
of collegiality); 3) communion in ministry should be realized by a mutual recognition of the
existing ministries; 4) communion in witness and ministry should be realized not through a
fusion of existing ones, but through cooperation between the existing institutions; 5) unity in
faith and doctrine is not to be
achieved by new forms of profession but by showing that existing professions of faith agree in the heart of the
matter despite existing differences. Hence,
existing professions of faith keep their validity and are seen as expressions
of the common agreement. See as well
Georg Hintzen, `Verwirklichung kirchlicher Einheit', pp. 36-37. Harding Meyer explains the development and notion
of the terms `differentiated
consensus' and 'unity in reconciled diversity' in 'Die Prägung einer Formel: Ursprung and Intention', in Harald Wagner
(ed.) Einheit – aber wie? Zur Tragfähigkeit der ökumenischen Formel vom "differenzierten
Konsens". Quaestiones disputatae,
vol. 184 (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1999) pp. 36-58.
5 Wolfgang Thonissen explains how the Roman Catholic
Church uses the communion model in "Einheitsverstandnis und Einheitsmodel nach
katholischer Lehre", in Georg Hintzen, Wolfgang Thönissen
(eds.), Kirchengemeinschaft möglich? Einheitsverstandnis and
Einheitskonzepte in der Diskussion. Thema Ökumene, vol. 1 (Paderborn:
Bonifatius, 2001), pp. 73-125.
6 Georg Hintzen, "Die Kirchen auf der Suche nach der Einheit",
in Georg Hintzen, Wolfgang Thönissen
(eds.), Kirchengemeinschaft möglich? Einheitsverständnis
und Einheitskonzepte in der Diskussion Thema Ökumene, voL 1 (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2001)
p. 12.
7 Vatican
II used the terminology Ecclesiae particulares seu Rites. The Code of
Canon Law
of 1983
(CIC) uses the term "ritual churches sui iuris" (c. 112). The Code
of Canons of the Eastern Churches of 1990 (CCEO) speaks of ecclesiae
sui iuris and omits
the word ritualis, because the twenty-one
churches sui iuris are not distinguished by rite from each other but by way of hierarchy. "The
qualification sui iuris (from
Greek autonomous,
of one's own laws," or "autonomous")
refers to a Church's legal status inasmuch as it is recognized to have the
capacity or right to govern itself according
to its own law, that is, the law that it has either made for itself or
that has been given to it by a higher authority or that it has freely received
from another Church" (100-101). Thus, the conciliar concept of the right
and duty to govern themselves (OE 5) is
expressed in the canonical term ecclesiae
sui iuris. To
translate this with autonomous church is
correct but could cause
confusion, because in the
Orthodox tradition an autonomous church is distinguished from an autocephalous (having ones own head) church, which refers to the
capacity to elect its own head. Such distinctions do not apply
to the churches sui iuris of the CCEO: only the patriarchal and major archiepiscopal churches
elect their own head. See for this also George Nedungatt, "Churches sui
iuris and Rites" (cc.
27-41), in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A
Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Orientate, 2002) pp. 100-101.
8 Vatican II reformulated the
faith of the Catholic Church. In its reflection it rediscovered aspects of the Church that it had
always had, but that in the course of history
had been neglected or less emphasized. It also reformulated the doctrine of the
Church in the light of the time and its questions.
9 At the request of Cardinal
Baggio, a specialist for Latin, the Council used deliberately fratres seiuncti and not fratres separati, because separati would imply that there are and can be no relations
between the two sides, whereas seiuncti would assert that something has been
cut between them, but that the separation is not complete and need not be definitive. Thus the Council worked on the
premises that the Reformation did not
cause a total separation, but that there was only a partial lack of communion.
See George Tavard, "Reassessing the Reformation", One
in Christ 19 (1983)
pp. 360-361.
10 It should be noted that Lumen Gentium 15
discusses baptized non-Catholics in particular
as individuals in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. The reason for this might
well be that the main question of LG 14-16 concerns the question about salvation (outside the Church). The text
acknowledges that these individuals might find means of salvation in their own churches and ecclesial communities.
The Decree on Ecumenism, however, does not focus on the relationship
between the Catholic Church and the
individual baptized non-catholic, but concentrates on the relationship between
the Roman Catholic Church on the one hand and churches and ecclesial communities not in full communion with the
Catholic Church on the other. See also Myriam Wijlens, Sharing the
Eucharist: A Theological Evaluation of the Post Conciliar Legislation. With a Foreword by Johannes Cardinal Willebrands (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2000) pp. 150-151 and
160-170.
11 The concepts church
(ecclesia), ecclesial community (communitates ecclesiales), communio, communio plena; communio imperfecta subsistit in are all concepts that Vatican II did not
define. The Council deliberately left the determination of their meaning to the theologians. In particular the debates at Vatican II on
the Decree on Ecumenism reveal that the Council had
no intention to give definitions. The Secretary responded several times to requests for amendments that the text was not
to be read in a juridical sense, but in a
theological sense (e.g. Acta Synodalia sacrosancti concilii oecumenici Vatican secundi (Vatican: Typis polyglottis, 1970- ) here vol. III/VII p. 25. A careful analysis of the development of the texts reveals that
these concepts, however, are to be
considered in relation to each other. See Myriam Wijlens, Sharing the
Eucharist, pp. 173 and 192-208.
Orsy refers to these concepts as
'seminal locutions': "Seminal locution is an expression which conveys an
insight into the truth but without defining it with precision; it needs to be
developed further." They are thus concepts that hold a richness that the Church will
discover with the help of the Holy Spirit in due time. Ladislas Orsy, The
Church: Learning and Teaching (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987) pp. 85-86.
12 It is certainly interesting to investigate how