Roman Catholics: The Prelates Speak Out

In St. Peter’s Square, underneath the shuttered windows of Pope Paul’s apartments in the Vatican, progressive and conservative Roman Catholics came to blows last week. When a group of Italian faithful held a vigil to dramatize their demand for “a church of the poor,” they were denounced by irate conservatives. “Communists!” they yelled. “Get out of Rome! Long live the Pope!” The scuffle in the streets was symptomatic of the conflict within the Vatican, where 144 prelates assembled this week for the second Bishops’ Synod. In the Hall of Broken Heads, once the storage place for discarded statues, they began discussions about the troubled relationship between the Pope and his bishops.

Not since Vatican I in 1870 had there been such a direct challenge to papal absolutism within the church hierarchy. As expected, that challenge was epitomized by Leo-Jozef Cardinal Suenens of Belgium (TIME, Aug. 1). Although a personal friend of Pope Paul’s, Suenens became the de facto leader of the progressive wing of the Catholic hierarchy earlier this year with a widely publicized attack on extreme papalism. He continued his campaign last week. In a bold speech, Suenens criticized those conservatives who cling to the concept of an absolute papacy, resembling the French monarchy before the 1789 revolution. He agreed that bishops share church authority both “with” and “under” the Pope, but insisted that modern times require decision-making in a spirit of cooperation and co-responsibility. The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano and legalistic defenders of the status quo who see the bishops’ authority as only “under” the Pope, Suenens said, in effect equate absolutism with orthodoxy.

Thirty-six of the prelates had been hand-picked by the Pope or were Curia members, and a majority of the others had been considered supporters of a conservative viewpoint. Yet speaker after speaker amplified Cardinal Suenens’ concern. A surprisingly large number of those who spoke urged a quick and broad implementation of collegiality, or shared authority—a principle that had been enunciated by Vatican II, but never clearly spelled out. Yet Pope Paul ignored it altogether last year when he failed to consult his bishops throughout the world before issuing his controversial Humanae Vitae encyclical opposing artificial birth control. Perhaps more than anything else, the resulting uproar precipitated a crisis of authority and led to the calling of the synod.

Considerable Confusion. During one synod session, Justin Cardinal Darmo-juwono of Indonesia openly told Pope Paul that many bishops privately opposed his birth-control ruling. He recognized that the Pontiff was free to use his supreme power as he saw fit, but in “grave and major matters” affecting the entire church, the cardinal said, it was only fitting to use the advice of bishops. Otherwise, there might well be a repetition of the birth-control crisis.

Other participants took issue with the schema (the official working paper) on collegiality that was drawn up for the synod by the Holy Office. Bernard Jan Cardinal Alfrink of The Netherlands, who heads the most radical branch of the Roman Catholic Church, found it utterly “juridical” and obscure. Even moderate, mild Cardinal Cooke of New York noted the “considerable confusion as to when dissent is legitimate in the church.” Endorsing collegiality, he reminded the synod that “we live in an age of ‘socialization’ and interdependence in which essential.” coordinated efforts are absolutely The conservatives did not remain silent in the face of the liberal challenge.

Several prelates spoke fervently in support of a strict papal authority. Jean Cardinal Danielou of the Roman Curia, a frequent spokesman for the Vatican’s views, argued that to face up to the — very the grave decline of crisis in faith, the spiritual Western life and world morals — the church now, more than ever, needs a “firm and sole authority.”

Comfort and Encourage. Pope Paul attended four of the five three-hour sessions, and listened intently, but took no part in the discussion; his calling of the synod had been a tacit admission that the crisis of authority had to be debated. In his subtle opening address to the synod, the Pope managed both to comfort the conservatives and to encourage the liberals by holding out the hope for a wider application of collegiality — provided that “brotherly concord facilitates” his relations with the bishops. But he reaffirmed that as successor to Peter he retains full and final authority over the church. “The government of the church,” he said, “has an original form of its own, which aims to reflect in its expression the wisdom and will of its divine founder.”

Despite the strong feelings expressed during the first week of meetings, the synod remains a mere consultative body that cannot decide on changes by itself.

Yet the voices of dissent raised in the Hall of Broken Heads were too numerous and powerful to be ignored.

Karl Rahner, the progressive Jesuit theologian, succinctly summarized the week’s events. “I found out,” he noted dryly, “that I am not the only heretic in Rome.”