I was listening to a former lay student who is now part of an Archdiocesan team speaking in different parishes about the dream that the Church be more dialogical. I honestly feel proud whenever I listen to former students although I have the impression that they can be overly conscious of my presence. I don’t think my presence is intimidating. As a teacher, I have never deliberately tried to sow terror among students. But good intentions of a professor are one thing, the effects on the students are quite another.
At any rate, I sent her a message on what can be added to her talk, which church documents can be cited and which historical examples can be used to bolster the main thesis.
There are many aspects to this issue but in this short essay, I limit myself to the need for the clergy to be more attentive to the stories of the people. Let me cite some historical examples.
How did the Church decide which books are to be included in the New Testament canon? To put it specifically, why do we consider the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be divinely inspired while not giving the same status to the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and Philip? To simplify a complex story, it is not that the Church promulgated decisions from above and then the hoi polloi have no choice but to pray and obey. Rather, the constant reading by ordinary followers, most especially in their liturgies, of what are now canonical gospels helped the Church decide that these books are inspired by God.
It is also good to point out that at a certain point in the history of the Church majority of bishops were Arians. Arianism held the view that Jesus Christ was subordinate to the Father. Their reasoning was that there was a time when Jesus did not yet exist while the Father existed from all eternity. Majority of bishops subscribed to the logic of Arianism. But what kept the faith that Jesus is God from God, light from light, begotten not made? It was the faith of ordinary people!
Another example is the devotion to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God. Prior to the formal definition made in the Council of Ephesus, the devotion was already popular. Theologians like St. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius may have argued till kingdom come from the perspective of rational argumentation but the Church could not be dismissive of the faith of ordinary people.
The whole idea is that the hierarchy cannot monopolize the Holy Spirit. This is crystal clear in Lumen Gentium 4 which says, “The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful.”
It is even interesting to compare how Vatican I and Vatican II formulated the teaching on infallibility. The document Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I taught that definitions of the Roman Pontiff are “irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the Church. But Lumen Gentium of Vatican II adds that “the entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.”
Thus, an essential part of the discernment process is what people think. Consultation of the faithful cannot be limited to those whom the hierarchy already knows to agree with it. In a strong statement, Vatican II says dialogue must include even those who attack the Church: “We include those who cultivate outstanding qualities of the human spirit, but do not yet acknowledge the source of these qualities. We include those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways.” (Gaudium et Spes 92). This does not mean that the Church abandons her teaching role. But she is more effective as a teacher if she also listens.
Those who find the listening process unnecessary often say that the Church is not a democracy. At its face value, such statement is correct. But the Church is not a democracy not because it is autocratic but because it goes deeper than just the notion of “one person, one vote.” The Church is not a democracy because it is a communion. This means that the presence of all the faithful is mutually interpenetrating.
