A "Denominationalized" Church? Hamstrung Bishops?

A fringe benefit of a heel injury I sustained some months ago is that the only kinds of aerobic exercises my doctor will permit me to do now, also allow me to simultaneously read. So today I while I was working out, I was reading this rather dated book from the period of the scandals in the Church back around 2002, and I came across this fascinating excerpt that made me wonder about some trends toward debilitating Protestant patterns of bureaucratization in the Catholic Church. See what you think:

While there is probably no scientific survey on the question, three and a half decades of experience and anecdotal evidence suggests that the typical diocese today has at least twice, and often four or five times, the number of officials, workers, and bureaucrats as the typical diocese in, say, 1963. Some of this has to do with the expansion of the Catholic Church’s social ministry and with a needed professionalization of some core Catholic activities, including education. It can also be reasonably assumed, however, that this vast expansion of ecclesiastical bureaucracy has a lot to do with the Catholic Church uncritically absorbing the general American tendency toward bureaucratization – and specifically the mainline Protestant denominations’ extensive bureaucratization.

This bureaucratization has had numerous effects. It has required a tremendous increase in the financial resources directed toward Church administration (even though Catholic bureaucrats often work at wages far lower than they might command in society). It has made decision-making sluggish, as virtually every initiative from whatever source, including the bishop, has to be staffed-out, reviewed, run through committees, re-reviewed, and so forth. It has meant that priests and bishops spend an inordinate amount of their time in meetings; time being finite, that in turn has often meant time taken away from prayer, study, writing, teaching, preaching, and simply being present to the Church’s people in homes, schools, nursing homes, and hospitals. This passion for meetings has also slowly and inevitably eroded the sense of headship among both priests and bishops. Structures intended to be consultative often act as if they were deliberative, and it is the courageous priest or bishop who is willing to insist, not as a matter of “authoritarianism” but as a matter of the God-given structure of the Church, that he must be the final decision-maker if the parish or diocese is to function as the Catholic Church and not as another denomination.

Bureaucratization has thus influenced what might be called the “denominationalization” of Catholicism in the United States. And this, too, has made for serious theological difficulties, for the Catholic Church is not, and cannot be, a “denomination” as the term is usually understood in America. A denomination is something with no fixed form, but rather a structure that can be changed at will by its membership; the Catholic church has a form give to it by Christ, and that form involves certain truths (e.g., the sacraments) and certain structures (e.g., the office of bishop) that are not susceptible to change. That Christ-given “form” stands in judgment on the local embodiment of the Church; the local Church doesn’t stand in judgment on it.

A denomination has other features that are, to put it gently, in tension with classic Catholic self-understandings. In a denomination, bureaucratic process is often more important than clear and binding doctrines. In a denomination, porous and shifting boundaries do not present serious problems because group-maintenance is the highest value and “being non-judgmental” is crucial to keeping the group intact. In a denomination, effective moderation of the ongoing discussion about “who we are” is the most sought-after quality in a leader. None of these attributes of the American denomination has very much to do with the Catholic church as it has understood itself for almost two millennia. Yet the church today often displays each of these characteristics in one degree or another.

All of this has had a corrosive effect on the office of bishop in the United States, and specifically on the bishops’ self-understanding. The current crisis has also brought to the surface another unhappy quality of bureaucracies – their difficulty in facing really serious problems. Bureaucracies everywhere are averse to confrontation. The grave problems of clergy sexual abuse, and the problem of the culture of dissent that helped make it possible, have made it painfully clear, however, that confrontation is what is sometimes needed. When the local bishop delegates key areas of responsibility to bureaucrats, even fellow clergy, he inevitably loses some part of his sacramentally conferred mandate to govern, and his leadership is inevitably weakened….

One paragraph was particularly telling for me -- the one containing this sentence: "In a denomination, effective moderation of the ongoing discussion about 'who we are' is the most sought-after quality in a leader." In fact, this sentence reminded me of a statement I read somewhere that when an institution begins worrying about mission statements, that's almost a sure sign it's lost sight of its identity and mission.

I can recall being in what I would describe as "full-service Catholic parishes," which are burgeoning with programs and activities for old and young alike. There are youth groups, young adult groups, supreme timers, Knights of Columbus, mothers’ groups, choir practice, Wednesday evening church dinners, mission trips, talent shows, dances, parish picnics, scouting programs, food drives, Blood Mobile drives, Habitat for Humanity projects, Alcoholics Anonymous, Lenten Yoga programs (honest!) -- and much, much more. They take “involvement” seriously. These parishes pride themselves in being very active, “full-service” parishes.

But I've sometimes wondered: What is the overall purpose and mission of these parishes? Officially, they may say (in their mission statement!) that it’s to promote “an evangelizing spirit which meets the needs" of their parishioners and "reaches out to others.” But what does that mean? What are these “needs” they intend to meet? What is intended by an “evangelizing spirit”? It’s clear that whoever writes these sorts of mission statements wants visitors to feel “welcome” in their parish "communities." They have greeters stationed to meet them when they arrive. They have a “Landings” program designed to welcome inactive Catholics back home, and “RCIA” to invite inquiring non-Catholics to consider becoming part of their “church family.” But what’s the purpose of this beehive of parish activities, this “family” they’re inviting outsiders to join? Does it exist for its own sake? “Getting involved” and “participating in community life” provide a sense of “belonging,” and that is widely assumed to be a good. Is this the “need” they’re trying to meet? Is this what it means to have “an evangelizing spirit”? More importantly, who is deciding all of this; and who is deciding who decides this?

You see, the problem here is that the entire task of the Church in the world has been misplaced where it was never meant to be. The task of the Church was clearly specified in the Great Commission, and it was entrusted to the Apostles and to their successor Bishops in the Church, who are the proper caretakers of the mission to whom it has been entrusted by Christ. The task of the Church was never meant to be brought to the floor of a parish committee for questioning and creative revisioning. This is all so ... sixties. Wait ... I think I'm having flashbacks ... Is that The Fifth Dimension I hear singing "Let the Sunshine In"? Or was that the latest Marty Haugen Gathering Hymn adopted from the most recent ELCA Convention? Ahhhhhhh!!!!! Give it all to Grega!!!

Oh, yes, the book from which the excerpt was taken was George Weigel's The Courage To Be Catholic (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 97-100.