___________________________________________________________EDITORIAL__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A Church without Borders
Individual bishops, not national conferences, will lead the “new evangelization.”

In times of war, some generals are always anxious to conquer new territory, while others seem content to consolidate what they already control. If he were a military man, Pope John Paul II would surely fall into the former category. 

Since the beginning of his pontificate the Holy Father has constantly preached of the need for a “new evangelization,” and of the missionary duties shared by all baptized Christians. As the Jubilee year approached he continued to stress the same themes, adding a new sense of urgency. In Novo Millennio Ineunte he called for bold new initiatives to spread the Gospel as the new century began. And in February, when he called the world’s cardinals to assemble for an extraordinary consistory in May, the Pope announced that his apostolic letter would form the basis for their discussions; he wanted the prelates to offer new plans for spreading the Gospel. 

Yet somehow, no matter how often the Pope repeats this message, his critics seem to miss the point. He speaks of the Gospel; they speak of Church governance. He talks of mission; they talk of administration. So when the College of Cardinals did convene, the stories that leaked to the secular press were rarely focused on evangelization. Some prelates were so busy complaining about their responsibilities toward Rome that they did not notice their responsibilities toward the millions of people who are still not baptized.

Even among the cardinals who took pains to express their support for the Holy Father, there were a few oddly discordant notes. For example Cardinal Paul Poupard, chiding reporters for their emphasis on the criticisms of the Holy See, said that the main story of the consistory should be “the unanimity of the cardinals around the two poles of the Church, which are the See of Peter and the episcopal conferences.”

Limitations of the episcopal conference
When did the episcopal conference become understood as a “pole” around which some portion of the Church revolves? That understanding has no warrant in Church teaching. There cannot be “two poles” in a Church that is both unified and universal. The Church is not a complex geometrical body but a single living organism, with one heart and one mind.

The primacy of Peter and his successors is well established in Scripture and in the unbroken tradition of the Church. The national episcopal conference, on the other hand, was unknown for the first 1,900 years of Christian history. Bishops’ conferences are not mentioned in the Bible, and the topic merits only a passing reference in the documents of Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Only in the Code of Canon Law is there any real effort to define the role of this new institution. The episcopal conference is an administrative convenience, not a theological necessity. 

Even as an administrative unit the national bishops’ conference has some distinct weaknesses. Nations come and go, and maps are constantly re-drawn. But the Church is not, and should not be, constrained by political boundaries. Should the bishops of the Balkans disband their conferences and form them anew to match each change in the region’s political alignments?

Many Eastern Orthodox churches have traditionally been organized along national lines, with results that should curb Catholic enthusiasm for the national bishops’ conferences. The Eastern churches have been plagued by the politicization of the hierarchy, by centrifugal tendencies, by caesaropapism, and by quarrels among competitors for national leadership. There are many things in the Eastern tradition that Catholics should admire and imitate, but the organization of the hierarchy is not one of them. 

Finally, the episcopal conference can be dangerous because, as the power of the national body grows, the authority of the individual bishop wanes. Pastoral decisions are made not by the bishops, who are the anointed successors to the apostles, but by faceless bureaucrats on the conference staff. The Catholic faithful—and, regrettably, sometimes even the bishops themselves—come to look upon the diocesan ordinary as a sort of branch manager for a national organization. 

Fathers, not managers
In order to realize the Pope’s vision for a new missionary era, the Church will need leaders who boldly seize responsibility, not delegate it. Like John Paul II, bishops must think in terms of conquering new territory, not peaceful occupation of what we now possess. In Novo Millennio Ineunte (29) the Pontiff emphasizes that the “new evangelization” will be the fruit of “pastoral initiatives adapted to the circumstances of each community.”

In planning those initiatives, our bishops do not need expert advice or administrative assistance so much as they need apostolic zeal. As the Pope writes in the same section of his apostolic letter:

We are certainly not seduced by the naïve expectation that, faced with the great challenges of our time, we shall find some magic formula. No, we shall not be saved by a formula but by a Person, and the assurance which he gives us: I am with you!

It is not therefore a matter of inventing a “new program.” The program already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and the living Tradition; it is the same as ever…. The program for all times is our program for the Third Millennium. 

—By Philip F. Lawler