Decree concerning the pastoral office of the bishops in the Church Christus Dominus

The Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church Christus Dominus.

We must be clear about the fact that Christus Dominus is about the government of the dioceses by the bishops. The text on the bishops had to spell out the juridical and pastoral guidelines for the government of the dioceses (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Il concilio si gioca nell’intervallo. La seconda preparazione e i suoi avversari.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 385–558. 483. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). We have also to remember the context of the discussions on the document in the aula in November 1963. The climate between a minority of the Council and the majority that tried to reign in the centralized power of the Roman Curia in the Roman Catholic Church was already very tense (See my Posting “Preparing documents on the bishops, priests, religious and the lay”).

The Curia was not willing to share the powers of selecting bishops. With the help of the local nuncios in the capitals of the nation states around the world, the Curia prepared the nomination of bishops by the pope. There was no active participation of the people that were concerned, and therefore the question of how bishops would get chosen was not any more discussed. In November 1963, nobody in the aula wanted another conflict with the Curia. The Curia has succeeded to this day in ruling over the process of selecting and presenting candidates to the pope for the nomination of new bishops. The October crisis of 1963 about the conflicts over the texts on religious liberty, and the disputes on the relation to the Jews and non-Christian religions in November was still present on the minds of the bishops (Famerée, Joseph. 1998. “Vescovi e diocese (5–15 novembre 1963).” In Il concilio adulto settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 133–209. 174. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The commission of the bishops confided the task to produce a consensual draft of Christus Dominus to the passionate canonist priest Willy Onclin (1905–1989), from the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. The intention of the Council was clear, the task was given to a canonist, not to a pastoral theologian or an exegete. Canon Law prevailed over the Bible despite the pastoral title of the decree. Onclin presented his draft for Christus Dominus in January 1964 in the commission for the bishops and succeeded in integrating his text and the structure of the three chapters in the final decree Christus Dominus. He did not get juridical powers for the bishops’ conferences, the effort of some decentralization in the government of the Roman Catholic Church had failed (See my Posting “Theologians at the center and in the periphery”). The power of governing the Church remains fully and exclusively with the pope.

The official Vatican English publication of Christus Dominus (Paul VI 1965a) does not coherently translate the Latin term potestas in the official Vatican Latin publication of Christus Dominus (Paul VI. 1965. “Christus Dominus. Decretum de pastorali episcoporum muner in ecclesia.” The Holy See). The translations of the term potestas are authority and power; I coherently use the term “power” as translation of the term potestas and the term “authority” as translation of the term auctoritas. The juridical term power is much stronger than the term authority. The use of the term authority for the expression potestas puts on some liberal perspective for the Catholics who want to participate in the government of the Church.

The preface of Christus Dominus

The first sentence of number 1 of Christus Dominus refers to the dream of Joseph, and to the angel of the Lord who announces to Joseph that Mary “will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1, 21). Jesus saves his people from their sins that is he sanctifies his people. Christus Dominus says “all men might be sanctified” that is the document does not use the gender including language. We have to assess that to the people of Jesus belong all women, men and queer and he came to sanctify all of them.

The second sentence of number 1 of Christus Dominus refers to John 20, 21 where Jesus speaks to his disciples: “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so am I sending you”. The bishops try to create the impression that Jesus speaks to the Apostles, that is to them.  But in John 20, 21 Jesus speaks to a larger circle of disciples and in John 20, 22 confers the Holy Spirit on them and in John 20, 23 confers to the disciples the power to forgive sins. This power is not conferred exclusively to the Apostles as the text of Christus Dominus improperly claims, it is conferred to the disciples. John 20, 24 informs, that the evangelist knows “the Twelve” that is the Apostles who accompanied the historic Jesus as close followers, but the power to sanctify, that is to forgive sins, is conferred by Jesus to all his disciples.

With this kind of distortion of the use of John 20, 21 that is possible by ignoring the context of the verse in the pericope of John 20, the bishops not only give testimony of their lack of education in Bible studies, the bishops of the Second Vatican Council give after all a shameful testimony of their greed for power. John is aware of the greed for power of the Twelfe and in John 13, 1-20 describes the way of Jesus, who was washing the feet of the Twelfe – including the feet of Judas, whose treachery is foretold by Jesus in the following verses John 13, 21-30. Jesus’ example for the office of an apostle is humble service, not greed for power.

This third sentence further identifies “the body of Christ” with the Church citing Ephesians 4, 12. Christus Dominus fails to cite the important context of Ephesians 4, 12. Ephesians 4, 11 says that Jesus’ gift to some “was that they should be apostles; to some prophets; to some, evangelists; to some, pastors and teachers” and the aim of these gifts was to equip the saints that is all women, men and queer of the holy people of Go’d “to build up the Body of Christ” (Ephesians 4, 12).

Thinking in 2019 about the Apostles, we may affirm that they were lay people and that they were married just as Peter was married (Luke 4, 38). They were not priests, bishops or presbyters. It is true, we do not know very much about the wife of Peter and his mother-in-law. Luke tells us, that after Jesus left the synagogue of Capernaum, where he was teaching and healing on the Sabbath, he went to Simon’s house (Luke 4, 31–38). “Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in the grip of a high fever and they asked him to do something for her. Standing over her, he rebuked the fever and it left her. And she immediately got up and began to serve them” (Luke 4, 38-39). We already find this story of the cure of Simon’s mother-in-law in Mark 1, 30-31 and the Apostle Paul writes “To those who want to interrogate me, this is my answer. Have we not every right to eat and drink? And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?” (1 Corinthians, 9, 3-5). According to Clement of Alexandria (150–215? CE) the Apostles “Peter and Philip produced children, and Philip gave his daughters away in marriages” (Clement of Alexandria. 1991. “Stromateis Book 3”. 289. In Stromateis. Books 1–3, translated by John Ferguson, 256–326. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press). From the New Testament we know nothing about children of Peter and Philip, or about Philip’s marital status. The same is true of the following story about Peter that Clement of Alexandria tells in the seventh book of his Stromateis. There is no hint anywhere that this story would correspond to historic facts of the lives of Peter and his wife and Peter assisting the martyrdom of his wife. We do not know anything about a martyrdom of the wife of Peter; we do not even know her name.

“There is the account, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, ‘Remember thou the Lord’. Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearests to them” (Clement of Alexandria. 2019. “The Stromata or Miscellanies. Book 7”. 7. Early Christian Writings). The interpretation of the story is interesting. Clement wants to present the Apostles to philosophers of the Gnosis who value the immaterial soul and disvalue the material body, as credible testimonies of Jesus Christ that are morally perfect as gnostic philosophers claim for upright and wise people. Clement insists that Peter had no more sexual intercourse with his wife after he had become an Apostle. “Thus, also the apostle says, ‘that he who marries should be as though he married not,’ and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord” (ibid.). Clement apparently was ashamed of describing and even of imagining Peter and the Apostles leading an active sexual life as married men and Apostles. Eight hundred years later, there was a change of mentality on marriage and sexuality and the theologians adapted to it. In 1937, the Theologian Otto Karrer comments on the above story of Peter encouraging his wife and calling her his love – as we read in Karrer’s German translation of the account for a broad public of lay Christians who take interest in patristic literature -, very positively as an example of Peter’s solidarity of love and faith with his wife (Karrer, Otto. 1937. Urchristliche Zeugen. 172. Innsbruck: Tyrolia). Clement and a multitude of theologians in Patristic, Medieval, and modern times lacked the faith in Jesus Christ to accept their sexuality as integrative part of their body that goes naturally very well together with the consolations of the Holy Spirit. Are these men repressing sexuality and sex in order not to be remembered of their impotence to escape death one day?

In 1562, the Council of Trent wanted Christ to have established exclusively the apostles as priests “and ordained that they and other priests should offer his body and blood” (Wijngaards, John. 2019. “Jesus empowered women to preside at the Eucharist.” Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research with reference to Denzinger, Heinrich. 2010. Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Edited by Peter Hünermann. Freiburg: Herder). According to Luke the Last Supper was a Paschal meal. Jesus sent Peter and John to ask the man hosting him and his disciples: “Where is the room for me to eat the Passover with my disciples?” (Luke 22, 7–11). According to Exodus 12, 1– 4, the whole family, including women, had to take part in the Paschal meal. Women always took part in Jesus’ community meals, so why would Jesus’ mother and the women disciples not be present at the Last Supper, the Passover that is celebrated by the whole household and even neighbors (ibid.)? Jesus words “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22, 19) were addressed to all the disciples, men and women. Thus, one might say that Jesus empowered all of them presiding at the Eucharist (Wijngaards 2019).

According to the exegetes, Paul did not write the letter to the Ephesians. The letter was written a few decencies after his death. The authors of the letter to the Ephesians knew Paul’s theology very well and accepted his claim at the beginning of his letter to the Romans that I am Paul “a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle” (Romans 1, 1). Paul is an apostle like Peter although he never met the historic Jesus. Paul received the gift of being an apostle just as the other apostles received this gift too. More important than the assessment that being an apostle does not necessarily mean one has to have known the historic Jesus personally, is the fact that being an apostle is not restricted to the male gender. There are female apostles, too. There is for example Junia, who Paul greets in Romans. “Greetings to those outstanding apostles, Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who were in Christ before me” (Romans 16, 7). Since 2016 even the German speaking bishops and their official translation of the Bible accept Junia as a woman apostle.[i] For about a thousand years, the Catholic Church was not able to affirm that there is a woman given the title apostle in the New Testament. In the fourth century, the great Saint John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, in his homily 31 on the epistle to the Romans continues the Christian tradition of recognizing and praising Junia as a woman apostle of note[ii]. If there were women apostles, it is not acceptable to claim that the successors of the apostles have to be male. Women very well may be consecrated bishops and ordained priests. On June 16, 2017, Pope Francs raised the liturgical memorial of St. Mary Magdalene to the rank of a liturgical feast, characterizing her as "the apostle of the apostles" (Nicholas Senèze. 2018. „Rediscovering the role of Mary Magdalene as ‘apostle of the apostles’. Turning Mary Magdalene into a sinner obstructed women’s place in the church.” La Croix International. March 28. 2018). Lucetta Scaraffia, a feminist historian of the relationship of women and the Church and a journalist, claims that placing Mary Magdalene on the same rank as the apostles is irreversible and provides a basis for achieving every kind of equality of women in the Church (ibid.). Pope Francis could bring about this equality of women in the Roman Catholic Church, but he does not realize the necessary reform of Canon Law despite his absolute powers as pontiff. Very sad indeed.

Already in January 1965, the theologian expert Hirschmann insisted in the commission on the lay that the laity has a proper function, a munus that is to sanctify the world (Burigana, Riccardo, and Giovanni Turbanti. 1999. “L’intersessione prepare la conclusione del concilio.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 483–648. 595. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The Council never accepted that the lay and the bishops have an equal munus sanctifying the world. Christus Dominus reserves the use of the term “munus of sanctifying” for the bishops and the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem failed to integrate effectively the laity in the apostolate of the Church (Grootaers, Jan. 1996b. “Flussi e riflussi tra due stagioni.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 559–612.579. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). There is never equality of the apostolate of the Church for the laity and the bishops. The laity participates, takes part, and cooperates but is always submitted to and has to obey the hierarchy (Sauer, Hanjo. 1999. “Il concilio all scoperta dei laici.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 259–292. 290. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

At the end of his history of the document on the laity, in the third session of the Council, suddenly Sauer turns to an unfinished manuscript of Karl Rahner on the laity (ibid. 289). This manuscript was never discussed or brought up at the aula, but, according to Sauer in 1999, it constituted still innovative theology concerning the apostolate of the people of Go’d (ibid.). Sauer got access to the manuscript number 633 of the Rahner archive with the help of Rahner’s assistant at the University of Münster, Elmar Klingler and presents the Rahner project (ibid. 291). In my eyes, this manuscript is not innovative, it limits the range of the discrimination of the lay women and men and queer in the Catholic Church but does not establish equality. On the contrary. Yes, Rahner claims that divine law limits the authentic competences of the clergy and the hierarchy over the laity, but laicism wants to do away with these authentic competences (ibid. 289). These competences concern ordination and jurisdiction. Rahner claims that the sacraments of baptism and confirmation characterize the laity (ibid. 290). Well, baptism and confirmation also characterize the clergy and hierarchy as Christians. In this manuscript, Rahner is not conscious of this fact. Rahner affirms, as does the later Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem that all members of the Church are called to actively participating in the work for the salvation of the world (ibid.). Apostolicam Actuositatem 2 reads:

“The Church was founded for the purpose of spreading the kingdom of Christ throughout the earth for the glory of God the Father, to enable all men to share in His saving redemption, and that through them the whole world might enter into a relationship with Christ. All activity of the Mystical Body directed to the attainment of this goal is called the apostolate, which the Church carries on in various ways through all her members. For the Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate” (Paul VI. 1965. “Apostolicam Actuositatem. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity.” The Holy See).

The sacrament of the Christian vocation is baptism, and baptism is for all. Therefore, the vocation is for all. If the apostolate is part of that vocation, how is it possible to discriminate the lay and diminish their vocation? Rahner holds necessary that the hierarchy guarantees with doctrinal and pastoral directives to the laity the unity of the Church (Sauer 1999, 290). In 1966, in his commentary on Christus Dominus, Rahner says he does not need to comment on the preface because it is a reception of Lumen Gentium (Rahner, Karl, and Herbert Vorgrimler. 1966. Kleines Konzilskompendium. 251. Freiburg: Herder). As generations of theologians after him, he misses the second side of the coin on the power in the Catholic Church that is the underlying concept of governing the Church as ecclesial society.

The first sentence of number two of Christus Dominus affirms without any reference to any document that “the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal power over the care of souls by divine institution”.

I am not questioning that Jesus confided a special role to Peter concerning the Twelve and the larger group of disciples. I am questioning that Jesus entrusted to Peter and to the Roman pontiff as successor of Peter “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power” of governing. Feeding of sheep and lambs is not the right description for exercising governing powers; it is rather a disguising description for masking absolute power. There is no such power; there is the power for preaching good news and for healing. We hear of the special role of Peter in Luke 22, 31-34. Jesus prays for Peter that he may have faith. Jesus does not pray that Peter may have “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power” of governing as bishop of Rome. Jesus foretells Peter his denial of him, Jesus prays that Peter will recover and will turn to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22, 31-34). There is no talk about structure, roles or offices but it is clear for Luke that the Christian community needs responsible offices (Bovon, Francois. 2009. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 19,28–24,53. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/4. 274. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag). Peter will be able to empower his brethren to stay firm in the faith. He himself had struggled desperately to be granted this faith; Peter had failed and was pardoned (Luke 22, 33-34). Christian communities will form, and they will choose responsible men and women and confer them offices. The responsible men and women organize not according to a hierarchy but take and sustain their authority from their service to the community (Luke 22, 26–27), that is love (Bovon 2009, 274). Jesus does not tell Peter to strengthen his brothers that is the brothers of Peter in the name of him that is Jesus. Peter’s mission is that of a faithful believer in Jesus Christ as the crucified and resurrected Messiah. He believes in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, he does not govern in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Medieval papal primacy is a later fact.

The second sentence of number two of Christus Dominus claims that the Roman pontiff “is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches” and the third sentences says “Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches”.

To understand that the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ needs a government and an absolute power of governing, I turn to the hermeneutical key provided by William Onclin (Onclin, William. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4): 733–748). His article on Church and Church Law from 1967 is an important testimony to the understanding of Church government according to the documents of the Second Vatican Council from the point of view of the pope, the highest authority in the Church, who codified this doctrine on the Church in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Onclin starts looking at the Church under the twin aspects of society and community (Onclin 1967, 733). He uses these aspects because they are authorized by Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici corporis Christi from 1943 and still used in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council that was promulgated on November 21, 1964 (ibid.). A correct and complete interpretation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council must take notice of the following fact. All talk of the Church as “the people of God”, as “the messianic people” destined to bring together all human beings that is “established as a communion of life, charity and truth” (Lumen Gentium 9) is incomplete. We must recognize that the Church at the same time is also “the society of men who are incorporated in it and who, under the direction of the sovereign pontiff and the bishops, pursue in common the end to which they are called, communion in divine life” (Onclin 1967, 733). The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is perfectly clear about the fact that it is impossible to separate the Church as society and the Church as communion, “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities … “(Lumen Gentium 8). Guido Bausenhart is one of those theologians of the first reception of the Second Vatican Council who misses the point of the two sides of the coin of the Second Vatican Council’s ecclesiology. In his comment on the preface of Christus Dominus he contrasts the ecclesiology of the body of Christ in Christus Dominus 1, with the ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium 1, where the Church is characterized as a sacrament in Christ (Bausenhart, Guido. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über das Hirtenamt der Bischöfe in der Kirche.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 3, 225–314. 248. Freiburg: Herder). We must complement dreamers like Bausenhart with the canonical expert Onclin: A complete body of Christ theology must combine the mystical with the societal structure of the Church. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council calls the combination of mystical and social structure the mystical reality of the Church and explains: The mystical reality of the Church that is the Church as sacrament consists of two parts: The mystical is the sign and the societal is the instrument for realizing the sign, “the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument” (Lumen Gentium 1).

Onclin repeats again and again that there are two sides of the same coin; the two sides, society and communion, are important for the self-understanding of the popes and bishops since the Council of Trent. Pope Paul VI refers to the classical definition of the Church by the Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621). According to the cardinal, the Church is defined as the community of men united by the profession of the same Christian faith and communion in the same sacraments, under the authority of legitimate pastors, and especially of the sole Vicar of Christ on earth, the sovereign pontiff (Onclin 1967, 734). The pontiff and the pastors direct those who are incorporated in this society, and they are submitted to the authority of their pastors and must obey the laws and precepts decreed by them in order to assure this direction (ibid.).

The common goal of the Church as a society consists in teaching mankind the doctrine of Christ and to work for their sanctification (ibid.). Onclin’s understanding of a community includes the claim that “a community is not a voluntarily constituted organization in view of realizing a common, determined end” (ibid. 735). In 1967, Onclin still holds that the whole of humanity, “comprising all the men on this earth” is a community and does not constitute a single organized society comprised of all men but is divided into many States. There is not a single world State, “a single organized political society” (ibid. 736). The last chapters of Pope John XXIII’s Encyclical Pacem in Terris from 1963 clearly hold a different view on the world. John XXIII recognized the United Nations as the necessary organization that overcomes the particular interests of the single states and nations and claims the goal of world peace and justice as the common end. It is evident that Onclin and the popes who succeeded John XXIII were not able to apprehend this part of Pacem in Terris and consequently did not adapt their view on the Church as society and community. If the Church accepts the teachings of John XXIII, we are living in a world society and are collaborating as Christians for the realization of the government of the United Nations according to the rule of Human Rights law. The realization of the rule of Human Rights law constituted the individual woman, man and queer as subjects of international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaims the individual to be subject of international law and every individual, not only single states, was invited and empowered to make claims of human dignity (Leher, Stephan P. 2018. Dignity and Human Rights. Language Philosophy and Social Realizations. 18. New York: Routledge). This development of Human Rights in the world society of the United Nations constitutes the individual subjects of equal dignity, freedom and rights. There is no need of submission to the authority of monarchs that make the laws; there is no submission to obey the laws and precepts decreed by monarchs who stand over the law. Every individual woman, man and queer has right to the membership of the world society of the United Nations and has the right to participate in the society’s government, legislation and jurisdiction.

According to tradition and according to Onclin, the community of Catholics, the community of believers in Jesus Christ and the community of the people of God do not constitute a society because the believers cannot propose a juridical order or a legal structure that would govern the ordered collaboration of its members toward a common goal (Onclin 1967, 737). Onclin is convinced, that the individual Catholics are not able to self-legislate, they are not capable of creating legal structures; therefore, their bishops, cardinals, and popes have to govern, and the individuals must submit to their laws (ibid.). Individual Christians evidently are not capable of realizing the duties of reciprocal affection and solidarity, the people of God therefore need imposed statutes by the constitute authority (ibid.). The organization of the Church as a spiritual community does not empower the Church and its members, the believers in Jesus Christ, for governing. The Church as a society therefore needs a worldly organization says this autocratic doctrine.

I doubt that the Christians building the Mystical Body of Christ today are not empowered by the Holy Spirit to govern their community life. They do not need the Church-society as an absolutist monarchy to help to realize the formation of the church community and to determine by absolute power their belonging or not belonging to the community of the Church. The teaching mission of teaching the reign of God and healing that Jesus gave to his disciples today is realized not only by bishops, cardinals and popes. Today many Christian women, men and queer are theologically educated. They have the spiritual formation and empowerment to promote the Gospel and help educate and form women, men and queer to become Christians and they have the expertise to govern Christian communities and churches. The individual woman, man and queer does not need a pope, bishop or cardinal and their government for the formation of Christ in them, as Onclin claims with Church doctrine (ibid. 739). In the twenty-first century, the Catholic Christians are realizing their dignity as Christians and are empowered by the Holy Spirit to govern their communities within the world society of the United Nations and work together for justice and peace, for equal dignity, freedom and rights of all within the Church in the whole world.

Onclin holds that the Church considered as the Mystical Body of Christ is a community that does not pursue a common determined goal and therefore does not need a juridical order. The absolute powers of the pope govern the Church as community (ibid.). The theologian Onclin is not interested in the names of the baptized believers, and his sisters and brothers are not even called lay women, men and queer or simply laity. At baptism the Christians become Christians, they get a name, and they are called by this name by their Christian community. The Christians are called by their names, and they make up quite a real social reality because Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word of Go’d had a name and was a human individual taking part in history. To call somebody with her or his name is very important for relating to the other. We hear the names of those to whom Go’d speaks. We hear the name of Jeremiah who testifies: “The word of Yahweh came to me, saying: ‘Before I found you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth, I consecrated you; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’” (Jeremiah, 14-5). Jesus says in his last instructions to the Eleven and those who were with them and the two disciples of Emmaus that “in his name, repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24, 47). Jesus insists that the mission of preaching and healing be realized in his name. Jesus does not say that only the apostles are empowered to preach and heal. Onclin holds that the community of believers does not pursue a common good and that they would need laws that tell them to collaborate because the believers are not empowered to collaborate, their community is spiritual (ibid. 740). We all know from our daily experience that the same person can have faith and be a Christian and at the same time, she or he is able to organize with other persons of faith for example a charity event. The people of Go’d are quite capable and empowered to organize themselves for the realization of goals and ends. The social life of their community is helped, if there are some rules that all have to abide to. Yes, the Reformation had to learn that it is helpful for the community life of all those who are justified by faith and by grace to follow some rules (ibid.). It is somewhat an irony that the Reformation created her Reformed law with the established juridical tradition of Catholic canon law. Does the Church need canon law? There is no problem for the faithful organizing as a society with the help of laws. There is a problem with the constitution of the Catholic Church as an absolute monarchy. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not treat all faithful women, men and queer as equal under the law. There is a pope who stands above the law and he is given power to discriminate men, women and queer of the Church of Jesus Christ. This does not correspond to Jesus Christ as we read in the Scriptures.

Onclin tries to justify that the successor of Peter and the bishops have to govern, that they have to direct the faithful with authority and that they have to assure the guidance of the faithful with the help of prescriptions, laws and precepts (ibid. 741). Onclin refers with Lumen Gentium 8 to Matthew 28, 16-20; Mark 16, 15; Luke 24, 45-48; and John 20, 21-23 (ibid.). None of these references speaks of governing, directing or guiding with prescriptions, laws and precepts the faithful. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus confides to the eleven disciples the mission to baptize and teach his Gospel, and in John, Jesus sends the disciples as the Father had sent him in order to forgive. Nowhere in the Scriptures does Jesus tell the apostles and disciples to govern like kings, direct as absolute monarchs and guide with laws and prescriptions of their will. On the contrary: “Among the gentiles it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. With you this must not happen. No; the greatest among you must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who serves” (Luke 22, 24-26). The unjustified use of the references of Lumen Gentium for the justification of the absolute powers of the pope do not get more credibility when Onclin cites Paul VI claiming that his absolute power “flows in a coherent way from revelation” (ibid. 742). It does not. If the pope does not possess absolute power as claims the 1983 Code of Canon Law in Canon 331 (John Paul II 1983) and Onclin in 1967, because Christ did not confer the power to govern his Church as an absolute monarchy, the pope does not possess the authority to prescribe and promote Canon Law. The Church possesses the mission to preach and heal. The authority of the Church is Jesus Christ who directs this mission with the help of the Holy Spirit that every faithful receives at baptism.

I fully agree with Onclin that “the Church, as a society on this earth, is in the service of the community which constitutes the Mystical Body of Christ” (ibid. 745). Actually, the Church is in the service of the whole world, but the sisters and brothers are also called to serve each other. Canon law has therefore to be at the service of the community, at the service of the sisters and brothers of the Mystical Body of Christ. Onclin appreciates the ecumenical aspect of this service (ibid.). He also accepts that “Christians themselves are the ones who must build the kingdom of God” and I agree that this claim corresponds to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (ibid.). I do not agree that the faithful would need the laws and prescriptions of the pope and the bishops in order to direct them on the way of pursuing their spiritual end (ibid.).

At the very end Onclin discovers in his article the insight that the service of Canon law for the common good “should not be involved directly and formally in the domain of the individual conscience” (ibid. 746). Onclin recognizes that conscience is first the domain of divine law that is Go’d who speaks to the hearts and minds of women, men and queer. Nevertheless, the canonist Onclin cannot resist the temptation to claim that divine law already obligates in principle the conscience to obey to the precepts of the authority of the Church that is the pope, because a society needs laws to organize the collaboration of her members (ibid. 747).

Onclin, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the Second Vatican Council were not ready to imagine an organization of the Church as society with laws that take their origin in the will of the individual conscience of the faithful and that respect the dignity, freedom and rights of the individual faithful.

There is a second paragraph in number two of Christus Dominus and it concerns the bishops. They are successors of the Apostles; continue under the authority and with the supreme pontiff “the work of Christ” who gave them “the command and the power” to teach that is to announce the Gospel to all nations, to sanctify them that is to administer the sacraments, and to pasture that is to govern them. Christus Dominus says, the bishops are therefore teachers, pontiffs and pastors, and refers to Lumen Gentium, chapter 3, numbers 21, 24 and 25. Canon 391 §1 of the 1983 Code says of the government: “It is for the diocesan bishop to govern the particular church entrusted to him with legislative, executive, and judicial power according to the norm of law” (John Paul II. 1983. “Code of Canon Law.” The Holy See).

It is important to notice that the 1983 Code of Canon Law uses the terms legislative, administrative and judicial functions, organs and powers in a very different way than civil governments and Western democracies under the rule of democratic law do (McCormack, Alan. 1997. The term “privilege”. A Textual Study of its Meaning and Use in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. 25. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana). The theological doctrine of Vatican II that the Church mirrors her divine Head, who is the way, in her government, who is the truth, in her preaching of the word, and who is the life, in her sacraments we find spelled out in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. Lumen Gentium 10 and 18 will claim for the accomplishments of these three functions in the mission of the Church that the Church is endowed with the one indivisible sacred power of Christ (ibid.). The one power of governance that divides into legislative, executive and judicial powers must not be considered as functions (ibid. 35). The three powers of canon 135 § 1 are exercised in the highest degree by the pope as says canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code (John Paul II 1983):

“The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate, who is marked with episcopal character, obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.”

Bausenhart rightly comments that Christus Dominus number two works exclusively with the concept of power that is potestas and does not speak of the service of the ministry (Bausenhart 2005, 249). Lumen Gentium 18 that preludes chapter three on the hierarchical structure of the Church and on the episcopate, affirms that the “ministers, who are endowed with sacred power”, that is the hierarchy, “serve their brethren” (ibid.). Christus Dominus is far away from assessing the fundamental Christian function of service, as incessantly and intensely as Luke does for example. Bovon is right, Luke focuses in Luke 22 on the disciples and not yet on a community of believers (Bovon 2009, 258). The future offers authority to the disciples that is based on service (Luke 22, 24–27) and stands on the opposite side of power. Luke insists on narrating the serving as an activity, an active service and Jesus as the serving agent. Luke makes Jesus the first serving servant “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22, 27). In Luke 12, 45–46, we saw servants that were inactively idle and incapable (Bovon 2009, 268). Luke repeatedly and with insistence defends the Christological foundation of any service in the church (Luke 12, 35-40. 41-48; 17, 7–10) (ibid.). Christ stays as the serving servant with the Christians. Christ does not need any Vicar on earth. Throughout his Gospel, Luke (Luke 9, 46–48) confronts us with the persistent problem of the disciples’ false ideas of greatness, rivalry over rank and power. The desire for a position and prominence also appears at the dinner parties with Jesus (Luke 11, 43; 12, 1; 14, 7–14; 20, 46) (Tannehill 1991, 255). The rivalry over position among the disciples will only be resolved when Jesus realizes by his death that he is the one who serves and, “as the risen Messiah, opens the disciples’ minds to God’s ways” (Tannehill, Robert C. 1991. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts. A Literary Interpretation. Volume one: The Gospel according to Luke. 254–55. Philadelphia: Fortress Press). The Church will always be the Mystical Body of Christ and not a society reigned by a Vicar of Christ. The serving imperative is followed by the eschatological promise to be invited to the banquet of the reign, the eating and drinking again with Jesus (Luke 22, 28–30). Luke often describes the eschatological reign with the picture of a feast and banquet. Luke describes the anticipation of this banquet narrating the meals of Jesus with his disciples or with sinners (Luke 5, 29–32; 7, 34–35; 15, 2; 19, 5–7; 22, 14) (Bovon 2009, 269).

I suppose that no bishop, cardinal or pope today would oppose that the authority of the disciples of Jesus is based on service (Luke 22, 24–27) and stands on the opposite side of power. The principle of power to govern enters the Church with the help of Christian lawmakers and theologians who work at the service of bishops, cardinals and popes in order to become themselves bishops, cardinals and popes. Christian lawyers and theologians developed a certain view on the Roman Catholic Church that legitimates governmental powers of bishops, cardinals and popes as necessary for the Church.

Number three of Christus Dominus affirms that the bishops receive their office through episcopal consecration and repeats that they work “in communion with and under the authority of the supreme pontiff”; for their “teaching authority and pastoral government” they are “united in a college” of bishops. The bishop’s office concerns a diocese or a certain collaboration with other bishops.

First chapter of Christus Dominus

Christus Dominus 4–7 describe the role of the bishops in the universal Church. Christus Dominus 8–10 describe the relationship of the bishops and the Apostolic See.

The bishops of the Council, male celibate priests and mostly white, continue describing their power. There is not a single thought in the text that married men, women and queer are equally worthy of being consecrated bishops as successors of the Apostles. For the bishops of the Council the Holy Spirit appoints only celibate men as bishops (Christus Dominus 2).

Christus Dominus 4 affirms that the “sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college” constitutes “the episcopal body”. The claim that this “apostolic body continues without a break” since the time of the college of the Apostles cannot be proved historically. We do not dispose of documents that prove this apostolic succession and the New Testament does not speak of a college of the Apostles. This claim of Christus Dominus 4 serves to legitimize the power that the bishops exercise in the Roman Catholic Church.

The college of the bishops “together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church” (Christus Dominus 4). This means that we have two subjects of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. One is the college of bishops (Christus Dominus 4) and the other is the Roman pontiff (Christus Dominus 2). The relationship of these two subjects as two equal subjects never gets clarified in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Nota praevia to Lumen Gentium affirms that the Roman pontiff at any time and immediately, that is according to his intention alone, may exercise his power and authority. From this follows that the college of bishops is subjected to the Roman Pontiff and the popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI amply made use of their full and supreme power according to Canon Law canon 331. Bausenhart comments, that to our day, there is no adequate papal and curial practice for realizing the theological dignity of the college of bishops (Bausenhart 2005, 266).

Christus Dominus 4 cautiously claims the necessary agreement and acceptance of any action of the college of bishops by the Roman Pontiff. The 1983 Canon Law fixes the submissive character of the relationship. Canon 338 § 1 makes it clear that “It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees”. Canon 337 § 3 has already affirmed that “It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church” (John Paul II 1983). The 1983 Canon Law makes it clear that the relationship of the college of bishops to the Roman Pontiff in the end is one of submission to his will.

Christus Dominus 5 speaks of the institution of the Synod of Bishops as “effective assistance to the supreme pastor of the Church in a deliberative body”. The decennials after the Second Vatican Council have seen some Synods of Bishops but their assistance was neither effective nor deliberative. Pope Francis tries to convince the faithful to submit to his supreme power by letting carefully chosen men and women participate at synods and encouraging them to openly discuss their problems, only to demand then unquestioned obedience to his decisions. Stupid strategy, because it does not work, cynical, and in the end Machiavellian and not Christian.

Christus Dominus 6 mentions the lay. “Religious and lay” are admitted as “auxiliaries” of the bishops in case that their dioceses are “suffering from a lack of clergy”. Their missions of evangelization and their apostolate are asked for only because of a lack of clergy, but not because the laywomen, men and queer by baptism participate in the vocation of the Church, in their mission and apostolate.

The bishops are conscious of the unequal distribution of riches and goods in the dioceses of the world Church and claim solidarity with each other. Misereor, the German Catholic Bishops’ Organization for Development Cooperation realizes this claim of the Council since 1958. In 86 countries Misereor supports the weakest members of society, it is of no importance whether those in need of help are men or women, what religious beliefs they hold or where they come from. Misereor holds that “the poor are our sisters and brothers, who have a right to a life of dignity” and “does not pursue any ends other than the promotion of development”.[iii] Germany is a very rich country and the millions of Euros going from Misereor to poor countries may calm the bad conscience of the German Catholic women, men and queer and of their bishops for not fighting for structural global economic reform.

Christus Dominus 7 solidarizes with the bishops who “are plagued with slander and indigence, detained in prisons, or held back from their ministry”. The bishops have no word of solidarity with the women, men and queer Christians who are persecuted as their sisters and brothers all around the world. The bishops think only of their own order. They are a poor testimony to the Apostle Paul who remembers not only his sufferings but greets also his fellow prisoners Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16, 7).

Sadly, we must assess in 2019 that 245 million Christians experience high levels of persecution and that countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East “are intensifying persecution against Christians, and perhaps the most vulnerable are Christian women, who often face double persecution for faith and gender”[iv].

Christus Dominus 8 affirms that the bishops hold “as successors of the Apostles” in their dioceses “all the ordinary, proper, and immediate authority which is required for the exercise of their pastoral office”. This affirmation sounds like the assessment that the bishops’ governing power that is his jurisdiction, comes from episcopal consecration at ordination and is not given to the bishops by the Supreme Pontiff. Again, we are confronted with a nice text. Bausenhart has to concede that the 1983 Canon Law contrasts this episcopal power of jurisdiction “per se” affirming in canon 333 § 1 that “By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care” (John Paul II 1983). Bausenhart comments that the bishop possesses all necessary powers for governing their dioceses, but the defining power of what is necessary lies exclusively with the Supreme Pontiff (Bausenhart 2005, 262). To say in this context that the Supreme Pontiff “protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power” of the bishops really is an euphemism for masking the Supreme Pontiff’s supreme power.

Christus Dominus 9 affirms that the Roman Curia “perform their duties in” the name of the Roman pontiff “and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors”. The bishops of the Council are conscious of the poor functioning of the Roman Curia. They call for reorganization, for a clear working profile and a “coordination of work among them”.

Christus Dominus 10 claims that the members of the Roman Curia come “from various regions of the Church”. We sadly must assess in 2019 that white Western Cardinals still dominate the Roman Curia, one-third of them being Italians. There is a surprise again at the end of Christus Dominus 10. The bishops suggest that the Roman Curia “would listen more attentively to laymen who are outstanding for their virtue, knowledge, and experience”. The bishops who have the say in the Curia simply need the qualification of their office, nobody asks of a member of the Roman Curia to be a bishop or priest “outstanding for their virtue, knowledge, and experience”. This is very strange and discriminating in two ways. First, the bishops need not be as qualified as the lay women, men and queer and second, the qualified lay women, men and queer are not listened to very much by the members of the Curia to this day.

Second chapter of Christus Dominus

The second chapter speaks about the relationship of the diocesan bishop to his local Church. Christus Dominus 11-16 speak of the three munera of the bishop, articles 17-18 speak of the Apostolate and articles 19-20 of the Church-State relation concerning the appointment of bishops.

Christus Dominus 2, 2 had claimed that the bishops “having been appointed by the Holy Spirit, are successors of the Apostles”. Christus Dominus 20 directly claims, “The apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ”. The Latin term for “office” is munus (Paul VI, 1965). Christus Dominus 11, 2 says that the one apostolic office consists of three offices, “the office of teaching, sanctifying, and governing”.

The hermeneutical naivety of the first post-conciliar generations of theologians concerning the term office is stupendous and frightening. Bausenhart stands for many theologians claiming that not only Christus Dominus but the use of the “tria munera” (three offices) concept of all documents of the Second Vatican Council ousted and replaced the concept of power that is podestas (Bausenhart 2005, 268). Yes, there were expert theologians in the commissions of the Council who claimed apostolic functions for all women, men and queer Catholics. Hirschmann for example insisted that the laity has a proper function, a munus that is to sanctify the world (Burigana and Turbanti 1999, 595). This theology of loyal adherence to the Holy Spirit who creates love and dignity and empowers all women, men and queer was not successful at the Council. It is hard to accept and recognize that the power structure of the Catholic Church dominates the documents and that the Second Vatican Council suppressed the theology of the Holy Spirit.

The theological analysis of the use of the term munus in Lumen Gentium and Christus Dominus cannot bypass the interpretative polity of the Catholic Church that is Canon Law. The task of the revision of Canon Law was “to give juridical formulation to the theological doctrine of Vatican II that the munera of the sacred Pastors of the Church are functions of service to the ecclesial society endowed with the necessary power (sacra potestas) required for their accomplishment. In particular, the munus pascendi seu regendi is possessed of the potestas pascendi” (McCormack 1997, 34). Concerning the decree on the bishops, this revision of the Code of Canon Law is prescribed in Christus Dominus 44. The 1983 Code speaks of the power of governance and not of functions of organs; canon 135 § 1 divides the one power of governance into legislative, executive and judicial powers and “confined the term munus to theological statements of principle” (ibid. 34–35). The pastoral munus that is the pastoral office of governing in the end produces theological statements of principle. The bishop exercises the effective government of his office by powers not by principles. The principles do not realize anything if they are not empowered and sustained by “the necessary power required for their accomplishment (ibid. 34). The concept of the munera did not replace the concept of power as Bausenhart claims, the concept of the munera presupposes the concept of power and the concept of power is the possibility condition for the exercise of any munus by the bishop.

Christus Dominus 20 directly claims, “The apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ”. I am not informed, that the Gospels would describe and give testimony to this claim. There was no institution of the apostolic office of bishops by Christ. At the time of the historic Jesus and at the time of the first Christian communities there were no bishops around. There were Apostles. These Apostles were not instituted as bishops, Jesus Christ was calling them as disciples. Let me remember again Apostle Paul and his relationship with Jesus Christ and his fellow Christians.

In Acts 9, 3-9, Luke gives his account of the conversion of Saul. In Acts 22, Paul speaks in the first-person singular of his conversion experience. Suddenly, Paul was embracing the belief that Jesus Christ is the Lord. He was embracing this belief, he was holding to this belief, confessing this belief, this belief became the bedrock of his worldview and spirituality; he started “calling the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 22, 16). Luke claims that Go’d stands at the bottom of Paul’s conversion and Dei Verbum 2 affirms that the revelation of “the invisible God Himself” is Jesus Christ. A Christian was important for Paul in this moment of conversion. The Lord told Ananias to go for Paul and Ananias went, “laid his hands on Saul and said, ‘Brother Saul, I have been sent by the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, so that you may recover you sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit’. It was as though scales fell away from his eyes and immediately, he was able to see again. So, he got up and was baptized, and after taking some food he regained his strength” (Acts 9, 15-19).

Acts 22, 12-16 narrates the encounter of Ananias with Paul from the perspective of Paul:

“Someone called Ananias, a devout follower of the Law and highly thought of by all the Jews living there, came to me; he stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ Instantly my sight came back, and I was able to see him. Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Upright One and hear his own voice speaking, because you are to be his witness before all humanity, testifying to what you have seen and heard. And now why delay? Hurry and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name’”.

The Holy Spirit, baptism on the name of Jesus Christ and washing away the sins go together in the narrative.

Romans 5, 5 gives the description that the Holy Spirit is the gift of Go’d’s life, the pouring of Go’d’s love in our hearts.

At the end of his Letter to the Romans, Paul is able to present a true validity condition for his claims to validity of love: He was able to realize love. In Romans 16, verses 5, 8, 9 and 12 Paul presents some individuals, Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stachys and Persis, as “beloved”. Paul effectively realized social relations of love, bonds of mutual love, and his claims to love in the Letter to the Romans are credible because he met the validity condition of his claim to love.

At this point, I want to draw attention to the Second Vatican Council and Dei Verbum. The Apostles “had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum 7, 1) to realize an authentic transmission of the Gospel. Dei Verbum 8 assesses the fundamental validity condition of the help of the Holy Spirit in the transmission of the Gospel: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum 8). The law of the Holy Spirit animates Church life not the spirit of the law.

The transmission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. Christus Dominus turns the order around and claims that the Holy Spirit develops with the social institution of the apostolic office of the pope and the bishops. Christus Dominus 11 claims first “by adhering to its pastor” the particular church is constituted and only then “the Gospel and the Eucharist” gather around the bishop “a portion of the people of Go’d” in the “Holy Spirit”. First is adhering to the pastor that is obedience to the bishop, then there is the Holy Spirit.

“The only thing you should owe to anyone is love for one another, for to love the other person is to fulfil the law” (Romans 13, 8). Is it possible to organize as a Christian community the belief in life in Jesus Christ by the law of the Holy Spirit? The New Testament gives us an example that this is possible. The resurrection experience of the disciples of Emmaus is realized in a Eucharistic context (Bovon 2009, 563). The Eucharistic context of the resurrection narrative of the disciples of Emmaus was brought up by Saint Augustine and was never forgotten by the Church (ibid. 567). It is not the bishop who gathers “a portion of the people of Go’d” around him as a diocese as claims Christus Dominus 11. It is Jesus Christ who gathers around him the people of Go’d.

Christus Dominus follows the spirit of Canon Law but does not realize nor aspire to the Law of the Holy Spirit. The bishops exercise the power of the office of teaching faith (Christus Dominus 12–14) but they do not thank Go’d for having received faith in Jesus Christ. The bishops “exercise their office of sanctifying” and ascribe to themselves “the fullness of the sacrament of order” but they do not pray for the fullness of life in the Holy Spirit (Christus Dominus 15). They decree that “presbyters and deacons are dependent upon them in the exercise of their power” but they ignore the law of the Holy Spirit that is love of their sisters and brothers (ibid.). First there is their office of government and after the people “gratefully submit themselves” to the bishops as shepherds, the sheep will “work in the communion of love” (Christus Dominus 16). The bishops should employ “social research” (ibid.).

If the bishops in 2019 only would take notice of the 1993 European Values Study (Zulehner, Paul M., and Hermann Denz. 1993. Wie Europa lebt und glaubt. Europäische Wertestudie. Düsseldorf: Patmos) they would know that the European and North American Catholics are refusing to consider themselves as sheep and the bishops as shepherds, but they consider themselves as self-responsible Christians who claim their dignity and realize their Christian apostolate. The laywomen, men and queer will not join any more the bishops who “admonish to participate in and give aid to the various works of the apostolate of the laity” under the power of the bishops as claims Christus Dominus 17.

Christus Dominus 22–24 is about the territory of the dioceses. That there is a territory follows from the term “diocesan boundaries”. “A proper determination of the boundaries of dioceses and a distribution of clergy and resources that is reasonable and in keeping with the needs of the apostolate” is necessary (Christus Dominus 22).

Christus Dominus 25–35 is about the assistants of the diocesan bishops. There is the auxiliary bishop who steps in where the bishop is not capable of fulfilling the pastoral office. Auxiliary bishops are “appointed for the dioceses without the right of succession”, the coadjutor bishop who is appointed with the right of succession “must always be named vicar general by the diocesan bishop” (Christus Dominus 26). There is now a conflict between the principle of the monoepiscopality of the dioceses and the theological dignity of the auxiliary bishop and the coadjutor. Just as the college of bishops suffers from a damaged dignity because of the supreme power of the pope, the auxiliary bishop and the coadjutor suffer from a damaged dignity too (Bausenhart 2005, 277).

“The most important office of the diocesan Curia is that of vicar general” and eventually one or more episcopal vicars; the senate of presbyters also helps the bishop governing the dioceses. Finally, there is a pastoral commission “of specially chosen clergy, religious and lay people” presided by the bishop (Christus Dominus 27). “The priest and lay people … are making a helpful contribution to the pastoral ministry of the bishops” (ibid.). The lay people are not capable of enjoying any power of governing in the dioceses. The old classic model of Church democracy distributes the power of governing by an institutional praxis for all women, men and queer Christians of a church, we learn from Cyprian (Bausenhart 2005, 280). The third century bishop of Carthage, Saint Cyprian, a former trial lawyer, still hides from his persecutors and writes a letter to the presbyters and deacons of his diocese of Carthage. In the fourth chapter of this fourth Epistle, Cyprian affirms that right at the beginning of his episcopal office he had decided never to follow his opinion single mindedly, but always to consult his presbyters and deacons before making a decision and to do nothing without the consent of the people (ibid.).

Christus Dominus 29 speaks of those “closer collaborators of the bishop” who as “priests are charged with a pastoral office” that is of the pastors of a parish. Christus Dominus 30 affirms: “Pastors, however, are cooperators of the bishop in a very special way, for as pastors in their own name they are entrusted with the care of souls in a certain part of the diocese under the bishop's authority.” “Under the bishop’s authority” the pastors should realize also the triple munera that is the offices of teaching, sanctifying and governing. The “souls”, “the faithful and the parish communities” never get attention by Christus Dominus as independent subjects or as individual Christian communities of women, men and queer. The individual Christians only appear indirectly as faithful who are “devotedly” receiving the sacraments (ibid. 282). The cooperation of the laity serves the aim of “catechetical instruction”. The pastors are shepherds by the nature of their office that is participating in the power of the bishop’s office. The faithful must obey the pastor, as sheep obey the shepherd. After this subordination, it is not any more credible that the pastors “are the servants of all the sheep, they should encourage a full Christian life among the individual faithful and in families, in associations especially dedicated to the apostolate, and in the whole parish community. Therefore, they should visit homes and schools to the extent that their pastoral work demands. They should pay especial attention to adolescents and youth. They should devote themselves with a paternal love to the poor and the sick. They should have a particular concern for workingmen. Finally, they should encourage the faithful to assist in the works of the apostolate” (ibid.).

Christus Dominus 33–35 integrates the religious with their apostolate into the apostolic office of the bishop. Over the centuries the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church had earned important exemptions from the power of the bishops and enjoyed material and spiritual privileges. No wonder, that the religious were resisting their integration into diocesan life under the power of the local bishop.

Diocesan clergy and religious priests are not capable of living up to the pious and naïve visions of a pastor’s apostolate as described in Christus Dominus 30. Instead, they abuse of their apostolic powers and create disappointment and anger. Sexual abuse by priests and religious men is one of the sad facts that indicate the lack of integrity of the clergy and the hierarchy as a structural problem of the Roman Catholic Church.

Personality factors that may be associated with clergy and religious perpetrators include narcissism, dependency, cognitive rigidity and fear of intimacy” (Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. 2017. Final Report. Volume 16. 43 Religious Institutions. Book 1. Commonwealth of Australia). Clericalism, that is the idealization of the priesthood, and by extension the idealization of the Catholic Church “is linked to a sense of entitlement, superiority and exclusion, and abuse of power. Clericalism nurtured ideas that the Catholic Church was autonomous and self-sufficient, and promoted the idea that child sexual abuse by clergy and religious was a matter to be dealt with internally and in secret” (ibid.).

“The powers of governance held by individual diocesan bishops and provincials are not subject to adequate checks and balances. There is no separation of powers, and the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of governance are combined in the person of the pope and in diocesan bishops. Diocesan bishops have not been sufficiently accountable to any other body for decision-making in their handling of allegations of child sexual abuse or alleged perpetrators. There has been no requirement for their decisions to be made transparent or subject to due process” (ibid.). The Vatican discusses for decencies the institution of an independent court for bishops but till today bishops are judging bishops.

The Royal Commission writes, “The exclusion of lay people and women from leadership positions in the Catholic Church may have contributed to inadequate responses to child sexual abuse … It appears that some candidates for leadership positions have been selected based on their adherence to specific aspects of church doctrine and their commitment to the defense and promotion of the institutional Catholic Church, rather than on their capacity for leadership. This meant that some bishops were ill equipped and unprepared for the challenges of dealing with child sexual abuse and responding to emerging claims” (ibid.).

Third chapter of Christus Dominus

The third chapter deals with the cooperation of bishops of different dioceses with the help of synods, councils and episcopal conferences. The bishop is first called “ruler” (Latin: praepositus) of the individual church. Christus Dominus speaks first of the spirit of the law and thereby destroys the law of the Holy Spirit. After the affirmation of the power of the bishop for governing his dioceses follows a not very convincing claim. Christus Dominus 36 says that “from the very first centuries of the Church … the rulers of the individual churches … were deeply moved by the communion of fraternal charity and zeal for the universal mission entrusted to the Apostle”. The Roman emperor of Constantinople convoked and presided in person or through delegates the first eight ecumenical councils, not the pope or the bishops (Dulles, Avery. 1987. “Council.” In The New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, 235–242. 240. Collegeville, Minnesota: Michael Glazier). Christus Dominus 36 forgets mentioning this embarrassing detail and simply claims “synods, provincial councils and plenary councils” came into being “in which bishops established for various churches the way to be followed in teaching the truths of faith and ordering ecclesiastical discipline”. There is also a problem seeing the episcopal conferences in line with the synods and councils of the first Christian centuries. Christus Dominus considers the universal mission of the bishops realized by the college of bishops (Bausenhart 2005, 286). The episcopal conferences are simply “already established in many nations” (Christus Dominus 37), but there is no theological foundation for their existence. The Second Vatican Council consciously avoided clearing the theological status of episcopal conferences because there was widespread dissent on the question at the Council (Bausenhart 2005, 289).

What an irony! The monopoly of governing power that the bishop’s office enjoys in 1965, hinders following the example of the bishops of the first century who met in synods to discuss their problems and find consented solutions to them. The spirit of the law dominates again the law of the Holy Spirit. Dominus Christus 36 surprisingly had affirmed that “synods, provincial councils and plenary councils” came into being “in which bishops established for various churches the way to be followed in teaching the truths of faith and ordering ecclesiastical discipline”. In 1965, “the way to be followed in teaching the truths of faith and ordering ecclesiastical discipline” is reserved to the Apostolic See. The episcopal conferences are allowed “to submit their suggestions and desires to the Apostolic See” (Christus Dominus 41) but they lack any governmental power. “Decisions of the episcopal conference … have juridically binding force only in those cases prescribed by the common law or determined by a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either spontaneously or in response to a petition of the conference itself” (Christus Dominus 38, 4). The spirit of the law concerning bishops will get further developed by the Code of Canon Law and a lot of directories (Christus Dominus 44).

[i] Einheitsübersetzung 2019: “Römer 16,” BibleServer, https://www.bibleserver.com/text/EU/R%C3%B6mer16%2C7 (accessed May 8, 2019).

[ii] “St. John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans,” Documenta Catholica Omnia, http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0345-0407,_Iohannes_Chrysostomus,_Homilies_on_The_Epistle_To_The_Romans,_EN.pdf (accessed May 8, 2019).

[iii] “About us,” Misereor, https://www.misereor.org/about-us/ (accessed May 9, 2019).

[iv] “Christian persecution,” OpenDoors, https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/ (accessed May 9, 2019).