The chicken or the egg? Universal vs. particular Church

The Church in Germany is embroiled in a controversial multi-year consultative process (the Synodal Path) to engage laity in the future of the Church. Lost in the discussion is the degree to which the rancor may be due to the unique relationship between Church and state in Germany.

Government funds (i.e., taxes) significantly support religious bodies, be they Catholic, Protestant or Jewish. The origin stems from historical payments (i.e., endowments) made to compensate for valuable farmlands and properties confiscated centuries ago, whether during the Reformation or Napoleonic times. The Archdiocese of Munich alone received $665 million in 2020! Dependence on these funds may factor into these proposals, as the Church is pressured to conform to modern sensibilities. Bishop Georg Bätzing of Limburg defends calling for broad reforms of Church doctrine, insisting that no departure from Catholicism is intended. Rather, “we want to be Catholic in a different way.” My translation — “we want Catholicism on our terms.”

During the German bishops’ recent ad limina visit, Cardinal Luis Ladaria of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith summed up the Synodal Path agenda in blunt terms: “abolition of compulsory celibacy, ordination of viri probati (i.e., older married men), access of women to the ordained ministry, moral re-evaluation of homosexuality, structural and functional limitation of hierarchical power, reflections on sexuality inspired by gender theory, major proposed amendments to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Hamburg, we have a problem! The German Synodal Path should in no way, shape or form be confused with the Synod in our archdiocese. Our process here fully embraces the vision of the universal Church for diocesan synods as outlined in canon law. Archdiocesan priorities are totally in line with magisterial teaching, as we seek to form missionary disciples for a future filled with hope.

My frustration with the Synodal Path is rooted in the relationship between the “universal” and “particular” Church. The word universal is not to be construed as referring solely to the pope and curia, but rather the entire college of bishops in communion with the pope. The word “particular” typically refers to an individual diocese. In Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the bishop receives his office of government (munus regendi) directly from Christ through the sacrament of ordination (Lumen Gentium, 21). It is equally true that no local bishop exercises governance of a particular diocese unless he is duly appointed by canonical mission and remains in hierarchical communion with the college of bishops and its head, the bishop of Rome (cf. LG, 24). This is a core principle of our Catholic ecclesiology. Considering the active participation of the German bishops in the process, it appears the resolutions of the Synodal Path are aimed at changing Catholic doctrine on a universal scale.

This tension between the Vatican and the Germans reminds me of the age-old question posed by the ancient Greek philosopher Plutarch: “Which was first, the bird or the egg?” That is, which is first, the universal or particular Church? Centuries ago, the Church confronted Gallicanism, a movement originating in France in which the monarch limited the authority of the pope, asserting state power in certain areas of ecclesiastical governance. Later movements (e.g. Conciliarism) asserted the authority of a Church council over that of the pope. What both shared is the assertion of authority in a body other than the pope and the college of bishops in union with him. Theologically, we cannot conceive of a local (i.e. “particular”) Church absent a simultaneous reference to the universal Church of which the local Church is a part.

While one may speak of the Catholic Church in Germany, it is by nature linked and preceded ontologically by the universal Church. The distinction between the “German Catholic Church” and the “Catholic Church in Germany” is deeper than semantics. A 1992 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that the universal Church “is not the result of a communion of the churches, but in its essential mystery it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular church” (no. 9, emphasis added). Vatican II emphasized that individual bishops “exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care, and not over other churches nor over the universal Church. But each of them, as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles, is obliged by Christ’s institution and command to be solicitous for the whole Church” (LG, 23).

By governing well their own dioceses or jointly coordinating initiatives among dioceses of a nation, bishops effectively contribute to the welfare of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Conversely, by separating from the pack so to speak, grave harm is done to the unity of the Church. Vatican II did much to clarify the role of the individual bishop. Not a mere “branch manager” of the “corporate” Church structure, he exercises authority of his own from Christ, but always in communion with the pope and the others in the college of bishops. Similarly, our baptism incorporates us into the Catholic (universal) Church, not simply into our neighborhood parish or diocese. It is not easy steering a large ship and this is no time for “Mutiny on the Bounty.” As Catholics, like it or not, we’re all in this together!

Editor’s note: Father Ubel published this essay Dec. 4 in the parish bulletin of the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul, where Father Ubel is rector. It has been edited and reprinted here with his permission.