Ecclesiology of Communio

The follow is all direct quotation from the closing address given by Father Ladislas Orsy, S.J., (Professor: Georgetown University Law School) at the annual Canadian Canon Law Society meeting in London, Canada in October 2003. (The treatise was eight typed pages in length: bold emphasis added.)

Vatican Council II presented a new vision and initiated new practices. It perceived the church as a communio of persons in the broadest sense of the term. The Spirit of Christ distributed his gifts directly to individual persons - for the welfare of the whole. In such communio oriented vision the task of the hierarchy was not to mediate gifts but to coordinate them for the good of the whole.

An "ecclesiology of communio:" a beautiful description of the church is found in the works of the German theologian, Heribert Muehlen: he describes it as "one person in many persons." The Spirit of Christ is holding the people together; the Spirit is the creator of their communio. The Spirit is undivided but he imparts his different gifts singularly - to each person. There is the source of unity in diversity. This is the theological meaning of communio.

Communio does not exclude authority, but it demands new manners in exercising it. Peremptory orders are alien to it because obedience is perceived as a virtue rooted in intelligence and freedom, a "reasonable sacrifice." It certainly demands firm laws and compliance but it honors the intelligence and responsibility of the people who must be consistently consulted. In such a climate the laws are well received and observed.

Communio postulates an "open government": a rigid wall of secrecy would destroy all partnership between the governed and the governors. In a climate of openness, the administrators cannot avoid reporting on their policies; nor can the people remain silent and indifferent. In a church of communio, the social manners ought to be simple: courtly titles or senatorial robes do not fit in well. The official language cannot be but straightforward - according to the Gospel your speech should consist in yes and no.

Does it mean that the church of communio is a democracy in the political sense? Absolutely not. The people of God believe that the mandate "feed my flock" comes from the Redeemer; it is a power from above: there should be no mistake about that. But they believe also that each person - justified and sanctified - is endowed with a sense of faith, intelligence, and responsibility. Accordingly, those in charge must honor the people by being open and transparent with them concerning the policies of the administration and the use of the church's material assets, and by providing swift justice in cases of distress.

Please note that I did not use the word laity: the charism that I am speaking of right now is invested in the ordained and non ordained. At this level, to speak of the charism of the "laity" as such would be incorrect: how could a charism emerge from the absence of "ordination?"

Yet, we know that the church is a "structured communio." Vatican Council II called it a "hierarchical communio," which is a venerable expression since it comes from a council but not self explanatory.

"Hierarchical" is an adjective: it indicates a structured organism where there is a fundamental equality among the members but there is a difference in the tasks allotted to each; some are called to be leaders and as such to nourish and lead the people, but, in the good order of divine dispensation, they, too, need to be nourished and supported by the same people. To speak of "hierarchical communio" is to tell the truth but not the full truth. The expression does not speak of "service." To call the church a "structured communio" might be a better way of speaking.

The communio of bishops and presbyters in the local churches. In the invisible world of charismata, the bishop and the presbyters are members of one organic "sacerdotal" body; it follows that on the external level there must be an organ representing this unity; hence, there must be an effectively functioning presbyterium presided by the bishop. To have a priests' council is not a concession; it is a theological necessity. Our canon law, as it is now, puts the emphasis more on a "superior - inferior relationship" between the bishop and the priests than on their communio, which is to say that a priority was given to what is "hierarchical" over what is "communio" - a reversing of the natural (that is, of the supernatural) order.
After the solemn Mass at St. Peter’s, Yves Congar, who contributed so much to the success of the Council, wrote in his diary: “Today, the church is sent to the world: ad gentes, ad populos. Incipiendo, non a Ierosolyma sed a Roma. The Council will have an explosive force [va éclater] in the world. The moment of Pentecost that John XXIII has foretold has become a reality today. “

Some forty years later, we look back. Was Congar right? Has the Council become an explosive force among the nations? Do the peoples of the earth see the church coming to them in a new robe and speaking a new message?

It seems, it appears, that the opposite happened. While in some ways the church became more visible than ever, in other ways it has revealed immense internal weaknesses and the nations are hardly listening. Has Congar misread the signs of the times and - in the exultation of last session of the Council - fell into a false prophecy?

Not so. Congar saw right. He had sharp sight and good perception. But - as it happened even to biblical prophets before him - he perceived well what was coming, but he misjudged the distance of the coming. He saw a far away distant event as if it were present.

Today the dynamics that dominated the debates of the Council II are active again in the universal church; the Council is replayed in the community at large. The currents from the second millennium favoring strong centralization are there and working, the currents promoting communio (for the third millennium?) are strong and operating.

At the Council a strong minority wanted no changes from the post Tridentine church: they found allies among the faithful after the Council. At the same Council a majority wanted to renew the church by taking their inspiration from biblical and patristic sources: they found dedicated followers after the great meeting. And - just as it happened forty years ago - the two currents keep colliding.
In our church of today, there is a fair amount of hidden dissent from the Council, mostly in the form of reinterpreting it to the point where it becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Yet, throughout the church, there is also an immense desire for the implementation of the Council.

How will it all end? The church is in God’s hand. But, while we try to look into the future and we ask, what is to come?, it is right and just to recall again the statement used by ecumenical councils placuit Spiritui sancto et nobis, it pleased the Holy Spirit and us. The key to the future is there.

Gregory VII is remembered for having initiated a movement toward a strong centralized government. Perhaps in a millennium from now, John XXIII will be remembered for having changed the course of events and set the church on the path for experiencing increasingly the goodness of communio. Blessed be his name.