High-handed own goals

The Catholic Church of our time has been very fortunate in having popes who were exemplary leaders. Pope John XXIII used Vatican II to modernise the Church; Pope John Paul II demystified the papacy by travelling all over the world and was bold enough to apologise to Martin Luther posthumously; Pope Benedict XVI is reaching out to other denominations and religions, and demonstrating leadership wisdom and patience with groups that are prepared to consider full union with the Catholic Church.  An example of this is his approach with the Society of St Pius X, whose members follow the teachings of the late, excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who opposed the decisions of Vatican II.

However, the Church has not always had such humble servants of God as leaders. This brings us to the leadership style of the Church.

Following the marriage between Church and state in the reign of Emperor Constantine, one of the negative characteristics that the Church adopted was the leadership of domination. An organisation that believes in this style of leadership is autocratic, intolerant of criticism, instils fear in followers and considers it unacceptable for the leader to be questioned – even by people who are questioning wrong-doings precisely because of their loyalty to the organisation.

Such an organisation will have harsh penalties for offenders, with leadership being associated with a show of power. In this regard, excommunication has sometimes been used to show how powerful Church authorities are without sufficient effort being made by the same authorities to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There are times when excommunication may be unavoidable. I believe the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was necessary because the faithful had to know who to follow: the French archbishop or the rest of the bishops who subscribed to the decisions of Vatican II.  However, resorting to excommunication has had disastrous and even tragic consequences in the past. An example of this is how the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches separated.

In 381 AD?at the Council of Constantinople, where the Creed was finalised, the Council Fathers agreed on the formulation that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. Later, the Western Church added the Filioque phrase which, in Latin, means “and the Son”, meaning that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. This was theologically correct, but the Eastern Church, with its headquarters in Constantinople (the present day Turkish city of Istanbul), argued this had not been agreed in council.

By 1054 Rome wanted to assert its authority just as Constantinople wanted to assert its own independence. Pope Leo IX sent a delegation to Constantinople under the leadership of Cardinal Humbert. The Eastern Church’s delegation was led by Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople. On July 16 drama unfolded during a sacred religious service in the famous Hagia Sophia church. An impatient Cardinal Humbert and members of his delegation marched up to the high altar and placed on it a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius, who responded in kind by excommunicating the pope. That was the beginning of the official schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which persists today.

In 1517 Professor Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, nailed his 95 theses (statements) against the sale of indulgences and other wrong practices to the door of the church in Wittenberg, eastern Germany. He was accused of heresy and ordered to recant. When he refused to recant, he was excommunicated. That was the start of the second great schism which resulted in the Protestant Reformation and the division of the Church into numerous denominations.

Some Protestant reformers were also high-handed. In their zeal they summarily abolished the Mass and dissolved monasteries and religious orders. All this flew in the face of Jesus’ teaching on love and servant leadership.

At least one great Father of the Church, St John Chrysostom, would have followed Jesus. He emphasised the power of gentleness in leadership. He once said: “More than any vehemence, [gentleness] pricks our hearts… Neither wrath, nor vehement accusation, nor personal abuse softens the heart as gentleness does… If then you want to reprove any delinquent, approach him with all possible mildness.”