Pope Francis clearly understands that he is the pope of a globalized and instantly interconnected world. Superficially, we could note that he is no stranger to selfies and has collected millions of Twitter followers. On a deeper level, the reforms to practice and culture that he is struggling to implement can be understood as efforts to safeguard the characteristic identity of the Church for the postmodern age. The problems with which he is grappling are not merely logistical or practical; they also have deep theological and normative implications.
The challenges that face him—and all Roman Catholics—in the twenty-first century and beyond are closely related to four identifying marks with deep roots in Church history.
From the earliest days of Christianity, believers have identified four distinct marks of Christ’s church: it is (1) one, (2) holy, (3) catholic, and (4) apostolic. These four terms have a meaning that is more poetic than precise; their use tends to be evocative and aspirational rather than empirically verifiable. Moreover, the values expressed by the four terms do not always seamlessly reinforce each other. At the same time, the fourfold account of the Church’s identity provides a helpful lens through which to consider the tasks faced by the Church in a particular time in its development.
In my view, the most pressing challenges Roman Catholics face with respect to the four marks of the Church in our own time are not outwardly focused and theoretical, but internal and practical. These challenges stem directly from globalization and the explosion of information technology. The economy is increasingly globalized and interdependent. International communication is easy and instantaneous; not only words, but photographs and videos easily traverse the oceans as email attachments.
New Ways of Being “One”
Unity is a distinguishing mark of the Church because the body of Christ is one body. At the same time, unity does not mean complete uniformity. The Church not only recognizes that distinct individuals possess different gifts and face different problems, but also proclaims that distinct cultures do as well. Catholic social teaching has long extolled the virtue of subsidiarity, which enjoins that decisions about social organization be handled at the smallest and most local political level capable of handling the matter. Catholic ecclesiology, however, has not followed the same path. In fact, in his moto proprio, Apostolos suos (1998), Pope John Paul II ensured that local bishops’ conferences would have virtually no real power over doctrine or Church governance, which became even more firmly centered in the Roman Curia.
Pope Francis recognizes both the undesirability and ultimately, the impossibility, of governing from Rome more than one billion Catholics situated in diverse cultures around the globe. He is working hard to empower not only the universal Synod of Bishops, but also local bishops’ conferences. Yet the challenges he faces in maintaining communal unity while decentralizing real authority are considerable, as the American political experience suggests. After all, the Articles of Confederation that loosely joined the former colonies were replaced by a Constitution that provided for a more robust federal government, which has acquired even more power over time. It would not be too strong to say that in attempting to reverse centralization in Church governance, Pope Francis is fighting against the natural order of political entities.
Holiness and the Scandal of Indifference
It has always been the case that some Catholics ate well and slept soundly while others experienced untold misery on the other side of the world. Yet the age of technology means that the “haves” can no longer plausibly deny knowledge of the suffering, and the globalized economy means that they cannot sidestep their economic complicity. It also means that the “have nots” can see the vast disparity themselves. The “haves” begin to look more and more like the rich and heartless Israelites condemned in the book of Hosea. They risk making an idol of their own financial security. Indifference to the poor and idolatry are incompatible on their face with holiness—they are sins that the biblical prophets identified as breaking the covenant between God and His people.
Pope Francis has not merely continued the call of his predecessors for social justice; he has also conjoined that call with a highly visible demand for mercy. As the Latin misericordia reveals, a person with a merciful heart suffers with those who are suffering. Pope Francis insists that merciful men and women do not merely write tax-deductible checks to registered charities each December, they live simple lives in solidarity with the poor all year round. In events such as his highly publicized visit to Lampedusa, Italy’s island of refugees, Pope Francis is reconfiguring the ecclesial mark of holiness for the global age.
Catholicity and Development of Doctrine
Catholicity is universality—and one mark of universality is that what the Church teaches is the same everywhere. But the universality of moral teaching may be fracturing. Some European and North American Catholics have taken a more open stance on questions such as the role of women in the Church, the use of contraception, the reception of communion on the part of the divorced and remarried, and the morality of homosexual acts. They claim they are advocating “development of doctrine,” whereas those who resist change, including many Catholics in sub-Saharan Africa, maintain they are defending orthodoxy. The progressive claim for development of doctrine is complicated, however, by the specter of cultural hegemony on the part of North America and Europe. Who decides what counts as development and what counts as decay?
Is the Church’s catholicity compatible with a pluralism of approaches on matters of sexuality and gender? While Pope Francis clearly recognizes the problem he has taken only tentative steps to address it. One such step is to deemphasize the importance of doctrinal propositions in favor of their pastoral application. Another is to infuse a bit more humility in the Church’s presentation of its moral doctrine. When Pope Francis was questioned about a hypothetical priest with same-sex attraction, he responded by asking, “Who am I to judge?”–not by repeating the traditional condemnation of homosexual desire as intrinsically disordered.
Apostolicity and Authority
The fourth mark of the Church focuses on historical rather than temporal continuity—does it carry on the faith of the apostles? From the time of Eusebius (d. 340 CE) bishops (especially the Bishop of Rome) have been understood as standing in the shoes of the apostles, where they exercise threefold authority of the munus triplex: they are prophets, priests, and kings. These roles have distinct charisms. In my view, the magnetic and authoritative Pope John Paul II emphasized the kingship function, which the tradition interprets as servant-leadership. Pope Benedict XVI highlighted the prophetic function, which is understood as embodying the teaching role of the Church.
What about Pope Francis? He understands, I think, that what Catholics need now is a priest—a reconciler and a healer. The role of the priest is to reconcile God to humanity, and human beings with one another. It is also, as Joseph Blenkinsopp has pointed out, to harmonize human activity with care of creation. The world needs reconcilers and healers too. Religious violence is exploding around the globe. Global warming threatens destruction of apocalyptic proportions. We all need a new understanding of the priesthood of all believers—of all human beings.
