Yes, but is he catholic?

This autocratic Pope has put Rome's imperial traditions before Christ's gospel, subverting the collegial vision of the Second Vatican Council - a vision of the church universal where the people share in the priesthood of Jesus

By WILLIAM JOHNSON
Thursday, July 25, 2002

Granted, he's probably the most alluring, charismatic man to lead the Christian church in its entire history. He combines the authority of his office with mastering the idiom of contemporary mass media. He worked his magic on the throngs this week from the moment he began his perilous journey down the ramp after his plane landed in Toronto.

He's not merely an inspired communicator with the gesture that strikes the eye and heart of the multitudes. A man of peace, he deploys his gifts as advocate for the poor and the oppressed.

Yet this same man stands immovable against reform -- against reforms essential for the church to have a long-term future and for Catholicism to be reconciled at last with the needs of contemporary humanity.

Pope John Paul II has subverted the collegial vision of the Second Vatican Council by his autocratic pronouncements on a range of issues such as the celibacy of priests, the ordination of women and the prohibition of contraception. He treats other bishops as his subordinates and decides, with his Curia, who will be appointed bishop anywhere on Earth.

The people of God, so strongly affirmed by the Second Vatican Council as sharing in the priesthood of Jesus, are treated as an absolute monarch treats his subjects: Even when they wholly disagree with his views on morals, he insists that his views must prevail as a binding obligation on all the faithful.

In sum, the Polish Pope defends the imperial traditions of the Church of Rome rather than the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth or the practices of early Christians.

The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, published Oct. 11, 1992, under the authority and signature of John Paul II, lays out at paragraphs 881 and 882 the claim to imperial power of the Bishop of Rome: "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his church. He gave him the keys of his church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. . . . The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

This "supreme and universal power over the whole Church," which the Pope claims the right to "exercise unhindered" -- and so, independently of the bishops or of an ecumenical council -- was never mentioned by Jesus and was totally contrary to the practice of Christian communities for the first two centuries. Jesus, unlike Mohammed, never spoke of establishing a church or a religion outside Judaism and he never prescribed a constitution for a church.

This is demonstrated by theologian Hans Kung, who was chosen in 1962 as peritus (expert adviser) by John XXIII, the pope who launched the Second Vatican Council. Father Kung is credited with having had the single greatest influence on the drafting of the council's decrees.

"There are no sayings of Jesus spoken in public which programmatically call for a community of the elect and for the founding of a church," Father Kung writes in a book published last year and titled The Catholic Church: A Short History, which summarizes his lifetime of research. "Biblical critics are agreed on this point: Jesus did not proclaim a church, nor did he proclaim himself, but the kingdom of God."

The belief that the Pope has unfettered power over the church rests on a quotation from St. Matthew (16:18-19) wherein Peter is to be the "rock" on which the Catholic Church is to be built. It is further assumed that Peter became Bishop of Rome, and that the bishops of Rome who followed Peter down to the present somehow inherited the character of "rock."

Father Kung comments: "Today even Catholic exegetes accept that the famous saying about Peter as the rock on which Jesus will build his church -- of which the [three] other gospels know nothing -- is not a saying of the earthly Jesus but was composed after Easter by the Palestinian community, or later by Matthew's community."

Is it credible that Jesus ordered a constitution for His church, and only one evangelist noted it?

Moreover, Father Kung adds: "We do not read anywhere in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome. Far less is there any evidence of a successor of Peter (also in Rome) in the New Testament."

And the theologian points to an agreement among experts: "Catholic theologians concede that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in charge of the Church of Rome as supreme head or bishop."

His testimony is corroborated by historian Brian Moynahan, who published in April The Faith: A History of Christianity: "The papacy was to claim that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome, and that his pre-eminence among the apostles . . . transferred to itself. No proof exists; concrete sighting of Peter in the New Testament vanishes after the circumcision debate." (The debate in question was in Antioch between Paul and Peter, over whether to eat with the uncircumcised, which Peter was reluctant to do. Paul won that debate, as he wrote to the Galatians. It hardly suggests that Peter exercised "supreme and universal power.")

The early bishops were elected by their communities, not appointed by the Bishop of Rome. They were usually married men, as were the apostles, including Peter.

The early bishops of Rome made no claim to an imperial authority over other Christian communities. Historians do not even know their names. The first on record to try to impose his will, Bishop Victor, was rebuffed or simply ignored when he tried to impose on other Christian communities the Roman date for Easter. The first to claim a primacy over other bishops inherited from Peter was named Stephen, circa 250 AD.

"However, he was no more successful than Bishop Victor had been 50 years previously," says Father Kung. "At that time the rule of one church over the other churches was rejected even in the West."

The gradual acquisition of power by the Church of Rome -- in the Middle Ages, over even emperor and kings -- is a fascinating story. It begins with the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. It centres on Rome as seat of empire, then the fall of imperial Rome in 476, the conversion to Christianity of the triumphant barbarians, and the Roman Church moving in to fill the vacuum.

The story includes forgeries whereby early bishops of Rome were supposedly recognized as heads of the entire church. One forgery, called the Donation of Constantine, claimed that Rome and the Western Roman Empire were donated to the Bishop of Rome by Emperor Constantine.

Power corrupts, and undue papal power has corrupted the Roman Church, caused the separation of the Eastern Orthodox churches and, later, the Protestant churches.

It will take a new pope to abdicate imperial rule, restore the spirit of Jesus and reunite Christendom.
wjohnson@globeandmail.ca