|
There is at present a general crisis of authority and not only in the
Church. In this general crisis there is, incontestably, as in every
period of crisis, the expression of a certain growth. It is clear that
there are ways of exercising authority which today no longer suit
certain needs of modern man, and this in every area: from marital
authority and paternal authority to professional authority. There was a
way of exercising authority which a legitimate sensibility in the man of
today no longer accepts. In this sense we are in a time of
participation, and we can and we should wholeheartedly accept it. Why?
Because, (as John XXIII clearly stated in Pacem in Terris) there
is among all persons today a greater consciousness of their own autonomy
and of their own personality, as a result of which they no longer accept
certain forms of subordination. There is, as it were, an awakening to a
greater sense of personal responsibility. It certainly constitutes
progress, when, for example, in a family a wife is more fully associated
in the direction of the home, and it is normal in a state that all the
citizens should feel themselves responsible and not only "taken in
charge". It is normal in a university that the students should feel
more closely associated in decisions which concern them. There is
nothing worse, on the other hand, than irresponsible and tacit
obedience. Catholic Action in its positive aspect has been the call of
the Church to all the laity to a greater participation in their
responsibility.
It should not be necessary, therefore, to term a "crisis of
authority" the fact that there is an evolution in the manner of
exercising authority, and that in general there is a call for the taking
of greater responsibility in all phases of life on the part of all. But
there is a crisis of authority today which is insidious. I mean that
there is a fundamental contestation of authority as such. Here it is of
the utmost importance to give to authority its true significance.
"Authority" does not in the first place signify
"power"; "authority" in the first place signifies
"competence". When we say that in a particular branch of
knowledge a person is "an authority", We are giving the
word its original meaning and it is this meaning which is fundamental.
Authority is indeed a competence to which there is a corresponding right
to confidence.
Incompetence discredits Authority
What discredits authority, therefore, is its being exercised by a
person who does not inspire confidence. Then authority is undermined at
its root. But that there is a right and a duty to place confidence in
those who are competent in fields in which we are not is a truth of
common sense. For example, I have a literary formation. From a
scientific point of view, all that at present I consider true, I believe
through in act of confidence in persons whom I consider competent. It is
absolutely impossible for me by myself to verify all the intermediate
calculations whereby he who is known as a scientist has arrived at a
particular discovery. Throughout our life, we are making acts of trust
in authority in every field. The authority of the father is based on the
fact that in many things in which the children could not yet have
experience themselves, they know that they can depend on those who have
a greater competence, and thence arises their normally spontaneous
confidence.
Most men incapable of confidence
Now this is true in the domain of the Church. Obedience to the
authority is first of all confidence in a competence, but in a
competence of a particular order. It is not a competence like that of a
professor which arises out of engagement in studies, but a competence
which derives from a unique experience. Such a competence is first of
all that of Christ himself who alone is competent to speak of the Father
and to reveal to us the purpose of the Father for us, since he alone
shares in the secrets of the Father. This is the competence which Christ
communicates to the Church, giving to her his own Spirit. And it is this
competence which justifies our right of having confidence in those to
whom Christ has given his Spirit, in a way quite special, giving them
responsibility for his Church. And therefore confidence in the Church is
something profoundly normal which arises not out of any so-called
infantile attachment which must today be superseded by an "adult
Christianity", but is arises from fundamental rights which justify
confidence in the authority conferred on it by Christ.
But why is authority being attacked in every area of life today? It
is because that what men today are perhaps most incapable of is
confidence.
We are faced these days with a massive crisis of confidence. The man
of today is essentially diffident. It he is diffident, it must be
acknowledged that it is because he has been too often deceived The man
of today no longer believes what is said, because he distrusts all
words. He knows that publicity lies; he knows that propaganda lies. He
knows that he is in a world in which everything is distorted or
invented, and he ends by no longer giving credence except to what he has
power to verify for himself. And perhaps this is one of the principal
causes of the crisis of faith. For faith consists in believing in things
which we cannot verify for ourselves, but about which we have confidence
in those who have verified it for themselves. Christ puts the question
of confidence to us. It is the same for the Church. The Church puts a
question of confidence to us.
Faith holds essential role
Are we justified in having confidence in the Church? Should we
believe that the Church is assisted by the Holy Spirit in all that
concerns the ultimate problems of existence? In the present crisis of
authority in the Church, there is that which results from a need of
Christians to understand and to participate more, and that is good; but
there is also, it must be said, a fundamental contestation of any
authority, which is something deeply unhealthy, since an impotence to
grant confidence, even where confidence is justified, is an illness of
the spirit.
It must be added that if there is in the Church an authority,
an authority which is essentially that of the Bishop of Rome; it
is founded in the intention of Christ himself. Certain historians would
have us believe that in the beginning the Church was given a kind of
mystical impulse, and that only later did there appear an authority, the
foundation for which was purely human. This is, historically, absolutely
false, since if there is one thing historically certain, it is that
Christ devoted the three years of his public life, not first of all to
preaching, but to gathering the apostles, to forming them, and to giving
them powers in virtue of which after his ascension to his Father they
would continue his own Mission. It should be said that authority as we
have just now defined it belongs to the structure of the Church as Jesus
Christ willed it, that it constitutes an essential and fundamental
component of it. From this point of view, an attack on this authority of
the Church, or to question it radically, would strike at a constitutive
element of the structure which Christ willed to give it.
I would like to close by saying that pervading all the problems
confronting us, there is today a lack of trust greater than in any other
epoch. I think that such a want of trust does not represent a threat at
all to what we believe: belief in God, faith in dogma, confidence in the
authority of the Church. I truly believe, on the contrary, that this
faith is destined to exert an essential role in the world of tomorrow. I
believe the great problem is to give a technical civilization a divine
dimension without which it would be a barbarity. I believe this to be
the magnificent mission to which Christians are called.
They will have to consider this their incomparable privilege, their
duty to help the society of tomorrow to build itself in body—and it is
this we do when we struggle against hunger, against misery—also in its
soul, and this truly is the task of us all. It is a magnificent task. It
should have power to electrify youth who are today searching for an
ideal. I am thinking of the millions of young men who are searching now.
The situation is more open, perhaps, in this year 1969 than it was
thirty years ago, because many structures have been shaken. Considering
this, it would be tragic if there were a weakening of faith within the
Church among the laity and among priests. This amounts to a weakening of
faith—and that not for valid reasons but simply through a sort of
diffidence when confronted with the challenges of the modern world—at
a time when the great need is for a stronger faith. Precisely because of
this, we must rediscover the dynamism of our faith to animate action in
our civilization.
|
