DOI 10.1515/for-2014-0011 The Forum 2014; 11(4): 603–621 Sean M. Theriault* The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution Abstract: In this article, I place the American Catholic Church into a broader his- torical and global perspective, giving context to both the world in which it oper- ates and the decisions it makes. I argue that several of the decisions that were made by the earliest Church leaders continue to reverberate today. Furthermore, the circumstances under which Catholicism made its way to the New World not only gives meaning to its past path, but provides clues about its future direction. These historical and geopolitical angles must be assessed when evaluating Pope Francis’s challenge to the Vatican, the American Church, and Catholicism around the globe. *Corresponding author: Sean M. Theriault, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA, e-mail: [email protected] Introduction As Jesus traveled the literal and figurative road to his passion, death, and res- urrection in Jerusalem, the authorities tried on numerous occasions to trip him up. On one noted attempt, they asked him: “Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” (Matthew 22:17).1 Jesus, after chastising them for trying to trap him, responds: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21).2 The questioners were hoping to elicit an answer from Jesus that would either run him afoul of the civil authorities or have him slight his own Father. Jesus, in doing neither, proffers an early rationale that would ultimately safeguard religious expression from the authority of the state. While most thinkers toil over Jesus’ meaning in the division between political and religious authorities, I think his brilliant political response underlies an even more interesting dynamic about the internal politics of religious institutions. Jesus, of course, could speak with the authority that his divine birthright and own crucifixion and resurrection fulfilled. When he walked the earth, he was both the body and the institutions of the church. But upon his ascension into heaven, he 1 Similar passages also exist in the other two synoptic gospels. 2 Again, similar passages can be found in Mark and Luke. 604 Sean M. Theriault left behind a human – Peter – on whom he aimed to build his church. Since that great commission, human beings, with all their foibles and intricacies, and only occasionally with the help of the Holy Spirit, have had to manage a Godly institu- tion while only possessing human abilities. In this essay, I examine the Catholic Church as a political institution. While my main purpose is to probe the political nature of the American Catholic Church, a historical and global perspective is a prerequisite. As such, the development of my understanding of the institutional Catholic Church is accomplished in a number of steps. First, I recount some early political decisions that had a conse- quence on the present shape of the Church. Second, I briefly describe the Ameri- can origins and development of the Catholic Church. Third, I outline the current structure of this Church as a political institution. Finally, I speculate about the future of the institution under the Papacy of Francis. Before continuing with my essay, it is necessary to offer a brief but important caveat. I am not a religious scholar, nor even a religious historian. I am a politi- cal scientist whose primary research focus is the US Congress. Like the House and Senate, the Vatican makes decisions that follow, more or less, a particular process. I find myself trying to understand how individuals within institutions come to make decisions that shape their organizations. The only private knowl- edge that I bring to this essay’s particular topic comes from my infant baptism and lifelong dedication to the Church. While I am a practicing Catholic, who can count missing my Sunday obliga- tion on one hand, I am not an uncritical observer of my church.3 I have taught an undergraduate course on “The Politics of the Catholic Church” five times, so I have done a fair amount of thinking and reading on the subject. My students would probably say that I lean too heavily toward being an apologist for the Church. I would say that I am assuming the role of the devil’s advocate in a class- room where church skepticism is pervasive.4 3 My partner can vouch for me on both accounts. He is a Buddhist but has been dragged to masses all over the globe: France, Aruba, Thailand, Colombia, and Vietnam to name just a few. The “Sunday obligation,” incidentally, has resulted in some of our most interesting travel experi- ences. 4 “Devil’s advocate” is an interesting title, is it not? It, of course, has its origins in the Catholic Church. In the deliberations of making someone a saint, the church, beginning with Sixtus V in 1587, always appointed a “devil’s advocate” who would view the person skeptically in order to save the church any future embarrassment. Sixtus’s 5-year reign was one of the most important in the institutional life of the church. In addition to limiting the size of the College of Cardinals, Sixtus doubled the existing church bureaucracy and gave its officials more control over the daily operations of the church. Incidentally, the position of a “devil’s advocate” existed until Pope John Paul II abolished it in 1983. The American Catholic Church as a Political Institution 605 Early Origins of Political Decisions As with any institution, the earliest decisions are often the most crucial. Choos- ing option A over option B has consequences not only at the time that decision is made, but also for future decisions that become contingent upon the initial decision. A proper understanding of the institutional Church today requires an appreciation for two crucial events in the first 400 years of the Church’s life: the promotion of Matthias and the vision at the Milvian Bridge. The Promotion of Matthias The first reading assignment I give my students in the course on the Politics of the Catholic Church is the Acts of the Apostles. I have them read Acts not for its religious content, but for its political content. I believe the most important action in Acts is when the apostles replace Judas, who reputedly used the money he had been given to betray Jesus to buy a field in which “he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out” (Acts 1:18). Peter, who was fulfilling the great commission Jesus bestowed on him, legitimized the replacement of Judas through Psalms, which instructed, “Let another take his office” (Psalm 109:8). From among the 120 followers who had been a witness to Jesus’ resurrection, the 11 remaining apostles nominated Joseph (sometimes called Barsabbas) and Mat- thias. After the nominations were announced, all 120 prayed and asked for the Lord’s guidance. In “casting lots,” Matthias was chosen.5 The naming of a replacement was critically important for church develop- ment for two reasons. First, the replacement signaled that the Church would be an organic institution that aimed to perpetuate itself. By naming another to fill Judas’ spot, the apostles implicitly decided that the continuation of the church was more important than maintaining the integrity of having only Jesus make promotions among his followers. Second, the apostles fortified the structure of the church. Upon Judas’s betrayal, they could have decided to consolidate their 5 Casting lots, of course, is nothing more than permitting random chance to determine the “ winner.” The process of being chosen “bishop,” which is the equivalent of Matthias’s elevation to being an apostle, has changed many times throughout history. In the early church, bishops were chosen from local clergy with the consent of neighboring bishops. The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) centralized that power in the metropolitan bishop. Over time, political authorities reserved the right to name bishops. In 1917, the Code of Canon Law gave that right exclusively to the Pope. In modern times, the naming of bishops has created tension between China, which from time to time names its own bishops, and the Pope. Few other civil governments, even those of overwhelmingly Catholic populations, weigh in on the decisions today. 606 Sean M. Theriault power and split it among the 11 remaining apostles, rather than promote a new apostle whose very presence would dilute their power. Again, the structure of the church trumped integrity; continuation won out over being called directly by Jesus. Jesus’ 3-year public ministry was roughly contained in the 100 miles from the Sea of Galilee to Jerusalem and the 50 miles from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.6 The apostles ventured far outside this area. Based on tradition, the apostles dispersed after Jesus’ ascension to spread the Good News. Thomas, for example, went to India, Jude to Armenia, James to Spain, and Peter, of course, to Rome. This early decision meant that the Church was interested in both structure and growth, which are two characteristics that equally describe the Church 2000 years later. The combination of these two interests precipitated an addi- tional important decision: to permit local variation. It was this latter decision that brought about the first great debate in the Church. As Paul took Jesus’ message to the Gentiles, he preached salvation through Jesus’ death and resur- rection. Belief in Him, according to Paul, was crucial; circumcision was not. Some of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church believed that Paul’s recent converts could not be true believers because they had not first become Jewish.