Democracy Versus Hierarchy

GOA, Sept. 27, 2009, 09.00 Hrs: (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

Recent articles in the Press which talk about the Hierarchy (of the Catholic Church) as if it were inimical to, or even hostile to democracy display a level of ignorance which is unfortunate in those who ought to have a more discerning understanding of the nature of the church. The insistent demand for greater participation by the laity in the administration of the material assets of the church has been couched in language which is difficult to understand. Some of it has been utterly confused and much of it has been strident.

Let us first examine the untenable assumption that a hierarchical structure – any hierarchy – is incompatible with a democratic system of administration. Common sense and our everyday experience teach us that hierarchy is an inherent feature of any (repeat any) organization. Beginning with the family, we see that the family is a hierarchical organism. There are different levels of authority, which make it possible for the family to survive as an institution. In smaller familial groups such as the extended family or even in clans and tribes the exercise of authority is always hierarchical. Social and cultural anthropology have not been able to identify any society which does not function otherwise than through hierarchical authority. In this regard, humankind shares this trait with the animal kingdom, and even with those insect species which are ‘social’ such as ants, bees, termites etc. In herds of animals, there is always a ‘leader’ of the herd or pack. We commonly describe these leaders as the Alpha Males. Even in sea mammals such as whales, dolphins and other similar species, there are acknowledged leaders. It is not necessary to get into greater detail of the characteristics of leadership or to describe how authority is exercised. Suffice it to say that authority, and the respect for authority, is inherent in any social organization; so much so that authority and obedience to authority are considered to be intrinsic to any social group. When Aristotle stated that man is a social animal, he was describing a fact of Nature, not a contrivance of people. It is in this same sense that we understand political, economic and cultural organizations both in the modern world as well as in ancient times.

Does the existence of authority, then, in any way inhibit the freedom of the members of social organizations? Philosophers and Political Scientists are unanimous in asserting that authority is of the very essence of any social organization. There can be no ‘social’ body without authority. The alternative to authority is chaos and anarchy. Recent history has demonstrated that in times of economic, social or political crises, the people look for ‘a leader’ to get them out of the mess. Sometimes they choose a ‘strongman’ who turns out to be a tyrant and a dictator who creates more problems than he sets out to solve. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others are striking examples of the misuse of authority. Lesser dictators still exist, and some political parties are the nurseries of dictatorship.

The problem to be addressed, therefore, is not whether hierarchy is incompatible with democracy, but “how” authority is to be exercised. By counter-posing democracy to hierarchy, these politicians, lawyers and journalists are simply barking up the wrong tree. They are asking the wrong question and missing the very core of the question of authority. To accuse the church of being anti-democratic because by its nature it is hierarchical is as unjustified and unreasonable as to accuse the Judicial system of being anti-democratic because it is also by its very nature hierarchical. Even the system of government is hierarchical. This does not make it, ipso facto, anti –democratic. Democracy is not a feature of the structure, but a characteristic of the manner in which it functions. As far as the Church is concerned, not only is she the champion of democratic rights, she has actually been responsible for building the entire edifice of democracy on the principle that the human person is sacred because he has been created in the image and likeness of God, and that his rights are inalienable. The fundamental rights of the individual, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression are the result of the Christian understanding of, and the Christian defence of the sacredness of the human person. Whether it is the American Constitution or English Common Law, or the Constitutions of most European nations, it is quite obvious that these have been constructed on the fundamental principles of Christian ethics. The Indian Constitution was forged on the principles derived from the U.S., Irish, and English Constitutional Laws which are of Christian inspiration. To accuse the church, therefore, of being anti-democratic is not only factually incorrect, it is in fact malicious and slanderous.

It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the church is not a political entity, although it has a tremendous influence on political ideas and political systems. The structure of the church is not of human origin and therefore it cannot be viewed from the narrow perspective of politics. Similarly, authority in the church is not derived from the people, but from God. There is no opportunity, because of the constraints of space, to elaborate on this statement, but anyone who is familiar with Christian scripture and the traditions of the church will be able to understand the import of this assertion. It is a rather enigmatic statement that the church cherishes and promotes democracy although she herself is not by nature a democratic society.

Which brings us to the oft repeated and inane statements made by some so-called Catholic leaders who claim that there is a definite and conflictive distinction between the laity and the hierarchy in the Church. Such statements merely betray their massive ignorance both of the nature of the church as well as of democracy. Their statements often convey the impression that the church is made up of two distinct – and irreconcilable – parts, viz. the laity and the hierarchy. They make claims which give the impression that there is an inevitable conflict between the hierarchy and the laity, similar to the Marxian ideology of a necessary conflict between capital and labour. Like the Marxists, their public statements and actions imply that all conflict will cease only if the church is completely controlled by the laity and the hierarchy is eliminated – similar to the grand vision of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” These self-proclaimed “leaders” of the laity need to draw the lessons of history. They need to re-educate themselves about the nature of the church.

For those who are interested, it needs to be explained that the term “layman” as it is currently understood is misleading because it is generally used in contrast to “professional.” It has a negative connotation in contrast to specialization e.g. medical, scientific, technical. We describe a non-doctor or a non-engineer as a layman – as one who is not qualified to perform the specialized functions of a doctor or an engineer. In the church, the term “laity” is not used in this sense; it does not have a negative connotation. The term laity is derived from the Greek “Laos” which means “The People chosen by God.” In the theological and ecclesiological sense everyone in the church – ordained ministers and non-ordained faithful are full-fledged members of the Laos- the People of God. Within this community of the faithful, some are “ordained” to carry out specific functions – Bishops, priests, deacons, ministers for specific actions, such as catechesis, distribution of the Eucharist etc. All these diverse functions are not in conflict with one another, but contribute to the health and wellbeing of the entire Body of Christ. According to the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ (which our “lay” leaders are encouraged to study carefully) the church is both a human and a divinely instituted society of those who believe. Those who seek to usurp the legitimate (God given) authority of the Bishops do grave injustice to the unity and the integrity of the Church. They create dissensions and rebellions which are injurious to the very nature of the Church. They should remember that they will be held accountable for their actions.