A DICTATORIAL EPISCOPALISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

1. The term “dictatorial episcopalism” is not commonly used in theological or ecclesial discourse, and its interpretation can vary. However, it can be broken down to understand its possible implications within the context of the Catholic Church.
   
2. The situation of the diocesan clergy, who often feel forgotten and relegated, a “friarly” vision of the Church and a somewhat forgotten and always used laity, reveal a somewhat dictatorial vision of the episcopal hierarchy.
3. Episcopalism: This term refers to a form of governance within the church in which bishops have a central role in leadership and decision-making. In the Catholic Church, bishops are considered successors of the apostles and possess significant authority in their dioceses.
   
4. A historic vindication of this in so-called “conciliarism” was the General Council of Constance in the early 15th century.
   Dictatorial: This adjective implies an authoritarian style of leadership, where power is concentrated in a single figure or in a very small group, often without an adequate system of accountability or consultation such as those proposed by post-Vatican II Canon Law.

i. Contextualization in the Catholic Church
5. Governance in the Church: The Catholic Church is organized hierarchically, with the Pope at the top, followed by cardinals, bishops, priests and deacons. This system seeks to maintain unity and doctrine, but there has been debate about the degree of centralization of power.

6. Criticisms of authoritarian episcopalism: Some critics segue that in certain contexts, the authority of bishops can lead to decisions that are perceived as dictatorial, especially in matters of discipline. This can lead to tensions in the relationship with the laity and among the clergy, especially on contemporary social issues.
7. Contemporary challenges: The Church faces challenges such as abuse scandals, secularization and changes in society. Some voices call for greater inclusion and a more democratic form of governance, suggesting that a strictly episcopal approach may not be sufficient to address these issues. It would require well-functioning “consultative” bodies that oversee canon law and well-functioning episcopal conferences and the relationship with the Holy See in the nunciatures.

II. Conclusion
8. The term “dictatorial episcopalism” could be a reflection of concerns about the concentration of power and the lack of democratic participation within the Church. However, it is important to be careful when using terms that can lead to misunderstanding and polarization.
9. A thorough and respectful analysis must consider the complexity of the Church’s structure, the diversity of opinions within it, and the different cultural and geopolitical contexts that affect its functioning.
10. Internal dialogue within the Church, as well as the search for balance between authority and participation, continue to be crucial for its future and relevance in the contemporary world, but they require the full implementation proposed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and subsequent canonical legislation in the Catholic Church.

JGA