John Courtney Murray

Freedom,Authority,Community

The inevitable tension between freedom and authoritycan become creative in a context of community

Some people today speak of a "crisis ofauthority" in the Church; others speakof a "crisis of freedom."" For my ownpart, 1 sbould prefer to speak of a"crisis of community." The reasons forthis description of tbe situation will ap-pear. I bope, in wbat follows.

Vatican Council II did not create thecrisis: its roots are deep in the past. Buttbe Council brougbt the crisis into theopen. In tbe first place, tbe Declarationon Religious Freedom {Dignitati.sHumanae) said, in effect, tbat in politi-cal society tbe human person is to livehis relation with God. or even witb bisprivate idol, in freedom—-witbin a zoneof freedom juridically guaranteedagainst invasion hy any form ofcoercion. Tbis proposition, tbe Coun-cil added, is tbe product of a biblicalinsight, tbougb centuries of secular andreligious experience were needed inorder to bring it to explicit concep-tualizalion.

In tbe second plaee. tbe Constitutionon tbe Cburcb in tbe Modern World{Gaudium et Spes) affirmed, in effect.thai Ibe relation of the Cburcb lo tbeworld and of tbe world to the Cburcb isto be lived in freedom. Freedom. P:iui

VI said in bis momentous address tostalesmen on Dec. 8, 1965, is all tbattbe Cburcb asks of the political world-^freedom for its apostolic ministry,freedom for the Cbristian life, freedomfor spiritual and peaceful entrance intotbe polilical world, there to make moraljudgments when polilical affairs raisemoral issues. In turn, tbe constitutiongenerously acknowledged tbat theworld too has it.s rightful freedom tolive its own life—or ratber, its manylives: political, economic, social, cul-tural, scientific—in accordance withautonomous dynamisms and structures.Tbe.se respective claims of freedom, tbeCouncil implied, are likewise rooted ina biblical insigbt—that tbe Cburch is ofGod. and so too, tbougb in a differentwav. is tbe world.

Having laid down tbese propo-sitions bearing on freedom, tbe Councilinevitably raised tbe next question,concerning freedom in the Church. Isnot tbe Cbiislitm life witbin tbe Chris-tiLtn community to be lived in freedom?

Even the essential Cbristian experienceof obedience to tbe authority of theCburch—is lit not somehow to be anexperience of Cbristian freedom in theevangelical sense? Tbis is the question,not directly toucbed by the Council,which now command.s serious tbeolog-ical consideration in the ligbt of tbedoctrine of tbe Council and of its spirit—indeed, in the light of the Councilitself as a splendid "event of freedom"in the ongoing life of the Churcb.

From a bistorical point of view, theneed for new reflection on tbe relationbetween authority and freedom in theChurch derives from Ibe fact tbat pres-ently this relation exhibits an imbal-ance. In order to grasp tbis Tact, it willhe sufficient for the moment to go backonly as far as Leo XIII and to considerthree aspects of bis tbought.

First, there is his retrospective read-ing of bistory. visible, for instance, intbe famous "Once upon a time" para-grapb {t'liii aliifiiando tcmpiis) in ¡m-mortalc Dei. Once upon a time therewas a Golden Age, tbe medieval period.It was the age of Christian unity, of thealliance of tbe Two Powers, of tbeobedience both of princes and of peo-

734 America / December 3, ¡966

pies to tbe auibority of the Church.Then came the Reformation. Essen-tially it was a revolt against the au-thority of tbe Churcb, and in reactionlo il tbe Churcb laid beavy. almost ex-clusive, empbasis on its own authority.Liiter. hy a sequence tbat was not onlybi.storical but also logical, tbere camethe Revolution. It was essentially a re-volt against tbe autbority of God Him-self, launched hy tbe revolutionaryslogan: "No one stands above man"ihoniini anti.siare nemincm). Again inpolemic reaction, the Churcb rallied totbe defense of tbe sovereignty of God.of the "rigbts of God," of tbe doctrineibat tbere is no true freedom exceptunder the law of God.

Both of these reactions were bistori-cally inevitable and doctrinally justifi-able. The Cburcb fasbions its doctrineunder tbe signs of the times, and tbeRelormation and tbe Revolution wereiben tbe signs of the times. But tbe doc-trine formed under them could not butexhibit a certain hypertrophy of theprinciple of autbority, and a corre-sponding atrophy of the principle ofircedom.

In the .second place, there is LeoXIM s conception of tbe political rela-tlon.sbip between ruler and ruled inL'ivil society. It is a simple vertical rela-iionsbip witbin whicb the ruled aremerely subjects, wbose single duty isobedience to autbority. Only in tbe mostincboative fashion does one find in Leoihe notion of tbe "citizen," wbo isequipped witb political and civil rigbtsand protected in tbeir exercise. His em-pbasis falls on political autbority. wbicbis invested witb a certain majesty ashcing from God, and wbicb is to beexercised in paternal fashion in imita-lion of the divine sovereignty. In turn.Ihe submission of tbe subject is to ex-hibit a certain filial quality. Moreover,society itself is to he built, as it were,Ironi the top down. Tbe "prince" is tbeprimary hearer and agent of the social|irocess. Qutdis rex. talis gre.x. The ruleris to be tbe tutor and guardian ofvirtue in the hody politic; tbe wbole ofÜ1C common good is committed to biscbiirge. Tbe people are simply tbe ob-ject of rule. Leo XIII's political doc-trine was plainly autboritarian. It wasliisbioned under tbe political signs ofthe t imes^tbe laicist conception of tbestale and tbe Jacobin conception of tbe

sovereignty of tbe people. In tbat mo-ment in tbe bistory of continental Eu-rope, Leo could not assume tbe pa-tronage of political freedom.

In tbe tbird place, there is Leo XlII'secclesiology. as summed up, for in-stance, in tbe encyclical Satis Cognitum(1896), in wbicb he says; "We havelaitbfuily depicted tbe image and figure[inuiginem atque forniam) of tbeCburch as divinely estahlisbcd." Theencyclical Is, in effect, a lengthy, pro-found, magisterial commentary on tbeVatican I constitution Pastor Aelernus.wbicb was tbe splendid sign of tbetheological times. The portrait of theCburcb tbat emerges is really a portraitof tbe role of the apostolic office, andin particular the Petrine office, in tbeCburcb. In consequence, tbe ecclesialrelationship—to call it such, on theanalogy of the political relationship—is the .simple vertical relationship be-tween ruler and ruled. Tbe function oftbe laitblul appears simply as obedienceto tbe doctrinal and jurisdictional au-tboritv of tbe Cburch.

I t was within these perspectives tbattbe classical doctrine on tbe relation offreedom and authority in tbe Cburcbwas fashioned. Tbose who bold officemake tbe decisions, doctrinal and pas-toral. Tbe faitbful in the ranks submitto tbe decisions and execute the orders.Tbe concept of obedience is likewi.sesimple. To obey is to do tbe will oftbe superior; that is tbe essence ofobedience. And the perfection of obe-dience is to make tbe will of the su-perior one's own will. In both instancestbe motive is tbe vision of God in tbesuperior, wbo is tbe mediator of tbedivine will and the agent of divineprovidence in regard of bis subjects, insucb wise that union with bis will meansunion witb tbe will of God. Tbe furtbermotive, to be adduced wben obediencemeans self-sacrifice, is the vision ofCbrist, wbo made Himself obedienteven unto deatb.

Tbe trouble i.s tbat tbis classical con-cept of tbe ecclesial relationship is to-day experienced as being true indeeii.but not tbe whole truth—as being goodindeed, but not good enougb to meettbe needs of tbe moment. The signs of

the times are new, Tbe age of anti-Reform polemic bas gone over into tbeage of ecumenism. Tbe will of theChurch to break with tbe world of tbeRevolution bas given way to a new willto effect tbat "compenetration" betweentbe Church of today and the world oftoday of which Gaudium et Spe.s hasspoken. The perspectives in which his-tory is now viewed open out not froma supposed Golden Age in the past(whose luster is now seen to be dulledwitb the tarnish of mucb immaturity).but from the present moment. Theyare set not hy nostalgia for the past,visible even in Leo XIITs SatisCognitum, hut hy tbe solid doctrine ofthe escbatological character of theCbristian existence, wbich requires it tolook resolutely to tbe future—to tbecoming-to-be of tbe Kingdom.

New signs of the times bave hecomevisible and were fully recognized atVatican Council II. The first is man'sgrowing consciousness of bis dignity asa person, wbicb requires tbat be act onbis own responsibility and tberefore infreedom. Tbe second is man's grow-ing eonsciousness of community, oftbat being witb tbe otbers and for theotbers whicb is revealed, for instance.in the phenomenon of "socialization"in tbe sense of Mater et Magistra. TheChurcb in Council assembled clearlyassumed Ibe patronage—tbougb in nopatronizing sense—of tbese two relaledongoing movements in the growth ol'bumiin consciousness. The Councilfurther undertook the renewal and re-form of Cbrislian doctrine and life inthe lighl of tbese new signs of the times.In particular, the times demand n re-consideration of tbe classical concept oftbe ecclesial relationship—a new de-velopment, doctrinal and practical, intbe relations between autbority andIreedom in the Cburcb.

Tbe difficulty witb tbe classical con-ception, as experienced at tbe moment,is clear enougb. It is sometimes statedhy saying tbat obedience is a har to the.self-fulfillment of tbe individual. Tbestatement may conceal a fallacy—anindividualistic concept of self-fulfill-ment, and a failure to realize that self-fulfillment is not simply an affair offreedom but also an affair of com-munity. Briefly, self-fulfillment is tbeacbievement of freedom for com-munion witb the otbers. Therefore it is

America I December 3, ¡966 735

also somebow an affair of ohedienee toauthority; for in every kind of com-munity there is always some kind ofauthority.

The fallacy aside, it must he saidIhat the contemporary difficulty witbtbe classical conception is rooted in atrutb—in an experience of tbe truthtbat tbe signs of tbe times reveal. Wbatis really being said Is tbat sbeer submis-sion to the will of the superior and mereexecution of bis orders do not satisfytbe exigencies of tbe dignity of tbe per-son. They do not call into play the free-dom of tbe person at Its deepest point,where freedom appears as love. Still lessdo they exhaust the reponsibilities of theperson, which are to participate fully incommunity and to contribute activelyto community. Tbus stated, tbe con-temporary difficulty is seen to be en-tirely valid. It is not to be solved bynietbods of repression. Nor will it yieldto mere reiteration of tbe principle ofauthority: that authority is to he obeyedsimply because it is autbority.

Tbere is need, tberefore, to view tbeissue of freedom and autbority in tbenew perspectives created by tbe signsof tbe times—tbat is, to view the issuewithin tbe context of community, wbicbis tbe milieu wberein the dignity of theperson is realized. Community is thecontext hoth of command and of obedi-ence. Community is also the finalityboth of command and obedience.Authority Is indeed from God, butit is exereised In community overbuman persons. Tbe freedom of tbehuman person is also from God, andit is to he used in community for tbebenefit of tbe otbers. Moreover, sincebotb authority and Ireedom stand in theservice of tbe community, tbey must berelated not only vertically but alsoborizontally, as we sball see.

It may be well to remark bere tbattbere is no univocal definition of theruler-ruled relationship, becau.se thereis no univocal definition of community.This latter term is analogous. The reali-ties it designates—the family, politicalsociety, voluntary associations, tbeChurch—are somewhat the same andentirely different, one from another. Intbe case of the Church, wbicb is at oncea family and a society and a form ofvoluntary association, tbe essentialtbing is to attend to tbe maior dis-similitudo. Witbin tbe uniqueness of tbe

Cburch as a community, the uniquenessof the relation of Cbristian freedom toecclesiastical authority comes to view.Happily, Vatican Council II, whiehraised the issue of freedom and au-thority in the Church, also created theperspectives within wbicb its resolutionbecomes newly possible. Four aspectsof conciliar ecclesiology are pertinenthere.

I• n the first place, tbe Constitution ontbe Cburcb I Lumen Gentium) presentsthe Cburcb in the first instance as thePeople of God. Tbe first characteristicof tbe People is tbat it "bas for its con-dition tbe dignity and tbe freedom ofthe cbildren of God, in wbose beartstbe Holy Spirit dwells as in a temple"(§9). Tbe basic condition of tbe Peo-ple is therefore one of equality in dig-nity and freedom, established by tbecommon possession of the Spirit. Aconsequent characteristic of tbe Peopleis its charismatic quality as a propbetic,royal and priestly People. Tbe Spirit"distributes special graces among tbefaitbful of every rank, and by these giftsbe makes them able and ready to under-take tbe various tasks and offices use-ful for the renewal and upbuilding oftbe Churcb, according to tbe Apostle:'To each is given the manifestation ofthe Spirit for the common good' (ICor. 12:7)." In particular, as tbe Con-stitution on Divine Revelation 1 DeiVerhum) says, God tbrough tbe Spirit"uninterruptibly converses with theBride of his beloved Son," and theSpirit continually "leads unto all trutbthose who believe and makes tbe wordof Christ dwell abundantly in them"f §8). The dignity of the People and itscommon endowment of Christian free-dom importantly consists in tbe cbaris-matic quality of its members.

In the second place, the Councilpresents tbe Cburch as a communion(koinonia). Its infinite inner form istbe Hoiy Spirit Himself, tbe subsistentlove of Fatber and Son, therefore thegift of Father and Son, who Is tbepresence of God in tbe midst of HisPeople. In consequence, tbe Cburchis in tbe first instance an interpersonalcommunity, wbose members are unitedin love of the Father tbrougb Christ and

in tbe Spirit, and also united witb oneanotber by tbe Spirit of Cbrist, tbroughwhom tbey have access not only to theFather but to one anotber. The conse-quence here is one of immense impor-tance, namely, tbat as an interpersonalcommunity the Church is an end in it-self, an ultimate reality, as escbatologi-cal reality in a temporal realizationtbereof. As a communion siii generi.s.the Cburcb has for its primary purposesimply to be a communion. As such itwill endure beyond time, forever, inwhat is called the communion of saints.

In tbe tbird place, precisely as an in-terpersonal t-ominunion of love, theChurcb has a service (diakonia) lo per-form toward all humanity. That is tosay, tbe divine love tbat is tbe form oftbe People reaches out ibrougb ibePeople, in witness (martyrion), to drawall men into the communion of love, sotbat they may participate in the re-sponse of faith and love to the lovewhereby tbe Fatber loves His own Peo-ple, purcbased by the blood of His .Son.In otber words, precisely as an inter-personal community sui generis, tbeCburcb is also a functional community,that is, a community with a work to do.an action to perform—the action ofGod in bistory, wbich is to "gather intoone the children of God who are scat-tered abroad" (John 11:52). More-over, tbe work of tbe community,which is a work of love, is not extrinsicto tbe tbematic of tbe community; it iswoven, as it were, into tbis tbematic asan essential element of it. Tbat is to say,tbe interpersonal cnnimunity. united inlove, is also united by tbe missionarywork of love to wbicb it is called by itsvery nature.

Regarded as a functional commun-ity, bowever, the Cburcb is nol an endin itself but a means to a higher end—its own growing self-realizalion andperfection as an interpersonal com-munity. Tbere will come a day whentbe Messianic function of tbe Churchwill have heen finished—tbe Day of tbeLord, wben the gatbering of tbe Peoplewill he complete and tbe reign of Cbristdefinitively established: "Tben comestbe end. wben be delivers tbe kingdomto God tbe Father" ( 1 Cor. l.'ï:24).

In the fourtb place, tbe Church is notonly a community of faith and love butalso a visible society; it therefore ex-hibits a structure of authority and a

736 America / December 3. ¡966

juridical order. Moreover, tbe C hurchis an organized society precisely as acommunity of faith and love with afunction to perform in bistory. Thesocietal aspect of tbe Church is notalien or extrinsic to its communal andfunctional aspects, but essential to hothof tbem and inherent in eacb of tbem.Tbat is to say, tbe organization of tbesociety is required hy the purposes ofIbe community, hotb lor the sake of itsown unity as an interpersonal com-munion and also for the sake of itsaction in history. The hierarchicallyordered society—its structure of au-ibority and its juridical order—standsin Ibe service of the community, to as-sist in perfecting its unily and in per-forming its function.

The structure of authority in theC burch is unique, as the community itstructures is likewise unique. It is botbdoctrinal antl jurisdictional^a powerof authoritative teaching and of im-perative rule. Moreover, tbe structureis not merely a matter of political andsociological necessity, as in the case oftbe civil community. This latter is sim-ply a functional community, wbicb istherefore organized only in order toget its work done—its work heing whatis called tbe common good. Heretbe maior dissimilitudo appears. TbeCburch is organized as a society sui¡•eneris in order tbat it may be what itis—a community .uti generis, an inter-personal, eschatological communion offaith and love and a historical, mis-sionary communily whose work in bis-tory expresses its own inner reality.

These four themes in tbe ecciesiologyof Vatican II are, of course, entirelytraditional. Tbe order of tbeir arrange-ment, bowever, is distinctive; so too isIbe weight of empbasis distributedamong tbem. For Leo XIII, for in-sUince. tbe Cburcb was botb communityand .society, indissolubly; so it is pre-sented in Satis Cognitum. But theweight of bis empbasis falls beavily ontbe societal aspect and on tbe structureof authority in tbe Church. It may befairly, if ratber broadly, said that LeoXIII eomes to the notion of tbe Cburchas community through tbe notion of theC hurch as society. And in his construc-tion, tbe functions of Christian freedomare not readily apparent; they are. infact, obscured. Authority seems, as itwere, to stand over the community as

a power to decide and command. Incontrast, Vatican 11 comes to the notionof the Cburcb as society through thenotion of the Cburch as community.Authority therefore stands, as it were,witbin tbe community, as a ministry tohe performed in tbe service of tbe com-munity. Within tbe perspectives createdby this newly accented construction oftraditional doctrine, tbe ecclesial rela-tionship can be more adequately under-stood and therefore stated with a newnicety of balance. In particular, thefunctions of Christian freedom emergeinto new clarity, in themselves and Intbeir relation to the correspondent func-tions of authority. Tbe new clarityradiates from tbe notion of tbe Cburcbas community, now made newlyluminous.

The functions of autbority appearto be three, in bierarchicat order. Andeacb of tbem is a function of serviceto the community.

Tbe first function is unitive. Au-tbority is to be and do what God Him-self, through Christ and in the Spirit,is and does. He gathers, unites, estab-lishes communion. This too is theprimary function of authority. More-over. God gathers His Cburcb hy initi-ating and sustaining witb men the"dialogue of salvation," brilliantly de-scribed hy Paul VI in ficclesiam Suam.God communicates witb His People,eliciting from tbem the response offaitb and love. His call to them is animperative laid upon them, hut it is animperative because it is, in the wordsof Paul VI. a "demand of love"(domanda di amore), to whieh tberesponse must be free. So, too, autborityperforms its unitive function tbrougbdialogue witb the charismatic body ofthe faithful. Tbe purpose of the ec-clesiastical dialogue, as of tbe divinedialogue, is to huild and strengtben tbecommunity; to guide it. under tbeguidance of tbe Spirit, toward tbe fulltruth. About what? About itself, in tbefirst instance. Tbe dialogue is to deepentbat "selt-awareness ' on tbe part of tbecommunity wbicb was a major theme,and also a major achievement, ofVatican II.

Authority therefore elicits from the

cbarisniatic commitnity of Christianfaith tbe insigbts of each into the faith,for the enlightenment of all. (Thisfunction receives new emphasis in thenew charter of tbe reformed Congrega-tion on the Doctrine of Faith; it wasalso strongly advanced in the discourseof Paul VI on Oct. 1, 1966. to the In-ternational Congress on tbe Tbeologyof Vatican Council II, when he spokeof the reciprocal dependency of themagistery upon tbe tbeologum and oftbe theologian upon the magistery.)Moreover, authority stirs the love of thecharismatic members of tbe communityfor tbe community, to be sbown inservice of tbe community. Finally, au-thority solicits the informed concern ofthe community for the work of thecommunity—its relations witb theworld, ¡Is mission of salvation and itsspiritual mission in tbe temporal order.(This function is broadly emphasizedall tbrough the Constitution on theChurcb in tbe Modern World, as wellas in almost all tbe otber conciliar docu-ments.)

The primacy of this unilive functionof autbority, to be discbarged tbrougbdialogue, results from the primacy oftbe notion of the Churcb as an inter-personal community wbose consciousunity is an end in itself. Tbis primarydialogic function also depends for itsperformance on the reality of tbe Peo-ple of God as a charismatic body,whose hasic condition is one of equalityin Christian dignity and freedom. Itfollows tberefore that the unitive func-tion of autbority is to be carried outunder respect for this basic condition.Lutnen Gentium is careful to provideroom in tbe Church for all manner oflegitimate diversities and pluralisms—in rites, theologies, spiritualities, aposto-lates, etc.—which, so far from damag-ing the unity of the community, con-stitute an enrichment of it. The princi-ple of the Declaration on ReligiousFreedom—tbat tbere sbould he in so-ciety as much freedom as possible andonly as mucb restriction as necessary—applies analogously in tbe Cburch. Only"in necessary things" is unity itselfnecessary.

It may he remarked here that rhemodes and manners in which authorityis to perform Us unitive functionthrough dialogue are still problematicaltoday, in tbis era of assestamento (ad-

Amerii-a / December 3. 1966737

iusltnent). New structures of communi-cation need to be created ( for instance,tbe Synod tbat will meet in 1967).Older structures need reformation, asin the case of the Roman dicasteries.Experiments are called for that willyield tbe necessary experience. Theproblem is not simply to conceptualizein tbeologlcal terms tbe relation be-lween aiiibority and freedom in tbeChristian community, as it appears innew perspectives; this relation must belived, in all concretencss and prac-ticalily. Tbus Ihe experience of life willgive vitality to the tbeology.

The second function of authoritymay be called decisive or directive. Itbiirdiy needs lengthy description, sinceit already is a familiar tbing, prominentperhaps to tbe point of undue emphasisin tbe classical coitccplion of an olderday. Tbe decisive function is necessarybecause the Church is a community offaith, and it was to the magistery tbattbe guardianship of tbe deposit of faitbwas committed. Tbe directive functionis needed because the Cburch is a func-tional community organized for actionin history. It is to he noted, bowever,that the necessity of the function is notmerely a matter of efficiency, to insurethat tbe work of the Cburcb gets done.The necessity is grotinded in tbe verynature of the commimity. Tbe point isto insure tbat the work done is tbe workof tbe Church, wbicb it is wben it isdone under direction. Tbe even moreImportant point is to insure that theBody acts as one in the action of itsmembers, singly and collectively.

Tbus the decisive and directive func-tion of authority is in a true sense amodality of its unitive funetion. More-over, tbe performance of tbis secondaryfunction supposes tbat tbe primaryfunction has already been performed;tbat the dialogue, whether doctrinal orpastoral, has been afoot between theLomnnmlty ¡md its teachers and pastors;that therefore tbe decisions and direc-tives, without ceasing to derive tbeirlorce from apostolic authority, are alsotbe decisions and directives of tbe com-munity, wbose common good tbeyserve.

The tbird function of authority iscorrective or punitive. It is an acci-dental function, in the sense that it isnecessary only because the People ofCiod. on its pilgrim way tbrougb bis-

tory. is a sinful People. It is also a func-tion ol' service to tbe community, wbichneeds to he protected against tbeegoisms—whether of thought or of ac-tion—that would destroy its unity ordamage its work. Again, therefore, tbisfunction of correction appears as amodality of tbe unitive function of au-tbority. Wbat comes to tbe fore todayis the need that the corrective or puni-tive function of authority should beperformed under regard for what iscalled, in the common-law tradition,'due process." The demand for dueprocess of law is an exigence of Cbris-tian dignity and freedom. It is to besatisfied as exactly in tbe Cburch as incivil society (one might indeed say,more exactly).

TAbn

,bree functions of Christian free-dom in the Churcb correspond to tbethree functions of ecclesiastical autbor-ity. They are likewise functions of ser-vice to tbe community.

The primary fimclion may be called,for the sake of a name, cbarisniatic. Itis tbe free response of the communityand of all its members to tbe unitivefunction of autbority. whose initiiil actis tbe invitation to dialogue (on whicbtbe Council more than once laid eni-phasis). Tbe Spirit is given to tbe Cbris-tian not only for bis own sanctificationand enjoyment, but also for the growthof the community in conscious self-awareness and for tbe fuller deploy-ment of its action in history. Con-cretely, the community uses the gift ofthe Spirit by sustaining its part in thedialogue with authority, in that confi-dence of utterance tbat reveals—in ourtimes, as in tbose of tbe Acts of tbeApostles—the presence of tbe Spirit.

Tbis primary function of Cbristianfreedom corresponds tberefore to thenature of freedom in its most profoundsense—to the nature of freedom aslove, as tbe capacity for self-communi-cation, as tbe spontaneous impulse tominister and not be ministered to, asthe outgoing will to communion withthe others. "For you were called tofreedom, brethren," St. Paul proclaims(Gai. 5:13). Whatever else tbe callmay imply, it is a eall to love:". . . tbrougb love be servants of on«

anotber" {toe. cii. ) . The forms olservice witbin the comniunity arc luani-fold. but the primary service to thecommunity is to participate in tbe dia-logue of salvation tbat is continunllygoing on In tbe community. Tbis par-ticipation is tbe first exercise of Cbris-tian freedom. It is also an exercise inobedience, in the horizontal dimensiontbat obedience assumes wben It is situ-ated, witb authority, witbin community,and tberefore in dialogic relation toautbority, united tn authority in a min-istry of love toward the community.

The second function of Christianfreedom may be called, again for thesake of a name, executive. It corre-sponds to the decisive and directivefunctions of autbority. It also corre-sponds to tbe formal moral notion offreedom as duly—tbe freedom wbere-by one does what one ougbt to do.Here, of course, obedience may occa-sionally appear as self-sacrifice. Theact of obedience is not, of course, perse an act of sacrifice; it is simply an actof Christian freedom. Obedience as-sumes a sacrificial quality only whenCbristian freedom meets the resistanceof what Paul calls "tbe ffesh." And thepremise of obedience as sacrifice isa!wa\s the profound nature of trcedonias love—tbe love wbereby one freelyengages oneself in the pascbal mystery.Henee obedience, as an act of Christianfreedom, even when it is sacrificial—especially when it is sacrificial—is al-ways the way to self-fulfillment. It isthe expression of one's self-awarenesstbat one is called to he in the ¡mage oftbe Son Incarnate, who freely gave Hislife for the many and thus "went Hisway" to the self-fulfillment that wasHis resurrection. Finally, whethersacrificial or not. the executive func-tion of Christian Ireedom. which con-sists in acceptance of the decisions anddirectives of authority, is always per-formed within tbe comnnmity. in andfor which He works. Tberefore tbissecondary function of freedom is re-lated to tbe primary function, thecharismatic function of love whereby Icontribute in dialogue to the unity oftbe communion that is tbe Church. Thedialogue is not an end in itself; it lookstoward decisions and directives. In tbeirissuance and acceptance, the communitycomes together in a new way.

The third function of Cbristian free-

74» America I December 3. ¡966

dom may have to go without a name,unless one calls it self-corrective, inorder to mark its correspondence to thecorrective function of authority. It istbe free act of Cbristian refusal to "sub-mit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal.5:1). More broadly, it is tbe Cbristianrejection of the temptation, inherent intbe psycbological notion of freedom aschoice, to "use your freedom as an op-portunity for the flesh" (Gal. 5:13).One might call it tbe "mortifying" actof Christian freedom; tbe word maynot be popular today, but the notion isstill Pauline (cf. Rom. 8:13). In anyevent, it is the act wberehy Cbristianfreedom stands fortb in all its evan-gelical newness, unique among all tbemodalities of freedom tbat men baveclaimed or boped for or dreamed of."It was tbat we might be free" in thisnew way, says St. Paul, "that Cbristhas freed us" (Gal. 5:1),

T-be aim of tbis brief essay basbeen simply to suggest bow tbe ratherileshless skeleton of tbe classical con-ception of tbe ecclesial relation may beL-lotbed witb flesb and animated withblood. Tbe skeleton remains; tbe classi-cal conception of tbe vertical relation-sbip of authority and freedom. But itneeds to assume a more Christian andtberefore more human form by stand-ing forth in the living ffesb and bloodtbat is the Cbristian community. Moreabstractly, the vertical relationship ofcommand-obedience needs to be com-pleted by the horizontal relationship ofdialogue between autbority and tbe freeCbristian eommunity. Tbe two relation-ships do not cancel, but reciprocallysupport, eacb other.

This more adequate understanding ofIhe ecciesial relationship does not in-deed dissolve tbe inevitable tensionbetween freedom and authority. But bysituating tbis perennial polarity withinIbe living eontext of community, it canserve to make the tension healtby andcreative, releasing the energies radiantfrom botb poles for tbeir one commontask, wbicb is to build tbe beloved com-munity.

IJOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S. .T., edi-

tor of Theological Studies, is the direc-tor of Tbe Jobn LaFarge Institute.] •

•

•DDDDDnDn

G G G G G G G G G G G G G D G G G G G G G D G G D D D D

DIVINE WORD PAPERBACKS

NO MORE STRANGERSPhUip Berñgan. SSJ

Race, war, poverty — tbe great moral issuesconfronting tbe American Catholic communityare examined by Father Berrigan in a seriesof powerful essays tbat combine acutesocial observation witb profound Christianconviction. $1.25"A very good, thoughtful and thought-provokinganalysis of the nature of Christ/an witnessand its impf/cations." THE CRITIC

" . . . definitive in its clarity and in the depthand iife of its seriousness." COMMONWEAL

The Church ¡n the Changing City, edited by Louis J.Luzbetak, SVD. The challenge of the inner city to theinstitutional Church. $2.25The Liturgy and the Future, edited by J. D. Crichton.The likely course of liturgicat change in the light ofVatican II. $1,25The Meaning of Love and Marriage, by AlphonsusJansen. An existential, rule-free approach to Christianmarriage by a Dutch layman and father. 90í

Availablefrom your bookstore

or:

DIVINE WORDPUBLICATIONS

BOXATechny, Illinois

THOMAS MERTONthe author of 'The Seoen StoreifMountain' contemplates the moralissues of the 1960s and what oneman can do about them

CONJECTURES OF AGUILTY BYSTANDERFrom the notes, opinions, experiences, re-flections, and meditations of the last dec-ade, Thomas Merton pre.sents a unified,personal — and often poetic — vision ofour world here and now."In times like ours," Tbonias Mertonwrites, "it is more than ever necessary forthe individual to train himself . . . to knowthe difference between tbe 'ways of Godand the ways of Satan'." This is the cen-tral theme and purpose of CONJECTURESOF A GUILTY BYSTANDER - a book leav-ened by tbe gentle humor of The SevenStorey Mountain and alive witb the fervorof one who is deeply involved in tbe greatmoral issues of our times.

$4.<!5 at all booksellers

•IDOUBLEDAY

D

nDGDDDDGGG

aDG

nGDDGGGGDGGGGGnnG

America / December 3,1966 741