Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

There Is an Essential Difference between the Mandate Given to the Hierarchy by Our Lord and the Mandate Given by the Hierarchy to Catholic Action

As we saw in the preceding chapters, the mandate received by Catholic Action does not give rise to any difference between its own juridical essence and that of other organizations of apostolate. At this point, a question could be asked: Is there, then, no difference between the indisputable mandate given by God to the hierarchy and the activities performed by the faithful?

What This Difference Is Not

Obviously, there is an immense difference between one thing and the other, but it would be a serious error to imagine that this difference stems entirely from the fact that the hierarchy received an imperative mission while the faithful have performed an action based mainly on recommendation. Indeed, if the imperative character were the distinctive note of the hierarchical apostolate, every apostolate exercised because of a mandate would be hierarchical. In this case, one could affirm that a nun acting by a mandate from her superior, obliged under holy obedience would be performing a hierarchical action. Now this does not happen, and no commentator on Canon Law would dare affirm it.

Characteristics of the Mandate Received by the Hierarchy

What differentiates the hierarchical mandate from other mandates is its immediate source and the nature and extension of the powers bestowed. We cannot omit the singular circumstance that the importance of this mandate lies also to a great degree in its exclusive character. The Divine Savior, wishing to extend the fruits of the Redemption to the whole human race, decided to deliver this responsibility to the Twelve and their successors. He did this in such a way that the task remained exclusively theirs, so that no one could call this task to himself or even collaborate in it without their consent or without dependence on or union with them.

As a result, the Sacred Hierarchy is the sole distributor of the fruits of Redemption, which are not to be found in any other church, sect, or school. On this truth is based the affirmation, which we should revere and love with all the truthfulness of our faithful hearts, that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Upon this truth is also founded the principle that every apostolate activity exercised by the faithful is potentially placed under the full direction of the hierarchy, which can call to itself, to the extent that it sees fit, any or all of the governing powers, even to the last details of execution, of any private work of apostolate to which full autonomy had been given by means of a simple permission to act. It is not possible to conceive or admit in Holy Church a work founded on a supposed natural right of the faithful that would give them the most ample faculty to act in the field of apostolate at their pleasure, without the intervention of Holy Church, so long as they did not teach error or practice evil.

*    *    *

In What Sense Can the Hierarchy Use Collaborators?

By affirming that by Divine imposition this task belongs to the hierarchy and to it alone, we are making some statements that merit explicit reference:

1) With due reservation for the rights of God and considering merely the relationship between the hierarchy and third parties, this mission is the property of the hierarchy, which exercises over it the fullness of powers that an owner has over a possessed object.

2) Only the hierarchy has this property.

3) The word "only" is understood in the sense that the initiative and the realization of the task pertains to the hierarchy and to it alone, just as the initiative and the right of planting and making use of the field pertains only to the field's owner.

4) The expression "only" includes, however, in the concrete case of the hierarchy, another meaning, which is not necessarily inherent to the right of property: The rights of the hierarchy are so exclusively its own that they are inalienable. Now, this inalienability is not an attribute of the ordinary right of property.

5) Nevertheless, this "only" does not exclude the possibility of the hierarchy having recourse to elements foreign to it for the execution of part of its task, just as without alienation or renunciation of the right of property an owner can make use of other people to cultivate his field. Likewise, an artist who assumes the responsibility of painting a certain work is still its creator even though he might use others for secondary tasks, such as the mixing of paints or even the painting of figures that are merely circumstantial and of no importance, reserving for himself the immediate direction of the whole work.

6) Thus, the difference between the hierarchical work and that of a person foreign to the hierarchy is solidified and defined with all clarity.

In What Sense Can Catholic Action Collaborate with the Hierarchy?

Let us apply this notion to another sphere, and it will become clearer. A professor has, by right, the function of teaching in his classroom. However, for greater perfecting of his work, he may assign certain students to clarify the doubts of their classmates in study workshops, seminars, or even in public explanations given in the classroom. The situation of such students does not, because of this, cease to be substantially identical to that of the other classmates, whether in regard to them or to the professor.

1) The professor has the mastership, that is, the duty to define and promulgate the material, while the student tutor when teaching what he learned is a mere vehicle, albeit official, of another's teaching, regarding which he is himself a disciple.

2) Because of this, the tutor is in everything equal to his classmates, all being in a position of inferiority in relation to the professor.

3) While the authority of the professor is autonomous, the student tutor exercises his activities under another's direction.

Characteristics of the Mandate of the Laity

It suffices to apply this example to the problem of the relationship between the hierarchy and the laity for the question to be clarified. Indeed, God gave the hierarchy a responsibility similar to that which parents give the professor; the hierarchy gives the laity a task similar to that which the professor gives the student tutor.

Are There In the Church Mandates Other Than Those Received by the Hierarchy?

It is for the mandate bestowed by the Divine Redeemer, the most august and serious of mandates, that ecclesiastical terminology reserved par excellence the designation of mandate. In this most special sense, only the hierarchy has a mandate. But, using the term in the etymological sense of an "imperative order," it is obvious that the hierarchy can also give mandates and that in certain specific cases God gives an order or mandate for apostolate directly to certain people. This is what we saw when mentioning the moral obligation, of which God is the Author and which makes certain acts of apostolate obligatory (for parents, teachers, employers, and so forth).

On the other hand, even though it is true that this direct mandate has God for its Author, it is to be exercised under the direction, authority, and care of the hierarchy. Thus to the question: "does Catholic Action have a mandate," we answer: 1) yes, if by mandate we understand an obligation of apostolate imposed by the hierarchy; 2) no, if by mandate we understand that Catholic Action is an element that in any way whatsoever forms part of the hierarchy and consequently shares in the mandate imposed directly and immediately by Our Lord on the hierarchy.

For a good comprehension of everything we have said on the problem of the "mandate," understanding the precise meaning of this term is of capital importance. Indeed, there are two fundamental distinctions that should be made.

The Great Hierarchical Mandate—The Various Mandates of the Subjects

a) That in Which They Are Equal—First Distinction

The word mandate has two meanings. One is the general meaning which indicates an imperative order of a legitimate authority to a subject. Another is the most restricted sense of the mandate that Our Lord gave to the hierarchy. As it is easy to see, there are a thousand possible mandates both in the civil and ecclesiastical orders. A master who imposes a task on his servant gives him a mandate or command. A Mother Superior who gives an order to a nun imposes on her a mandate or command. Our Lord also imposed a mandate or commandment on the hierarchy, that is, He gave them the obligation of exercising the powers He bestowed upon them.

A most important consideration enters here. The powers that Our Lord bestowed on the hierarchy constitute one thing and the "commandment," obligation, or "mandate" He imposed on them to exercise these powers is another. Since the very act of transmission of powers was imperative, one gives it the name of mandate. But the nature and scope of the powers, in themselves, have nothing to do with the imperative form of the duty to make use of them. Thus, two mandates given by the same master to the same servant can bestow very different powers.

b) In What They Are Different - Second Distinction

The command imposed by Our Lord on the hierarchy is a command. The command imposed by the hierarchy on Catholic Action, and likewise on other organizations, is a command. But this does not allow us to conclude that the rights communicated in one case and the other are substantially identical.

The Church orders that members of Marian Congregations be governed by those congregations’ presidents; that the Marian Federations exert certain general authority over the Marian Congregations, and so forth. But this imperative act, command, or mandate does not communicate to the Congregations’ presidents or to others any power intrinsically participative in the hierarchical power of the Church.

Thus, to substantially confuse the Mandate par excellence, that of the hierarchy, with the other mandates existing in Holy Church is to positively practice the sophism called "equivocation," in which two different meanings are given to the same word and freely interchanged.

It is perhaps important to present a clarification also in regard to the powers of the presidents of Catholic Action, of Marian Congregations, and of others.

The Leaders of Catholic Action Unquestionably Have a Certain Authority; But One Cannot Claim That Such Authority Has An Essence Identical to That of the Hierarchy

Catholic Action has an effective authority over its members and, even more, over third parties, in regard to the accomplishment of its aims. It was entrusted by the hierarchy with a task of instrumental collaboration, so those who lead Catholic Action according to the intentions of the hierarchy do so by the hierarchy's authority. Neither the members of Catholic Action nor third parties can violate the authority of Catholic Action leaders without implicitly impugning the hierarchy's own. Does this mean that Catholic Action is incorporated to the hierarchy? No. It exercises a function of subject, precisely like the head of a group of workers, who directs the laborers in their activities on the master's property and must not be disturbed in the exercise of his authority by the workers or by third parties. This does not mean that he shares in the right of property but that he acts by virtue of the owner's authority.

What is said of Catholic Action is said also regarding the leaders of any other endeavor established by the Church, such as the "Work for the Preservation of the Faith" ordered by Leo XIII.

As we saw, a transgression of the powers of the instrumental collaborator will be much more serious the more categorical and solemn is the expression of the owner's will. Thus, while transgression of the authority of someone acting by mere advice is less serious, it still is a transgression of authority. Therefore, no one, save a member of the hierarchy itself, can legitimately prevent a Congregation president from governing his sodality, exactly as happens within Catholic Action. Sodality members who revolt against him revolt ipso facto against the hierarchy. And third parties who raise obstacles to the legitimate activities of a Congregation, Third Order, and the like, rise up, in final analysis, against the hierarchy itself. The difference rests only in that the transgression will be less serious when the work of a religious association is simply recommended or permitted than when it is commanded.

General Summary of the Preceding Chapters

Having in mind these complementary clarifications, we summarize in a few items all the conclusions of the last two chapters:

1) A mandate is every and any order legitimately imposed by a superior on a subject.

2) In this general sense, both the responsibility imposed by Our Lord on the hierarchy and that imposed by the hierarchy on Catholic Action are mandates, just as the responsibilities already imposed on several works of lay apostolate prior to or subsequent to the creation of the latter, are numerous and solemn mandates.

3) The analogy between the imperative forms of both tasks does not exclude a substantial diversity in the powers bestowed in one and the other case. The hierarchy received, from Our Lord, the task to govern. The laity received, from the hierarchy, not governmental functions, but tasks essentially proper to subjects.

4) Indeed, the allegation that the imperative character of the mandate received by the laity endows them with any hierarchical authority is ridiculous, because if such were the case no one could ever exercise authority without implicitly bestowing it on the subject over whom he exercises it.

5) The power of governing that the hierarchy possesses stems from an act of Our Lord's will, which could have been granted without an imperative form, i.e., as a mere concession or faculty to act; and thus one proves that the essential source of the powers of the hierarchy is not the imperative character of the mandate.

6) Because of this, the wisdom of our canon lawyers never understood the mandate imposed on organizations other than Catholic Action to have elevated these organizations from the condition of subjects to that of government; and there is no reason for the mandate imposed on Catholic Action, essentially identical to the others, to have that effect. 

Next

Table of Contents

Prev