Leadership for the New Evangelization

Leadership is critical to bringing the New Evangelization from the encyclical page to the public square. However, leadership—or, instead, its stunning absence—is also the Church’s biggest problem. (It makes you wonder why people call Catholicism an organized religion.) Leadership matters because it’s coupled with authority, understood not just as the right to lead but also as the capability to lead. Put differently, it’s not just about being at the front of the pack but also about getting the rest of the pack to follow you willingly. However, although the problem is pandemic, it’s also correctable.

The Difference Between Authority and Power

The English word “authority” comes from the ancient Roman concept of auctoritas. In her glossary for her “Masters of Rome” series, author Colleen McCullough explains that auctoritas “carried implications of pre-eminence, clout, leadership, public and private importance, and—above all—the ability to influence events through sheer public or personal reputation.” Although formal magistracies possessed auctoritas, other leadership positions and even private citizens could have it too (The First Man in Rome, 991). The person who possessed auctoritas was respected and trusted and, as such, could draw followers and shape public opinion.

Philosopher Michael Hanby points out that auctoritas was distinct from potestas, “power,” as illustrated by Cicero’s statement, “Though power resides in the people, authority rests with the Senate.” Auctoritas did not need a gun at your back or a threat of incarceration to compel obedience:

In all cases, the legitimacy conferred by authority is non-hypothetical—incapable of “proof” on the basis of something more “basic.” It compels principally by its own self-evidence. This is the crucial difference between auctoritas and potestas. Authority possesses no extrinsic force; it can compel only intrinsically, by evoking recognition and love, by eliciting the willing surrender to its evidence. As [Hannah] Arendt says, the use of external force to compel obedience is a sure sign that authority has failed. [Emphasis mine]

This same idea of auctoritas comes through when we speak of an expert in a subject or field of study being an “authority.” An authority is someone we trust to tell the truth, someone whose word carries weight and can even be considered definitive. We don’t question authorities because we don’t doubt them. If we do doubt, we nevertheless give them the doubt’s benefit. By contrast, where trust and respect are absent, force and threats of punishment are poor substitutes. It’s ironic that we now call governments that rely on coercion by police powers authoritarian.

Leadership, Mission, and Message

Philosophers have been speculating for centuries about leaders and what separates them from others. However, “leadership” as a concept distinct from rulership only began emerging with the decline of monarchy and aristocracy in the West in the early 19th century. Even now, some theorists have difficulty separating it from notions of autocracy or dictatorship. To some skeptics, acknowledging a leader is to surrender one’s free will or abdicate one’s (implied) responsibility to think critically. However, leadership is something few organizations or team efforts can succeed without. Properly understood, the concept embeds the auctoritas that the Church desperately needs.

“Autocratic” is only one of as many as eight recognized leadership styles that can be used or combined by a single person and within an organization. The best style depends on the leader, the organization, and the situation. Only one, the “command” style often associated with the military, prevents collaboration or input from subordinates, and even the modern military can incorporate other techniques to some degree. Christ himself advocated the “servant” model (cf. Matthew 20:25-28; John 13:1-11), though the Church can combine it with other approaches for current needs. Authority doesn’t require dictatorial behavior.

I said in my previous article that spreading the gospel message is the Church’s primary mission in the world. The main point of having successors to the apostles is to guarantee the gospel’s continuity. Likewise, the main point of having all the bishops responsible to one particular bishop is to provide unity of command, or if you prefer, unity of effort. That unity of leadership is essential to keeping the whole organization on task and purpose so that the Church “stays on message.” There’s only one message, and it isn’t “read the scriptures and figure everything out for yourself.”

Promoting and Defending the Faith

The importance of unity of effort is one reason the bishop must be an effective preacher—if possible, the most influential preacher in the diocese. Promoting and defending the faith takes priority over the many details of running a diocese. The bishop is the chief promoter and defender of the faith in his diocese and, as such, must be able to evangelize not only the laity but also his priests. The bishop must have shining confidence in his succession to the apostles, the gospel message the Church exists to preach, and the doctrine that supports and ramifies the message.

Preaching is one of the most critical things priests do, and awful, superficial preaching is one of the most common complaints. If the Church wants people to go to Confession or to believe in the Real Presence of Christ, priests must preach these things boldly, with conviction, without apology or embarrassment. Zeal for the Lord must consume them (John 2:17; cf. Ezra 7:23, Psalm 69:9). As the chief promoter and defender of the faith, the bishop must lead by setting the example, taking whatever steps are necessary to become a more effective preacher and evangelist.

While the bishop doesn’t have to be an autocrat, he can’t afford to be wishy-washy or a doormat. Precisely because he is a successor to the apostles and, as such responsible for handing on the faith to others, he has chief responsibility within his diocese for protecting the gospel and Church doctrine. He must be confident in the Church’s teaching and apostolic succession and project that confidence to others. As a corollary, he can’t appear reluctant to call out heresies and correct errors among priests and theologians or to apply canonical penalties if and when necessary.

Get Out of the Office

To have proper authority, the leader must have the trust and respect of the people they are in charge of. The hierarchy has much to do to regain the moral authority they have lost over the last half-century, especially as a result of the predator priest scandals. In particular, the bishops must not only have clear behavioral standards but also live by those standards publicly and privately. But part of the problem, I believe, stems from the fact that for most of us, our bishops are isolated, remote, almost faceless figures.

How can we trust and respect someone we don’t know? How many of us can say that we’ve met our bishops, let alone that we know them or that they know us? (I’ve met Bp. Michael Olsen of Fort Worth once, and I still can’t say he knows me from Adam’s pet donkey.)

The best model for bishops is not the corporate executive who only steps out of the C-suite for dinners with clients and high-profile media events. Instead, it’s the brigade or division commander who regularly visits the companies and battalions in their command, who mixes with everyone from senior staff officers to junior enlisted troops in the field. Such commanders have competent, trusted subordinates who can take care of most routine administrative details. They also consciously build time with the troops into their schedules. The important thing is that they don’t get stuck behind a desk.

Gregariousness is one of the most common traits of successful leadership. I’ve said before that the bishop must be confident in the gospel, the Church’s teaching, and his succession to the apostles. Confidence is infectious, but that infection can’t spread if confined to the chancery. Diocesan vocations directors and mendicant orders should already be looking for and recruiting priest candidates who are good mixers. There are places and roles in the Church for people who are more retiring and contemplative. But the roles of parish priest and bishop require more outgoing personalities, which is hard to fake.

Conclusion: The Courage of Martyrs

“Apostle” derives from the Greek apostolos, “one who is sent; messenger, envoy, or ambassador.” The problem with the Church is not—has never been—with the message but rather with the messengers. To be trusted and respected, the would-be authority must be trustworthy and respectable. Much of the loss of moral authority that the Church has suffered has been due to bishops who were too timid to do the right thing because it would expose them to legal risks, public censure, or political pressure. Cowards have done more damage to the Church’s credibility than have knaves and imbeciles.

The Church has not lost her need for successors to the apostles. We shouldn’t reduce deacons, priests, and bishops to mere “sacrament dispensers,” even if retaining them in leadership roles risks clericalism. For that reason, a proper reform of the priesthood and hierarchy ought to be ordered toward making them more effective evangelists and community leaders. Leadership skills can be recruited for, taught, developed, and encouraged, especially through groups such as Toastmasters International. However, without the courage to be thoroughly, clearly, and unapologetically Catholic—the courage of martyrs—other leadership skills are worthless.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the [priests] as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. … Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8)