Introduction
The Polish Church is undergoing a crisis resulting from the loss of its social dominance and the twilight of the era of folk Catholicism. Traditional management methods based on power and prestige are no longer effective in a pluralistic world.
This article analyzes the necessity of transitioning from a leader-owner model to evangelical stewardship. The reader will discover how to shift from a logic of control to a logic of service, and why transparency is the key to reclaiming its mission.
Embracing Human Finitude as the Foundation of Stewardship
Pastors must abandon the pursuit of total control, as it is an expression of pride and a denial of the created condition. The belief in one's own indispensability leads to the appropriation of institutions and strips the community of its agency.
The foundation of stewardship is the recognition of human finitude. A leader free from fantasies of omnipotence is capable of admitting mistakes, delegating tasks to more competent laypeople, and stepping down from office with grace.
An example of such an attitude is the abandonment of a cult of control in favor of trust. A true pastor does not build a system dependent solely on his person, but rather creates a community capable of functioning without him.
The Church as an Entrusted Reality, Not Property
In the context of power, the Church is neither a business enterprise nor the private estate of the hierarchy. It is an entrusted reality, in which office and charisms are gifts to be managed, not property rights.
The responsibility of pastors is to ensure that office is exercised according to the Word, rather than the logic of prestige. Meanwhile, the faithful should move from passivity toward a mature, shared responsibility for the community.
Such a paradigm shift requires both parties to reject clericalism. This relationship should be based on accountability, where authority is built through credibility rather than legal privilege or cultural dominance.
Responsibility Instead of Appropriation: The Requirement for Transparency and Correction
The difference between necessary order and the abuse of power lies in the distinction between responsibility and its appropriation. Order requires procedures, but these cannot serve to isolate the leader from the truth.
It is an abuse of power to create systems where parish councils merely decorate the decisions of the pastor. Financial transparency and openness to correction are moral requirements, not attacks on the hierarchy.
In practice, this means the faithful have the right to ask questions about how assets are managed. Transparency protects the pastor from the deformations of power and prevents people from being treated as mere resources for building organizational success.
Summary
The Church's greatest victory would not be the recovery of its influence, but a mutual agreement between the hierarchy and the faithful to renounce the temptation of owning the institution. Only then can it return to the essence of its mission.
The key is to subject everything—budgets, appointments, and reputations—to the criterion of the Word of God. In a world of fleeting forms, loyalty to Christ remains the only secure ground.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why must the Church and its pastors abandon the pursuit of full control and dominance?
The Church and its pastors must abandon the pursuit of full control because humans are limited agents, and finiteness is the natural state of creation. Accepting one's own dependence and mortality allows one to avoid the temptation of omnipotence and change the approach to office from possession to service.
What is the Church in the context of the power and responsibility of pastors and the faithful?
The Church is not the property of any group or person, but an entrusted reality in which pastors hold office and the faithful bear the responsibility resulting from baptism. Power in the Church should be exercised in accordance with the Word and the Gospel, rather than according to the logic of prestige, control, or self-preservation.
In practice, what is the difference between necessary institutional order and the abuse of power and lack of transparency in the Church?
This difference lies in distinguishing responsibility from the appropriation of power, where a pastor leads and decides but is not the sole source of knowledge nor the creator of a system dependent exclusively on him. In practice, this means moving from a model based on blind trust to financial transparency and openness to the correction of decisions by experts, collaborators, and the faithful.
How can one distinguish the authentic authority of a pastor from the pride resulting from popularity and institutional success?
A pastor's authority should be distinguished from popularity, social media reach, or organizational success, as these are not evidence of its quality. The true measure of ecclesiastical power is humble service and the way the weakest and most influence-less people are treated, who must not be treated instrumentally as resources.
What should the relationship between clergy and laity look like in times when faith ceases to be an automatic element of social identity?
This relationship should be based on co-responsibility and the recognition of the laity as subjects possessing specific gifts, rather than merely executors of orders. Clergy should entrust the faithful with real responsibility, while the laity are to serve the community and ensure that the preached word aligns with practice in a factual manner, avoiding both clericalism and anti-clericalism.
How can the faithful use Holy Scripture to distinguish authentic pastoral service from manipulation and institutional success?
The faithful should study Holy Scripture independently to achieve religious maturity and not rely solely on others' interpretations. In doing so, they can detect manipulation and recognize authentic pastoral service by its fruits—such as love, justice, and care for people—rather than by administrative successes or the number of believers.
How to preserve the identity and institution of the Church in a world where it no longer holds social dominance?
It is necessary to move from massivity toward the responsible individual, distinguishing the deposit of faith from the historical forms of institutional functioning and avoiding nostalgia for former dominance. Identity is preserved by justifying hope instead of enforcing customs, and by conducting dialogue with respect for the dignity of the other person, without relativizing the truth. Care for the institution should consist of ensuring its capacity for self-correction and making sure it serves the mission, rather than merely its own survival.
What is the role of the faithful in the process of changing the model of Church governance, and why is expecting infallibility from priests harmful?
The role of the faithful consists in renouncing consumerism, shifting all responsibility onto others, and the cult of religious celebrities and the idolatry of office. Expecting infallibility from priests is harmful because it promotes a culture of pride and theatrical perfection instead of responsible action and the ability to admit mistakes.
In practice, what should the relationship between the faithful and the hierarchy look like so that the Church ceases to be treated as property?
The faithful should know the Word, exercise their rights, and participate in councils, demanding financial transparency from the hierarchy and consistency between preached values and the practice of office. This relationship must be based on mutual accountability, where the faithful demand truth and honest stewardship, and pastors stop treating the Church as their own property.
What is the alternative to the model of a powerful institution, and what should the relationship between the faithful and the hierarchs look like in the new reality?
The alternative to a powerful institution is a model based on the images of the seed, leaven, salt, and light, where priority is given to faithfulness to the mission rather than social dominance or wealth. The relationship between the faithful and hierarchs should be based on mutual subordination to the Word of God, mutual respect combined with a demand for transparency, and the courage to criticize and admit errors.
