www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Must a leader be holy?

It is certainly a good thing for a leader to be holy. I doubt that I'd follow a leader who I knew wasn't holy. I know leaders have got many people into trouble because they were not holy. In fact our (the Church's) history is strewn with leaders who were to one degree or other were not holy. What is more astonishing is this: Many unholy leaders turned out to be very good leaders. Dante recognized that the lowest places in Purgatory are paved with the skulls of bishops. Ever since the Donatist controversy it is clear that holiness is not mandatory in making leaders. God can work through almost anyone.

I'm thankful for our Church leaders most of whom, so far as anyone can tell, are holy. Again, I certainly hope that our leaders are holy and continue to be so.

But, must a leader be holy? The answer is no.

What is required for a leader? The answer seems almost too simple to be true but it is the ony thing I can see that is required.

A leader must do, is required to do, cannot be a leader unless he does this one thing.

A leader must lead.

CDL

Dear Professor Dan,

Well, certainly Pope Alexander VI was an excellent administrator and leader, even though he had four children out of wedlock with a woman with whom he started to have relations from the time of his priestly ordination!

Rome was plagued with assassins in his day, and as the temporal ruler of Rome and the papal states, he ordered the police to find and "hang on the spot" all such assassins - which is what happened.

This is also the question put to St Thomas More by Cardinal Wolsey in the play "Man for all Seasons" when the Cardinal asked More how he, as a counselor of the king, could allow his private conscience to get in the way of his public duties.

"Well," said More. "I think that when a man rejects his private conscience for the sake of his public duties, he leads his country down a short path to chaos."

When the Cardinal told More that the king wanted a son and "what are you going to advise him to do about it?" More replied, tongue in cheek, "I hardly think the king needs advice from me on what to do about it . . ."

"The king wants a son . . ."

Then More replies, "I pray for it daily."

"God's Death!" the Cardinal rebuffed. "He MEANS it!"



Alex

One wonders what matters of conscience keep leaders from leading?

CDL

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I fear your assumption of what it means "to lead" borders on the Machiavellian, i.e., leadership involves getting others to do some thing or other effectively or well, regardless of the means employed. I don't doubt that many unholy, even evil men can persuade and help others to do certain deeds, including deeds they ought morally or spiritually to do. But is this, in fact, leadership or something else? If we look closely at men who have been deemed effective or good leaders but are or were considered less than holy, might we not find many things lacking?

I think we would do well to keep in mind Chrysostom's typically patristic argument in "On the Priesthood." He states in Book III that priests (as well as kings) are needed because "the mass of people under government are, for the most part, prone to regard the character of their rulers as a kind of archetype, and to assimilate themselves to it." The "right actions" (ta katorth�mata) of men who have been invested with authority "benefit many and challenge them to equal efforts," while "their faults make other men careless in the quest of virtue, and encourage them to shirk hard work for the things that matter." The person who enters into "public life" must tirelessly strive to remain above reproach: "the beauty of his soul must shine out brightly all round, to be able to gladden and enlighten the souls of those who see." John reiterates that, should he commit any sins or "misdeeds," he will cause "backsliders" to become "even more supine in their efforts for what is good, and drive to despair those who want to improve."

Perhaps we should begin with a better question: What is true leadership?

In Christ,
Theophilos

This topic reminded me of the rule of St Benedict in which he has a sections on the charateristics to look for in the office bearers of the monastery. OSB Abbots have to endure hearing repeatedly the title of one section on what sort of man the Abbot aught to be.

Ok, What is true leadership?

CDL

A question probably best answered dialectically. But I'll throw this out there:

True leadership is assisting others in the achievement of their proper or true good.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Seems like a good, though abstract, start. Would you consider that growth of the Eastern Catholic Church is a good?

CDL

In homilies, Saint John Chrysostom said:

How should the Church be governed? Should the patriarchs act like emperors, issuing decrees which all bleivers must obey? Should bishops see themselves as local governors, demanding unquestioning submission of the people? Should the clergy be a kind of spiritual army, enforcing the will of the patriarchs and bishops, and meting out punishment on sinners? The first consideration for the Church is not how to punish sins, but how to prevent sins from being committed. And when a sin has been committed, the task of the Church is to encourage the sinner to confess the sin and make amends--so that no punishment is required. This is a quite different attitude to wrongdoing from that which the state adopts, and so requires a quite different style of government. Moreover, each individual is answerable not to a priest, bishop, or patriarch, but to God. So the primary authority of those within the Church is not to issue decrees, but to stir the souls and enliven the consciences of believers, so that by their own volition they will obey the laws of God. In short those in authority within the Church should see themselves not as rulers, but as preachers and pastors.

Who is fit to be a leader in the Church? What gifts and qualities should we look for in those who take charge of our spiritual affairs? Should we assess potential leaders by their abilities, such as the ability to preach well, to find the right words to say to the sick and the dying, to interpret with expertise the words of Scripture, and so on? Certainly all these things are important; and without some natural capacities of this kind, a person clearly is not called to be a spiritual leader. But these abilities count for nothing--indeed they are likely to do harm--unless they are firmly based on spiritual and moral qualities. Imagine a person with exceptional rhetorical skills who could inspire any congregation to share his vision. If that vision were rooted in an evil heart, such a person could do terrible damage to the congregation, turning their hearts toward evil also. Imagine a person of great intellectual ability, who twisted the words of Scripture to suit his own wicked purposes. That person could make a congregation believe that good was evil, and evil good. Imagine a person whose voice could bring comfort to every kind of distress, but who was the agent of the devil, not of God, when he visited the dying. Even to mention that such a person may exist is to induce fear in the hearts of every believer.

The way to judge whether a person is called by God to be a Church leader is to look first at his moral qualities. Is he generous to those in need? Is he gentle toward those who are weaker than himself? Is he patient toward those less intelligent than himself? Is he a loyal and faithful friend? Of course, there are many people who are generous, gentle, patient, and loyal, and yet who are not called to be leaders. Second, look at his spiritual qualities. Does he pray regularly and diligently? Does he read the Scriptures with care? Does he sincerely try to hear God's will and obey it? Of course, there are many people who truly love, God and yet are not called to be leaders. There is, however, one quality--or rather a combintation of two qualities--which marks out the true Church leader. Is he humble about his own abilities, and at the same time can he discern the abilities of others? The most basic task of the Church leader is to discern the spiritual gifts of all those under his authority, and to encourage those gifts to be used to the full for the benefit of all. Only a person who can discern the gifts of others and can humbly rejoice at the flowering of those gifts is fit to leader the Church.

From On Living Simply: The Golden Voice of John Chrysostom compiled by Robert Van de Weyer, pp. 44-46.

Sophia

Yes, the growth of the Eastern Catholic Church has been / would be a good thing.

Carson,

St. Paul required a little more than leadership of the church leaders. One of his requirements, as a matter of fact, was holiness. Another was that they embrace and teach the full doctrine of the church. He had very harsh words for any who did not live up to his standards, calling even their good works an abomination.

I, myself, am a lowly sinner who has no ground to reprove any the way St. Paul (and presumably Titus upon his instruction) did, but I am sure that there are those in positions of authority who are living lives of holiness mirroring St. Paul who are in a position to do so if it ever becomes necessary.

A good leader then would do what he could to help the Church grow. I would hope that he also be holy.

CDL

I believe the focus of that statement is backwards. A holy man would do what he could to help the church grow. I would hope that he also be a good leader.

Wondering,

I'm thankful for your reminders but this is not what I'm talking about. If holiness is required for leadership in the Church then the Church would simply have ceased to exist a long long time ago.

Yet, if as you say, "A holy man would do what he could to help the church grow." Why are we not only not growing but are shrinking?

CDL

Are you implying the church is sometimes led by midgets? Inquiring minds want to know.