Donatism and Roland Burris

Stanley Fish wrote an interesting piece of his NYTimes Blog about the application of the theological heresy known as Donatism to the Roland Burris situation.

Burris, as you probably know, was appointed to the U.S. Senate by a state Governor accused of corruption. The argument of many against accepting the Governor's appointment is that his malfeasance "taints" Burris' appointment. The question then becomes, to what degree is the validity of any official act of office dependent upon the purity of the person performing it. In other words, if we accept that Burris' appointment is "tainted" by the Governor's alleged misconduct, are the actions of other disgraced officials also up for review?

This last question is not new. It was debated in the 4th and 5th centuries in the context of what is known as the Donatist controversy. This debate was about the status of churchmen who had cooperated with the emperor Diocletian during the period when he was actively persecuting Christians. The Donatists argued that those who had betrayed their faith under pressure and then returned to the fold when the persecutions were over had lost the authority to perform their priestly offices, including the offices of administering the sacraments and making ecclesiastical appointments. In their view, priestly authority was a function of personal virtue, and when a new bishop was consecrated by someone they considered tainted, they rejected him and consecrated another. (source)

Donatism has always fascinated me. It's one of those heresies that keeps manifesting in subtle forms despite the Gospel. To be clear: sacraments are the work of God and do not depend on a priest's purity to be effectual. If they did, we'd all be in trouble! But God's forgiving and bountiful grace is sufficient to make up for any lack that me or my brother/sister priests may have! That's not to say that the ethics of priests are irrelevant, only that the "taint" of sin is not perpetuated upon the sheep!

One of the philosophical consequences of this contra-Donatist position put forth by St. Augustine is that a certain insulation is introduced between the person and the office they hold. In other words, some actions derive their authority from the office rather that the merit of the person filling it. This is counter-cultural right now, where increasingly people are motivated by the chrism of the officer rather than their relationship to the office. The modern shift is towards privileging relationship over contract.

Another problematic aspect of this understanding is that it emphasizes the duality of official leadership. For instance, when in the 16th century when lawyers for the English Crown argued that the “The king has in him two bodies, a body natural and a body politic.” His body natural is “subject to all infirmities that come by nature,” but his body politic does not have a bodily and imperfect form; rather it consists of “policy and government” that has been “constituted for the direction of the people” (source). This duality can create understandable confusion!

The real question to resolve, as Fish points out, is what kind of framework of judgment ought to be applied in the Burris case.

The legitimacy of an appointment can be either a procedural or a moral matter. If it is a procedural matter, authority is conferred by the right credentials, and that’s that. If it is a moral matter – only the good can be truly authoritative (this was John Milton’s position) – authority is always precarious, and the structures of government and law are always in danger of being dissolved.

The (perhaps paradoxical) truth is that while governing has or should have a moral purpose — to safeguard and advance the health and prosperity of the polity — it is not a moral practice. That is, one engages in it not by applying moral principles but by applying legal principles. Senator Reid and his colleagues in the Democratic party seem finally to have figured that out, which is why, in the absence of any more bombshell revelations, Roland Burris will be seated as the junior senator from Illinois. (source)

See, knowledge of the Church Fathers and the early controversies of the church does have practical value!

-t