Fr. Sebastian James, SJ
Why Church-run institutions must recover a practice rooted in Scripture and their own traditions
At a closed-door meeting of major superiors, a familiar lament was heard: “What are we to do? We cannot find the right person.” The words are usually spoken quietly, yet the pattern is plainly visible: one individual accumulates several responsibilities, while many others are never entrusted with meaningful authority. Leaders may sincerely believe that only this person can succeed. In doing so, however, they risk the health of both the individual and the institutions entrusted to that person. The damage is rarely dramatic or immediate. More often, it appears as a sustained and steady decline—delayed decisions, exhausted leaders, suppressed initiative, unformed successors and institutions increasingly dependent upon one individual. How can the Church escape this cycle? The answer lies within her own tradition. Scripture, Canon Law, Ignatius and Don Bosco offer models of shared responsibility and accountable delegation. Interestingly, many successful business leaders have prospered by putting similar principles into practice.
Jethro to Canon Law
Jethro sees Moses judging every dispute personally and warns that both leader and people will wear themselves out. Moses should retain the gravest matters while entrusting ordinary cases to capable and trustworthy persons (Exodus 18:13-26). Delegation is not escape but wise organization of responsibility.
Jesus also formed disciples by entrusting mission to them. He sent the Twelve, and later the Seventy-Two, with authority to preach, heal and act in his name (Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-20). He did not wait until they were flawless. He instructed them, sent them, received them back and helped them interpret their experience. Delegation became formation.
Acts 6 offers an institutional example. When the distribution to widows created conflict, the community selected seven reputable men “filled with the Spirit and wisdom,” whom the apostles appointed. This protected the apostles’ ministry of the Word while ensuring that a neglected need received competent attention. Mission expanded because responsibility was shared.[1]
By the later patristic period, the undivided Church had developed five patriarchal sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. They were not competing Churches, but regional centres united in faith and mission. The arrangement developed gradually, especially through the councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451). It shows that ecclesial unity did not require every matter to pass through one administrative centre. The same Gospel was proclaimed across cultures, with local responsibility exercised within universal communion.[9]
Canon Law distinguishes ordinary power, attached to an office, from delegated power, granted to a person. It permits executive power to be delegated for a particular act or a range of cases, while defining its limits, proof and termination. Canon 138 presumes that a delegate receives what is necessary to exercise the entrusted power.[2] Responsibility without adequate authority is therefore not sound delegation even by the logic of the Church’s own law.
The Church itself depends upon differentiated offices and participation: bishops, vicars, parish priests, religious superiors, councils and lay collaborators. Authority remains well-organized without being concentrated in one pair of hands. Communion is not uniformity, nor accountability micromanagement.
Ignatius and Don Bosco
The Society of Jesus expanded across continents during Ignatius’s lifetime. Such a body could not have been governed by requiring every local decision to be made in Rome. The Jesuit Constitutions certainly preserve the authority of the Superior General, but they also provide provincials, rectors, local superiors, assistants and officials with real functions.
Part IX states that provincial and local superiors, rectors and other commissioners possess that portion of the General’s authority which he communicates to them. More strikingly, it says that the General needs good helpers and lower superiors, chosen men to whom he can give “considerable authority” and ordinarily refer particular matters. Provincials, in turn, deal with rectors and local superiors. Authority is accompanied by reporting: the General may require an account, review administration and alter the scope of authority when necessary.[3]
This is neither absolute centralisation nor unexamined independence. It is delegated authority held within communication, review and a common mission. Ignatius understood a fact that institutions sometimes forget. If every capable subordinate must repeatedly seek permission for ordinary work, the superior has appointed an assistant in name but not entrusted a leader in reality.
The Salesian tradition shows a similar instinct. Don Bosco gathered not merely employees but collaborators around a mission for the young. The Salesian Constitutions organise responsibility through the Rector Major and his council, provincials and provincial councils, rectors and local councils. The provincial exercises authority over a province; the provincial council assists in its animation and government; the rector animates the local community; and the local council participates in governing its life and mission.[4]
This distribution reflects the Salesian emphasis on community, animation and co-responsibility. Later Salesian guidance also stresses collaboration between Salesians and lay partners and asks that the authority of rectors, directors, principals and other responsible persons be clearly defined.[5] A work bearing Don Bosco’s name should not depend upon one individual doing everything. Its vitality should arise from a community in which persons know their responsibilities and are trusted to fulfil them.
Bezos and Ignatius: four principles for timely decisions
Jeff Bezos’s in his letter to the shareholders on 17th April 2017 gives four principles of high-velocity decision-making resemble Ignatian wisdom.[7]
First, do not use one process for every decision. Bezos distinguishes irreversible “one-way doors” from reversible “two-way doors,” which need a lighter process. Ignatius likewise reserved grave matters while giving local superiors considerable authority. The Constitutions require attention to persons, places, times and circumstances. Unity did not mean uniform control.
Second, act without waiting for perfect information. Bezos suggests deciding with about seventy per cent of the desired information, provided errors are recognised and corrected quickly. Ignatius proposed no percentage, but governed similarly: he gathered reports, entrusted decisions, reviewed their fruits and could alter delegated authority. Discernment seeks sufficient light, not impossible certainty.
Third, “disagree and commit.” When an Amazon Studios team favoured a production Bezos doubted, he stated his objections but supported its decision. The Jesuit Constitutions similarly tell a collateral adviser to speak with “Christian freedom and modesty.” The superior should invite candour; once heard, the adviser cooperates unless serious error requires further representation.[3] Consultation requires safe disagreement; delegation requires supporting a responsible decision different from one’s own.
Fourth, escalate true misalignment early. Bezos warns that opposed objectives are not reconciled by endless meetings; without escalation, exhaustion decides. Ignatius created a clear chain among rector, provincial and General so problems exceeding local authority could move upward without paralysing ordinary work. Escalation can protect mission from personal conflict.
The success of “Amazon Prime” also illustrates proactivity: customers did not request it, but embraced it once offered. Tata’s independently governed companies and BYD’s specialised fields similarly combine common purpose with entrusted competence.[6][8] These companies are not ecclesial models in every respect. Yet they have operationalised a principle the Church possessed earlier.
Where Church institutions lose efficiency
The problem is not universal, and it would be unjust to portray every Church leader as controlling. Nevertheless, familiar patterns recur: titles without decision-making power; committees that cannot decide; routine matters requiring distant approval; principals responsible for results but lacking authority; and lay collaborators/Parishners carrying work while excluded from planning.
Delegation can also be abused when a task is assigned without authority or resources, or when oversight is abandoned and the delegate later blamed. Genuine delegation requires the superior to choose the person, define the mandate, provide resources and review progress; the delegate answers for results within agreed limits.
Delegation makes corporate responsibility efficient
Delegation does not dissolve corporate responsibility. A diocese, congregation, society, trust or governing body remains answerable for mission, compliance, finances, safety and safeguarding. Responsibility becomes efficient when competent persons close to the work can decide while the governing authority retains oversight.
This requires a written framework stating reserved matters, entrusted powers, financial limits, reporting duties, review and escalation. Corporate responsibility then becomes visible and auditable rather than remaining in a superior’s memory. Authority moves closer to the problem while accountability remains connected to the common mission.
Recovering an ecclesial practice proactively
Every Church institution should distinguish decisions that are reserved, require consultation or can be delegated. Each mandate should state the expected outcome, authority, limits, escalation point and method of review. Leaders must allow responsible persons to act differently. If every step is dictated then work is assigned, and authority not delegated. Honest mistakes should become occasions for correction and formation, not reasons to seize back every decision.
The Church need not envy successful corporations. They have made operational a model that the Church taught centuries earlier. The task is not imitation but recovery. If Church-run schools, colleges, hospitals and social institutions are to remain visible, credible and effective, they must act proactively. It must define authority in writing, entrust competent religious and lay collaborators with real decisions, establish clear limits and reporting, and form future leaders before vacancies arise.
Delegation can itself become a witness. A school that responds promptly, a hospital that empowers professionals, or a social centre that acts without needless delay makes the Church’s mission visible in daily life. Delegation does not weaken ecclesial authority; it extends its service. A leader who entrusts, accompanies and holds others accountable builds people, strengthens institutions and carries the mission beyond any one’s tenure.
Notes
1. Exodus 18:13-26; Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-20; Acts 6:1-7.
2. Code of Canon Law, canons 131-142, especially 137-138.
3. Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, Part VIII, nos. 660-661; Part IX, nos. 740-742, 745, 757-760 and 790-804.
4. Constitutions of the Society of St Francis de Sales, arts. 121-124, 161-181.
5. The Salesian Rector: Animating and Governing the Community (2020), section on the rector and the shared Salesian mission.
6. Tata Sons, “Governance Philosophy.”
7. Jeff Bezos, 2016 shareholder letter, “High-Velocity Decision Making”; Amazon, Leadership Principles.
8. BYD, company profile and innovation reports.
9. Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church (Chieti, 2016), nos. 15-16.