It is often said that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Last fall’s shutdown of the U.S. federal government, lasting a record 43 days, makes me glad of it. Such a display of partisanship over collegiality would undermine our spirit of communion.

Take one example. Back in the 1980s, when the pastoral letter “Economic Justice for All” was being drafted by what was then called the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Congress was also crafting the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans. As an American Catholic, I was able to review various public drafts of the pastoral letter, and I had opportunities to provide input to the drafting committee. But as a citizen of the United States, I was not offered access to the tax reform drafts, nor was my opinion solicited. I felt more genuinely represented as a Catholic than as an American citizen.

The sense of community that I feel in my church is lacking in my country. If there is a 51-49 vote in the U.S. Senate, it is unlikely that any member in the majority would ask, “I wonder what 49 of my brothers and sisters disagreed with? Can we address their concerns and come to an agreement that we all can be happy with?” No; in American democracy, 51 percent is a majority, and the losers are out of luck.

That is not the case in the Catholic Church. While still in need of greater accountability and transparency, our internal debates reveal a strong desire in the church to foster a spirit of communion. This was demonstrated by the recent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ special message on immigration, which reflected consensus rather than the triumph of one faction over another.

This spirit of communion was also demonstrated 60 years ago by the remarkable degree of consensus that emerged at the Second Vatican Council. Almost 2,500 bishops from around the world gathered in Rome and approved documents with near unanimity.

The average vote for the final approval of the Council’s 16 documents was 2,241 to 32. The vote for the “Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity,” “Apostolicam Actuositatem,” was 2,305 to 2. This tally was not because the bishops arrived being of one mind. Far from it! Rather, the wide margin of acceptance was because the bishops went beyond simply drafting and approving documents. They strived to achieve consensus, to be in communion with one another, to go forward as one community. Even when there was enough support for a document to be accepted, the bishops would continue to refine the document until virtually all concerns had been addressed.

This is why, when you read something in a Vatican II document that you take issue with, you should make sure to read the paragraphs that precede and follow it. These usually address concerns that could arise and bring balance. In “Apostolicam Actuositatem,” for example, the council fathers write, “The apostolate of the laity derives from their Christian vocation and the Church can never be without it” (No. 1). This is then balanced with an appeal to the pre-Vatican II “Catholic Action” model of lay participation: “No project, however, may claim the name ‘Catholic’ unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority” (No. 24).

A consensus on papal infallibility

Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, another example of this desire to act in a spirit of communion can be seen in the First Vatican Council’s vote on the doctrine of papal infallibility. Approximately 800 bishops attended that council in 1869 and 1870, half of them representing European dioceses.

The Vatican I decree “Pastor Aeternus” declared as Roman Catholic doctrine that the pope has jurisdictional primacy over the entire church and that, under specific conditions, he is endowed by God with infallibility (freedom from error) in teaching faith and morals that God willed for the church.

There were two major factions that gathered in Rome for Vatican I, the infallibilists and the anti-infallibilists. The infallibilists made up about five-sevenths of the council and were mostly from Italy, Spain, Ireland and Latin America. The anti-infallibilists were mostly from France and Germany and also included many bishops from the United States.

If the issue was simply to declare a doctrine of papal infallibility, the work of Vatican I would have been brief. In the first vote, 451 bishops were in favor, 88 opposed and 62 conditionally in favor. But this vote took place in Rome, not the Senate in Washington. The vote highlighted the differences between the opposing factions, which could then be addressed.

The anti-infallibilists believed the pope was only infallible when he had taken the advice of the universal church. In other words, the pope was infallible only when the rest of the church agreed. At the other end of the spectrum were the extreme infallibilists. They argued that the pope was the personal trustee of the Holy Spirit and had no need for the church’s concurrence when he proclaimed an article of faith. The pope was infallible on all subjects at all times.

“Pastor Aeternus” rejected both the anti-infallibilist and extreme infallibilist positions. A consensus had been forged stating that (in the Vatican’s English-language summary):

…when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

That is, the pope’s infallibility is limited by occasion, by whether he is speaking ex cathedra, and by subject area—faith and morals.

After all the discussion, when it came time to vote, 61 bishops still opposed infallibility. They chose to write and sign a letter to that effect, which they delivered to Pius IX before leaving Rome. They also stated that they would accept the decision of the council. On July 18, 1870, “Pastor Aeternus” passed by a vote of 533 to 2. The two were Luigi Riccio of Cajazzo in Southern Italy and Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Ark. After the vote, both dissenting bishops expressed their acceptance of the council’s decision to Pius IX.

One could say that the votes at Vatican II, as well as last November’s vote at the U.S.C.C.B. on the special message regarding immigration, shows a sense of communion or collegiality among the bishops, but what about the rest of the church? To achieve such a sense of communion that unites the clergy, religious and laity is what Pope Francis had in mind with the Synod on Synodality. The church will become stronger the more his vision is implemented.

As far as our nation is concerned, the United States could learn more from the Catholic Church’s approach of striving for the common good and of rising above pettiness and factionalism to love our neighbor, regardless of whether they are “blue” or “red.”

[Read next: “Analysis: The U.S. bishops showed their unity on behalf of immigrants—and may have repaired their relationship to Rome”]

Dennis Castillo is Academic Dean and Professor of Church at Christ the King Seminary in East Aurora, New York. He currently resides in Buffalo, New York.