St. Peter’s Dome. / dade72 via Shutterstock.
Vatican City, Feb 16, 2022 / 06:30 am (CNA).
In his 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium, Pope Francis expressed his desire to see a “healthy decentralization” in the Catholic Church. He used the term again in his latest amendments to the canon law of both the Latin and Eastern Churches, issued on Tuesday.
The changes were contained in the motu proprio Assegnare alcune competenze (“Assigning some competencies”). A motu proprio is a document issued by the pope “on his own impulse” and not at the request of an office of the Roman Curia. It is through this means that the pope is seeking to achieve decentralization. (There are currently 49 documents listed in the section of the Vatican website dedicated to Pope Francis’ motu proprios.)
In practice, the pope has imposed decentralization by centralizing decisions upon himself, without involving the Roman Curia — not even making use of the advice of local bishops, who are the chief recipients of the measures.
Formally, consultation takes place through the Council of Cardinals, established by Pope Francis at the beginning of the pontificate precisely to help him in the governance of the Church and to outline a general reform of the Curia.
Yet the pope has made almost all decisions outside the Council of Cardinals and not as part of the work of the council itself. The apostolic constitution reforming the Curia has still not been published after years of discussion. But Pope Francis indicated that it had been finalized in an interview last September.
The pope’s recent changes to canon law are more decisive than the Curia reform. Following recent custom, the title of the latest motu proprio is in Italian, not Latin, and it aims to transfer some powers of the Apostolic See to bishops.
This transfer is signaled by replacing the word “approval” with “confirmation” in specific sections of the Code of Canon Law. Bishops now can approve the publication of catechisms, the creation of a seminary in their territory, and guidelines for priestly formation, which can be adapted to the pastoral needs of each region. These decisions now only need confirmation from the Apostolic See.
Furthermore, the pope allows priests to be incardinated in a particular Church or religious institute and a “public clerical association” recognized by the Holy See. The exclaustration of religious men and women — the possibility of allowing a religious to live outside their institute for serious reasons — has been extended from three to five years.
Bishop Marco Mellino, secretary of the Council of Cardinals, told Vatican News that there was a substantial difference between “approval” and “confirmation” by the Holy See.
“Approval is the provision by which a higher authority (in this case, the Holy See), having examined the legitimacy and appropriateness of an act of lower authority, allows its execution,” he said.
“On the other hand, confirmation is the simple ratification of the higher authority, which gives the provision of the lower authority greater authority.”
“From this, it is clear that approval, compared to confirmation, involves a greater commitment and involvement of the higher authority. Therefore, it is clear that moving from requesting approval to requesting confirmation is not just a terminological change, but a substantial one, which moves precisely in the direction of decentralization.”
In 2017, Pope Francis published the motu proprio Magnum principium, which established that translations of liturgical texts approved by national episcopal conferences should no longer be subject to revision by the Apostolic See, which would in future only confirm them.
At the time, Cardinal Robert Sarah, then prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, drew up a note on the subject, which interpreted the new legislation in a restrictive sense, underlining that this “did not in any way modify the responsibility of the Holy See, nor its competences concerning liturgical translations.”
But recognition and confirmation, Pope Francis replied in a letter, could not be put on the same level, and indeed Magnum principium “no longer maintains that translations must conform in all points to the norms of Liturgiam authenticam [the 2001 document establishing criteria for translations] as it was done in the past.”
The pope added that episcopal conferences could now judge the goodness and consistency of translations from Latin, albeit in dialogue with the Holy See. Previously, it was the dicastery that judged fidelity to Latin and proposed any necessary corrections.
This interpretative note from Pope Francis must also be applied to the latest motu proprio, although some questions remain open.
Much will depend on how the Vatican decides to apply its faculty of confirmation: whether it will choose simply to confirm decisions or, instead, enter more directly into the questions, offering various observations.
At the same time, bishops’ conferences will lose the guarantee of communion in decisions with the Apostolic See. They are more autonomous in some choices but always subject to confirmation from the Holy See. They are empowered but somehow under guardianship.
By favoring decentralization, Pope Francis wants to overcome the impasses that he experienced as a bishop in Argentina, also overcoming the perception that Rome is too restrictive and does not appreciate the sensitivities of local Churches.
On the other hand, a centralized law guarantees justice, balance, and harmoniousness. The risk of losing this harmony is always around the corner.
This point also arose when Pope Francis changed the procedures for matrimonial nullity. Even then, he had somehow forced the bishops to take up their responsibilities.
A year after the promulgation of the documents Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et misericors Iesus, the pope gave a speech to the Roman Rota in which he stressed that the streamlined nullity process could not be entrusted to an interdiocesan court because this would distort “the figure of the bishop, father, head, and judge of his faithful,” making him “a mere signer of the sentence.”
This decision created difficulties for bishops in areas where interdiocesan courts largely functioned well, as in Italy. It was, therefore, no coincidence that Pope Francis, with yet another motu proprio, established a pontifical commission last November to ensure that the changes were applied in Italy.
The commission was established directly in the Roman Rota court, indicating that Pope Francis takes decisions that favor the autonomy of local Churches. But paradoxically, he does so by centralizing everything in his hands.
This is the modus operandi with which Pope Francis aims to unhinge an existing system to create a new one. The key to understanding this modus operandi is the phrase “good, soft violence” that he used to describe reforms in an address to members of the Vatican’s communication department in 2017.
At the end of this process, the bishops will be more autonomous, but also more alone. Without a harmonizing guide, there is a risk that each particular Church will adapt decisions to its own territory and create new doctrinal guidelines.
Who guarantees, in the end, that there will not be a repeat of the “Dutch Catechism” episode? In 1966, the bishops of the Netherlands authorized the publication of “A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults.” The text was so controversial that Pope Paul VI asked a commission of cardinals to examine its presentation of Catholic teaching. Later, Pope John Paul II called a special assembly of the Synod of Bishops to discuss the issues raised by the episode.
And who guarantees now that the controversial texts produced by the “Synodal Way” in Germany will not be included in the training of priests by local episcopal conferences?
These questions remain open.
If the Holy See approaches the process of “confirmation” in harsh terms, then nothing will have changed. If it takes a more relaxed approach, there is the risk that there will be radical differences between particular Churches. The Catholic Church might then resemble a federation of bishops’ conferences, with similar powers and substantial differences — no longer unity in diversity, but rather variety reconciled by joint administrative management.
How the new rules are applied will show us whether this is the future that awaits the Church.
[…]
It’s that kind of thinking that holds up abortionists and atheists and other secularists as exemplars and puts them on Vatican committees.
Yup. And there’s more to come. Bet on it.
Some of the “greatest Jews I know” are people who don’t actually have a faith system…. .
Some of the “greatest muslims I know” are people who don’t actually have a faith system… .
Can you imagine a cleric of any other religion saying something as ridiculous as Cupich’s statement?
self-examination is fine, and humility to admit that we fall short in some areas compared to others who aren’t in the pews every week is part of improvement, but there is more going on here. This piling on of the “Christians are proud hypocrites” message from every where is not helpful, disheartening and only comforts and bolsters people of lesser character.
Dear Cardinal,
Applying a specific case to the general case is always an error – – statistic 101. That given, what is your point? That there are sinners among Christians? That there are kind people of no faith? What would you have faithful Catholics do differently given this keen insight?
Faithful Catholics incorporate those virtues as well as receiving the privileged Catholic graces. A lot of you seem to need to meditate on Jesus’ description of the Judgment of the Sheep and the Goats, and the parable of the Good Samaritan. Then, there is the faith of some individual pagans, whom Jesus hlds up as exemplars.
The theological virtues seem to form a continuum. You can’t have faith, hope or charity, without having pretty much the whole package. And what is notable in Cardinal Cupich’s perspective, and also Mr Peters when he speaks of his father, is that they don’t allude to just being ‘nice’, but to the much more primordial theological virtues – which might well form the disposition of potentially ready converts to the faith.
It seems to me that Mr Peters does understand the issue, but makes a further point. It does no harm for people to focus on different concerns. In this case, surely, Cardinal Cupich’s is the least acknowledged by Catholics – certainly judging from this thread – although Mr Peter’s point seems a curious analogue of the Prodigal Son’s stolidly virtuous brother ; the bedrock truth that gives meaning to the other truth, however elliptically. We Catholics need to understand both. There are plenty of bad Catholics, as observant as you like.
Another dim light in the poorly lit firmament of the modern church!
Amen.
C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is anachronistic, troubling, insensitive, to many today. Lewis said that when we make words mean whatever we want them to mean, what results is incoherence, nothing means anything. At the onset of MC, Lewis defined Christianity as a Platonist or Stoic would define Platonism or Stoicism, and proceeded from there. He admitted bad professing Christians and generous non-Christians, but he stayed true to the meaning of words.
Nice post.
What Cupich means is that Christianity is obsolete and unnecessary in today’s world. What he means is that people don’t need Christ. What he means is that people are naturally good, and don’t need no stinkin church. What he means is that we should burn down all churches, and simply adopt the practices of moralistic humanism, because being a Christian does not matter in today’s world. What Cupich means is that he really wants to be Bishop of a new church, a church we will sing into being.
Not just that, but that to truly move on to the next step in our evolution as the wonderful glorious models of goodness that we are meant to become, we must move beyond the limited confines of Faith, hope and charity of Christianity and embrace the new world religion of tolerance, inclusion and diversity.
Cupich seems to have gone off the rails lately with a number of his assertions. Looking for the praise of men on the wide road?
What a brilliant choice on the part of Pope who am I to judge, making him a Cardinal, putting at the head of Diocese of Chicago and giving him a vote for the next pope.
Serious listeners might observe that the Cardinal’s remarks could be understood as referring to himself – given some of the explicit DISBELIEFS that he publicly promotes.
Perfect.
Words tell us much about the speaker no matter the subject.
Sort of like when the words ‘coprophagia’ and ‘coprophilia’ are used by the Vicar of Christ.
“Some of the greatest christians never read the bible and have never heard of the bible.”
“Some of the greatest christians have never heard of Christ.
“Some of the greatest christians have never gone into a church.”
“Some of the greatest christians don’t understand what sin is.”
“Some of the greatest christians have no belief in the afterlife or the immortality of the soul.”
Wow. That was freeing!
“some of the greatest Christians are living in sinful relationships”
“some of the greatest Christians are pro-choice”
“some of the greatest Christians worked for the Hillary campaign”
“Glory to God in the Highest and on earth people of good will…” Also, Pope Francis commented on atheist’s in harmony with Holy Fathers and our history, “but will progress toward that knowledge of God by doing good – is ancient. The Church wants all men and women to be saved.” http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
Dear Donald,
Thank you for the link. Certainly God wants all humanity to return to Him, that is why He created us. That said, it is through faith in Jesus that we are saved. Doing good (that can mean a lot of things) is a start in proving our faith as St. James exhorts, but good works in themselves can become an ego satisfier alone if not offered to God as a service to HIM. Let us not forget about picking up our cross (stop our selfish sinning) and following Jesus who gave us a perfect example. Unfortunately for our Pope, those he has elevated to represent him do him no favors!
God bless,
tom
Christ sets up a banquet in heaven which includes DOCA immigrants. How many of my friends and family wouldn’t be invited, because they can’t be trusted to be civil? Many of course would be very invited. But the road is narrow. There are many non-Christians, Protestants, and Catholics that will be like the Criminal hanging next to Christ, “today you will see paradise”; you’re invited to the banquet. But there are many that pray the rosary every day that will not get an invite, not because God is mean, but God sees our hearts. Can we be trusted? It really isn’t a confusing time when all the Bishops and leaders of our church speak out in opposition to DOCA yet none of the Catholics give a hoot about what they think. (As a disclaimer: I do not worship government but it is important and I oppose moral relativism and communism).
The bishops have so cheapened themselves by jumping on every feel-good, touchy-feely PC bandwagon that comes along that yes – no one takes them seriously anymore. (it would help if they did their real jobs once in a while though)
Earlier this week they condemned inequality. Yawn.
Yes, I agree with you!
Christ sets up a banquet in heaven for DACA immigrants? They’re not even dead yet! Does he set one up for Trump supporters as well? Who are you, that tells us who will be seated at the banquet and who will not be seated? Are you Jesus’ right hand man? I see that you are assigning seats at the table based on political positions. Nice one.
A beautiful post, if I may say so, Tim.
Cupich simply likes to sow confusion, in matters of faith and morality — specifically sexual morality — as in all things Catholic. He should remember that in doing so he follows a being who’s very name means “the one who confuses” in Holy Scripture.
He likes to be liked (by the world)
Unfortunately for Chicago their Bishop is fond of saying ridiculous things, as if someone who does not believe in Christ Jesus as the Son of God could be the greatest Christian. I’ll expect that he considers Jehovah Witnesses Christian, even though they deny His Divinity, for that matter, even Muslims can be called Christians, after all they consider Jesus a prophet. I have to suspect Cupich has no idea how to be a true Christian, which is why he reminds me of Cushing, Bishop of Boston 60 years ago, who was also famous for saying nonsense, and more infamous for allowing abusive priest to prey on his flock. Those advanced in the hierarchy by Pope Francis scare me!
Let’s be honest, the main reason the cardinal said this is to shame the practicing (orthodox) Catholics he does not like and to ingratiate himself with those he does. There is nothing unifying in his declaration. Unfortunately by trashing those he despises, he also trashed all the saints whom he should surely “know”. Some of the greatest bishops I know are the ones who don’t grandstand.
It is a tautology to state that people with no belief system are not Christians. That is because to be a Christian, one must believe in Jesus Christ. Conversely, one who does not believe in Jesus Christ is, by definition, not a Christian.
Sure, there non-Christians who are nicer, more charitable, more merciful, and/or more just than some Christians, but that does not make them Christians. Does the Church admit the possibility that such a person can be saved? Yes, the Church admits that it is a possibility, but the Church does not say that they will be saved or even that it is likely. Such a person must be invincibly ignorant of the Gospel through no fault of their own. “No fault” is a pretty high standard. Nice people who affirmatively refuse to worship God will not be saved.
If the Cardinal was trying to make a point he should have said that there are many non-Christians who seem to act in a more Christ-like manner that some Christians. That statement would be indisputable. But I am afraid he may be one of the many who have stretched the Church’s reformulation of the doctrine “No Salvation Outside the Church” to an extreme (and absurd) end.
Cdl. Cupich is one of the greatest non-Catholics I know of in the College of Cardinals.
I’m going to start praying that people like this cardinal are struck mute and can’t speak their idiocy and nonsense.
M.V. something along these lines?
Prayer For The Silence of A Pope/Bishop.
Dear loving and merciful Father,
We pray for your Son’s earthly guardian
of the deposit of faith.
Grant to your humble servant N. __________
that he may reserve and decline both speech and writing so as to safeguard your tradition that you so lovingly have bestowed on us for thousands years.
May you grant our Vicar the peace and courage needed for earthly solitude and contemplation.
Eternal and loving giver of all that is good, we beseech thee, to guide Him in his duties in living the gospel without words.
We ask this thru Christ Our Lord.
Amen.
Lol !!!!!
I feel what is missing here is the context to which Cdl Cupich spoke. This may offer more direction. Still, I enjoyed and appreciated the article.
Mahoney 2.0?