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.
[…]
You miss the point completely. This is 2017 and 4 years into Pope Francis. We don’t change doctrine. We just rationalize around it.
You can keep your marriage is indissoluble doctrine and get divorced & remarried at the same time. I am certain that you can then keep your contraception is evil and practice contraception at the same time. Especially with Pope Whom am I to judge presiding over the commission.
Pat is correct. We have entered AliceInWonderland theology. Words mean what I say they mean. All is fog. But the fog has a purpose for the fog creators.
Something wicked this way comes.
I dare Catholic World Report to print my message especially since it disagrees with CWR’s editorial position:
I left the Catholic Church because of Pope Francis and Vatican II.
The RCC is a shell of its former self and will NEVER be what it was prior to the papacy of John XXIII.
Fortunately, “Alice in Wonderland” confirms both reason and arguably even natural law.
“Alice waited a minute to see if he would speak again, but as he never opened his eyes or took any further notice of her, she said `Good-bye!’ once more, and, getting no answer to this, she quietly walked away: but she couldn’t help saying to herself as she went, `Of all the unsatisfactory — ‘ (she repeated this aloud, as it was a great comfort have such a long word to say) `of all the unsatisfactory people I ever met — ‘ She never finished the sentence, for at this moment a heavy crash shook the forest from end to end.”
Alice in Wonderland, ch 6.
Humpty Dumpty, even if a hierarch of the Church, ultimately takes a great fall and cannot be put back together again.
Whilst I accept HV in practice, it’s always struck me that it was an inappropriate type of document for the issue to hand. Paul 6, once he had begun down the path of writing it, derived the only permissible conclusions but I wonder whether the effect of this has been to reduce the issue as s personal, pastoral one. A sort of subsidiarity of theology, I suppose. Priests no longer have to speak of it, neither from the pulpit or in private, nor even in confession I suspect because HV is there. I suspect Pope mat speak on this, as per divorce/ remarriage- discernment and solidarity thereby enabling hiv people access to marital intimacy, for example.
According to the clear and defined teaching of the Council of Trent, priests are supposed to help penitents to confess all serious or mortal sins since the previous confession, including the number of times and circumstances which could influence the seriousness of the sin.
Oh too bad you didn’t win but as a token of our appreciation enjoy the board game version of Liberal Catholic Theologian to take home with you. Is it a sin? Or isn’t it? You get to decide! You put yourself in place of Jesus and get to make up the ‘rules’! But watch out…..those pesky rigid orthodox Catholics will have Scripture and Tradition ready to thwart your every attempt to make the Church into your own political image. Have fun!
Regardless of its presentation in an encyclical, the author rightly confirms the infallibility of HV. The gravity of the pronouncement on contraception by Paul VI make it infallible. It is grave sin. An argument that developed is a distinction between objective and subjective culpability. We know fear, stress, danger can be mitigating factors regarding sin. Nonetheless sin is not absolved even if mitigated. If such a commission seeks to revise Humanae Vitae it will likely be along those lines. As was the case with former head of Knights of Malta M Festing who resigned after conflict with Pope Francis. Festing fired Grand Chancellor von Boeselager for distributing condoms in a Third World nation afflicted with HIV. The Pontiff overruled Festing and restored Boeselager. Reports were that condoms were actually distributed widely and indiscriminately including to staff working there. The use of condoms to prevent disease has been a controversial issue. Benedict XVI nonetheless supported Humanae V. Fear, stress, danger are mitigating factors that will likely be conflated to doctrine of exceptions to the rule which in practice as with communion for D&R become the new rule. Poverty may be added. As with AL and the National Bishops Conferences conscience became the lever for establishing a rule rather than exception. That seen clearly by the Maltese. Again mitigation does not remove sin. Laxity in faith and morals is what is actually diminishing the Church’s capacity to redeem and restore Mankind to a required level of dignity. Such a proposal to change Humanae Vitae only serves to further diminish redemption and restoration.
Perhaps everyone was in a coma a few years back, but Pope Francis has already gone against H.V., and for no less a noble purpose as eugenics. I lifted this from the handy Lifesight A-Z concern article posted yesterday:Pope Francis was asked about “avoiding pregnancy” in areas at risk of Zika virus transmission. “Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape,” he said. “On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil,” he added. “In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.” Asked for clarification, the Vatican confirmed that Pope Francis was approving use of contraceptives and condoms in grave cases.”
Who needs to changes Doctrine in the time of relativism, all you have to do is open a door that walks around Doctrine as in A.L.
The mention of Paul VI approving the use of contraceptives as mentioned by Pope Francis was false. There is absolutely no evidence that Paul VI ever approved that. There is some evidence of a discussion about the matter in Italy and an article in a theological review, called Studi Cattolici, I think. This is similar to how St. Thomas Aquinas and Gaudium et Spes are misquoted in AL to support something which anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the way St. Thomas reasons would realize that he could not have held what AL ascribes to him.
I am wondering if Fr. George Bergoglio was one of the signers of dissent when Humane Vitae came out? I do not know if they had such a public dissent in Argentina at the time but it would be interesting to know none the least?
Of course it really does not matter since it appears we already know how the pope thinks right?
Re. Dr. Peters’s closing comments that “before any commission or study group could move against the substance of the Church’s teaching reflected in Humanae vitae, the arguments for its infallible certainty, arguments set forth and steadily defended by Ford and Grisez, would need to be addressed and soundly rejected. Something I don’t see happening. At all.”
Perhaps I am making an obvious point, but isn’t the concern here the same as the concern with respect to Amoris Laetitia, namely that this Pope, or some future one that he emboldens, will publicly express reservations about the longstanding teachings Church or even try to change doctrine. One can quibble over the fact that Pope Francis has not publicly done so yet in either case (Communion for the “remarried” or contraception). But I think it is also material that he has created an atmosphere in which longstanding teachings are now questioned in many quarters, and not just on these two issues. And led many to wonder whether some Pope might now “soundly reject” Church teachings. I think the distinction then is (a.) a Pope attempts to soundly reject, and (b.) actually, soundly, overturns doctrine. I think many of us worry that (a) may happen at some point here. Even if we believe (b) would not happen. (Gates of hell, etc.)
I don’t think that the doctrine, even if soundly proposed by a Pope can stand. It hasn’t in the past, as the cases of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII indicate, although the latter retracted his errors on his deathbed. I cannot imagine that there will be another Jesuit or Latin American Pope for a long time if ever. That is, of course, if the Jesuit order survives, because at present it seems hell-bent on self-destruction. In the past, after a Pope who has tried to push the Church in one direction, there is a move towards the opposite direction. Most Cardinals will probably think that the Church can’t afford another Pope who is going to begin debates about settled doctrine, thus open cans of worms, and provoke division in the Church. It is also likely that many of the electors will attempt to check out the character and doctrinal orthodoxy of the ones they are willing to vote for. I imagine that many of the Cardinals who voted for Cardinal Bergoglio never thought that he would cause the problems he has caused.