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.
[…]
May God bless Fr. Weinandy.
They hadn’t the courage to fire him. Similar to Pilate washing his hands. What’s disheartening is what it says about the USCCB. They unlike Churchill say, “We will always surrender”. Darkness pervades. Catholics faithful to the Gospel of Christ firmly rooted in the Apostolic Tradition are mocked, disdained, forced to resign, fired like Josef Seifert by other Catholics who have sworn allegiance to the new gospel. Whether these are End Times is unknown. Prayerfully a passing phase soon to be corrected. Yet it certainly is unprecedented. Unlike previous Pontiff’s who erred this distancing from Apostolic Tradition is too sweeping. Can this be permitted by God and why asks Fr Weinandy. As do most of us. Sin and disobedience to Christ’s commandments. Apostasy. As a priest I cannot repudiate the Gospels for something other than what the Apostles handed down to me. At judgment I, all priests [Bishops and Cardinals included] will be asked “Peter, did you feed my Lambs”. My hopeful prayer is, “Yes Lord, I fed them good food. Your words”.
Is Weinandy seriously a Theologian and still acts thinking he can lay conditions on God to prove to him that he should proceed as planned.?? Come off it! The management of the Church and indeed the planet Earth rests solely in evolution and in the hands of humanity protected by oversight of the Spirit of God.
“The management of the Church and indeed the planet Earth rests solely in evolution…”
Do you really want to keep this up? It’s embarrassing.
Signor Olson. We’re all due for a bit of comic relief.
ditto!
I agree with Carl that this comment is truly embarassing.
I hope comment is made about some authors’ use of the word “dissent.” It is VERY misleading and slanderous against Father Weinandy.
Yes, Father Weinandy is courageously opposing dissenters in the highest places. Who among us could ever imagine that we would experience this persecution of the Faith in our lifetime, when it seems like yesterday, that it was honored by all? Who could have believed that the most vigorous persecution would come from the pope and his team of unprincipled (as though they were not Christian) revolutionaries?
Today, those who vowed to preserve and defend our Faith, dishonor it in word and deed, while bowing low before all kinds of false beliefs.
Sometimes the shock and terror are overwhelming. I must remind myself constantly that this has been known from the beginning. Our Lord Jesus Christ says: Fear not!
I should abandon my bad inclination, and I should trust and obey Him.
Given the extraordinarily rapid timeline, with publication of the letter and publication of the USCCB press releases only six hours apart, it appears that the member bishops did not hold a meeting, make sure they had a quorum, and hold a vote. It appears that one or more post-Catholic ordained bureaucrats made this decision, which may go down in history as the “jumping of the shark” by the USCCB.
A pope who will not clarify his own exhortation, either in private or public. This pope who is on the brink of formal heresy while claiming to be “a faithful son of the Church”.
Fr. Martin weighs in????
How long, Lord?
I’m curious, why did he not just let them fire him? This is not a criticism, but what advantage to him if he “resigns” than if he is “fired”? Is there something in the vow of obedience? Although if he were to have been fired, it may well have raised his standing even more? I imagine Father did not fully anticipate the fallout of his letter.
These folks also don’t seem to realize that this infers Francis is proposing new teaching, for what else would require a new/current act of assent, as though Weinandy would have withdrawn his previous assent from the perennial teaching?
I am a lay Catholic. I do not agree with what Father Weinandy did: I disagree with both the content of the letter and the way he made it public. I am only weighing in on this because Father Weinandy emphasized that he received many letters and emails, mostly from lay people, all of them positive. I support Pope Francis and thought the letter read like an attack on him. The USCCB was right to force Weinandy’s resignation (they could have just terminated him; it was very gracious of them to allow him to resign).
Irene,
You present a false notion: that Fr. Weinandy is “anti-Francis” and this was the reason for his letter. This is unfortunately a way people are trying to discount it and if you think about it, this mode is exactly what they are accusing him of. It was quite the opposite if you read his reasons for it. The ultimate point is whether what he states in the letter is true and that even what one might call the more subjective parts are his actual experience as a priest, hearing from what he says is “many” people. Exactly what in his letter is false? Can you say without any doubt that none of what he mentions is happening anywhere? Are you saying he is lying when he speaks of his personal experience? If you can’t rule this out then the foundation of his letter stands.
Oh, yes, very gracious… So Fr. Martin now calls himself “Irene” ?
So where is the “mercy and dialogue” that Pope Francis and bishops keeps talking about? Did I miss something here?
There is “mercy and dialogue” for the LGBTQ people, so-called “catholic” politicians or pro-aborts or atheists but none whatsoever for the catholic theologian who embraces and preaches the Gospel?!!
Remember when St. Paul rebuked Peter (the first pope) in Galatians 2:11-13
In John 16:2 Jesus said “They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour* is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God.
They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me”.
Rejoice Fr. Weinandy!! You are truly blessed for being found worthy!
Jesus will bless you greatly!
I fully agree, Fr. Weinandy is our hero. I hope he will honor us by becoming a Member of our newly founded John Paul II Academy for Human Life & the Family!
Mercedes Arzú Wilson.
What I would like to know is: did anyone at USCCB get a phone call from the Vatican before “encouraging” Father Weinandy to resign?
Yes. May God bless Fr. Weinandy. He is a good and faithful servant of the Lord.
If Fr. Weinandy had come out in support of Planned Parenthood, he would still be judged employable by the USCCB.
I would love to know, on what date was Father Weinandy ‘s letter published and on what forum?
Thank you for a reply,
Teréz Barna
Fr. Weinandy’s letter appeared on November 1st, and was published by various outlets, including on Sandro Magister’s site, CRUX, and The Catholic Herald. It also appeared here at CWR on the same day, with a note of explanation by Fr. Weinandy.