Pope Francis, “diaconal primacy”, and decentralization of the curia
Decentralization by no means guarantees better governance, but is much more theologically, historically, and practically defensible than the Roman centralization and personality cult of the pope we have been enduring for more than a century now.
Pope Francis speaks during his annual pre-Christmas meeting with top officials of the Roman Curia and Vatican City State and with cardinals living in Rome in the Clementine Hall Dec. 21 at the Vatican. (CNS photo/Claudio Peri pool via Reuters)
Pope Francis, in his year-end addresses to the curia, has often tended to take the tone of what the British cabinet minister Alan Clark, in his riotous political diaries, once described as a “pre-caning homily from the headmaster.” No pope within living memory has been as critical of curial sclerosis as Francis.
But this year there are some very hopeful passages alongside the more critical ones. Francis begins very broadly by talking about how “the Church of Rome would not be truly catholic without the priceless riches of the Oriental Churches and lacking the heroic testimony of so many of our Oriental brothers and sisters who purify the Church by accepting martyrdom.” He then notes that “the relationship between Rome and the East is one of mutual spiritual and liturgical enrichment.” (In February, here on CWR, I argued for some ways in which the West could be liturgically enriched by Eastern practices: “When it comes to liturgy we’re all mutually enriching mongrels.”)
As he moves from the general to the specific, Francis introduces a novel phrase he later repeats: “diaconal primacy.” This is leadership at the service of the supreme good and supreme law, which is, as he says, the salus animarum, the salvation of souls. All structures and processes in the Church must always keep this in the forefront.
Clearly Francis wants to shake those structures up if they do not serve the overall good of the Church and of Christian unity. And one such structure is that of the Roman Curia’s involvement in the appointment of bishops. On this he says we need “further study and review of the sensitive question of the election of new Bishops and Eparchs.” I wrote an essay about this in Commonweal more than a decade ago, noting that there was nothing in the teachings or theology of Vatican I or Vatican II requiring the pope to appoint bishops—a practice that was unheard of everywhere, including most of Italy itself, until late in the 19th century. It was only officially codified in the 1917 in a new canon that the historian Eamon Duffy has called a coup d’Eglise.
Certainly no Eastern Church ever had the pope attempting systematically to appoint her bishops in the first millennium, and in the third no Eastern Orthodox Church will ever submit to such a practice. In between, of course, some Eastern Catholic churches in the second millennium have indeed had the pope and his curia involved in their episcopal elections, replacing them in fact with direct papal appointment, for which there is, again, no theological justification. The pope is thus right to go on to say, “Everything should be done with the thorough application of that authentic synodal praxis which distinguishes the Oriental Churches.” That synodal practice includes the powers of legislation as well as election, and absent such a reclamation of these powers on the part of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Orthodox, as they have made plain for decades, will continue to regard Roman rapprochement with great skepticism, rightly refusing to be ruled by the one-time imperial capital whose colonizing practices continue to manifest themselves in the Church of Rome’s curia.
Let us suppose for a moment that the Eastern Catholic Churches do manage, fully and everywhere, to reclaim their rightful prerogatives of election and legislation in their synods throughout the world. (This latter phrase is key, as current Roman practice—utterly incoherent—allows them to elect bishops for their so-called historic homelands, but nowhere else. Thus, e.g., the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church can elect bishops in and for Ukraine, but her territories in North and South America, Western Europe, and Australia all have to wait for Rome to appoint someone.) Neither set of practices could happen in isolation; both would require changes on the part of Rome, probably requiring the outright abolition of the Congregation for Oriental Churches (which has often functioned as the equivalent of the British Colonial Office), and the curtailment of the right of interference from other dicasteries, including that of Bishops, as well as the Secretariat of State, whose nuncios often play a role in picking bishops.
There would, then, have to be a decentralization of the curia concomitant with the reclamation of the electoral and legislative powers of Eastern Catholic synods. Fortunately, however, Francis knows this. He has been slowly chipping away at papal centralization for nearly five years now, often in small and largely ignored ways. Consider just a few of the more considerable examples.
13 March 2013: On the loggia he notes the task of the conclave is “to give Rome a bishop,” a word he uses six times in a short speech, never once using “pope” or “pontiff” or anything else. I was especially struck that night that he quoted St. Ignatius of Antioch (albeit obliquely) and his famous observation that it is “the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches”—the entire Church, not the pope alone.
24 November 2013: In a little-noticed paragraph (no.32) in Evangelium Gaudium, which was otherwise not really focused on ecclesiological questions in the strict sense,the pope inserted this bombshell:
I too must think about a conversion of the papacy…. Pope John Paul II asked for help in finding “a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”. We have made little progress in this regard. The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion…. Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.
14 June 2014: The pope approves and orders the publication of a decree from the Oriental Congregation permitting Eastern Catholic bishops anywhere in the world to ordain married men to the priesthood. This overturned an (unjust) 1929 Vatican ruling that forbade such ordinations in North America, restricting them to the “homelands” of Eastern Catholics.
17 October 2015: In a landmark speech on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the so-called synod of bishops, set up by Pope Paul VI as a powerless and purely consultative body, the pope called for the creation of a more “synodal church,” where, he said, “it is not appropriate for the Pope to replace the local Episcopates in the discernment of all the problems that lie ahead in their territories. In this sense, I feel the need to proceed in a healthy ‘decentralization.’”
3 September 2017: The new motu proprio on liturgical translations, letting the various regions take primary responsibility for translating texts on the basis of their own indigenous linguistic expertise. These translations now only need a confirmatio from Rome rather than a line-by-line examination. This was followed up by a rather rare and therefore striking letter, dated 15 October 2017, of the pope to Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, telling him explicitly that contrary to what Sarah had said in introducing the motu proprio, the pope’s point was to decentralize matters out of Rome and back to the regions.
And that seems clearly to be in the pope’s mind as we arrive at the end of 2017. He knows that papal centralization is not traditional: it is really a very modern, very recent innovation, and not always a healthy, still less a necessary, one. It began in earnest under Pope Pius IX, and has gotten worse under every pope since then. (Already by 1910 it was getting so bad that the wonderfully eccentric English priest and scholar Adrian Fortescue, in a letter to a friend in 1910, asked acerbically: “Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian lunatic?”)
Decentralization by no means guarantees better governance—there are, of course, potential “lunatics” in the regions as much as in Rome. But nevertheless decentralization is much more theologically, historically, and practically defensible than the Roman centralization and personality cult of the pope we have been enduring for more than a century now. Those novelties are really indefensible. As a bonus—for those who think Francis the worst “lunatic” of all—at the rate he is going, he is making his office less and less important and giving greater responsibility back to others, where it belongs.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille is associate professor at the University of Saint Francis in Ft. Wayne, IN., where he also maintains a part-time private practice in psychotherapy. He is the author and editor of several books, including Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy (University of Notre Dame, 2011).
Pope Francis at the general audience in St. Peter’s Square, Oct. 5, 2016. / Credit: Daniel Ibanez/CNA
CNA Staff, Mar 13, 2024 / 12:00 pm (CNA).
March 13 marks the anniversary of the election of Pope Francis as the 266th successor of St. Peter. Here is a timeline of key events during his papacy:
2013
March 13 — About two weeks after Pope Benedict XVI steps down from the papacy, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio is elected pope. He takes the papal name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi and proclaims from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica: “Let us begin this journey, the bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another.”
March 14 — The day after he begins his pontificate, Pope Francis returns to his hotel to personally pay his hotel bill and collect his luggage.
July 8 — Pope Francis visits Italy’s island of Lampedusa and meets with a group of 50 migrants, most of whom are young men from Somalia and Eritrea. The island, which is about 200 miles off the coast of Tunisia, is a common entry point for migrants who flee parts of Africa and the Middle East to enter Europe. This is the pope’s first pastoral visit outside of Rome and sets the stage for making reaching out to the peripheries a significant focus.
Pope Francis gives the Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on Oct. 2, 2013. Elise Harris/CNA.
July 23-28 — Pope Francis visits Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to participate in World Youth Day 2013. More than 3 million people from around the world attend the event.
July 29 — On the return flight from Brazil, Pope Francis gives his first papal news conference and sparks controversy by saying “if a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” The phrase is prompted by a reporter asking the pope a question about priests who have homosexual attraction.
Nov. 24 — Pope Francis publishes his first apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). The document illustrates the pope’s vision for how to approach evangelization in the modern world.
2014
Feb. 22 — Pope Francis holds his first papal consistory to appoint 19 new cardinals, including ones from countries in the developing world that have never previously been represented in the College of Cardinals, such as Haiti.
March 22 — Pope Francis creates the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The commission works to protect the dignity of minors and vulnerable adults, such as the victims of sexual abuse.
Pope Francis greets pilgrims during his general audience on Nov. 29, 2014. Bohumil Petrik/CNA.
Oct. 5 — The Synod on the Family begins. The bishops discuss a variety of concerns, including single-parent homes, cohabitation, homosexual adoption of children, and interreligious marriages.
Dec. 6 — After facing some pushback for his efforts to reform the Roman Curia, Pope Francis discusses his opinion in an interview with La Nacion, an Argentine news outlet: “Resistance is now evident. And that is a good sign for me, getting the resistance out into the open, no stealthy mumbling when there is disagreement. It’s healthy to get things out into the open, it’s very healthy.”
2015
Jan. 18 — To conclude a trip to Asia, Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Manila, Philippines. Approximately 6 million to 7 million people attend the record-setting Mass, despite heavy rain.
March 23 — Pope Francis visits Naples, Italy, to show the Church’s commitment to helping the fight against corruption and organized crime in the city.
May 24 — To emphasize the Church’s mission to combat global warming and care for the environment, Pope Francis publishes the encyclical Laudato Si’, which urges people to take care of the environment and encourages political action to address climate problems.
Pope Francis at a Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on June 17, 2015. Bohumil Petrik.
Sept. 19-22 — Pope Francis visits Cuba and meets with Fidel Castro in the first papal visit to the country since Pope John Paul II in 1998. During his homily, Francis discusses the dignity of the human person: “Being a Christian entails promoting the dignity of our brothers and sisters, fighting for it, living for it.”
Sept. 22-27 — After departing from Cuba, Pope Francis makes his first papal visit to the United States. In Washington, D.C., he speaks to a joint session of Congress, in which he urges lawmakers to work toward promoting the common good, and canonizes the Franciscan missionary St. Junípero Serra. He also attends the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, which focuses on celebrating the gift of the family.
Pope Francis speaks to the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 24, 2015. . L’Osservatore Romano.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis begins the second Synod on the Family to address issues within the modern family, such as single-parent homes, cohabitation, poverty, and abuse.
Oct. 18 — The pope canonizes St. Louis Martin and St. Marie-Azélie “Zelie” Guérin. The married couple were parents to five nuns, including St. Therese of Lisieux. They are the first married couple to be canonized together.
Dec. 8 — Pope Francis’ Jubilee Year of Mercy begins. The year focuses on God’s mercy and forgiveness and people’s redemption from sin. The pope delegates certain priests in each diocese to be Missionaries of Mercy who have the authority to forgive sins that are usually reserved for the Holy See.
2016
March 19 — Pope Francis publishes the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which discusses a wide variety of issues facing the modern family based on discussions from the two synods on the family. The pope garners significant controversy from within the Church for comments he makes in Chapter 8 about Communion for the divorced and remarried.
April 16 — After visiting refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos, Pope Francis allows three Muslim refugee families to join him on his flight back to Rome. He says the move was not a political statement.
Pope Francis at the General Audience in St. Peter’s Square, Feb. 24, 2016. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
July 26-31 — Pope Francis visits Krakow, Poland, as part of the World Youth Day festivities. About 3 million young Catholic pilgrims from around the world attend.
Sept. 4 — The pope canonizes St. Teresa of Calcutta, who is also known as Mother Teresa. The saint, a nun from Albania, dedicated her life to missionary and charity work, primarily in India.
Sept. 30-Oct. 2 — Pope Francis visits Georgia and Azerbaijan on his 16th trip outside of Rome since the start of his papacy. His trip focuses on Catholic relations with Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to Amatrice, Italy, to pray for the victims of an earthquake in central Italy that killed nearly 300 people.
2017
May 12-13 — In another papal trip, Francis travels to Fatima, Portugal, to visit the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. May 13 marks the 100th anniversary of the first Marian apparition to three children in the city.
July 11 — Pope Francis adds another category of Christian life suitable for the consideration of sainthood: “offering of life.” The category is distinct from martyrdom, which only applies to someone who is killed for his or her faith. The new category applies to those who died prematurely through an offering of their life to God and neighbor.
Pope Francis greets a participant in the World Day of the Poor in Rome, Nov. 16, 2017. L’Osservatore Romano.
Nov. 19 — On the first-ever World Day of the Poor, Pope Francis eats lunch with 4,000 poor and people in need in Rome.
Nov. 27-Dec. 2 — In another trip to Asia, Pope Francis travels to Myanmar and Bangladesh. He visits landmarks and meets with government officials, Catholic clergy, and Buddhist monks. He also preaches the Gospel and promotes peace in the region.
2018
Jan. 15-21 — The pope takes another trip to Latin America, this time visiting Chile and Peru. The pontiff meets with government officials and members of the clergy while urging the faithful to remain close to the clergy and reject secularism. The Chilean visit leads to controversy over Chilean clergy sex abuse scandals.
Aug. 2 — The Vatican formally revises No. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which concerns the death penalty. The previous text suggested the death penalty could be permissible in certain circumstances, but the revision states that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”
Aug. 25 — Archbishop Carlo Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, publishes an 11-page letter calling for the resignation of Pope Francis and accusing him and other Vatican officials of covering up sexual abuse including allegations against former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The pope initially does not directly respond to the letter, but nine months after its publication he denies having prior knowledge about McCarrick’s conduct.
Aug. 25-26 — Pope Francis visits Dublin, Ireland, to attend the World Meeting of Families. The theme is “the Gospel of family, joy for the world.”
Pope Francis at the 2018 World Meeting of Families in Ireland. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
Oct. 3-28 — The Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment takes place. The synod focuses on best practices to teach the faith to young people and to help them discern God’s will.
2019
Jan. 22-27 — The third World Youth Day during Pope Francis’ pontificate takes place during these six days in Panama City, Panama. Young Catholics from around the world gather for the event, with approximately 3 million people in attendance.
Feb. 4 — Pope Francis signs a joint document in with Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, titled the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.” The document focuses on people of different faiths uniting together to live peacefully and advance a culture of mutual respect.
Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb, grand imam of al-Azhar, signed a joint declaration on human fraternity during an interreligious meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE, Feb. 4, 2019. Vatican Media.
Feb. 21-24 — The Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church, which is labeled the Vatican Sexual Abuse Summit, takes place. The meeting focuses on sexual abuse scandals in the Church and emphasizes responsibility, accountability, and transparency.
Oct. 6-27 — The Church holds the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region, which is also known as the Amazon Synod. The synod is meant to present ways in which the Church can better evangelize the Amazon region but leads to controversy when carved images of a pregnant Amazonian woman, referred to by the pope as Pachamama, are used in several events and displayed in a basilica near the Vatican.
Oct. 13 — St. John Henry Newman, an Anglican convert to Catholicism and a cardinal, is canonized by Pope Francis. Newman’s writings inspired Catholic student associations at nonreligious colleges and universities in the United States and other countries.
2020
March 15 — Pope Francis takes a walking pilgrimage in Rome to the chapel of the crucifix and prays for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The crucifix was carried through Rome during the plague of 1522.
March 27 — Pope Francis gives an extraordinary “urbi et orbi” blessing in an empty and rain-covered St. Peter’s Square, praying for the world during the coronavirus pandemic.
Pope Francis venerates the miraculous crucifix of San Marcello al Corso in St. Peter’s Square during his Urbi et Orbi blessing, March 27, 2020. Vatican Media.
2021
March 5-8 — In his first papal trip since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pope Francis becomes the first pope to visit Iraq. On his trip, he signs a joint statement with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemning extremism and promoting peace.
July 3 — Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who was elevated to the College of Cardinals by Pope Francis, is indicted in a Vatican court for embezzlement, money laundering, and other crimes. The pope gives approval for the indictment.
July 4 — Pope Francis undergoes colon surgery for diverticulitis, a common condition in older people. The Vatican releases a statement that assures the pope “reacted well” to the surgery. Francis is released from the hospital after 10 days.
July 16 — Pope Francis issues a motu proprio titled Traditionis Custodes. The document imposes heavy restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Dec. 2-6 — The pope travels to Cyprus and Greece. The trip includes another visit to the Greek island of Lesbos to meet with migrants.
Pope Francis greets His Beatitude Ieronymos II in Athens, Greece on Dec. 5, 2021. Vatican Media
2022
Jan. 11 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to a record store in Rome called StereoSound. The pope, who has an affinity for classical music, blesses the newly renovated store.
March 19 — The pope promulgates Praedicate Evangelium, which reforms the Roman Curia. The reforms emphasize evangelization and establish more opportunities for the laity to be in leadership positions.
May 5 — Pope Francis is seen in a wheelchair for the first time in public and begins to use one more frequently. The pope has been suffering from knee problems for months.
Pope Francis greeted the crowd in a wheelchair at the end of his general audience on Aug. 3, 2022. Daniel Ibanez/CNA
July 24-30 — In his first papal visit to Canada, Pope Francis apologizes for the harsh treatment of the indigenous Canadians, saying many Christians and members of the Catholic Church were complicit.
2023
Jan. 31-Feb. 5 — Pope Francis travels to the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. During his visit, the pope condemns political violence in the countries and promotes peace. He also participates in an ecumenical prayer service with Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Moderator of the Church of Scotland Iain Greenshields.
Pope Francis greets a young boy a Mass in Juba, South Sudan on Feb. 5, 2023. Vatican Media
March 29-April 1 — Pope Francis is hospitalized for a respiratory infection. During his stay at Rome’s Gemelli Hospital, he visits the pediatric cancer ward and baptizes a newborn baby.
April 5 — The pope appears in the Disney documentary “The Pope: Answers,” which is in Spanish, answering six “hot-button” issues from members of Gen Z from various backgrounds. The group discusses immigration, depression, abortion, clergy sexual and psychological abuse, transgenderism, pornography, and loss of faith.
April 28-30 — Pope Francis visits Hungary to meet with government officials, civil society members, bishops, priests, seminarians, Jesuits, consecrated men and women, and pastoral workers. He celebrates Mass on the final day of the trip in Kossuth Lajos Square.
Pope Francis stands on an altar erected outside the Parliament Building in Budapest’s Kossuth Lajos’ Square during a public outdoor Mass on April 30, 2023. Vatican Media
June 7 — The Vatican announces that Pope Francis will undergo abdominal surgery that afternoon under general anesthesia due to a hernia that is causing painful, recurring, and worsening symptoms. In his general audience that morning before the surgery, Francis says he intends to publish an apostolic letter on St. Thérèse of Lisieux, “patroness of the missions,” to mark the 150th anniversary of her birth.
June 15 — After successful surgery and a week of recovery, Pope Francis is released from Gemelli Hospital.
Aug. 2-6 — Pope Francis travels to Lisbon, Portugal, for World Youth Day 2023, taking place from Aug. 1-6. He meets with Church and civil leaders ahead of presiding at the welcoming Mass and Stations of the Cross. He also hears the confessions of several pilgrims. On Aug. 5, he visits the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima, where he prays the rosary with young people with disabilities. That evening he presides over the vigil and on Sunday, Aug. 6, he celebrates the closing Mass, where he urges the 1.5 million young people present to “be not afraid,” echoing the words of the founder of World Youth Days, St. John Paul II.
Pope Francis waves at the crowd of 1.5 million people who attended the closing Mass of World Youth Day 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug. 6, 2023. Vatican Media.
Aug. 31-Sept. 4 — Pope Francis travels to Mongolia, the world’s most sparsely populated sovereign country. The trip makes Francis the first pope to visit the Asian country that shares a 2,880-mile border with China, its most significant economic partner. Mongolia has a population of about 1,300 Catholics in a country of more than 3 million people.
Pope Francis meets with local priests and religious of Mongolia, which includes only 25 priests (19 religious and six diocesan), 33 women religious, and one bishop — Cardinal Giorgio Marengo — in Ulaanbaatar’s Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul on Sept. 2, 2023. Credit: Vatican Media
Sept. 22-23 — On a two-day trip to Marseille, France, Pope Francis meets with local civil and religious leaders and participates in the Mediterranean Encounter, a gathering of some 120 young people of various creeds with bishops from 30 countries.
Pope Francis asks for a moment of silence at a memorial dedicated to sailors and migrants lost at sea on the first of a two-day visit to Marseille, France, Sept. 22, 2023. A Camargue cross, which comes from the Camargue area of France, represents the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. The three tridents represent faith, the anchor represents hope, and the heart represents charity. Credit: Daniel Ibañez/CNA
Oct. 4-29 — The Vatican hosts the first of two monthlong global assemblies of the Synod on Synodality, initiated by Pope Francis in 2021 to enhance the communion, participation, and mission of the Church. Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass of the synod at St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29. The second and final global assembly will take place at the Vatican in October 2024.
Pope Francis at the Synod on Synodality’s closing Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29, 2023. Vatican Media
Nov. 25 — Pope Francis visits the hospital briefly for precautionary testing after coming down with the flu earlier in the day. Although he still participates in scheduled activities, other officials read his prepared remarks. The Vatican on Nov. 28 cancels the pope’s planned Dec. 1–3 trip to Dubai for the COP28 climate conference, where he was scheduled to deliver a speech, due to his illness.
Dec. 18 — The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues the declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which authorizes nonliturgical blessings for same-sex couples and couples in “irregular situations.” Various bishops from around the world voice both support for and criticism of the document.
2024
Jan. 4 — Amid widespread backlash to Fiducia Supplicans, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, publishes a five-page press release that refers to Fiducia Supplicans as “perennial doctrine” and underlines that pastoral blessings of couples in irregular situations should not be “an endorsement of the life led by those who request them.”
Jan. 14 — Pope Francis for the first time responds publicly to questions about Fiducia Supplicans in an interview on an Italian television show. The pope underlines that “the Lord blesses everyone” and that a blessing is an invitation to enter into a conversation “to see what the road is that the Lord proposes to them.”
Feb. 11 — In a ceremony attended by Argentine president Javier Milei, Pope Francis canonizes María Antonia of St. Joseph — known affectionately in the pope’s home country as “Mama Antula” — in a Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica. The president and the former archbishop of Buenos Aires embrace after the ceremony. Pope Francis, who has not returned to his homeland since becoming pope in 2013, has said he wants to visit Argentina in the second half of this year.
Pope Francis meets with Argentina President Javier Milei in a private audience on Feb. 12, 2024, at the Vatican. Credit: Vatican Media
Feb. 28 — After canceling audiences the previous Saturday and having an aide read his prepared remarks at his Wednesday audience due to a “mild flu,” Pope Francis visits the hospital for diagnostic tests but returns to the Vatican afterward.
March 2 — Despite having an aide read his speech “because of bronchitis,” the pope presides over the inauguration of the 95th Judicial Year of the Vatican City State and maintains a full schedule.
March 13 — Pope Francis celebrates 11 years as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
And is the English rendering “do not lead us into temptation” bad theology? Here’s why the answer to both questions is “no”. […]
37 Comments
I trust absolutely nothing that emanates from this disasterous pontificate with its predilection for deliberately fomenting ambiguity and confusion and for attaining by stage-managed subsidiarity and local proxies what it cannot to do directly.
The author’s thesis that Roman centralization is theologically unsupportable and historically untenable certainly creates quite a conundrum. For over 50 years we have been told that papally-centralized Vatican II and its subsequent papally-centralized governance juggernaut of theological, liturgical, disciplinary, ecumenical, political, and “pastoral” changes were all the work of the “Spirit” creating a “New Pentecost” and new “models of the Church”. If the Roman sources of these “novelties” are now “indefensible”, an ecclesiastical fraud on a universal scale has been practiced on the Church. One cannot have it both ways. If decentralization is “theologically, historically, and practically” normative, then Vatican II has to be seen as a monstrous deviation and corruption.
The decentralization goes against the Petrine doctrine established by Christ Himself, making Simon the rock of the Church is the model the faithful have always followed. The decentralization is apostasy. The ideas that the enemies of Holy Church (protestants, pagans, etc.) Holy Church to have in order to divide and conquer the faithful. There is nothing going on in decentralization of the Roman Curia that does not help and support the adversary’s wish to destroy Holy Church.
That commendation has validity only if local governance will be faithful to Christ. Historically it was always the Roman Pontiff that insured unity in one body, one faith, one baptism in Christ. The Latin Church developed from a relaxed confederation of dioceses always in acknowledgment of the primacy of Peter to a more centralized organization spreading the faith throughout the world. The Eastern churches were localized, esoteric, confined to cultures never missionary. And it was Rome that safeguarded universal doctrine on faith and morals. This Roman Pontiff is creating the opposite, the Church disintegrating into a doctrinal Babel. Disunity at this stage of history ensures further disunity and heterodoxy as already evidenced in several major national bishops conferences. You seem to believe distancing from Rome “and the worst lunatic of all” [is that you’re conviction also?] will save orthodoxy, whereas orthodoxy will be preserved not by philosophical musings and certainly not by Pope Francis. It will be preserved with fortitude and honor to Christ by that Mystical Body faithful to the Apostolic Tradition known as the One, Holy, Catholic Church.
“The Eastern churches were localized, esoteric, confined to cultures never missionary.”
Not true. The Byzantine, Western Syriac, and Eastern Syriac churches were all missionary to one degree or another until they bumped against the power of the ruler or invaders.
Sol that holds true for Spanish Portuguese presence in S Am due to papal decree. Even there it was Spanish missionaries who fought for the rights of Native peoples and were often opposed by Conquistadors. It was Spanish and Portuguese missionaries who brought the faith many martyred in hostile Japan and throughout unconquered areas in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. It was French Jesuit missionaries who brought the faith suffered martyrdom to unclaimed unconquered areas of N America. Whereas in Protestant Britain’s possessions in Africa it was Catholic missionaries who spread the faith among Africans. The irrefutable point is who spread the faith.
The first point is, without those imperialist efforts there would have been no missionaries to go around the world. The failure of the Church to deal properly with the power of state/empire can be seen in the lack of proper catechesis in the New World and in other places.
The second is that the claim that the Eastern churches were never missionary is false, especially when we remember the conflicts between the Jesuits and the native non-Latin churches that were already in certain areas (e.g. India).
Very true, SOL, and one must also remember that Russia itself was the result of missionaries. Eastern Christians were once widespread in China and other regions too. Unfortunately, as in the middle east, unfavorable governments drove them down.
It seems to me that the centralization of the Church and the role of the popes from Pius IX to John Paul II was necessary to maintain the integrity of the faith and morals of the Church in the face of modernist influences that have made a shipwreck of the faith of many during the past 50 years. The monarchical papacy evolved the way it did for a very good reason. It has been the best safeguard against centrifical forces which have seriously affected both the Protestant bodies and the Orthodox Churches. The authority of the pope over councils, synods, and bishops is a well established principle. The teachings of the popes against modernist influences in the 19th and 20th century have been critical in preserving the integrity of the faith in the face of an ever invasive and radically secular culture. I just hope the attempts to deconstruct the monarchical papacy will not have serious consequences for the integrity of the faith and moral teachings of the Church and the undermining of papal authority.
Isn’t the author downplaying the danger that the current papacy has initiated on some doctrinal issues; that if this is Francis’s idea of “decentralization” the Church is where on the charism of infallibility? Different enclaves of clerics under a new decentralized ecumenism decide what is now “relatively true” that works for them?
I’m all for Latin decentralization, when individual Latin bishops have the courage to excommunicate other bishops for heresy, schism, or dereliction of duty. Let’s have the first Latin bishop inveigh against the heretical errors of liberalism.
“that he quoted St. Ignatius of Antioch (albeit obliquely) and his famous observation that it is “the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches”—the entire Church, not the pope alone.”
Questionable — perhaps more a turn of language then really referring to the entire Church, or more precisely, to the leadership of the Church of Rome, whatever it may have been before the rise of the monoepiscopate.
So if the Eastern Churches always seem to have it right, then why don’t we just become Eastern Orthodox?
I believe in the universal supremacy of the Pope over the entire Church, I’m tired of theologians, and even our own prelates, constantly trying to erode and apologize for the very office that facilitates the Church’s unity, I do not want the Church to become broken up over competing nationalist/ethnic parties like the Orthodox nor do I want to see people literally campaign to be elected bishop like the Anglicans in Canada. The Papacy is what unites the majority of Christians in one Church. Let’s not meddle with what works,
I think Dr. DeVille is pointing to the unique role that the Eastern Catholic Churches, although small in size, can play when it comes to finding a proper balance. He’s well aware (as many of his other essays demonstrate) the problems with the Eastern Orthodox “model”, without the Petrine office. And he certainly doesn’t deny or want to do away with the proper, universal authority of the pope. Personally, I think there were good and understandable reasons for the centralization of the past 100+ years (modernity, modernism, globalism, technology, world wars, etc.), but there are serious problems with how things currently run. So, it’s not about denying the papacy, but reconsidering the ins-and-outs of the governance of the Church and the various bureaucracies (and that’s what they are) in Rome.
Andrew writes: “So if the Eastern Churches always seem to have it right, then why don’t we just become Eastern Orthodox?”
That’s exactly what I did. All the boogeymen I was told to expect in Orthodoxy, the infighting, the ethnocentrism, etc., were curiously absent. The degree of most people’s adherence to Christian morality and practice in Orthodoxy is noticeably greater than in the Roman Church. After so much persecution and change over the last century, if the fact that the Orthodox are still generally following the Apostolic traditions isn’t a testament to the truth of our Church and our model of governance, I’m not sure what is.
What you state can be debated regarding practice of Christian morality among Orthodox. I’ve been to a few Orthodox majority lands and they were remarkably like everyone else living in modernity (sometimes worse). There are saints and sinners in both Churches.
I’m glad you’ve had a good experience thus far and there is much that is beautiful in Orthodoxy but let’s not pretend the current Orthodox system of over laping jurisdictions and warring Patriarchates (Constantinople vs Moscow) is the model to emulate or reflective of the early Church. Moreover, the tendency of Orthodoxy to idolize the state also frightens me. For example, look at the Patriarch of Moscow’s cozy relationship with Putin. If that’s what’s offered as a model of papal reform I say no thanks! We as Catholics must not forget that the prerogatives of the Pope flow from Christ Himself. To modify that to appease Protestants and in fighting Orthodox is folly.
Infighting, warring Patriarchates, and church-state alliances are quite normal in Christian history. Allowing multiple low-intensity, localized pockets of dissent from the Gospel to compete with and check one another is a positive feature of the Orthodox Catholic Church, not a bug.
What the centralization of the Papacy did in the western Church was amplify and globalize what likely would have been only localized religious corruptions. For example, if King Henry VIII could have compelled a crooked autocephalus English jurisdiction of the church to grant him divorces on demand, it would have been whispered about in other corners of Europe but generally laughed off. This happened a lot in eastern Europe. Then, the King would die, and things would go back to normal with his successors condemning him. Even the German situation with Luther might have been a minor, provincial squabble. It’s hard to imagine indulgences gaining much currency beyond Italy in a scenario where the Conciliarist triumph at the Council of Constance.
Instead, the Papacy set the stage for the bloody and unprecedented Wars of Religion and Reformation that ravaged Europe for centuries and caused the rise of secularism and religious indifferentism. Turning the Pope into a competing temporal ruler with supreme power served only to raise the stakes of Christian-on-Christian violence and thrust doctrine itself into the realm of politics. Pope Francis is simply the latest chapter in this ongoing drama of centralization.
Personally, it seems bizarre to me that something as important to the governance of the Church as papal infallibility would not be defined, and generally doubted, until as late as 1870. The Pope didn’t even bother to personally show up at Ecumenical Councils, and you’d think somebody would have been aware of his supremacy and infallibility, which could be expected to play a huge role in settling Christological heresies. Whether I’ve overlooked pros of a centralization in the papacy that outweigh the cons, the fact is, there is no evidence to suggest the papal claims are anything other than relatively late, predominately politically-motivated innovations.
I respect you and the author of the article greatly BUT let’s be honest, we didn’t hear such concerns about Vatican centralization in this or other orthodox Catholic publications during the JP2/Benedict years. In other words, the concerns about Vatican control seem to be a response to Francis and nothing more. I too have concerns about Francis but must we erode the papal office because of one man?
It’s a fair point in some respects, but Eastern Catholics have long had these concerns (and both Dr. DeVille and myself are Eastern Catholics), going back decades. Does some of this have to do with Francis? Yes, some. What this pontificate has shown, I think, is that not every pope is going to be a brilliant, orthodox, and globally-minded man who works to keep above the political frays, whether inside or outside the Church. I cannot argue it here, but I don’t see this as an erosion of the papal office, but a strengthening of what the papacy should be. There will be, of course, constant problems, as no pope is perfect and there will always be power struggles.
That’s a good point. Much to think about. I’ve just finished reading the biography of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (no I’m NOT an SSPX guy; I attend a solid Novus Ordo parish) and it said that one of his concerns and other conservative bishops at Vatican 2 was that the Vatican 2 documents, with their dual focus on Rome and national bishop’s conferences, inadvertently eroded the authority of the individual bishop in his diocese. I think this is very true. Roman decentralization might be a good thing, but I would hate to exchange Rome for some national committee run by ecclesiastical politicians. I don’t know what the answer is. It seems everywhere (Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Orthodox) is messed up. Maybe this is where the Benedict Option comes in. Focus on the local and create small, faithful, orthodox communities capable of living and passing on the Faith in a dynamic and authentic manner; because when I look at many of our bishops I want as little to do with them as possible (it saddens me to say that btw).
Carl it’s also a fair point to say that DeVille’s views and yours reflect a choice of structure that is less open to liturgical change and which possesses an attractive stability. Similarly it’s a fair point to say that if it weren’t for the universal nature [definitive of Catholic] of papal authority, which largely took the initiative to unite the Eastern churches including Maronites there would be no union. “The whole discussion gravitates around a text of the twelfth century. William of Tyre (De Bello Sacro, XX, viii) relates the conversion of 40,000 Maronites in the year 1182. The substance of the leading text is as follows: ‘After they [the nation that had been converted, in the vicinity of Byblos] had for five hundred years adhered to the false teaching of an heresiarch named Maro, so that they took from him the name of Maronites, and, being separated from the true Church had been following their own peculiar liturgy [ab ecclesia fidelium sequestrati seorsim sacramenta conficerent sua], they came to the Patriarch of Antioch, Aymery, the third of the Latin patriarchs, and, having abjured their error, were, with their patriarch and some bishops, reunited to the true Church'” (New Catholic Advent). Also the current controversy regarding centralized authority has everything to do with this papacy. The structure of the Latin Church cannot simulate the Maronite structure of independent bishoprics and remain solvent. We see it’s disunity already in Germany.
As a former Maronite Catholic, Fr. Peter, I can assure you that’s not the history of the Maronite Catholic Church, unless you want to admit that the Roman Catholic Church commemorates a canonized heirisiarch on her calendar. Maro in William of Tyre’s book is none other than St. Maron, commemorated by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as a defender of Chalcedon. Please research further.
Sorry Carl, I can’t agree with you on this.
“Centralization” is another term for the Church’s ultimate triumph over lay investiture in the 19th century. We all can be grateful for its full realization in Pope Pius XII — our Pastor Angelicus, “the Pope of Our Youth” as Benedict XVI called him in 2008.
The poison that is rotting the Church today is lay, lower clergy and episcopal officiating. We need guys like Sarah, and Ratzinger, and Rigali — experienced “players” at the highest level who can weed out bad shepherds.
No, what Francis wants is what Paul VI (who did his share and more to actualize it) called the “auto-demolition” of the Roman Church. The Roman Church in its full rigor has saved what’s left of Christendom –something the Eastern churches weren’t up to. Sorry once again, but I’m not buying any version of Bergoglio’s St. Gallen/Martini/Aparecida/Lavender Mafia “decentralization”.
“, rightly refusing to be ruled by the one-time imperial capital whose colonizing practices continue to manifest themselves in the Church of Rome’s curia.”
Nothing like a fair, unbiased author without an axe to grind, is there?
As for the for many odious “Roman centralism”, it can be thanked for the fact that we still actually in the Catholic Church. From the period of Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, there was Gallicanism and later Febronianism and Josephinism which if they had been successful would have converted the Catholic Church into something like the Orthodox autocephalous Churches, which as is clear from the recent attempt at a Panorthodox Synod which was a failure.
As for the selection of bishops, certainly, the system can and should be improved, as the crop of bishops we now have would clearly indicate. However, let us not forget that the system of popular acclamation, whilst it gave the Church some of the most outstanding bishops such as St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, it also provoked even riots with as many as 100 dead at the election of Pope Damasus I in 362. In the 16th century,when the appointment of bishops was in the hands of the King of Spain for his dominions, he appointed some excellent bishops such as St. Toribo of Mogrovejo, who was Archbishop of Lima in Peru for 14 years and he spent 17 of them making pastoral visits to many parts of his huge diocese, and is now the Patron Saint of Latin American Bishops.
Pope Francis has also proposed giving doctrinal authority to Bishop’s Conferences and this is a very bad idea as is already apparent. This is seen as an application of the dangerous doctrine of Collegiality as it is presented in Lumen Gentium which is a novelty in the tradition of the Latin Church and would tend to convert the Pope into a kind of Prime Minister. This doctrine needs to be reviewed.
As for the reform of the Curia, it seems to me that Francis has already failed in this effort and he has gone about it in a very wrong fashion. He has continually belittled and insulted the members of the Curia and according to Cardinal Muller and others, there is a very negative atmosphere there. If he wants to reform it, he might have consulted those who work by means of questionnaires and he might have personally gone to visit each dicastery and listen to them so that they would see that their input has been taken into account and they are on board. PF is now 81 and they know that he cannot last long, so they can go back to business as usual when he passes away. He needed to have a positive attitude, for it is impossible to think that everyone who worked in the Churia is a knave. Positive motivation is always better than berating.
Pope Paul VI, who had worked in the Churia for some 30 years reformed it, but he placed much of the power int he hands of ht Secretariat of State, where he himself has worked. Cardinal Muller has stated that Doctrine should be given primacy and not diplomacy. For that, power has to be taken away from the Secretariat of State, but Francis has even increased it by adding a new subsection to it. The failure of the financial reforms has been due to a good degree to Francis having given into the pressures of the Secretariat of State and others unwilling to relinquish theirs.
And whatever happened to the high-level 2012/2013 report on the Lavender Mafia that Benedict turned over to Bergoglio? Like “the dubia sent, did it fall into an air vent?” Or maybe it was received under the new rubric: But who am I to judge? (You’re the Pope, Jack, judging is your job).
The Church needs more “centralization” in the Supreme Pontiff, not less — less has been the disastrous “los von Rom” modernist program of the last 60 years. I hate to say it, but what we really need is a more worthy man than the St. Gallen/Lavender Mafia-packaged nightclub bouncer Bergoglio, with his entourage of power-hungry thugs, on the throne of St. Peter.
In a way, the question of Rome’s decision to exercise authority in a centralized or decentralized way is moot for the Orthodox.
For the Orthodox, the point is this: according to current Catholic teaching, it is the pope’s prerogative (and his alone) to decide which way he wishes to exercise his authority. That is the issue at heart.
Even a proponent of Roman decentralization as noteworthy as Cardinal Walter Kasper (sic!) points this out in his book on the Church (translated several years ago into English). As he says, any restrictions on papal authority to do things (e.g., I might offer by way of an example, the ability of Eastern Churches to appoint bishops in their ‘home’ territories) is always a self-limitation on the part of the Roman pontiff. As Cardinal Kasper notes, this is how things work in the current Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO): the pope has elected to hold back the exercise of his power; it is only through this self-circumscription that the Eastern Churches exercise their own synodal prerogatives, etc. The corollary (unstated by Kasper) to this is clear: at any time, the pope may elect to cancel these self-restrictions. (Indeed, Pope Francis change the CCEO’s prescriptions on marriage law several years ago by his fiat with a motu proprio.) As long as that is the case, and there is no check on papal power that is absolute, Orthodox Churches will never accept papal authority. But how can the Catholic Church do that? Vatican I is fairly clear about the pope’s universal jurisdiction as dogmatic, and Vatican II (in Christus Dominus) only re-affirms this teaching in the clearest terms.
Honestly, the only way would be for Vatican I & II to be rejected as anti-councils due to a catastrophic failure of the Papacy. That may be what Providence is working toward by allowing unchecked centralization and faith in an infallible and supreme Pope to despoil the Roman liturgy, devestate religious life, wipe out vocations, introduce blatant contradictions to reveal the absurdity of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, etc. Even in wider society, the chaotic cultural and sexual revolutions of the 1960s and 70s are hard to imagine without Vatican II unsettling a critical mass of believers who would have otherwise confidently opposed the societal shifts.
Not anti-councils, but local councils of the Roman Patriarchate, with dogmatic statements that are not binding on any other patriarchate/particular Church unless so ratified.
I don’t see it as a catastrophic failure of the papacy, but the living reductio ad absurdam of one model of the papacy.
Maybe we need to remember what the two previous pope’s had to say on this not-new issue of centralization. Decentralization of bureaucracies is not the same as the unfortunately and predictably co-mingled elevation of geographic conferences of bishops. In Pope Benedict XVI’s image, the collegiality of bishops is an ellipse with two focal points, the primacy and the episcopacy, rather than being a mimic of either a political monarchy or a democratic national assembly (God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition and Office, Ignatius Press, 2008). The several national Catholic conferences of bishops do not qualify as a sort of presumptive local church parliament. They exist rather to support “the inalienable responsibility of each bishop in relation to the universal Church and to his particular Church” (St. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, May 21, 1998). This form of Church is not the same as the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, nor the Protestant ecclesial communities, nor, incidentally, Islam whose sectarian self-understanding is as a “congregational theocracy” — unlike the what the Second Vatican Council still affirmed as the Catholic “hierarchical communion” (Lumen Gentium).
Perhaps a re-reading of papal primacy is in order, regardless of how it has been exercised historically. Biblically, the Twelve needed constant correction by Christ for sorting out who was first; including Peter.
This article would be interesting if it were not so naive. The main problem is that decentralization is only as good as the local powers into whose hands decentralization plays. With weak, heretical, and often power-hungry local ordinaries and episcopal conferences, decentralization is simply one more step in the autodemolition of the Church about which Paul VI sadly spoke (and to which, alas, he himself contributed by the unprecedented dismantling of the Roman Rite).
You quote Adrian Fortescue (quite approvingly): “Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian lunatic?”
The Person he was calling an “Italian lunatic” was Pope St. Pius X.
That pretty much takes care of any respect I might have had for Fortescue’s opinion
I trust absolutely nothing that emanates from this disasterous pontificate with its predilection for deliberately fomenting ambiguity and confusion and for attaining by stage-managed subsidiarity and local proxies what it cannot to do directly.
The author’s thesis that Roman centralization is theologically unsupportable and historically untenable certainly creates quite a conundrum. For over 50 years we have been told that papally-centralized Vatican II and its subsequent papally-centralized governance juggernaut of theological, liturgical, disciplinary, ecumenical, political, and “pastoral” changes were all the work of the “Spirit” creating a “New Pentecost” and new “models of the Church”. If the Roman sources of these “novelties” are now “indefensible”, an ecclesiastical fraud on a universal scale has been practiced on the Church. One cannot have it both ways. If decentralization is “theologically, historically, and practically” normative, then Vatican II has to be seen as a monstrous deviation and corruption.
The decentralization goes against the Petrine doctrine established by Christ Himself, making Simon the rock of the Church is the model the faithful have always followed. The decentralization is apostasy. The ideas that the enemies of Holy Church (protestants, pagans, etc.) Holy Church to have in order to divide and conquer the faithful. There is nothing going on in decentralization of the Roman Curia that does not help and support the adversary’s wish to destroy Holy Church.
That commendation has validity only if local governance will be faithful to Christ. Historically it was always the Roman Pontiff that insured unity in one body, one faith, one baptism in Christ. The Latin Church developed from a relaxed confederation of dioceses always in acknowledgment of the primacy of Peter to a more centralized organization spreading the faith throughout the world. The Eastern churches were localized, esoteric, confined to cultures never missionary. And it was Rome that safeguarded universal doctrine on faith and morals. This Roman Pontiff is creating the opposite, the Church disintegrating into a doctrinal Babel. Disunity at this stage of history ensures further disunity and heterodoxy as already evidenced in several major national bishops conferences. You seem to believe distancing from Rome “and the worst lunatic of all” [is that you’re conviction also?] will save orthodoxy, whereas orthodoxy will be preserved not by philosophical musings and certainly not by Pope Francis. It will be preserved with fortitude and honor to Christ by that Mystical Body faithful to the Apostolic Tradition known as the One, Holy, Catholic Church.
“The Eastern churches were localized, esoteric, confined to cultures never missionary.”
Not true. The Byzantine, Western Syriac, and Eastern Syriac churches were all missionary to one degree or another until they bumped against the power of the ruler or invaders.
Latin missionary efforts have been pronounced in the last 500 years only because of Western imperialism and colonialism.
Sol that holds true for Spanish Portuguese presence in S Am due to papal decree. Even there it was Spanish missionaries who fought for the rights of Native peoples and were often opposed by Conquistadors. It was Spanish and Portuguese missionaries who brought the faith many martyred in hostile Japan and throughout unconquered areas in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. It was French Jesuit missionaries who brought the faith suffered martyrdom to unclaimed unconquered areas of N America. Whereas in Protestant Britain’s possessions in Africa it was Catholic missionaries who spread the faith among Africans. The irrefutable point is who spread the faith.
The first point is, without those imperialist efforts there would have been no missionaries to go around the world. The failure of the Church to deal properly with the power of state/empire can be seen in the lack of proper catechesis in the New World and in other places.
The second is that the claim that the Eastern churches were never missionary is false, especially when we remember the conflicts between the Jesuits and the native non-Latin churches that were already in certain areas (e.g. India).
Very true, SOL, and one must also remember that Russia itself was the result of missionaries. Eastern Christians were once widespread in China and other regions too. Unfortunately, as in the middle east, unfavorable governments drove them down.
It seems to me that the centralization of the Church and the role of the popes from Pius IX to John Paul II was necessary to maintain the integrity of the faith and morals of the Church in the face of modernist influences that have made a shipwreck of the faith of many during the past 50 years. The monarchical papacy evolved the way it did for a very good reason. It has been the best safeguard against centrifical forces which have seriously affected both the Protestant bodies and the Orthodox Churches. The authority of the pope over councils, synods, and bishops is a well established principle. The teachings of the popes against modernist influences in the 19th and 20th century have been critical in preserving the integrity of the faith in the face of an ever invasive and radically secular culture. I just hope the attempts to deconstruct the monarchical papacy will not have serious consequences for the integrity of the faith and moral teachings of the Church and the undermining of papal authority.
To what extent?
Isn’t the author downplaying the danger that the current papacy has initiated on some doctrinal issues; that if this is Francis’s idea of “decentralization” the Church is where on the charism of infallibility? Different enclaves of clerics under a new decentralized ecumenism decide what is now “relatively true” that works for them?
I’m all for Latin decentralization, when individual Latin bishops have the courage to excommunicate other bishops for heresy, schism, or dereliction of duty. Let’s have the first Latin bishop inveigh against the heretical errors of liberalism.
“that he quoted St. Ignatius of Antioch (albeit obliquely) and his famous observation that it is “the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches”—the entire Church, not the pope alone.”
Questionable — perhaps more a turn of language then really referring to the entire Church, or more precisely, to the leadership of the Church of Rome, whatever it may have been before the rise of the monoepiscopate.
So if the Eastern Churches always seem to have it right, then why don’t we just become Eastern Orthodox?
I believe in the universal supremacy of the Pope over the entire Church, I’m tired of theologians, and even our own prelates, constantly trying to erode and apologize for the very office that facilitates the Church’s unity, I do not want the Church to become broken up over competing nationalist/ethnic parties like the Orthodox nor do I want to see people literally campaign to be elected bishop like the Anglicans in Canada. The Papacy is what unites the majority of Christians in one Church. Let’s not meddle with what works,
I think Dr. DeVille is pointing to the unique role that the Eastern Catholic Churches, although small in size, can play when it comes to finding a proper balance. He’s well aware (as many of his other essays demonstrate) the problems with the Eastern Orthodox “model”, without the Petrine office. And he certainly doesn’t deny or want to do away with the proper, universal authority of the pope. Personally, I think there were good and understandable reasons for the centralization of the past 100+ years (modernity, modernism, globalism, technology, world wars, etc.), but there are serious problems with how things currently run. So, it’s not about denying the papacy, but reconsidering the ins-and-outs of the governance of the Church and the various bureaucracies (and that’s what they are) in Rome.
Andrew writes: “So if the Eastern Churches always seem to have it right, then why don’t we just become Eastern Orthodox?”
That’s exactly what I did. All the boogeymen I was told to expect in Orthodoxy, the infighting, the ethnocentrism, etc., were curiously absent. The degree of most people’s adherence to Christian morality and practice in Orthodoxy is noticeably greater than in the Roman Church. After so much persecution and change over the last century, if the fact that the Orthodox are still generally following the Apostolic traditions isn’t a testament to the truth of our Church and our model of governance, I’m not sure what is.
What you state can be debated regarding practice of Christian morality among Orthodox. I’ve been to a few Orthodox majority lands and they were remarkably like everyone else living in modernity (sometimes worse). There are saints and sinners in both Churches.
I’m glad you’ve had a good experience thus far and there is much that is beautiful in Orthodoxy but let’s not pretend the current Orthodox system of over laping jurisdictions and warring Patriarchates (Constantinople vs Moscow) is the model to emulate or reflective of the early Church. Moreover, the tendency of Orthodoxy to idolize the state also frightens me. For example, look at the Patriarch of Moscow’s cozy relationship with Putin. If that’s what’s offered as a model of papal reform I say no thanks! We as Catholics must not forget that the prerogatives of the Pope flow from Christ Himself. To modify that to appease Protestants and in fighting Orthodox is folly.
Infighting, warring Patriarchates, and church-state alliances are quite normal in Christian history. Allowing multiple low-intensity, localized pockets of dissent from the Gospel to compete with and check one another is a positive feature of the Orthodox Catholic Church, not a bug.
What the centralization of the Papacy did in the western Church was amplify and globalize what likely would have been only localized religious corruptions. For example, if King Henry VIII could have compelled a crooked autocephalus English jurisdiction of the church to grant him divorces on demand, it would have been whispered about in other corners of Europe but generally laughed off. This happened a lot in eastern Europe. Then, the King would die, and things would go back to normal with his successors condemning him. Even the German situation with Luther might have been a minor, provincial squabble. It’s hard to imagine indulgences gaining much currency beyond Italy in a scenario where the Conciliarist triumph at the Council of Constance.
Instead, the Papacy set the stage for the bloody and unprecedented Wars of Religion and Reformation that ravaged Europe for centuries and caused the rise of secularism and religious indifferentism. Turning the Pope into a competing temporal ruler with supreme power served only to raise the stakes of Christian-on-Christian violence and thrust doctrine itself into the realm of politics. Pope Francis is simply the latest chapter in this ongoing drama of centralization.
Personally, it seems bizarre to me that something as important to the governance of the Church as papal infallibility would not be defined, and generally doubted, until as late as 1870. The Pope didn’t even bother to personally show up at Ecumenical Councils, and you’d think somebody would have been aware of his supremacy and infallibility, which could be expected to play a huge role in settling Christological heresies. Whether I’ve overlooked pros of a centralization in the papacy that outweigh the cons, the fact is, there is no evidence to suggest the papal claims are anything other than relatively late, predominately politically-motivated innovations.
I respect you and the author of the article greatly BUT let’s be honest, we didn’t hear such concerns about Vatican centralization in this or other orthodox Catholic publications during the JP2/Benedict years. In other words, the concerns about Vatican control seem to be a response to Francis and nothing more. I too have concerns about Francis but must we erode the papal office because of one man?
It’s a fair point in some respects, but Eastern Catholics have long had these concerns (and both Dr. DeVille and myself are Eastern Catholics), going back decades. Does some of this have to do with Francis? Yes, some. What this pontificate has shown, I think, is that not every pope is going to be a brilliant, orthodox, and globally-minded man who works to keep above the political frays, whether inside or outside the Church. I cannot argue it here, but I don’t see this as an erosion of the papal office, but a strengthening of what the papacy should be. There will be, of course, constant problems, as no pope is perfect and there will always be power struggles.
That’s a good point. Much to think about. I’ve just finished reading the biography of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (no I’m NOT an SSPX guy; I attend a solid Novus Ordo parish) and it said that one of his concerns and other conservative bishops at Vatican 2 was that the Vatican 2 documents, with their dual focus on Rome and national bishop’s conferences, inadvertently eroded the authority of the individual bishop in his diocese. I think this is very true. Roman decentralization might be a good thing, but I would hate to exchange Rome for some national committee run by ecclesiastical politicians. I don’t know what the answer is. It seems everywhere (Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Orthodox) is messed up. Maybe this is where the Benedict Option comes in. Focus on the local and create small, faithful, orthodox communities capable of living and passing on the Faith in a dynamic and authentic manner; because when I look at many of our bishops I want as little to do with them as possible (it saddens me to say that btw).
Carl it’s also a fair point to say that DeVille’s views and yours reflect a choice of structure that is less open to liturgical change and which possesses an attractive stability. Similarly it’s a fair point to say that if it weren’t for the universal nature [definitive of Catholic] of papal authority, which largely took the initiative to unite the Eastern churches including Maronites there would be no union. “The whole discussion gravitates around a text of the twelfth century. William of Tyre (De Bello Sacro, XX, viii) relates the conversion of 40,000 Maronites in the year 1182. The substance of the leading text is as follows: ‘After they [the nation that had been converted, in the vicinity of Byblos] had for five hundred years adhered to the false teaching of an heresiarch named Maro, so that they took from him the name of Maronites, and, being separated from the true Church had been following their own peculiar liturgy [ab ecclesia fidelium sequestrati seorsim sacramenta conficerent sua], they came to the Patriarch of Antioch, Aymery, the third of the Latin patriarchs, and, having abjured their error, were, with their patriarch and some bishops, reunited to the true Church'” (New Catholic Advent). Also the current controversy regarding centralized authority has everything to do with this papacy. The structure of the Latin Church cannot simulate the Maronite structure of independent bishoprics and remain solvent. We see it’s disunity already in Germany.
As a former Maronite Catholic, Fr. Peter, I can assure you that’s not the history of the Maronite Catholic Church, unless you want to admit that the Roman Catholic Church commemorates a canonized heirisiarch on her calendar. Maro in William of Tyre’s book is none other than St. Maron, commemorated by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as a defender of Chalcedon. Please research further.
Sorry Carl, I can’t agree with you on this.
“Centralization” is another term for the Church’s ultimate triumph over lay investiture in the 19th century. We all can be grateful for its full realization in Pope Pius XII — our Pastor Angelicus, “the Pope of Our Youth” as Benedict XVI called him in 2008.
The poison that is rotting the Church today is lay, lower clergy and episcopal officiating. We need guys like Sarah, and Ratzinger, and Rigali — experienced “players” at the highest level who can weed out bad shepherds.
No, what Francis wants is what Paul VI (who did his share and more to actualize it) called the “auto-demolition” of the Roman Church. The Roman Church in its full rigor has saved what’s left of Christendom –something the Eastern churches weren’t up to. Sorry once again, but I’m not buying any version of Bergoglio’s St. Gallen/Martini/Aparecida/Lavender Mafia “decentralization”.
“, rightly refusing to be ruled by the one-time imperial capital whose colonizing practices continue to manifest themselves in the Church of Rome’s curia.”
Nothing like a fair, unbiased author without an axe to grind, is there?
It’s almost a rule of life and growth. Pruning and renewal add vigor, vitality, and strength to institutions.
As for the for many odious “Roman centralism”, it can be thanked for the fact that we still actually in the Catholic Church. From the period of Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, there was Gallicanism and later Febronianism and Josephinism which if they had been successful would have converted the Catholic Church into something like the Orthodox autocephalous Churches, which as is clear from the recent attempt at a Panorthodox Synod which was a failure.
As for the selection of bishops, certainly, the system can and should be improved, as the crop of bishops we now have would clearly indicate. However, let us not forget that the system of popular acclamation, whilst it gave the Church some of the most outstanding bishops such as St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, it also provoked even riots with as many as 100 dead at the election of Pope Damasus I in 362. In the 16th century,when the appointment of bishops was in the hands of the King of Spain for his dominions, he appointed some excellent bishops such as St. Toribo of Mogrovejo, who was Archbishop of Lima in Peru for 14 years and he spent 17 of them making pastoral visits to many parts of his huge diocese, and is now the Patron Saint of Latin American Bishops.
Pope Francis has also proposed giving doctrinal authority to Bishop’s Conferences and this is a very bad idea as is already apparent. This is seen as an application of the dangerous doctrine of Collegiality as it is presented in Lumen Gentium which is a novelty in the tradition of the Latin Church and would tend to convert the Pope into a kind of Prime Minister. This doctrine needs to be reviewed.
As for the reform of the Curia, it seems to me that Francis has already failed in this effort and he has gone about it in a very wrong fashion. He has continually belittled and insulted the members of the Curia and according to Cardinal Muller and others, there is a very negative atmosphere there. If he wants to reform it, he might have consulted those who work by means of questionnaires and he might have personally gone to visit each dicastery and listen to them so that they would see that their input has been taken into account and they are on board. PF is now 81 and they know that he cannot last long, so they can go back to business as usual when he passes away. He needed to have a positive attitude, for it is impossible to think that everyone who worked in the Churia is a knave. Positive motivation is always better than berating.
Pope Paul VI, who had worked in the Churia for some 30 years reformed it, but he placed much of the power int he hands of ht Secretariat of State, where he himself has worked. Cardinal Muller has stated that Doctrine should be given primacy and not diplomacy. For that, power has to be taken away from the Secretariat of State, but Francis has even increased it by adding a new subsection to it. The failure of the financial reforms has been due to a good degree to Francis having given into the pressures of the Secretariat of State and others unwilling to relinquish theirs.
And whatever happened to the high-level 2012/2013 report on the Lavender Mafia that Benedict turned over to Bergoglio? Like “the dubia sent, did it fall into an air vent?” Or maybe it was received under the new rubric: But who am I to judge? (You’re the Pope, Jack, judging is your job).
The Church needs more “centralization” in the Supreme Pontiff, not less — less has been the disastrous “los von Rom” modernist program of the last 60 years. I hate to say it, but what we really need is a more worthy man than the St. Gallen/Lavender Mafia-packaged nightclub bouncer Bergoglio, with his entourage of power-hungry thugs, on the throne of St. Peter.
In a way, the question of Rome’s decision to exercise authority in a centralized or decentralized way is moot for the Orthodox.
For the Orthodox, the point is this: according to current Catholic teaching, it is the pope’s prerogative (and his alone) to decide which way he wishes to exercise his authority. That is the issue at heart.
Even a proponent of Roman decentralization as noteworthy as Cardinal Walter Kasper (sic!) points this out in his book on the Church (translated several years ago into English). As he says, any restrictions on papal authority to do things (e.g., I might offer by way of an example, the ability of Eastern Churches to appoint bishops in their ‘home’ territories) is always a self-limitation on the part of the Roman pontiff. As Cardinal Kasper notes, this is how things work in the current Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO): the pope has elected to hold back the exercise of his power; it is only through this self-circumscription that the Eastern Churches exercise their own synodal prerogatives, etc. The corollary (unstated by Kasper) to this is clear: at any time, the pope may elect to cancel these self-restrictions. (Indeed, Pope Francis change the CCEO’s prescriptions on marriage law several years ago by his fiat with a motu proprio.) As long as that is the case, and there is no check on papal power that is absolute, Orthodox Churches will never accept papal authority. But how can the Catholic Church do that? Vatican I is fairly clear about the pope’s universal jurisdiction as dogmatic, and Vatican II (in Christus Dominus) only re-affirms this teaching in the clearest terms.
Honestly, the only way would be for Vatican I & II to be rejected as anti-councils due to a catastrophic failure of the Papacy. That may be what Providence is working toward by allowing unchecked centralization and faith in an infallible and supreme Pope to despoil the Roman liturgy, devestate religious life, wipe out vocations, introduce blatant contradictions to reveal the absurdity of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, etc. Even in wider society, the chaotic cultural and sexual revolutions of the 1960s and 70s are hard to imagine without Vatican II unsettling a critical mass of believers who would have otherwise confidently opposed the societal shifts.
Not anti-councils, but local councils of the Roman Patriarchate, with dogmatic statements that are not binding on any other patriarchate/particular Church unless so ratified.
I don’t see it as a catastrophic failure of the papacy, but the living reductio ad absurdam of one model of the papacy.
Maybe we need to remember what the two previous pope’s had to say on this not-new issue of centralization. Decentralization of bureaucracies is not the same as the unfortunately and predictably co-mingled elevation of geographic conferences of bishops. In Pope Benedict XVI’s image, the collegiality of bishops is an ellipse with two focal points, the primacy and the episcopacy, rather than being a mimic of either a political monarchy or a democratic national assembly (God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition and Office, Ignatius Press, 2008). The several national Catholic conferences of bishops do not qualify as a sort of presumptive local church parliament. They exist rather to support “the inalienable responsibility of each bishop in relation to the universal Church and to his particular Church” (St. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, May 21, 1998). This form of Church is not the same as the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, nor the Protestant ecclesial communities, nor, incidentally, Islam whose sectarian self-understanding is as a “congregational theocracy” — unlike the what the Second Vatican Council still affirmed as the Catholic “hierarchical communion” (Lumen Gentium).
Perhaps a re-reading of papal primacy is in order, regardless of how it has been exercised historically. Biblically, the Twelve needed constant correction by Christ for sorting out who was first; including Peter.
This article would be interesting if it were not so naive. The main problem is that decentralization is only as good as the local powers into whose hands decentralization plays. With weak, heretical, and often power-hungry local ordinaries and episcopal conferences, decentralization is simply one more step in the autodemolition of the Church about which Paul VI sadly spoke (and to which, alas, he himself contributed by the unprecedented dismantling of the Roman Rite).
If Fortescue was really speaking of St. Pius X one must remember the liturgical reforms that were implemented by him.
Oops, that was intended for the comment below by “Leslie.”
You quote Adrian Fortescue (quite approvingly): “Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian lunatic?”
The Person he was calling an “Italian lunatic” was Pope St. Pius X.
That pretty much takes care of any respect I might have had for Fortescue’s opinion
Hmmm – not sure why I capitalized the ‘p” in “person” – it was unintentional!