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.
[…]
“This sometimes controversial pontiff” is popular with the Left and never controversial, and is clearly controversial with the Right who struggle, many torn between allegiance to the Chair and Apostolic Tradition the two allegiances drifting apart to the point of contradictory beliefs. Why might we say this if not the facts. Two are outstanding, the refusal to respond to the Dubia on vital questions of practice, and the current ambivalence by this Pontiff on the German apostasy. The latter now come to a head with the refusal of German bishops to comply with Catholic doctrine now focused on blessing of immoral same sex relationships. If Pope Francis does not unequivocally defend the faith and if necessary provide a declaration of excommunication for Bishops Felix Genn of Münster and Georg Bätzing German Bishops Conference president that reluctance substantiates the questions posed by the Dubia cardinals. What is come to fore unless we witness a remarkable change is the machinations of a master manipulator. We can’t hedge any longer on what we’re confronted with, it’s no longer a question of where a pontiff stands when the Church has become increasingly an image of the author’s convictions explicated in Amoris Laetitia rather than Christ.
The difference between “populist” and “popularist”?
Giving full attention to our common Human Nature, rather than not; and thinking of the deep infiltration of self-inflicted original sin versus the other and gratuitous origin of supernatural grace; and thinking cross-culturally…
Is it just possible that, at least sometimes, people are more unalike than alike? What then is the danger of implicit bias, either way and probably both (unalike/alike), in setting public policy?
Small wonder that the Catholic Social Teaching, correctly understood, is not rooted in any implicit bias, but rather in the moral virtues and particularly in prudential judgment.
He longs for parishes to always be open, but demands they be closed by the state. He’s all for the marginalized against the Church- the cardinals and canon lawyers and moral theologians. But he’s all for the experts telling us what’s right about how to live in society.
The darling of the World Economic Forum, celebrity trash, faculty lounges and the kind of Catholic who reads National Catholic Reporter certainly should not be described as a populist or “popularist”. Demagogue, on the other hand, fits him to a T. And he is particularly crude one at that.
He knows nothing of what it means to be a people with a culture and identity which they have a right to preserve, and he thinks he is competent to distinguish between populism and popularism?
The wording used for article will not get the author in hot water with his colleagues at Opus Dei.
Well played, I guess.
Pope Francis is a left wing version of Donald Trump.
Pope Francis perfectly fits the model of a populist who appeals to the Left and is confrontational [poking sincere Catholic priests in the eye as in the recent CWR article] to the Right. Since he is obviously more a populist than Trump ever was, because Trump had appeal among Dems that won him the election, Francis who exacerbates the polarity between the Left and Traditional Catholics invents a word popularist to extract himself from the truth. As is his wont.
From the start of the announcement of Francis as Pope, something supernatural happened around the world. People like myself and millions of others had a strange sense of severe disappointment about the new Pope. We couldn’t even stomach to look at him. I have compassion for Francis and pray for him daily but I don’t even want to hear what he has to say. I’m one of those accused of Papolotry. When I listened to St. John Paul the Great and to Pope Benedict XVl I always knew as a fact it was God’s voice on earth. But with Francis, it’s not. I pray he steps down. This is how popular Francis is with me. Nil, Nada, Niet!
Thank you – had missed the context related to the article and the use of the word
‘ Popularist ‘ by the Holy Father – that sounds as an echo of the mission of The Lord , in the Will of The Father , for all to repent and be saved ; our intent and desire for same is precious to The Lord even if same may not take effect in the manner we imagine .
The efforts of others such as Bp.Barron also exhorting the faithful to ask for mercy and salvation for all ,also echoed in the Divine Mercy prayers – ‘have mercy on us and the whole world .
Glad to have come across the article that elaborates on the context , the words of the Holy Father that are very much in line with the mission of the Lord and as intended , to counter dangerous ‘ populists ‘ who focus on an earthly kingdom using the fallen wisdom of the world –
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2021/04/pope-francis-proposes-popularism-to-counter-populism/
Tomorrow also Feast day of Apparition of St.Michael , with the interesting narrative of how the arrow that was shot into his cave was sent back –
https://luisapiccarreta.me/archives/2338
The Holy Father as a son of Italy , thus blessed with double Feasts tomorrow along with the Octave of the Feast of St.Joseph the Worker . 🙂
May the blessings from all such abound for his life and ministry , for all to be united in the intent , to popularize with The Church , the love and the desire to live in the Divine Will that reigns in the Two Hearts .
He is not a son of Italy. He is a son of Argentina. Some would even say he is a son of the Devil.
Some would even say he is a son of the Devil.
One factor that is driving populism is the chasm that exists between the common person and the ruling establishment elites. There is one set of rules for the commoners, and apparently next to no rules for the ruling establishment elites. They are regularly caught in the position of do as I say, not as I do. Last summer’s looting and rioting was described as a “summer of love.” But when Washington D.C. got a milder one day dose of the “summer of love” last January up goes the fencing and in come the guards. This from the same people who decry fences(walls) and guards at the US Southern border. It’s easy for people who can afford to live in gated communities with personal guards to call for defunding the police. How many of the Second Amendment critics have armed guards packing heat?
*
The Catholic Social Teaching people have a real love affair with governmental solutions. The government treated as if it is all seeing, all knowing, and all powerful. It has gotten to the point of being idolatrous. The government as god. Concentrations of power that invite the corruption of those wielding this power. The Founding Fathers took great efforts to decentralize power as much as they could and established a system of checks and balances. To me this is probably why they are under attack by modern leftist demagogues who are obsessed with power. Due process and the rule of law puts a crimp in their utopian schemes.
Populism is a word so abused, it probably has no accurate definition. What I believe about Francis is that he often demonstrates an hysterically, narcissistic, neophilia and elitism and a personal understanding of Christianity that is so tarnished by personal conceit, he can not see how often he embodies those vices he projects onto those who fail to so much as join the throngs who adore him. I say often, because he is indisputably moody, and his personal beliefs change one day to the next depending on the audience, a kind of quantum mechanics world view. One day he can be avuncular towards flag carrying visiting guests from a national tour group, and another day berate another group for their “nationalism.”
He is a Pelagian who calls orthodox anti-Pelagian Catholics Pelagian with a complete absence of irony. He is a process theologian who believes even an uncertain God can change His mind. His idea of mercy excludes mercy for the victims of the sins committed by those whose desire for guilt avoidance is his supreme concern for the exercise of mercy, especially regarding sexual sins. He remains oblivious to the self-evident connection between sexual sin and the abortion he claims to decry, although even this is suspect given his affinity for population controllers within his globalist visions.
Elitists are what they are because they insist on the eventual perfectibility of humanity once the right people (themselves) are allowed to dictate the terms of utopia functioning within a super tyranny. Francis has told a conference of economists, while maintaining a straight face, to “design an economy” without money or any system of markets whatsoever. All the world’s elitists, including Francis, disdained Trump principally because, whatever his flaws, he had the good sense to be a passionate anti-elitist, in addition to pointing out, well, how intelligence challenged elitists are.
Anyone who believes that God might not be giving His Church its most extreme test in history with a loose cannon pontificate is taking refuge in populist manipulation that pretends everything is more or less normal.
Thank you for this trenchant analysis.