The Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, the seat of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. / Jim McIntosh via Wikimedia (CC BY 2.0).
Vatican City, Feb 14, 2022 / 04:35 am (CNA).
Pope Francis on Monday reorganized the internal structure of the Vatican’s doctrine office into two sections — the latest step in his ongoing reform of the Roman Curia.
In a letter issued motu proprio (of his own accord) on Feb. 14, Pope Francis centralized the tasks of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith into a doctrinal section and a disciplinary section.
The department previously had a third section, which dealt with marriage cases. With the motu proprio, titled Fidem servare, the responsibilities of the marriage office will be moved under the doctrinal section.
The restructuring goes into effect immediately.
In his apostolic letter, Pope Francis stated that the changes to the CDF’s organization have been made “in view of the experience gained during this time by the Congregation in various areas of work, and the need to give it an approach more suited to the fulfillment of the functions proper to it.”
The reorganization is a further step in Pope Francis’ gradual overhaul of the Roman Curia, which has included in recent months the replacement of several top personnel.
CDF Prefect Cardinal Luis Ladaria, who will turn 78 in April, is also expected to be replaced within the year.
The folding of the CDF into two sections is in line with Pope Francis’ earlier decision to end the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei.
In January 2019, the tasks of the Ecclesia Dei commission, which facilitated dialogue between the Church and traditionalist communities, especially those linked to Marcel Lefebvre, were moved under the doctrinal section of the CDF. The commission had been its own department within the CDF since 2009.
“‘Keeping the faith’(cf. 2 Tim. 4:7) is the principal task, as well as the ultimate criterion to be followed in the life of the Church,” Francis wrote in his Feb. 14 motu proprio.
“The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes on this important task, assuming both doctrinal and disciplinary competencies, as attributed to it by my Venerable Predecessors.”
The pope noted that St. Pope Paul VI changed the CDF from a lower-level curial department, called a “dicastery,” to the more important classification of “congregation.”
St. Pope John Paul II later specified the CDF’s competencies in his 1988 apostolic constitution, Pastor bonus.
Pastor bonus still governs the Roman Curia, though Pope Francis’ council of cardinal advisors has been drafting a new constitution for years.
In his motu proprio, Pope Francis said the CDF’s two sections will each be coordinated by a secretary whose job is to assist the prefect. Each section will also have an under-secretary who collaborates with the secretary and other heads of office.
The Doctrinal Section is responsible for matters “having to do with the promotion and protection of the doctrine of faith and morals.”
This includes promoting studies related to the transmission of the faith “at the service of evangelization, so that its light may be a criterion for understanding the meaning of life, especially in the face of questions posed by the progress of the sciences and the development of society,” Pope Francis said.
The Doctrinal Section examines curial documents before their publication to assure they are doctrinally sound. Pope Francis said it will also examine “writings and opinions which appear problematic for the correct faith, encouraging dialogue with their authors and proposing the appropriate suitable remedies to be applied.”
The Disciplinary Section, instead, deals with certain serious canonical crimes.
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.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey walks across the campus of St. John’s Prep in Danvers, Massachusetts, on April 9, 2024. / Credit: Screenshot of St. John’s Prep Facebook page last visited April 19, 2024
Boston, Mass., Apr 23, 2024 / 16:45 pm (CNA).
Pro-lifers in the Archdiocese of Boston are criticizing Cardinal Seán O’Malley over two recent appearances at Catholic education events by the pro-abortion governor of Massachusetts.
Earlier this month, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat who supports legal and publicly funded abortion and who has taken steps to make abortions easier to obtain, spoke at a fundraiser for The Catholic Schools Foundation, which raises money for Catholic schools in the archdiocese and helps poor students attend.
O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, is the chairman of the board of trustees of the foundation, though he was in Rome at the time of the gala and did not attend it.
Healey also recently visited a Catholic school north of Boston, speaking to students and answering questions.
C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called Healey’s appearances “a grave scandal.”
“Cardinal O’Malley should be ashamed of himself. Is Maura Healey an inspiring role model for Catholic students?” Doyle said.
Thomas Harvey, chairman of the Massachusetts Alliance to Stop Taxpayer Funded Abortions, called including Healey at the Catholic events “really disgraceful,” and he placed the blame on O’Malley.
“Maura Healey is a huge proponent of killing babies in the womb, in direct defiance of Catholic teaching, and yet here she is being presented to impressionable Catholic students as if she were a Catholic role model,” Harvey told the Register by text. “And the clear message being sent to Catholic students here is that killing babies in the womb is just not that big a deal.”
In June 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a document called “Catholics in Public Life,” which states: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”
Terrence Donilon, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston, pointed out that Healey was not an honoree at the gala or during her earlier appearance at the Catholic school.
Since Healey is the governor of the state, Donilon said, Cardinal O’Malley has worked with her “on a number of issues important to Catholics and the wider community,” including public funding for the archdiocese’s charitable work providing “basic needs assistance, job training, child care services, and immigration and refugee assistance to thousands of residents,” as well as building “badly needed affordable housing” and trying “to stem gun violence.”
“At the same time, the cardinal has been a leader in the pro-life movement for over 50 years and his commitment in being a staunch promoter of life is well known and unwavering,” Donilon said.
O’Malley, 79, a Capuchin Franciscan, has frequently attended the March for Life in Washington, D.C., and has spoken at pro-life rallies. Last week, The Boston Globe published a column by O’Malley urging state legislators to oppose a bill that would legalize physician-assisted suicide.
But critics such as Doyle claim that O’Malley during his time as archbishop has seemed to mix easily and uncritically with abortion-supporting Catholic politicians, including the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (whose funeral Mass he celebrated), the late Boston mayor Thomas Menino, former Boston mayor Marty Walsh, and the current governor, Healey, with whom he co-authored a column in The Boston Globe in September 2017 on immigration.
Donilon, O’Malley’s spokesman, addressing Healey’s participation in The Catholic Schools Foundation gala last week, said that “the governor has been a vocal supporter of Catholic education. … Our Catholic schools save cities and towns hundreds of millions of dollars in education costs. Our families benefit from an outstanding education based in an excellent faith-based environment.”
Gov. Maura Healey speaks to students at St. John’s Prep on April 9, 2024. Credit: Screenshot of St. John’s Prep Facebook page last visited on April 9, 2024.
Who is Maura Healey?
Healey, 53, was elected Massachusetts attorney general in 2014 with an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund. She served two terms as attorney general before being elected governor of Massachusetts in November 2022.
As an elected official, Healey has frequently supported public policies that clash with Catholic teachings on life and sexuality.
She has verbally attacked pro-life pregnancy centers, steered state government money to private abortion funds, and, in April 2023, quietly arranged for the flagship campus of the state-run University of Massachusetts to purchase 15,000 doses of abortion pills.
Healey’s administration in June 2023 successfully proposed a curriculum framework for public schools that calls for teaching between third and fifth grades “the differences between biological sex and gender identity” and “how one’s outward behavior and appearance does not define one’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Healey appeared Thursday, April 11, at the annual gala of The Catholic Schools Foundation at a hotel in Boston.
“So I didn’t have the benefit of going to Catholic school,” Healey said, according to a text of her remarks provided by a spokesman. “My mom went to Catholic school, and my nephew goes to Catholic school; we have priest[s] at the dinner table every Sunday. But I do know, both having been your attorney general and now as your governor, what your work means. And I can see that experience firsthand.”
She also said she wants to find ways “to partner” with the foundation “in the important work that you [are] doing.”
“And I want you to know that, as governor, I value our vibrant mix of education, our public schools, our private schools, and our religious schools,” Healey said.
Two days earlier, on Tuesday, April 9, Healey spent about 50 minutes with a group of 120 students at St. John’s Preparatory High School, a Catholic boys’ school founded by the Xaverian Brothers in Danvers, about 18 miles northeast of Boston, according to a description of the visit published on the school’s website. The school is in the Archdiocese of Boston, though it is not run by the archdiocese.
Healey had never visited the school before, “but it was quickly clear her personal values are closely aligned with those of the Xaverian Brothers,” the school’s write-up states.
Healey emphasized leadership and empathy during her remarks. The governor also told the students that while she believes in civil discourse, “there are some basic values that have kept our society intact,” and she told students they should “call out hate when you see it.”
“We can have differences of opinion on things,” Healey said, according to the school’s write-up, “but, to me, equality has got to abide. Respect for the dignity and worth of each person is something I call on people to really adhere to.”
Robert Joyce, a lawyer and member of the board of the Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal representation for pro-lifers, said that St. John’s Prep last fall turned down an offer he made to provide a pro-life assembly for students featuring a canon lawyer, a physician, and a vocations director. (The head of school, Edward Hardiman, did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.)
Joyce called Healey’s recent appearances at the gala and at the school “abominations for Catholic education.”
“They send the clear message to Catholic students and parents that critical, fundamental precepts of the Catholic faith are not all that important. In simple terms, they declare that protection of innocent unborn life and the defense of traditional marriage are negotiable with these Catholic educators,” Joyce indicated.
Healey is also a featured speaker at the annual Spring Celebration of Catholic Charities Boston scheduled for Wednesday, May 29, at the Boston Harbor Hotel in Boston. O’Malley is expected to receive an award at the event for his work in welcoming immigrants.
Healey and the Catholic Church
Healey does not often talk about religion in public, but she occasionally identifies herself as a Catholic.
In October 2018, when she was state attorney general, she led off a brief column in The Boston Globe with the words: “As a member of law enforcement and as a Catholic …”
In April 2022, when Healey criticized Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester for calling for a Catholic school to take down a rainbow flag, she added, according to MassLive.com: “And I speak as a Catholic …”
In October 2022, during a debate while she was running for governor, Healey used a Catholic reference while defending herself from a claim by her Republican opponent that a bill she had supported effectively legalized infanticide, as the National Catholic Register subsequently reported. “You know, my mom goes to Mass every morning,” Healey said.
Healey is widely thought of as a potential candidate for other offices. She would be an obvious Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts if either of the two incumbents (both in their 70s) leaves office.
Additionally, just hours before her appearance at The Catholic Schools Foundation gala, Healey participated in an event at Northeastern University in Boston honoring former Massachusetts governor and 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. The moderator floated Healey as a potential future candidate for president of the United States, to applause from the audience.
This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and is reprinted here on CNA with permission.
ACI Prensa Staff, Jun 28, 2021 / 14:30 pm (CNA).
The bishops of the Pacific and the southwestern regions of Colombia spoke out about the current situation in the country last week, encouraging reconciliation, justice,… […]
Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City (Left) and Bishop James Wall of Gallup (Right) pray before the afternoon session of the 2019 USCCB General Assembly, June 12, 2019. / Kate Veik/CNA
Answer to the last question: The Pope, so help him, God.
But, as Beaulieu notes below, Francis will not judge. If past behavior predicts future performance, Francis will remain silent. He will sign documents of all form and shape of Curial nonsense, synodal silliness, or outright sinfulness while claiming that signing signified only receipt, not approval.
Pope Francis does judge. He haws condemned abortion, same-sex marriage, conceited self-serving attitudes, homosexuality …
What he does not do is judge people. He, or anybody else, cannot really judge people because we cannot read the workings deep within a person’s soul. However, Pope Francis does not remain silent. He condemns all that needs to be condemned according to Catholic belief. He will respond not as worldly wisdom dictates but as Jesus taught.
“The responsibilities of the marriage office will be moved under the doctrinal section”. If, realistically, the intention is to insure unity in judgments on marriage cases a single body [department] doctrinally informed would expectedly make an informed judgment. If, hypothetically, the intention is to variegate these judgments to insure judgment reflects a particular theological perspective, let us say hypothetically, the perspectives of Amoris Laetitia, then a splitting of doctrine from judgment would be conducive to making a preferred rather than doctrinal judgment. Might the Church rather patiently await history’s greatest reductionist transaction [euphemism for Synod on synodality] to evacuate its internal laboring upon the remaining faithful. Better yet, might we simply step aside and stand fast with saints and martyrs.
The frog on the pot doesn’t notice the water coming to a boil.
The splitting of doctrine from practice, it seems to this peasant, has been the agenda since 2013. This way, moral doctrines need never be denied (heresy), but simply set aside. The larger picture, of course, is that with ambiguity toward the sacrament of indissoluble marriage, accommodation is also one step closer, so to speak, for the oxymoron of “gay marriage,” whether merely “civil” or not.
The even larger next step, this peasant fears, will be the subordination of the CDF to the new super-dicastery of generic (?) Evangelization, which in turn will suffer “pluralism” with other (only natural) religions like complicated/eclectic and, therefore, mega-sectarian Islam.
The sad fact is that, in the hands of better ghost writers and such, the thrust toward “Fraternity” or even synodality (sin-nods?) need not be falsely harmonized,compromised and decapitated in these rigid and bigoted ways.
The infallible Law of Unintended Consequences will prevail, with a tsunami of even more “irregular,” that is, more provisional marriages, not unlike the prototype “provisional” deal with China.
St. Thomas’ Catena on the Gates of Hell, Origen: “Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, �Thou art Peter;� for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.
…and on binding and loosing: “Second Council of Constantinople, Concil. Con. ii. Collat. 8: How is it that some do presume to say that these things are said only of the living? Know they not that the sentence of anathema is nothing else but separation? They are to be avoided who are held of grievous faults, whether they are among the living, or not. For it is always behoveful to fly from the wicked. Moreover there are divers letters read of Augustine of religious memory, who was of great renown among the African bishops, which affirmed [margin note: see Aug. Ep. 185, 4] that heretics ought to be anathematized even after death. Such an ecclesiastical tradition other African Bishops also have preserved. And the Holy Roman Church also has anathematized some Bishops after death, although no accusation had been brought against their faith in their lifetime. [ed. note: This passage is quoted from the sentence of the Council. It alleges the authority of S. Cyril, from one of whose lost works against Theodorus the sentence beginning, �They are to be avoided, &c,� is quoted.]”
So, bishops may be anathematized after death. The duty of the faithful is to follow and confess Christ rather than the words of wayward bishops. The faithful should hold firmly to the faith of Peter’s ‘rock’ even should huge chunks of Christ’s Body fall victim to leprosy. Anathema may not happen in a bishop’s life on earth, but the sensus fidelium of the ‘rock’ surely knows when the charge justly should be made.
This restructure is no surprise as it is long overdue. The last major one was thirty years ago. The abuse crisis has been one of the factors that called for this change. It now has a section devoted to it with greater accountability and efficiency being its aim. This has been warmly welcomed by certain groups. The need for evangelization is also one of the reasons for this change. Of course, the usual naysayers will try to shoot it down – and they will sometimes quote philosophy, theology and even scripture to back up their views.
According to WIKIPEDIA “Praedicate Evangelium” is said to be a provisional title.
Also there, Cardinal Parolin is given as saying, July 2021, that the thing is in a process of formation to get it to align to its “juridical character” and to achieve “homogeneity” of all the reforms being made.
Sorry it gives rise to so much speculation.
And in the meantime changes get made at the local level, in anticipation, without any juridical foundation. One example would be the clustering of parishes. These are even called “families of parishes”.
The purpose for these changes is to give impetus to mission. That idea is laudable. In the Archdiocese of Detroit it may even be commendable with the structuring there well-arranged and the activities kept to faith and reason.
But setting it up as template for everyone at large, without the formal clarity, might not be so advisable -or, is is unreasonable -or, is unjustified. Plus, having it as a singular format every ordinary MUST use, extinguishes an apostolic freedom.
Moreover, “splitting” doctrine and discipline does not have any precedent and portends confusion.
Saying that it prevents a narrow-mindedness centering on the parish priest, from arising, doesn’t resolve the issues raised.
Gagliarducci describes in his article “Is Pope Francis’ pragmatic approach creating a crisis for canon law?” at CWR, how the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts has already gotten marginalized. This body would harmonize the laws that were to be declared; and now it has only a “sporadic” use. He also gives some background on the Holy Father’s selective interventions. See the link.
With a split in doctrine and discipline, it’s likely going to get more complicated.
‘ Two of Evangelii gaudium’s main principles are “time is greater than space” and “realities are more important than ideas.” For this reason, the pope opens processes without worrying too much about the consequences. As he has often said, one cannot be held back by the rationale that “things have always been this way.”
The pope does not make cast-iron plans because realities come first. Curial reform is made “while walking,” as Cardinal Marcello Semeraro noted in the magazine Il Regno while he was serving as secretary of the pope’s Council of Cardinals.
Even legislative action, then, is subject to Pope Francis’ pragmatic approach. That rings alarm bells for Boni and other scholars of canon law. As laws can be made and then adjusted, how will it be possible to have a coherent legislative framework?
This is the reason why this (Boni’s) book is not just about the marginalization of a dicastery. Instead, it shows the threat of a crisis for canon law. ‘
Some questions come to me as a sort of unqualified novice-amateur out-of-place:
Was this ever done before?
Can it cogently serve VATICAN II as regards the laity?
Isn’t a layperson at a handicap, dealing with this?
In the first place, is it consistent with sacramental economy?
Practical – if you split “doctrine” from “discipline”, who then is responsible?
Answer to the last question: The Pope, so help him, God.
But, as Beaulieu notes below, Francis will not judge. If past behavior predicts future performance, Francis will remain silent. He will sign documents of all form and shape of Curial nonsense, synodal silliness, or outright sinfulness while claiming that signing signified only receipt, not approval.
Pope Francis does judge. He haws condemned abortion, same-sex marriage, conceited self-serving attitudes, homosexuality …
What he does not do is judge people. He, or anybody else, cannot really judge people because we cannot read the workings deep within a person’s soul. However, Pope Francis does not remain silent. He condemns all that needs to be condemned according to Catholic belief. He will respond not as worldly wisdom dictates but as Jesus taught.
“The responsibilities of the marriage office will be moved under the doctrinal section”. If, realistically, the intention is to insure unity in judgments on marriage cases a single body [department] doctrinally informed would expectedly make an informed judgment. If, hypothetically, the intention is to variegate these judgments to insure judgment reflects a particular theological perspective, let us say hypothetically, the perspectives of Amoris Laetitia, then a splitting of doctrine from judgment would be conducive to making a preferred rather than doctrinal judgment. Might the Church rather patiently await history’s greatest reductionist transaction [euphemism for Synod on synodality] to evacuate its internal laboring upon the remaining faithful. Better yet, might we simply step aside and stand fast with saints and martyrs.
The frog on the pot doesn’t notice the water coming to a boil.
The splitting of doctrine from practice, it seems to this peasant, has been the agenda since 2013. This way, moral doctrines need never be denied (heresy), but simply set aside. The larger picture, of course, is that with ambiguity toward the sacrament of indissoluble marriage, accommodation is also one step closer, so to speak, for the oxymoron of “gay marriage,” whether merely “civil” or not.
The even larger next step, this peasant fears, will be the subordination of the CDF to the new super-dicastery of generic (?) Evangelization, which in turn will suffer “pluralism” with other (only natural) religions like complicated/eclectic and, therefore, mega-sectarian Islam.
The sad fact is that, in the hands of better ghost writers and such, the thrust toward “Fraternity” or even synodality (sin-nods?) need not be falsely harmonized,compromised and decapitated in these rigid and bigoted ways.
The infallible Law of Unintended Consequences will prevail, with a tsunami of even more “irregular,” that is, more provisional marriages, not unlike the prototype “provisional” deal with China.
Pilate’s “what is truth?” But, who am I to judge?
Stand fast.
St. Thomas’ Catena on the Gates of Hell, Origen: “Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, �Thou art Peter;� for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.
…and on binding and loosing: “Second Council of Constantinople, Concil. Con. ii. Collat. 8: How is it that some do presume to say that these things are said only of the living? Know they not that the sentence of anathema is nothing else but separation? They are to be avoided who are held of grievous faults, whether they are among the living, or not. For it is always behoveful to fly from the wicked. Moreover there are divers letters read of Augustine of religious memory, who was of great renown among the African bishops, which affirmed [margin note: see Aug. Ep. 185, 4] that heretics ought to be anathematized even after death. Such an ecclesiastical tradition other African Bishops also have preserved. And the Holy Roman Church also has anathematized some Bishops after death, although no accusation had been brought against their faith in their lifetime. [ed. note: This passage is quoted from the sentence of the Council. It alleges the authority of S. Cyril, from one of whose lost works against Theodorus the sentence beginning, �They are to be avoided, &c,� is quoted.]”
So, bishops may be anathematized after death. The duty of the faithful is to follow and confess Christ rather than the words of wayward bishops. The faithful should hold firmly to the faith of Peter’s ‘rock’ even should huge chunks of Christ’s Body fall victim to leprosy. Anathema may not happen in a bishop’s life on earth, but the sensus fidelium of the ‘rock’ surely knows when the charge justly should be made.
One cannot help but image the “transaction…to evacuate its internal laboring…” When it hits the fan, it won’t be pretty. Best to seek cover now.
Nailed it again Meiron.
This restructure is no surprise as it is long overdue. The last major one was thirty years ago. The abuse crisis has been one of the factors that called for this change. It now has a section devoted to it with greater accountability and efficiency being its aim. This has been warmly welcomed by certain groups. The need for evangelization is also one of the reasons for this change. Of course, the usual naysayers will try to shoot it down – and they will sometimes quote philosophy, theology and even scripture to back up their views.
According to WIKIPEDIA “Praedicate Evangelium” is said to be a provisional title.
Also there, Cardinal Parolin is given as saying, July 2021, that the thing is in a process of formation to get it to align to its “juridical character” and to achieve “homogeneity” of all the reforms being made.
Sorry it gives rise to so much speculation.
And in the meantime changes get made at the local level, in anticipation, without any juridical foundation. One example would be the clustering of parishes. These are even called “families of parishes”.
The purpose for these changes is to give impetus to mission. That idea is laudable. In the Archdiocese of Detroit it may even be commendable with the structuring there well-arranged and the activities kept to faith and reason.
But setting it up as template for everyone at large, without the formal clarity, might not be so advisable -or, is is unreasonable -or, is unjustified. Plus, having it as a singular format every ordinary MUST use, extinguishes an apostolic freedom.
Moreover, “splitting” doctrine and discipline does not have any precedent and portends confusion.
Saying that it prevents a narrow-mindedness centering on the parish priest, from arising, doesn’t resolve the issues raised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praedicate_evangelium
https://www.wlwt.com/article/archdiocese-of-cincinnati-shakeup-new-priest-assignments-announced/39076724#
Gagliarducci describes in his article “Is Pope Francis’ pragmatic approach creating a crisis for canon law?” at CWR, how the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts has already gotten marginalized. This body would harmonize the laws that were to be declared; and now it has only a “sporadic” use. He also gives some background on the Holy Father’s selective interventions. See the link.
With a split in doctrine and discipline, it’s likely going to get more complicated.
‘ Two of Evangelii gaudium’s main principles are “time is greater than space” and “realities are more important than ideas.” For this reason, the pope opens processes without worrying too much about the consequences. As he has often said, one cannot be held back by the rationale that “things have always been this way.”
The pope does not make cast-iron plans because realities come first. Curial reform is made “while walking,” as Cardinal Marcello Semeraro noted in the magazine Il Regno while he was serving as secretary of the pope’s Council of Cardinals.
Even legislative action, then, is subject to Pope Francis’ pragmatic approach. That rings alarm bells for Boni and other scholars of canon law. As laws can be made and then adjusted, how will it be possible to have a coherent legislative framework?
This is the reason why this (Boni’s) book is not just about the marginalization of a dicastery. Instead, it shows the threat of a crisis for canon law. ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/11/19/is-pope-francis-pragmatic-approach-creating-a-crisis-for-canon-law/