Tag Archive for ‘structures of governance’
The line is from the 3/15/10 edition of Sightings, Martin E. Marty’s weekly newsletter, and it describes one of the ongoing lunacies of Glenn Beck. “The fact that Mr. Beck charms millions of devotees tells more about the sad state of truth-telling and the high state of lie-receiving than civil citizens should want to hear.”
When reading the John Allen interview in NCR with Mother Clare Millea, who is heading up the Vatican “investigation” of American religious women, this patient and sane-sounding woman says the following in answer to John Allen’s question about the reaction the visitation has generated:
NCR (aka John Allen): A year into this process, are you in a better position to understand some of the fear and resistance it’s generated?
Mother Clare Millea: Initially I got many reactions along the lines of, “We were not consulted, we were not warned, this was just thrown on us.” That’s certainly foreign to our American mentality, and our way of doing things. … One time I said to a major superior who lives in Rome, “You and I both live here, and we know this is what happens. Why don’t we just get over it?” She laughed and said, “You’re right. Let’s do it.”
Here in the third millennium, the Church has a structure of governance that is a divine-right, absolute monarchy. It is grossly unrepresentative, lacks checks and balances, deadens the global and national voice of the bishops, excludes the sense of the faithful, compromises liturgy, paralyzes needed development in canon law, ignores the lessons of modern jurisprudence, is obsessed with obedience and secrecy, conflates traditional doctrine with papal opinion, and compromises the intellectual life of the Church. The sexual abuse scandal has shown time and time again that the hierarchy will value the institution over the safety of innocent children, rotting the Church spiritually (and financially) from within.
Yet otherwise sane people continue to accept this governance structure. As Mother Clare Millea said, ”You and I both live here, and we know this is what happens. Why don’t we just get over it?”
Little will change in the Church at the top. When it happens, it will happen from the bottom when people like Mother Clare Millea refuse to accept that “this is what happens” and start exercising some civil (i.e., papal) disobedience instead of just getting over it.
Tags: papal disobedience, structures of governance
Here’s an interesting piece from the Wikipedia article on Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience on the question of the morality of structures of governance. He’s talking about the state here but it relates to the structures by which the Church chooses to govern itself.
Read Church instead of State and it points to an interesting future. (And no, I do not consider current Church governance “an act of God.”
Because government is man-made, not an element of nature or an act of God, Thoreau hoped that its makers could be reasoned with. As governments go, he felt, the U.S. government, with all its faults, was not the worst and even had some admirable qualities. But he felt we could and should insist on better. “The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.… Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.”
Tags: structures of governance
Besides its structures of governance, the organizational or corporate culture of the Church obviously makes a huge difference in the way the Church is run.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_culture
“Organizational culture is an idea in the field of Organizational studies and management which describes the psychology, attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values (personal and cultural values) of an organization. It has been defined as “the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.”
“This definition continues to explain organizational values also known as “beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals. From organizational values develop organizational norms, guidelines or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towards one another.”
Tags: structures of governance
The papacy and hierarchy’s very act of demanding that the faithful not talk about certain issues (e.g., women’s ordination) as a prerequisite to being a “good Catholic” is crazy-making; it boggles the mind and demeans the Church.
Imagine going to see your crazy old Uncle Tootie. In order for Uncle Tootie to talk to you, he requires that you wear a hat and hop three times on your left leg before you enter his room. Now you may be fond of Uncle Tootie, and you may remember when he had a few more marbles than he does today, and you may respect him for the work he as done in his life, so you are happy to wear the hat and hop three times on your left leg in order to get in there and pay your respects. But you certainly don’t look to him for any wisdom any more, and you certainly wouldn’t want him running anything.
The more the papacy and hierarchy enforce this policy of certain topics that may not be talked about (e.g., women’s ordination), the more they look like crazy old Uncle Tootie.
That would be cute and funny except for the fact that people are being forced out of their roles in the Church merely for talking about things, as Sister of Charity Louise Lears found out when she forced out of all church ministerial roles and forbidden to receive the sacraments in the archdiocese by Saint Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. Cutting someone off from the sacraments because they talk about women’s ordination? It’s no wonder people flee the Church.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
From Ladislas Orsy: “No one has ever stated more clearly and succinctly the difference between bishops and “doctors” than Aquinas. He discussed it within the framework of the two cathedras: To be promoted to an episcopal cathedra, the qualification required is to be eminent in charity. Ordination then confers eminence in power in relation to the faithful; power that the person did not possess before. To be promoted to a doctoral cathedra, sufficient learning, scientia, is necessary. The position offers an opportunity to use the knowledge and the skill that a person possessed before (cf Quodl. 3.9.c).”
“Comments: Ordination gives no knowledge; no person becomes more learned by it. Competent government, however, especially in our contemporary church, demands a high degree of learning. It follows that ordinarily, unless the bishop has personally sufficient knowledge and skill, he needs the help of the “doctors” to govern well.”
When the hierarchy fixates on obedience, mandatums, visitations and non-transparent, unjust doctrinal scrutiny of said scholars, they stifle the very people who are supposed to be enlightening them.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
Upon the passing of Mary Daly, a retired professor at Boston College, Charlotte Allen asks in a January 14, 2010 Wall Street Journal article, where are all the Catholic dissidents, and notes that the Flame of Catholic Dissent is dying out. She notes that Mary Daly, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Sister Sandra M. Schneiders are all of the Vatican II era and points out the void.
“So where is the second generation of brilliant progressive Catholic theologians? There are plenty of liberal lay Catholics. The church’s ban on artificial birth control is nearly a dead letter, a majority of Catholics say they believe their church should ordain women, and 40% have no moral objections to abortion, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. But dissident Catholicism seems to have lost steam as an intellectual movement, and not only because the issues relating to sex and papal authority that originally sparked Catholic dissidents have not changed in nearly 50 years.”
“The first-generation dissidents were products of a strong and confident traditional Catholic culture against which they rebelled, one whose intellectual standards grounded them in the faith they later came to question. Sister Schneiders, for example, earned four degrees from Catholic institutions, including the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Yet most Catholics of her generation have not passed on the tenets of their faith to their children—the offspring of the Vatican II generation tend either to be churchless or not to go to church—or, in the case of academics, to their students. It’s hard to rebel when you don’t even know what you are rebelling against.”
Again I have to wonder if the intellectual life of the church has lost its zip not so much from outright repression (which would inspire dissent) but from a growing sense of the irrelevance of the authority of the institution.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
In his book Apologia, Cardinal Newman (who had a far tougher time with intellectual freedom in his day than we do in ours) says that he believes in the dogma as taught by the Apostles and interpreted by the Church, and in the universally received traditions of the Church, “which in all times are the clothing and the illustration of the Catholic dogma as already defined,” and other decisions of the Holy See, which come “with a claim to be accepted and obeyed.” Then he says he feels “no temptation at all to break in pieces the great legacy of thought thus committed to us” by the likes of St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas. Then he says keeping “Infallibility and Reason” in ongoing tension is “necessary for the very life of religion” because it brings them together “for the melting, refining, and moulding, by an incessant, noisy process, of the raw material of human nature.”
This is a description of what I think should be going on but is not going on exactly because of the deadening of our intellectual life.
Besides the issues of obsession with obedience, mandatums, the illogic of “not infallible but irreformable,” and the unjust process of sanctions, two things strike me.
One is that all of the issues that seem to be roiling the Church today (birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, collegiality) have little to do with “dogma as taught by the Apostles.” They are essentially operational issues. Yet power is exercised by the hierarchy to forbid their discussion (e.g., the nun put under interdict for advocating women’s ordination). The hierarchy seems to want to bring down the full power and weight of the magesterium on these issues, even though they have little to do with essential doctrine. That’s why Ad tuendam fidem (i.e., the creation of a category of doctrine that is not infallible but irreformable is so dangerous, besides being illogical).
Secondly, in the meantime, little relative energy is being put into the articulation of the basic truths of the faith in a way that makes sense in the modern world. We never even get to “the melting, refining, and moulding, by an incessant, noisy process” the truths that might rightly be considered infallible, so “Infallibility and Reason” are not being kept in ongoing tension on topics of consequence because all the focus is on mandating obedience to what are essentially bureaucratic issues.
Also, I wonder if the intellectual life of the church has lost its zip not so much from outright repression but from a growing sense of the irrelevance of the authority of the institution. If that’s the case, then the dialectic Newman suggests of “Infallibility and Reason” isn’t going to work.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
I think the sisters are on to something here. The Church does abuse its own (not that that’s a surprise). The interesting thing is the way they’re articulating it as abuse and responding to it.
From an article in National Catholic Reporter.
“The vast majority of U.S. women religious are not complying with a Vatican request to answer questions in a document of inquiry that is part of a three-year study of the congregations. Leaders of congregations, instead, are leaving questions unanswered or sending in letters or copies of their communities’ constitutions.” …
“Explaining the attitude in her community, St. Joseph Sr. Margaret Gregg said, “I feel the response was a thoughtful, respectful response to a very puzzling situation. The purpose of this investigation is unclear to me, given the level of the questions.” …
“All along, said one woman religious, the challenge has been to respond to the Vatican in a way that breaks a cycle of violence. She said that the women religious communities have attempted to respond by using a language “devoid of the violence” they found in the Vatican questionnaire and within the wider study. She characterized the congregation responses as “creative and affirming,” and part of an effort to set a positive example in “nonviolent resistance.”
“On the one hand we didn’t want to roll over and play dead,” she said. “So the question was, “How do you step outside a violent framework and do something new?’ That was the challenge that emerged.” One congregation, she said, cited a U.S. bishops’ statement concerning domestic abuse in its response letter to Millea. “The point is, there have to be more than two choices: Take the abuse and offer it up, or kill the abuser.”
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
There are structures and habits in church governance which work to deaden the intellectual life of the church.
The hierarchy is obsessed with obedience. Anyone ordained and anyone holding an office in the church takes a “profession of faith” which includes the following oath: “I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” There are other oaths.
The apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae addresses the catholicism of Catholic colleges and universities. It cites Canon 812: “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.” In the U.S., “The mandatum is to be granted by the diocesan Bishop of the diocese in which the Catholic university is located.” The college or university is subject to the particular opinion of the bishop who happens to run the diocese in which the college or university finds itself. The history of the pedophilia scandal in the Church shows that a culture of obedience can too easily enable acquiescence to evil.
When it comes to sanctions against theologians, the CDF ignores the lessons of modern jurisprudence: precise definition of an offense; separation of the roles of judge, the prosecutor, and defense; equal access; the presumption of innocence; openness; appeal.
Definitive doctrine, a new category of doctrine created by John Paul II, is not “infallible” but which nevertheless is “irreformable” (i.e., can’t be changed) – a logical inconsistency on the face of it.
Obsession with obedience coupled with continuous extensions of papal-defined “definitive doctrine” (which cannot be changed even though it is not infallible) and the existence of mandatums and sanctions creates an environment which is suppressing the intellectual life of the church. Who can speak out on any issue not a part of the papal party line without potential repercussion? Not any untenured professor of theology under a mandatum, or anyone who has taken the oath of fidelity, which is everyone who has been ordained and anyone who holds an office in the church. They are all subject to sanctions if found to be uttering “erroneous” or “dangerous” doctrine. Even if such sanctions are rarely exercised, they intimidate.
For example, all it takes is “a steady muttering” to get a million dollar investigation going, as evidenced by the ongoing “visitation” of American religious women by the Vatican. “In his Tuesday interview with Vatican Radio, Cardinal Rode said ‘some criticism arrived from United States and an important representative of the U.S. Church warned me about certain irregularities or deficiencies in the lives of American women religious.’ Though Cardinal Rode did not say who the representative was, he also revealed the problems include ‘a certain secularist mentality that has spread among these religious families, perhaps even a certain ‘feminist spirit.’”
(The full story)
Benedict’s latest statement is on British politics, where he claims that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination “actually violates natural law” since it stops worshippers remaining true to their beliefs because it makes them admit homosexuals to the priesthood or face prosecution for discriminating against them. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an uprising of Thomists to stand up and argue the point that this attitude is a misreading if not complete distortion of natural law; who wants to get smacked upside the head by the CDF or some bishop’s mandatum?
“Creative thinkers who scrutinize the divine mysteries and give us a language to speak about them must be constantly aware that the church trusts them and protects them. If norms are needed to prevent deviations, norms are even more necessary to secure freedom for creative thinking.” (Orsy, p. 103)
The hierarchy is in a pickle. If they are truly rational about any one of the Church’s contentious issues (e.g., birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, celibacy, etc.), it will create the expectation that they will be rational about all of them; the whole papal party line either stands inviolate or falls as a whole to the scrutiny of evidence-based reason. Until this scrutiny happens, the Church’s entire intellectual progress, its entire means to have faith seek understanding, will be stymied by the very people who are supposed to be its leaders.
I see issues such as lack of collegiality, mandatums, the injustice of the CDF investigations, mandatory celibacy, the role of women, etc. etc. not as progressive / conservative issues but as moral issues as they affect the ability of the Church to spread its message. These are questions of justice, not political preference. I think it’s important to clarify the nature and extent of the disfunction in the Church not to bash it but to get a handle on fixing it. The Church does abuse its own.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
Clearly this book has captured my attention. I think the reason I consider it so important is that it clarifies the precise points where the Church has gone wrong operationally since Vatican II and the arguments that support the judgment that the Church’s current direction is in fact out of of step with tradition and theologically untenable. Well worth the read to understand the history and to chart a path for reform in the future.
Tags: Orsy, structures of governance
We all need to become conversant in canon law; it’s the operating manual of the Church.
“The Spirit of God is the one who brings the church into existence and sustains it. The church, however, by divine design needs visible structures to be a community of human beings and to operate in a human way. This need is the foundation of the ecclesial vocation of canon lawyers: they are called to be partners of the Spirit in building structures for the unfolding kingdom of God in human history.” (p. 143)
“If laws are for the well-being of the community, as they should be, then all laws, secular and religious, are more than justice. They are manifestations of the love that the scholastics called amor benevolentiae, ‘love that wants to give,’ or ‘love that wants to enrich the other.’ Virtues do not exclude each other: they blend and integrate … Thus justice becomes love.” (p. 144)
“We know in retrospect that the reception of every major council has been slow and painful. So is the reception of Vatican Council II, all the more so because its insights have consequences in the practical order and postulate a conversion in the habits of human thoughts and operations. This is the price the community must pay in exchange for a deeper understanding of the mysteries and a more intense participation in them–and a blessed price it is.
“Yet there should be no doubt: it shall be a fruitful time. As the energies latent in our dedicated laity, in the episcopal college, and in the church of Christ (now suffering from disunity) are given scope, there will be an abundant harvest of good fruit for the benefit of all. Our hope is well founded: the Spirit has taken the initiative.” ” (p. 147-8)
We have the insights from Vatican II but need to build the structures and norms that will give full scope to those insights.
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
In this chapter, Orsy addresses how the new papal invention of “definitive doctine” compromises the intellectual freedom necessary to properly develop doctrine. “… the demand for stability and the imperative of development are vital forces in any living community.” (p. 105)
He describes how you can tell when development of doctrine is healthy: it respects the foundations of the institution, shows a harmonious progress from the old to the new, the once hidden potentials of the old are revealed, it is filled with energy. If it is unhealthy, it destabilizes the foundations, has a corrosive impact on identity, undermines original principles, is a radical break, shows no vigor of life, and weakens the institution.
“The Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, mandated a healthy balance between stability and development. It’s canon 750 stressed the importance of stability … Canon 218 asserted the imperative of development and the need for ‘just freedom’ in research …
The two canons together stated well the right and duty of the community–to preserve and to let evolve the evangelical doctrine. (p. 108)
Inventing Definitive Doctrine with Ad tuendam fidem
“This balance established by the Code of Canon Law, however, was changed in 1998 with the promulgation of the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem. The letter introduced into, and imposed on, the church a new category of teaching, called ‘definitive,’ and explained it as not infallible but irreformable. Effectively, it not verbally, it transferred some freely debated doctrines from the field of ‘doubtful things’ to the field of the ‘necessary things,’ where no question must be raised anymore about their unchangeable nature. …
“Thus the document places each and every point of teaching that has been declared ‘definitive’ by the papal magisterium into the body of ‘the doctrine of the Catholic Church,’ even when such a declaration does not fulfill the stringent criteria of a papal definition …” In other words, is not infallible. (p. 108-9)
Ratzinger also wrote a Commentary (not part of it or signed by the CDF) listing examples of definitive doctrine, like no ordination for women, the invalidity of Anglican ordination, etc.
So now doctrine doesn’t have to be infallible to be “irreformable.” And sanctions were added to canon law to enforce observance of doctrines determined to be definitive. Gotta love it.
But Ad tuendam fidem itself is not infallible because it is not a solemn ex cathedra pronouncement. So even by the loony logic of infallibility, it isn’t infallible.
It extends doctrinal foundations beyond traditional limits by attributing “unchangeable permanency to doctrines to which the universal church has not committed itself infallibly.” (p. 112) Plus, it just basically made up the category of non-infallible but unchangeable. And it stifles real thought.
And you wonder why so many people think the church is nuts.
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
Orsy sets secular legal wisdom side by side with how justice is administered in the church.
He takes as an example The 1997 Regulations for the Examination of Doctrines from the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s 1500 words, 29 articles, and describes the process by which a doctrine in circulation may be judged “erroneous or dangerous to the faith” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (e.g., the smackdown of a theologian).
These regulations say that the bishop has the right and duty to “exercise pastoral solicitude” but that the Holy See “has the power to intervene, and intends to intervene, whenever a publication constitutes a grave danger for the faith and the impact reaches beyond the boundaries of a local episcopal conference.” (p. 92) Today, this could be any publication on the planet.
Secular legal wisdom says:
“Justice demands a precise definition of an offense”
“The Regulations name two offenses, namely the spreading of ‘erroneous doctrine’ and ‘dangerous doctrine.’ Both are two broad for comfort.
“Erroneous” or “dangerous” doctrine is much too vague a definition of an offence. “Totalitarian states like to have crimes broadly defined …” (p. 97)
“’Erroneous doctrine’ can have different meanings in the realm of religious beliefs and opinions. Catholic theology has always carefully distinguished revealed doctrine (‘articles of faith’) from theological opinions held by scholars or some church officials. They are not of the same category. If a proposition is judged erroneous, to understand the gravity of the error one must know the authority of the ‘truth’ that it denies. Vatican Council II insisted on a ‘hierarchy of truths,’ with each truth demanding assent to a specific degree, yet the Regulations use one broad category that opens the door for a uniform prosecution of errors, whether major or minor. There is a difference between obstinate rejection of an article of faith and thoughtful opposition to an opinion held by an office of the Holy See.
“The expression ‘dangerous doctrine’ gives an even larger scope to the investigators: with it they can reach far and wide as it has no firm and objective limits. … the perception of a danger can be subjective and deceptive: much depends on the mind of the observer.” (p. 97)
“Justice is best served when the respective roles of the judge, the prosecutor, and the defendant’s advocate are kept separate”
“If the office of the investigator appoints all of them, the balance of the trial is disturbed and the objectivity of the decision is questioned. … In the Regulations, this well-established separation of the roles is not honored. The same organs of the Congregation are involved in, or can influence on the initial investigation, the articulation of the charges, the defense of the writings and of the author, and eventually the final decision.” (p. 97)
“Equity, the perfection of justice, demands that each of the opposing parties has a similar opportunity to plead before the judge.”
“The Regulations grant different measures, far from any equal amount of time, to the accuser and the defender. During the first part of the ordinary process when the crucial decision is taken about the conformity of the author’s writings to the demands of orthodoxy, he is absent. He is not even informed that a process has been initiated.
“Another glaring lack of equity (to say the least) emerges when the outcome of the examination is negative, and the Congregation finds the author’s propositions ‘erroneous or dangerous.’” The bishop or superior is informed, reputations can be ruined, and the author may still not know he has been accused.
“Our church has nothing to lose and much to gain by offering the elementary courtesy to Christian thinkers to explain their mind right from the moment when suspicion arises against their writings. (p. 98-9)
The presumption of innocence
“The ‘principle of the presumption of innocence’ is an inviolable part of the criminal proceedings in modern legal systems. Such a presumption, however, is not mentioned in the Regulations. (p. 99)
Justice demands openness
“The virtue of justice, as integrated with faith, hope, and love among Christians, is a powerful factor in forging unity in the community. For this reason, it is never enough to do justice, it must be done publicly. The people should see that justice is done. … “The Regulations fall short of the standards of an open trial. In particular, the first part of the ordinary proceedings is shrouded in complete secrecy.” (p. 100)
An extreme penalty
“Excommunication is an extreme penalty in a Christian community. But “The Regulations ignore a crucial problem: the crime of heresy is an ‘obstinate denial’ of an article of faith (Canon 751); it is a surrender to falsehood while one sees the light. … it is not an ordinary event. Even if it has been established that the writings of a person contain heretical propositions, it does not follow necessarily that he is guided by a perverse intention. To rush into the imposition of an extreme sentence (perhaps without ever having listened to the author) can hardly be the sign and symbol of justice–let alone Christian mercy.” (p. 101-2)
The opportunity for appeal is an integral part of any good judicial system
“The Regulations are clear: once the Congregation has declared that the author is guilty of heresy, apostasy, or schism, the author must be held excommunicated, and ‘against such a declaration no recourse is admitted.’ The Explanatory Notes provide the following reason: throughout the process the pope himself is involved: hence, there cannot be any room for appeal. The underlying assumption seems to be that throughout, papal infallibility somehow plays a part in the process and, at the end, seals the sentence. But Catholic theology allows no such assumption. To exclude, therefore, any possibility of a miscarriage of justice would be presumptuous.
“At this point the Regulations reveal a substantial structural weakness: they create a first instance tribunal that, in the course of the same trial, becomes a supreme court.” (p. 101)
Conclusion
“In the Catholic world, the best way to promote and safeguard the doctrine of faith is to create a climate of trust where the process described by St. Anselm of Canterbury as fides quaerens intellectum, ‘faith seeking understanding,’ can flourish. Such a search for understanding is carried out mostly (but not exclusively) by professional theologians. To attract young and talented persons to choose theological research and reflection as their vocation, to strengthen those who are already dedicated to that work, and to lift the spirit of those who are struggling with the hard issues of our days, an environment of freedom and confidence is indispensable, a condicio sine qua non. Such an environment cannot exist if investigations, accusations, and even condemnations are allowed to take place in secrecy.
“Creative thinkers who scrutinize the divine mysteries and give us a language to speak about them must be constantly aware that the church trusts them and protects them. If norms are needed to prevent deviations, norms are even more necessary to secure freedom for creative thinking.” (p. 103)
“In truth, creative thinkers are one of the greatest assets of the church: they let the internal riches of the evangelical message unfold. … This was the ministry of Friar Thomas Aquinas and of Cardinal John Henry Newman.” (p. 103)
“The judicial procedures of the Regulations are of human origin. They are not rooted in any divine precept. They are the product of another age, not suited for our ecumenical times. To reform such procedures would be to obey Vatican Council II: Christ summons the church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is a human institution here on earth (UR 6).” (p. 103-4)
This situation is untenable. A church that proports to fight against injustice in the world cannot tolerate injustice inside of itself. As Garry Wills says, it is “self-condemned.”
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
Here’s what he has to say about Vatican II and canon law. It is not “petty regulations for the vexation of the faithful.” Its purpose is to create freedom, like the way in which the rule of law creates freedom in modern societies. But Canon Law has not evolved to reflect the theology of Vatican II.
The relationship between theology and canon law is as follows: “Theology operates on the abstract level. It has priority at the planning stage; it determines a value to be appropriated; it gives meaning to the law. Canon law operates on the concrete level. … In the church, canon law has an importance that no theory can match. It deals with the real existing social body. But a law not grounded in a value is like a house built on sand; it is bound to collapse.” (p. 79)
“… the true foundation of any theological enterprise is in wisdom that speaks of ineffable mysteries apprehended by faith. Such wisdom should play a principal role in discovering Christian values that the community should appropriate. This is to say that an intuitive sensus fidei, or a ‘supernatural instinct,’ should be numbered among the sources of canon law.” (p. 78)
Canon law has lost its vital link with theology: “In 1564, after the Council of Trent, to safeguard the integrity of the Council’s decisions, Pope Pius IV forbade the publication of any ‘commentaries, glossaries, annotations, scholia, or interpretations of any kind concerning the Council’s decrees. This was the beginning of ‘canonical nominalism.’ … With one stroke … the great tradition of ‘raising questions’ that animated research in the Middle Ages was terminated.”
It has become static and unchanging: “Every legal system must include provision for the ongoing renewal of the law. Civic communities … have legislatures sensitive to the needs of the community. In the church we have the Code, but, in practice, no organism endowed with the specific task of detecting emerging needs and proposing changes. Serious problems remain unresolved, tensions develop; these tensions lead to crises, and finally the situation explodes.” (p. 82)
“This is exactly what happened when the crisis of sexual abuse descended on the church. It was coming for some time, and there was no adequate preventive legislation. A sensible system of the ‘visitation of diocese’ by outside observers able to interview the people, the clergy, and the bishop separately could have discovered the problems much earlier.” (p. 82)
It has cut itself off from secular (human) wisdom: “Ever since the Renaissance, humanistic secular jurisprudence has made immense strides in such matters as freedom of conscience, respect for human rights, impartial courts, speedy administration of justice, responsibility for the common welfare, and so on. Canon law remained mostly untouched by such developments; … they are innocent of modernity. On the basis of knowledge gained from them, no one could carry on an intelligent conversation about the law with a well-intentioned contemporary secular thinker.” ouch. (p. 83)
But just like the Council failed to create any serious ongoing structures for collegiality, it seems the progressives pretty much blew off the whole domain of canon law. “Opus Dei, on the other hand, fostered the cultivation of this discipline; the University of Navarre became the seedbed for a school of canonists, and from the very moment of the creation of the Committee on the Revision of Canon Law, Opus Dei took an active role in it.” (p. 86)
The norms in the 1983 Revised Code of Canon Law have been “shaping the church and directing its operations.” (p. 87) But canon law reflects a pre-Vatican II view of the church. “Today, after the Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei verbum), when virtually the whole church peacefully accepts that there is a development in doctrine, not to accept that there can be a development in the interpretation and application of the laws is an indefensible position.” (p. 58)
Basically, he’s saying things are as they were.
Centralization – the Synod of Bishops is merely consultative; episcopal conferences have no collegial power; the non-ordained cannot by law share in the governance of the church.
Legal positivism, canonical nominalism – the link is weakening between the law and the theological values it is supposed to engender.
Acceptance of a historical existence – “… we have no means built into the system for the renewal of our laws. We do not have an organ specifically entrusted with the particular task of watching great cultural movements, assessing the emerging needs, and proposing changes in the law accordingly.” Ditto inability to respond to the pedophilia crisis.
Learning from secular sages – “In the Middle Ages, the study of canon law went hand in hand with the cult of civil law: they shared whatever wisdom they could find. The Reformation and Enlightenment put an end to this partnership, and canon law remained alone and did not benefit from the significant progress in legal wisdom achieved in civic communities. To a large extent, this continues to be the case today.” (p. 89)
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
Most of us don’t usually get fired up about the topic of canon law but it is the operations manual for the church so if there is to be change in the structure of the church it will happen in the domain of canon law. Orsy has some very interesting things to say about reception of canon law and the underlying theology of this reception. This is a long post but worth the read for anyone interested in Church reform.
Orsy widens the context of the understanding of canon law by stipulating that you not only have to look at what the laws are, but how they are received (e.g., whether people pay attention to them). Given the situation today, that Church authorities no longer legitimize belief because the truth of belief has passed from the institution to the believer, this is a very apt discussion.
He says we need to talk about how laws are received because “those in authority are less and less able to issue peremptory commands and obtain facile compliance.” You can say that again. “People, within and without the church, want to know the reason for a law; they want to understand the good that it intends to achieve; they want to implement it intelligently and freely. Such an attitude is no more than an assertion of human dignity, a stance that the church, no doubt, wishes to honor.” (p. 57) Well ya’d think.
His focus is to figure out the correct theological pattern of reception, because you can look at reception (or non-reception) as information to determine whether you should think about reversing laws that have not been received. The poster child for this is Humanae Vitae but it is not the only example.
He reminds us that the church is organic and unfinished. “It is like a growing human being: to live, develop, and prosper, it needs to reach out for those things that can nourish its life–we call them values. The purpose of laws is to prompt the community to appropriate those values; the reception of the laws is the process by which the community comes into the possession of the same values. (The laws speak of intended values; reception means the acquisition of values.) (p. 60)
The Abstract and the Practical
Orsy describes how the reception of laws is an exercise in communio.
He says laws are abstract, like designs, but they are “received and implemented in the concrete world of human history.” (p. 55) “The overall priority, however, belongs to the world of existence because God is existence itself. The reception of laws takes place in the existential world, the place of concrete, particular and personal events. There the people of God can turn an abstract, universal, and impersonal norm into a force of life that help sustain and nourish the community.” (p. 56)
Then he compares the reception of laws to the building of a cathedral. “The process of building was the act of reception. In the church, the lawgivers are like the architects. The law-abiding people are like the builders.”
He points out the primacy of the existential: “the cathedrals could never exist without the laborers, no matter how good the designs may have been. The living body of the church could never function without those who are putting into practice its norms, laws, and rules, no matter how well such directives are conceived.” (p. 56)
“In this living church, the reception of laws takes place in the existential order where the energies of life flow, where historical events succeed each other, and where intelligent and free persons are called on to make responsible decisions.” (p. 59-60)
Lawgivers and Receiver
Effectively the lawgivers are the pope and the bishops. The lawgiver exists for the community. “Whatever he has, including the special charism of his office, he has it for the sake of the whole.” (p. 61)
“The receivers are the people of God: grace-filled, intelligent, and free persons.” But their first obligation is to God. “A Christian is bound to God by a “from-person-to-person” obligation. All duties that emerge in his or her life are specifications of this unique overriding bond. (This is really the best key to understanding the nature of canon law: it specifies an already existing personal obligation in the faithful. For this reason, even if canon law looks like civil law and can be studied as civil law, it can never be received in the same fashion as civil law. A Christian subject always responds to his or her personal God.”) (p. 63)
What is Reception?
“… a dynamic process brought forward by those immense energies that circulate in the community of the faithful. They are moved by a desire implanted by the Creator into the human heart to seek the good …” (p. 65)
It is an integrated process:
1) perception of the law
2) quest for understanding – what is the value that the law intends to promote
3) “The third movement in the process is its climax: the law meets the conscience of the receiver. It reaches that luminous part of the person where he or she is bound to God. There, a sovereign judgment will have to be made over the law, a judgment for which the person responsible to his or her Maker and to no one else.” (p. 66)
If there is disharmony for whatever reason, the conflict must be resolved before any action is taken. “The gist of this doctrine is the affirmation of the primacy of conscience over the law: no Christian must hold otherwise.” (p. 66)
4) “The fourth movement follows after the conscience has accepted the law and has integrated its demands with the obligation that binds the person to God. The lawgiver’s intention becomes the receiver’s decision. He or she is willing to act, that is, to reach out for the value that the law wants. This is, before and above all, an obsequium to God, ‘honoring God,’ and only secondarily an act of obedience to the law.” (p. 67)
5) “The fifth movement on the part of the receiver is then the action itself, the implementation of the law in the world of concrete, particular, and personal events.” (p. 67)
When Law Meets Life
When law meets life, “This is a new moment in the life of the law. For the first time, the abstract norm meets the turmoil of concrete events. The law is tried in the crucible of life, as an old saying in jurisprudence goes.” (p. 68)
There may be harmony or there may be conflict. “It arises when the law imposes an action for the acquisition of one value, but in the concrete order the same action is destructive of another value.” Bingo. (p. 68)
“An easily recognizable sign that the reception is going well is peace in the community. The purpose of a law is always to bring order into the life and operations of a group. When the law does this, and does it in the right measure, the group responds with contentment. … When the opposite happens–that is, the process of reception triggers restlessness, discontent, even resistance–in a well-informed, intelligent and responsible community, it is time to examine anew the suitability of that piece of legislation.” (p. 69)
“When, on the wake of the reception, joy and gladness abound, the concentration on faith, hope, and love increases, and the sense of unity is strengthened, then the law is doing good service to the community. For good people to have wise laws is a liberating experience. Contrarywise, if a law brings sadness and sorrow, distraction from the exhilarating experience of God’s presence, and undue preoccupation with temporal structures and institutions, it is time to question the law.” (p. 69-70) Bingo.
The Process of Reception in Light of Vatican II
The following insights of Vatican II are key to the understanding of the process of reception of laws that he has laid out.
The priority of the people of God – “…the concept of ‘people’ comprehends all, the hierarchy and the laity. Besides, a body is always prior to any of its members, even to the head. The same spirit animates my discourse: the need to recognize the priority of the people of God in building the church.” (p. 70)
The sensus fidei, sense of faith of the people – “The Council describes how the people share in the prophetic office of Christ, how they have the capacity to penetrate their faith with correct judgment, and apply it more fully to daily life (see LG12). (p. 71)
The historical character of the revelation – “The Word of God, eternal and immutable, has entered into our universe, temporal and changeable. The word has, therefore, a historical character; the Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei verbum) leaves no doubt about that. If that much is true of the Word itself, how much more it must be true of the human laws in the church!” (p. 71)
The primacy of conscience – “The Council articulated clearly–with all due qualifications– the absolute primacy of the dictates of conscience. Yet, the far-reaching implications of this doctrine concerning the obligations of the faithful within the church have received scant attention in theological writings.” (p. 71) Indeed ~ we need to get up off our collective asses.
The correct hierarchy of virtues – “Innumerable texts could be quoted from the Council to show how it honors the supremacy of the theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. All other virtues are organically subordinated to these three.”
“Obedience to a human law (even if it is ecclesiastical law) cannot be a supreme virtue: obedience can be authentic only when it functions in subordination to the theological virtues.” (p. 71) amen.
“What we need now is to find the concrete criteria to judge actual processes of reception as they take place in the existential order so that we can differentiate between authentic acts and aberrations. Inspiration for finding such criteria could be found in Congar’s well-known work True and False Reform in the Church; the reception of a law, too, could be true or false. Relevant material could be gathered also from Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine: more than half of the work is on the question of how genuine developments can be distinguished from corruptions.” (p. 72-3)
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
You can go forward to the next page
