Home » Church Reform (Page 3)
Category Archives: Church Reform
Lombardi on Francis
I found this quote in my notes without a link. If anyone knows the source, I will happily correct it. Also, it is second-hand, so take it with the same grain of salt as that interview that ‘reconstructed from memory’ the ‘sense’ of the conversation. Still, this sums up what i have been hearing from many in the communications world of the Vatican for a year.
[UPDATED: From the New Yorker, and no apparent comment from Lombardi on the conversation].
James Carroll reports a conversation with Lombardi:
I met Lombardi in a spartan room in a grand Mussolini-era building just outside St. Peter’s Square. Lombardi is a dark-eyed, silver-haired man of seventy-one, who looks as if he could be an Italian film director. I asked what his life had been like since Benedict stepped down. Lombardi broke into a broad smile. Then he said, “We experienced for years—and for good reason, also—that the Church said, ‘No! This is not the right way! This is against the commandments of God!’ The negative aspect of the announcement . . . this was in my personal experience one of the problems.” Father Lombardi and I are almost the same age. In his earnest good will and kindliness, he struck me as the priest I would have liked to become. He said, “The people thought I always had a negative message for them. I am very happy that, with Francis, the situation has changed.” He laughed. “Now I am at the service of a message . . . of love and mercy.” He laughed again.
Church reform and papal retirement, a year on
John Allen’s article commemorating the first anniversary of Pope Benedict’s resignation this week points out that for all the attention Pope Francis has received this year as a ‘revolutionary’ or ‘reformer’, the single most revolutionary act by the bishop of Rome in the last year was Benedict’s humble and courageous decision to retire.
Even here in Rome, studying at the heart of the Church, I found out first through Facebook.
It is a great example of something that should not have been surprising, or all that revolutionary. Certainly, it was, given the climate and context of the Church in recent decades. Following on the heels of the soon-to-be saint John Paul II, who lingered in office several years longer than was probably good for himself or for the Church, one might have thought it was blasphemous to suggest something of the sort. In a sense, Benedict, being the excellent ecclesiologist that he is, had to resign, to disabuse the papacy from the personality cult, and remind us that every office in the Church is one of service and ministry; not power, prestige, or persona.
The impact on the conclave was obvious, as many commentators have already noted. Rather than an overwhelming outpouring of grief at the death of the towering figure of John Paul II that got his right-hand man elected, the cardinals were able to take better stock of the real situation in the Church and especially in the curia, and set about doing something about it.
It never ceases to amaze me how strong the current is that was in favor of the retreat from reform (sometimes called a ‘reform of the reform’) in a Church that has declared, a the highest level of authority, ecclesia semper purificanda. The truth is that there is no purification without reform; there is no reform without action. We must act to change the Church, so that the Church can change the world.
For the last generation, we have been told repeatedly that ‘tinkering with Church structures’ is not what is needed; instead, greater personal holiness is the all-encompassing solution. There is both wisdom and naivety in such statements. The wisdom is that prayer is paramount, and holiness is indeed a necessary virtue in all Christians; the naivety is that tinkering is not what is needed not because it is ineffective, but because some structures have been so badly neglected for so long that any ‘tinkering’ is just putting lipstick on a pig. Anything short of a radical and all-encompassing overhaul is complicity, or at least complacency.
But in a sacramental reality, we cannot underappreciate the real value of a change in tone; we cannot dismiss it as superficial. Which is not at all to buy into the oversimplified dichotomies we see, both in secular media (e.g.Rolling Stone) and in the reactionary wing of the fold that contrast Benedict and Francis, putting one or the other in a completely unfavorable light.
It has always seemed to me that Benedict’s biggest liability was not (just) a hostile secular media who never let go of the image of God’s Rottweiler – because in truth, his biggest fans never did either, still hoping for the hammer of heresy to drop. It was about image, though: His apparent penchant for baroque bling distracted from his genuine reform efforts.
For too many in the church, these trappings of power and privilege – whether imperial, renaissance, or baroque in origin – go hand in hand with clericalism and the sex abuse scandal. Who can forget that it was the church of lace surplices, brocaded maniples and mumbled latin anaphorae – with its concomitant failure at human formation in seminaries and warped ecclesiology – that brought us the greatest wave of scandal the Church has faced in the modern age? It does not matter that there is little or no direct causal relationship, but the correlation is too widely fixed: “traditionalism” = clericalism = abuse of power = a climate of permission for child sex abuse.
Joseph Ratzinger had long been trying to redeem that, to separate out the legitimate traditions from their accrued associations. He may have a point that the transition from the Missal of Pius V to that of Paul VI was too abrupt, but his solution came forty years too late. Add that to his well-established reputation and the series of administrative and communications fiascos, and there was only so much he could do.
So he did what he could: he set the stage for someone without the same baggage to come along and continue the good work he had started. I can imagine that he realized the cost of trying to restore some place in the mainstream for the older form of the liturgy came at too high a cost, or that the cause of reunion with the SSPX was lost. Or perhaps he saw his work done already: he brought the tridentine liturgy out from the periphery and into the center of the Church, in whatever small way. He left no more excuses for “traditionalism” to be a code word for dissent, and planted the seeds that may redeem that part of our liturgical patrimony from its oft-associated failures in ecclesiology, pastoral formation, and leadership.
Thanks to Pope Benedict, contemplation and action could again meet in the endless effort of Church reform. There is much to be done, since, in some respects, the Church stopped being interested in self-purification and reform sometime around the time I entered adolescence, as if the whole idea had been a failed experiment of the 70s and 80s rather than a movement of the Holy Spirit.
Enter Pope Francis, who genuinely seems to be setting about to reform the Church, perhaps (we can hope) on as grand a scale as Gregory I or VII, Pius V, or John XXIII. Some will call anything he accomplishes too little, too late; others will denounce it as too much, too fast. I would instinctively err on the side of the former, considering how many centuries it often takes to resolve problems in this institution, but in the last year it has been hard even to keep up with the constant flow of good news. I continue to pray for deep, genuine, and theological reform of the Church, and I have hope that it is coming. The Church is, after all, called to be holy, too, not just the people in it!
Year of the Deacon: A Proposal
With the success of the Year of the Priest under Pope Benedict, I humbly suggest to Pope Francis (or whomever is reading) that we should have a Year of the Deacon. If anything, the diaconate is suffering from under-attention far more than the presbyterate, so the same motives that made the first so successful and timely apply at least double for this suggestion!
Plus, given that Francis of Assisi is often said to have been a deacon (though this is apparently in some dispute, whether he was ordained at all), it seems all the more appropriate that a bishop of Rome with that name initiate a year to honor and build up these Icons of Christ, Diakonos.
The ‘institution’ of the diaconate
Naturally, it should be done ecumenically, rather than unilaterally. Especially as the discernment of the nature of the diaconate is a shared ecumenical challenge and opportunity. Invite all the heads of communion to declare the same, and have an ecumenical gathering of deacons as part of the celebrations.
I propose that the Year of the Deacon start on the feast of Deacon St. Lawrence of Rome, 10 August 2014 and conclude on the feast of Deacon St. Stephen of Jerusalem, Protomartyr, on 26 December 2015. The highlight events of the year could take place on 30 October 2014 to recognize the 50th anniversary of the vote on Lumen Gentium, which included the call for the restoration of the diaconate to its full and proper place in the Catholic Church. These were the two saints invoked as patrons for the restored diaconate by Pope Paul VI in Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem.
Would it not be a grand sight, to see St. Peter’s filled with deacons and their wives from around the world, celebrating the liturgy with the bishop of Rome? Dioceses offering catechesis on the ancient office of the deacon, its institution, and the symbolism of the Last Supper as iconic for the diaconal office; a surge in vocational promotions efforts for the diaconate; a special synod on the identity of the deacon, including the question of women as deaconesses (or just as deacons)?
He could even take the opportunity to introduce his new archdeacon…
What else could be done during such a Year of the Deacon? Ideas?
Diaconal Ordination Liturgy, Archdiocese of Seattle 2012
The Pope Needs an Archdeacon
When the Council of Cardinals met with Pope Francis at the beginning of the month to discuss reform of the Roman Curia and the governance of the Church, one of the topics that came up was the role of the Secretariat of State.
Since the initial reforms of Paul VI in Regimi Ecclesiae Universae, the Secretariat has enjoyed prominence in the Curia, and a dual role: it not only exercised the ministry appropriate to the office, that of foreign relations with states, but also in fact as the lead congregation in the curia, coordinating (theoretically at least) the work of the other dicasteries, and managing the relationship of the bishop of Rome to his brother bishops around the world.
For example, when a new officer in the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is needed, they get vetted not only by that Council, but also by the Secretariat of State. Or consider the elaborate and secretive process for the nomination of bishops, managed by each nation’s apostolic nuncio – a diplomatic post.
As I suggested in my wish list, these responsibilities should probably be separated from the foreign relations dicastery. In canon law there is a title for the ecclesiastical officer responsible for managing the bishop’s staff, which is “moderator of the curia”. This person is is often a priest or auxiliary bishop, and is frequently also the vicar general. There is some concern about creating a kind of “vice-pope”, though this is a term sometimes used of the Secretary of State already, unofficially of course.
What the bishop of Rome needs is an archdeacon. This ancient ecclesiastical office has fallen into disuse in the Latin Church, and fallen into confused use in other churches (such as the Anglican Communion).
The archdeacon is normally the senior cleric of a diocese after a bishop. Originally, the archdeacon was in fact a deacon, not a presbyter, the reason being that deacons are called to serve as assistants to the bishop with responsibility for administration and governance, representation of the bishop to the rural clergy (ie, the pastors) and to other bishops, managing the financial and human resources of the diocese for the sake of the mission, etc. This kind of vicarious authority was not originally granted to the presbyterate, whose primary functions were advisory, sacramental, and pastoral.
The offices of vicar general and moderator of the curia derive from the office of archdeacon. You can still find this usage in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, where a “Grand” Archdeacon fulfills part of this function.
Archdeacon Maximos with Patriarchal Bartholomew of Constantinople
In the Anglican Communion, the title archdeacon has been attached to the vicars forane, responsible for a subdivision of the diocesan territory. In the Catholic Church these are generally called deans, in English, and is originally a diaconal role, but not that of the archdeacon. The Anglicans have also kept the late medieval practice of having ordained presbyters fill this role, but this should be avoided (do we have deacons serving as archpriests?)
The offices of vicar forane and episcopal vicar (deans and heads of dicasteries/diocesan offices, respectively) derive from the other early diaconal roles. Perhaps revivifying these ancient offices, restoring the diaconate to its full calling, will help in the reform of the curia.
If Pope Francis were to make use of this ancient and venerable office for contemporary needs, one could see it as something of a Chief of Staff for the Roman Curia, rather than as a kind of vice-pope. (Though, realistically, it would be better having an official ‘vice pope’ than having a personal secretary, master of ceremonies, or Secretary of State assume the role in the vacuum!) The role of the Archdeacon and his office would be to manage the internal organization of the curia, increase coordination and communication among the various dicasteries, and leave the diplomatic foreign relations work to the Secretariat of State.
Maybe the Archdeacon’s office could work to coordinate areas of joint concern, so we never have another Anglicanorum Coetibus or Dominus Iesus faux pas, wherein we find ecumenical or interreligious issues being announced without involvement of the offices responsible for ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.
They could also have a central office for ecclesiastical human resources in the curia, working to ensure that the most qualified candidates in the world – lay, religious, or clerical – get into the offices here, rather than some cardinal’s nephew (figuratively speaking, of course). He could work on keeping the curia on mission, and at service to the universal church – especially as the relationship to the Synod of Bishops and the episcopal conferences is expected to change.
But most of all it would seem as something new – not getting confused with the ideas that have arisen around the moderator of the curia title – which in itself should be fine, but because it is often attached to the vicar general or vicar for clergy, could be confused with other offices already in place (such as the two vicars general, one each for the Vatican and the Diocese of Rome; or the prefect of the congregation for clergy which is the Roman curial equivalent of a diocesan vicar for clergy).
Plus, it would be encouragement to dioceses around the world to start looking further back into our tradition for ideas of how to meet the ministry and governance needs of the Church today. If the successor of Peter the Rock can restore the office of Archdeacon, so can the diocese of Little Rock, or anywhere else. This would not only free up a presbyter to get out into the parishes where they are most in need, but restore to the diaconate a stronger sense of its original mission – to extend the ministry of the bishop in matters of governance, administration, and service-leadership.
ICEL 50th Anniversary
On 17 October, the Vatican celebrated the 50th anniversary of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) with a mass at the altar of the chair in St. Peter’s Basilica.
Eucharistic celebration on the 50th anniversary of ICEL
Given recent discussion that the Council of Cardinals may be suggesting reform of the liturgical apparatus of the Vatican first (after the Synod) in its recommendations for the reform of the Curia, it is an event worth reviewing. Especially since one well-established vaticanist referred to it as “farce”.
Why the harsh language? Apparently, none of the members of ICEL prior to its “refounding” a decade ago were even present, and it is not very surprising. Few things epitomize the depths to which the curia had sunk than the bungled handling of ICEL a decade ago and the resulting mess. Though many of the conferences did the best they could given the situation (one can look to the US or England and Wales as examples), bad process always spoils even the best of products.
The advantage of our age is the great access to social media and broad communications, so we can get information quickly, and provide formation broadly. The USCCB and others showed this to great success in 2011 when implementing the new translation of the Roman Missal.
The disadvantage of this same gift is an even shorter memory. The first official translation came in 1972, after about six years of work. It was understood to be rather temporary, and by the end of the decade, work began on a much more serious translation. Everyone agreed the 1972 version was not perfect, but for forty years, the local bishops’ conferences had trusted the work to ICEL in accord with the principle of Sacrosanctum Concilium. After long years of work, the new and improved English translation was finally ready… not in 2011, but in 1998. The English-speaking bishops of the world had approved it, it should have been signed, sealed, and delivered, but something unbecoming of church leaders was afoot.
Over the next five years, all the hard working bishops, liturgists, experts and consultants who had given so much to the Church they loved felt a “cold wind” blowing from Rome, as none-too-subtle (and none-too-kind) change was imposed by a relatively small number of power brokers and their allies.
By 2003, ICEL had been effectively disbanded and replaced by an entirely new commission, Vox Clara, quite different from the mission and composition of the first. It would have been more honest to just say so, and not act as though ICEL had continued as the same entity it was before Vox Clara came on the scene. To quote the late Msgr. Fred McManus, the American peritus at Vatican II who helped the bishops establish ICEL and suffered greatly as he saw it dismantled: “They could at least have the decency to change its name.”
From an impetus to the encounter of the liturgy with culture and cultures, and the reception of those into the liturgy, the focus had moved to a fixation on the Latin language and the culture of Rome. Translation is no longer about bringing the liturgy into new cultures, but about bringing diverse experiences of liturgy into the closest approximation of the Latin as possible.
Sound like a made-for-TV drama or a Dan Brown novel? It can certainly be dramatized… but truth is so often stranger (and sadder) than fiction. Even in the Church.
Whatever you think of the translations, the 1998 or the 2011 versions, the process by which the current version was introduced was inappropriate and embarrassing for the Church, and for the loyal sons and daughters of the church who put so much effort in, as directed, and then were so harshly dismissed.
To read the documents, the history, and the full story of ICEL and what happened to the long-sought after New and Improved English Translation – and why it was replaced by a relative rush-job that was rolled out with great fanfare as the best thing since sliced bread – I recommend some serious reading here, compiled by one of the experts involved in the more recent iteration, appointed to ICEL in 2005.
Some of the disgruntled ask if Pope Francis would completely overturn the translations. I doubt it, and do not think that is the way to go.
What is needed is an honest accounting and a healing of memories. Apologies offered and credit given where it is due. Only then can the repair and reform of the liturgy move forward, which i suspect should include a serious reconsideration of Liturgicam Authenticam (which is deficient not least for its ecumenical shortcomings) and a move to bring the best of both the 1998 and 2011 translations into a single, common Missal. Let the “old mass” inform and enrich the “new”.
Feeling more Catholic than the pope? I find your lack of faith disturbing
By now, most have read that last week’s “interview” between La Repubblica’s Eugenio Scalfari, 89, and Pope Francis, was really more of the former’s recollection of a friendly conversation between the two.
It was obvious from day one that this interview, and its translation, was not on the same par as that published by the Jesuit journals of the world less than two weeks before. That fact has just been underlined, and the gulf of quality widened, by recent revelations. Both remain important, illustrative of the Holy Father’s basic ecclesiological paradigm, his personality, and his vision for the mission of the Church, but not in the same degree. As you would expect.
Scalfari used neither a notepad or a recorder, and while I am sure that any one-on-one with the pope will be memorable enough that you are not likely to forget that much of it, even at such a venerable age, it seems like a journalistic mortal sin to publish conversation as if these are recorded quotes during a professional interview.
Given that, I do not find it surprising that a couple of the details get mixed up. Scalfari is not a theologian, in fact, not even a practicing Catholic. So, the fact that he misremembers whether Pope Francis had his mystical moment before or after accepting the office, or whether he or the translator captured all the nuance of the primacy of conscience is neither surprising nor shocking.
The Vatican confirmed that the basic tone and tenor of the interview was accurate and trustworthy. The thoughts expressed are the pope’s thoughts, technical and translation glitches aside. It is a “reconstruction and not a transcript” and “should be considered faithful on the whole to the mind of the pope, but not necessarily in its particular words and the accuracy of its details.”
One merely needs to read the interview with a basic understanding of Christian teaching and knowledge of the fact that not only is the pope Catholic but that he is, in fact, a bishop of the Church, and there are no theological or doctrinal problems to be found. A little benefit of the doubt is sufficient, to say nothing of thinking with the Church here.
By far, then, the most disturbing news of the week is the vitriolic and unabashed criticism of the bishop of Rome from some voices on what is often called the far right – though there are many self-described conservative Catholics who find this reaction appalling. And well they should.
(Some other rebuttals to this hysteria, and conservative clarifications to calm the nerves, can be found on The Dish, The Deacon’s Bench, National Catholic Register, and even the godfather of ‘far right’ Catholic bloggers, Fr. Z!)
–I suspect there would not have been so much confusion if we had not had such a recent long streak of obsessing with literal translations and verbatim fidelity of words themselves, rather than focusing on the message being conveyed by the words. But I digress —
To be clear, I have no problem with the criticism of any religious leader, including the bishop of Rome. In fact, a healthy Church, one committed to the principle on ongoing reform, is made evident by those that love the Church are the first willing to openly recommend improvements. A culture of fear and thought-control, wherein everyone simply has to toe the party line, is detrimental to the overall wellbeing of any institution, especially the Body of Christ.
But criticism demands responsibility. It is one thing to not like the color of the pope’s shoes as a matter of personal taste, and anyone can express such an opinion. It is something else to claim the pope is a heretic, a relativist, a modernist, or confused about the role of the bishop of Rome without some kind of theological legwork to back up your claim. And when the attack is made ad hominem, it just loses all respectability.
Since the moment he appeared on the balcony in March, I have heard complaints and an unceasing stream of vitriol from either the radical traditionalist set, or the plain old neo-con clericalist set.
Not all who respect tradition are traditionalists, and not all who claim the title traditionalist are “radical” traditionalists. The former may have greeted this latest interview with a raised eyebrow or two, but then immediately began looking through the Italian for translation errors (and there were a few) or intuitively read the pope’s words with the docility of will and humility of intellect required of all faithful , and realized what was being said.
Likewise, not all who identify with the label conservative – whether politically, morally, socially, or theologically – fall into the particular subset of neo-conservative, and not all of these somehow substitute the dogmas of unrestrained capitalism for the Christian gospel. But there are certainly those who do, and they tend also to adhere precisely to these sins of clericalism, careerism, materialism and triumphalism that Pope Francis has been warning us about. No wonder they are upset.
I am happy to be in a Church with traditionalists and conservatives, innovators and liberals, even if (as a reform-minded, ecumenically devoted centrist), we do not agree on everything, because that is the nature of a universal Church. All I expect from all sides is that you think with the Church, you at least give your local bishop or that of Rome the benefit of the doubt, and when that is not sufficient, try harder to employ a hermeneutic of charity.
For my entire lifetime, we have had two popes who were considered conservative even by general Catholic standards, at least concerning matters ad intra. Pope Benedict bent over backwards to accommodate the traditionalist wing, like the Good Shepherd, giving disproportionate attention to a very small minority in the Church that had wandered far from the flock. He was the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, and tasked with making hard choices for the sake of unity; this is what he did.
Now we have a pope who nobody could seriously describe as liberal: He will not be changing Church doctrine on abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or war anytime soon. Neither is the question of women in the presbyterate, nor gay marriage, suddenly on the fore of the Church’s agenda. Relieved or disappointed, you can take that to the bank.
Call him a reformer, a moderate, a centrist, creative orthodox or just plain Catholic: He will bring change, but only the change that the gospel demands and that which only hubris and fear have withheld. Some will find it too much too fast, others will find it too little too late.
He may not cater to the particular agenda of the parties that have been in ascendancy for an entire generation, if you want to think in those terms, but is instead fixated on the timeless Gospel of Jesus Christ, and willing to free the Church from self-imposed bondage where necessary, to promote that central message and mission. It is about time someone did.
…
NB to the liberal and progressive set: “This is the Church. If you don’t like it, leave!” is exactly the kind of thinking that such über-conservative dissidents have had for the last 35 years for everyone that did not agree with them. Now we come, perhaps, to the turn of the tide, and there is temptation in some quarters to respond in kind. Don’t. The Church needs them, and what they need is conversion and healing, which is unlikely to be found in the outer darkness. Treat them as you wish they had treated you over these last decades: with charity.
What a week! From Francis to Francis with Francis…
I was privileged to spend yesterday, the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, in Assisi with Pope Francis. With him came the Council of Cardinals, or group of eight, which held their first meeting this week. It was an overcast, pleasant day, the predicted thunderstorms holding off until last night.
His entire itinerary is here, and text of speeches and addresses. There is also a good commentary by a friar i met last year in Assisi at a conference, Daniel Horan, at America Magazine.
The last papal event I attended in Assisi was the 25th anniversary of the first interreligious day of prayer for peace with Pope Benedict XVI, which was dubbed ”Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace.” Two cornerstone pieces of the original event were missing however – prayer, and the Sant’Egidio community who organize the annual prayers for peace in the spirit of Assisi. Subsequently, perhaps, attendance was surprisingly low.
Yesterday was a different story. The Eucharistic celebration in the lower piazza of San Francesco was witnessed not only by a full piazza there, but also in the upper piazza, all the side streets, and in the other major piazzas of Assisi (Santa Chiara, San Rufino, Piazza del Commune) where jumbotron screens were set up. It was an almost all-Italian gathering, and there is no question of the broad appeal of this reforming pontiff.
It came at the end of an amazing week in terms of Church news – especially with regard to Church reform. I commented already on some of them, but there has been so much, it has been hard to keep up. Thankfully, there are professionals to do that for us: John Allen summarizes this week in Vatican and Church news, in what he contends to be the biggest week outside of a conclave in his nearly 20 years of Vatican reporting.
The biggest news is probably the meeting this week of the Council of Cardinals, dubbed in some circles the G-8. They have discussed the ecclesiology of Vatican II, the reform of the Synod of Bishops into a more permanent exercise of synodality and collegiality, the reform of the Roman curia to such an extent as to require a new constitution emphasizing decentralization and service to the local churches, changes to the Secretariat of State that might remove it from its current role as über-dicastery, and serious questions on the role of the laity in the church, including the role of the laity inside the curia itself. Their second meeting is set for just two months from now. They seem to really be addressing the half-finished business of Vatican II, or at least getting started on it.
When my students asked me last week why no pope or bishop has ever talked about the Church in the way that Francis has, and why there’s never been so much energy in the church, I was reminded of my own experience as a university sophomore, in my own 200-level theology class (on Vatican II) asking a similar question, “why are we still waiting for the changes promised by the Council? How can 35 years have passed and we are still waiting [on things like decentralization, synodality and collegiality, the role of the laity, the full restoration of the diaconate, overcoming clericalism, etc]?” – I had no idea 15 years later I would be the one trying to answer these questions, and under what different circumstances!
Two highlights of John Allen’s highlights, aside from the meeting of the Council of Cardinals, worth particular notice:
Allen reports that
“Von Freyberg told me recently it’s his ambition to put gossipy newspaper reports out of business by making it so easy to get information directly from him that journalists don’t have to rely on whispers in Roman bars.”
If that is not argument enough for getting more lay people in positions of responsibility of the Roman Curia, i do not know what is. When was the last time you heard any cleric tackle communication and transparency issues so directly? Well, before this one…
Ernst Von Fryberg, cleaning up the Vatican Bank. He really should be a deacon!
The second point is less about this week in particular, but about Allen’s comments about his own book on religious persecution around the world, after talking about the killing of about 500 Christians in India during 2008 riots:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s what a real “war on religion” looks like. One aim of the book is to reframe the conversation over religious freedom among Western Christians so we don’t allow our metaphorical battles at home to obscure the literal, and often lethal, war on Christians being waged in other parts of the world.
In the view from Rome, there was a bit of discomfiture last year with the whole tone and tenor of the ‘fortnight for freedom’ in the U.S., because it seemed to ignore the real problems of religious freedom. Officially, of course, the Vatican backs its bishops, but, unofficially (and remember this was still under Pope Benedict) there seemed to be a current of thought around the Vatican and in Rome that there was a little too much partisan politicking, and not enough focus on the fact that there are more Christian martyrs around the world today than at any point in history. It is hard to be quite so concerned about contraceptive funding when there are Christians dying at the hands of radical elements in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and secular Atheism – especially when it is part of a universal health care plan that the Church supports in principle, if not in every detail.
This is, of course, not to say to ignore the small problems before they become big ones, but to keep everything in perspective. That is something we Americans have a hard enough time doing when it comes to global events, but for which membership in a Church so universally oriented that it is called Catholic ought to be a corrective.
****
For the full run-down of the week, read Allen’s article here.
In brief, what happened this week:
- Monday:
- Canonization of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II set for April 27
- Discussion of regional tribunals to adjudicate clerical sex abuse cases
- G-8 formal established as a permanent Council of Cardinals
- Tuesday:
- A “stunning Q&A with the pope” published in La Repubblica
- The Vatican Bank (IOR) released its first-ever annual report and its lay president demonstrates the kind of transparency attitude needed all over the Church
- The Vatican Bank announced the closure of 900 accounts for dubious activity
- The Council of Cardinals began its first meeting, as mentioned above
- Thursday
- 50th anniversary of Pacem in Terris, organized by Sant’Egidio Community
- “Monsignor 500” (as in Fortune 500), Nunzio Scarano, under investigation for embezzlement and money laundering, airs some dirty laundry about further financial scandals (alluded to last week)
- Friday
- Feast of Francis of Assisi . Francis took aim at the ‘right’ by calling on the Church to “strip itself of the cancer of worldliness”, and took aim at the ‘left’ by asserting that the peace of Francis is not a ‘kind of pantheistic harmony with the forces of the cosmos’, but a Christ-centered peace.
Church Reform Wishlist: Open Letter of Introduction
Oscar Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa;
Giuseppe Cardinal Bertello, governor of Vatican City;
Francisco Javier Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa of Santiago;
Oswald Cardinal Gracias of Mumbai;
Reinhard Cardinal Marx of Munich;
Laurent Cardinal Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa;
Sean Cardinal O’Malley of Boston;
George Cardinal Pell of Sydney.
Your Eminences,
Know that the Church is with you in prayer during these first days of dialogue, discussion and deliberation on how the people of God can be best served by the college of Bishops and its structures of universal governance, including those particular to the bishop of Rome.
[Know also that the Beards for Bishops Campaign applauds Pope Francis for including two of our most beloved members, Cardinals Marx and O’Malley, in your number. Clearly, His Holiness knows bearded men are wise men!]
It seems that you have consulted broadly among your episcopal peers in your respective regions. It is not clear to what extent, if any, consultation was extended to deacons, presbyters, lay ecclesial ministers, theologians, religious and the lay faithful. Perhaps you devoted a day to reading Catholic blogs from around the world – and if you did, you simultaneously have my gratitude and my pity.
It seems as if everyone is working on their reform wishlist! Some that I found interesting including John Allen, and the interview with Cardinal Maradiaga on Salt and Light was encouraging. I found Tom Reese to be a little skeptical when he warns that
if the press release says that [you] had a wonderful discussion with the pope and [you] agreed that collegiality and subsidiarity should be the guiding principles for curial reform, you can be assured no one has a plan and they wasted six months.
Personally, I expect your work to take some time. However, after a generation of waiting on some questions, it would be reassuring to see some indication of movement. I trust in the Holy Spirit and in your good will, but as a theologian, a minister, and a member of Christ’s church, have the duty to share my hopes and concerns (cf. CIC 212).
I admit, it does seem a little like sending a Christmas wish list to Santa Claus. I would need a book to spell out the rationale behind each of these suggestions. In many cases there are incompatible alternatives, but either choice would be an improvement. Most of these are small things, tinkering with structures even, that need only to reflect the more important principles and ought to serve the conversion of heart and change of mind. Some are obvious to me based on my study, that i forget they are not so obvious to the public, or even to theologians not studied in ecclesiology or ecumenism. These are, in fact, some of the effects of change, the signs that reform in the more important areas is trickling down to the practical, nitty-gritty. It is also just a list! But before i get to it, I can assert that this list intends to adhere to the following ideals and principles, and is not exhaustive:
Each change is rooted in the tradition of the church – historically, and/or ecumenically (or, apostolic and catholic tradition). We do not really need brand new structures, so much as looking to our past and to the current practice of other apostolic and catholic churches, and adapting those practices for our current needs.
Neither I nor most people I know are much interested in reforms of dogma and doctrine, though the development of doctrine, of the articulation and understanding of unchangeable truth, is always welcome; the focus is on discipline, custom, culture, and administrative practice.
Ecumenically, we should formally commit to the Lund Principle: “churches should act together in all matters except those in which deep differences of conviction compel them to act separately.” In other words, that which can be done together should be done together. Too often we only seem to do the minimum, not all that is allowed or encouraged, but only what is required.
Let him be anathema who says, “Tinkering with structures is not sufficient, all we need is prayer, or holier priests.” Whatever virtue there may have once been present in such pietism is usually overshadowed by this being used as a cop out by people afraid of change, transparency, and the light of day. I agree it is not enough to merely tinker with some structures; they must be overhauled from the ground up. However, prayer without action is merely words, like the letter without the spirit, or the dead kind of faith James warns us about. Pray and Act, rather than Pray not Act, should be your watchword.
Any changes which have been approved in principle, or recommended by various authorities in the church, including official ecumenical dialogues, should be enacted – most have been delayed too long already (e.g., Paul VI and married Eastern presbyters in the US; or the Synod of Bishops on women as instituted readers).
Likewise, some policies already on the books should be more clearly enforced (e.g., only clerics should wear clerical clothing – not seminarians; or the requirement that everyone engaged in formation for pastoral work take a required course in ecumenism and interreligious dialogue).
A healing of memories should take place, perhaps the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission at various levels. There have been many wrongs, some lesser and some greater, committed because of the wrong attitudes of clericalism, careerism, triumphalism. this has happened at the parish level and at the highest levels of the curia. I know pastoral associates and former presidents of pontifical councils treated poorly or fired just for being ‘too pastoral’ and not buying in to the system of clericalism.
Finally, take to heart Pope Francis’ admonishment that all of these are secondary to the need for a conversion of heart, a change of attitude – always the first step in both ecclesial reform and ecumenical reconciliation, two goals which are inseparable from the Gospel.
His Holiness is right, of course, “the people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials.” Presbyters especially have a vocation to parish ministry and to advising the bishop in the care of the diocese; it is deacons who have a particular vocation to assisting the bishop in his ministry of governance and administration at the deanery, diocesan, and supra-diocesan levels.
Thank you for your prayer, your humility, your leadership, and your dedication to the Church. Accept these suggestions from a loyal son of the Church in the spirit in which they are given, out of love for the Church and frustration in its failings and imperfections. And of course, out of humility: this is a work in progress, and the work of many is better than that of one, so I hope friends and colleagues will add their voices to mine, even in disagreement.
I am, as ever, your servant…
Jump to:
- Church Reform Wishlist: Open Letter and Introduction
- Church Reform Wishlist: The Eastern Catholic Churches
- Church Reform Wishlist: The College of Bishops
- Church Reform Wishlist: The College of Cardinals
- Church Reform Wishlist: The Roman Curia
- Church Reform Wishlist: Ministry and Holy Orders
- Church Reform Wishlist: Precedence and Papal Honors
- Church Reform Wishlist: Catholic Education
- Church Reform Wishlist: Liturgy
Church Reform Wishlist: The Eastern Catholic Churches
The Eastern Catholic Churches
- The notion of national or proper ritual territory is archaic. Most churches have a diaspora larger than members living in their original countries. Eliminate any discrepancies between the authority of the synod and heads of the churches for their members worldwide (e.g., in the selection of bishops).
- Eastern Catholic presbyters have not been allowed to be married in the U.S. since the late 19th century because of certain overanxious (celibate) Latin bishops at the time. This caused schism and scandal, and has lead to the current situation where there are now more married Roman Catholic priests than Eastern Catholic priests in the U.S. That ought to be corrected. [Done!: 14 November 2014]
- All other rights of the Eastern Churches that have been impinged upon by the Latin Church should be fully restored.
- A clarifying directive and definition from the competent ecclesial authority that the name of our communion is The Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church should help in a number of confusing venues. It is already in fact the practice[1], but needs to be clearly articulated.
[1] Search the Vatican website: “Roman Catholic Church” gets 125 hits, “Catholic Church” gets over 4400. And most of the uses of “Roman Catholic” are concessions to ecumenical partners, which could be done away with now after years of growth in understanding.
Jump to:
- Church Reform Wishlist: Open Letter and Introduction
- Church Reform Wishlist: The Eastern Catholic Churches
- Church Reform Wishlist: The College of Bishops
- Church Reform Wishlist: The College of Cardinals
- Church Reform Wishlist: The Roman Curia
- Church Reform Wishlist: Ministry and Holy Orders
- Church Reform Wishlist: Precedence and Papal Honors
- Church Reform Wishlist: Catholic Education
- Church Reform Wishlist: Liturgy
Church Reform Wishlist: The College of Bishops
The College of Bishops:
- Zero tolerance for bishops who covered up sex abuse. Remove them.
- Bishops are diocesan ordinaries. No more titular bishops for dicasteries. Even the practice of auxiliary bishops should be reconsidered. Ordaining a personal secretary or a bureaucrat as a bishop diminishes the office of bishop, even if the individual is worthy of the office.
- Smaller dioceses: Dioceses in Italy are about the same geography and population of a deanery/vicariate in the US. The ratio of Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) bishops to faithful seems to hover at around 1:10,000. In the Latin church it is about 1:250,000.
- Restore the ancient practice of elected bishops. “Election” need not mean simple democracy, but a clear participation of the clergy (both diaconate and presbyterate), the lay ecclesial ministry, any resident theologians, and the leadership of the laity.
- Only after the above reform, restore the ancient practice of bishops being ‘wed’ to a single diocese – no more moving on up and out. This makes no sense if a bishop is appointed, but an election makes it possible.
- We need to make better use of the archbishops/metropolitans, including an increased role in the election of bishops from their province. If there were smaller dioceses, and more bishops, the metropolitan would take on some of the load currently at the diocesan level.
- Titular patriarchates (Venice, Lisbon, East Indies) should be eliminated. Despite their historical origin, they only serve to confuse.
- The synod of bishops and the conferences of bishops need to be strengthened. There needs to be a regular standing structure in place to balance the primacy of the papacy. Primacy and synodality belong together, neither one without the other, at every level of the church.
Jump to:
- Church Reform Wishlist: Open Letter and Introduction
- Church Reform Wishlist: The Eastern Catholic Churches
- Church Reform Wishlist: The College of Bishops
- Church Reform Wishlist: The College of Cardinals
- Church Reform Wishlist: The Roman Curia
- Church Reform Wishlist: Ministry and Holy Orders
- Church Reform Wishlist: Precedence and Papal Honors
- Church Reform Wishlist: Catholic Education
- Church Reform Wishlist: Liturgy
The Ecumenism Blog 