I was wondering if any Church authority had a defence for Romans changing to this practice. An apologia pro CITH. What revelation happened in the 70’s to justify allowing it?
I’m not trying to be sarcastic . . . please don’t think that I am. The truth is that the Holy See has never made it a policy to explain itself. Most of the time, an apologia would be forthcoming from theologians. That’s their role in the Church, to shed light on faith questions. It’s not really the job of the ecclesial authorities. The role of the ecclesial authorities is to teach and to govern.
Because this is not an issue of morals or doctrine, the Roman Curia, especially the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, will always graciously bow out of offering explanations. Its role is to observe these developments and identify those what are in conflict with either faith or morals.
When it comes to matters of discipline, it’s really up to the pertinent congregation to regulate, but not to explain or defend. In this case, that would be the Congregation for Divine Worship. They have done their part. The bishops have started something, with or without permission. The CDW has looked at it a declared that it’s not a violation.
Here is where things get a little confusing. Sometimes, things begin illegally, meaning that it was never authorized. Once the Congregation for the Faith gives it either a nod of appoval or decides that it’s not worth its attention, the Congregation for Divine Worship must then decide whether it wants to legalize it or engage in a battle of wills with the bishops. Generally, the Congregation will not engage in such a battle if there is nothing immoral or heretical to battle. If it’s just a matter of reformatting the law so that the largest number of people are covered by the law, they will take this course.
It is important for us to remember that the Roman Curia does not exist to micromanage the universal Church. Each sacred congregation and department exists to lend support to the local churches (dioceses) and to resolve conflicts. However, the popes have always had the custom of allowing these questions to be resolved at the local level. In the past, there was even less intervention with local dioceses than there is today. It’s hard to believe, but one of the results of Vatican II was a greater collaboration and closer work between the diocesan bishops and the Holy See. This was unheard of before Pope Paul VI. Bishops governed as supreme leaders in their own jurisdictions, abbots and religious superiors in their jurisdictions, and the Eastern Patriarchs in their own.
If the question is a moral one or doctrinal one, such as is the case with abortion, women’s ordination, same-sex marriage, social justice, then the Holy See will step in. Either the Holy Father or one of the Congregations, acting in his name, will intervene. Other than that, the most you will get will be an occasional commentary from someone such as Cardinal Arinze.
There, is an interesting issue. Everytime Cardinal Arinze has been asked about these questions, he answers and those who like his answer run with it as if it were law. The poor man is put into a tight spot. He is simply answering a question, giving his opinion. He is not speaking authoritatively. When he speaks as the Prefect, he does so through written documents, not through interviews. Whatever he says at an interview is not meant to be taken as a verdict or ruling. It is what it is, Cardinal Arinze speaking, not the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
