As an academician, I find several interesting points in this video.
The Archbishop certainly speaks to the Holy Father in a respectful manner. This does not mean that I agree with what he says. I’m simply acknowledging that he is trying to be respectful, as evidenced by the fact that he continuously refers to him by his proper title, Your Holiness.
This is interesting too from another perspective. Language reflects culture. The very fact that he uses the proper title for the Holy Father is at some level recognition of his office and of the authority that comes with it, which is more than some Catholics show for the papacy.
Another interesting academic point is the fact that he offers some suggestions to the Holy Father on how to correct what he preserves as some egregious wrong. This is worth noting. Very often, people are quick to criticize and condemn and slow to offer solutions. We need not agree with his proposed solutions; however, we can learn to offer solutions when we feel that something should change, not just criticize and complain.
Of equal interest is the overstepping of boundaries. He is an archbishop, not a patriarch. This is important. An Orthodox and an Eastern Catholic Patriarch is a cleric of equal rank with the Patriarch of the West. However, even among the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Christians, there is a recognition of a hierarchy. Archbishops do not dictate to patriarchs of any of the Apostolic Churches, especially across boundaries. It would be like the pastor of a parish in one diocese dictating to the bishop of the diocese next door. Whether or not you belong to the same Church, a hierarchy is observed within and between the Apostolic Churches. Obviously, he is violating protocol. We, in the West, may not think much about this; but to Easterners, protocol is very important. This is behavior that is out of cultural context. As Mr. Spock would say, “Interesting.”
The last point is important, because it places the Patriarch of his Church in a tough position. The Patriarch must ignore one of his own, in solidarity with the pope or support one of his own, which would be an ecumenical blunder, since the two Churches mutually lifted the excommunications and anathemas that they had issued against each other. In essence, the Archbishop has created a tension, which he may not have intended to create or thought about it beforehand. The only way out for the Patriarch would be to pretend that it did not happen. It would be like the Wizard of Oz when the voice says, “Ignore the little man behind the curtain.”
His talk resurrects an interesting piece of Church history. It is true that any bishop can excommunicate. The Archbishop has basically said that if the Holy Father goes through with the Assisi gathering and the beatification of John Paul II he will incur a latae sententiae excommunication. The problem here is that Pope Benedict does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Church. You cannot impose a canonical penalty on someone over whom you do not have jurisdiction. Before the schism, the bishops of the East and West could impose canonical penalties on each other, because they were all Catholic. Once the schism took place, they could not impose such penalties on each other, because they had excommunicated each other. Once you do that, you no longer have jurisdiction. Even though the excommunications have been lifted, each side still has jurisdiction only over those who are in full communion with them.
The Archbishop certainly has a right to his opinions. As a Catholic, I view it as an interesting piece for academic discussion for a classroom, because it raises two interesting questions of law.
- How high can the authority of an archbishop reach?
- What would be the appropriate response of his patriarch?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
