Is this how clergy are taught to 'obey' the Vatican?

[scriabin]

A priest’s response to a Vatican directive-

One of the things that one learns when studying Church documents, which I am sure you already know, is that they are written as Roman law, not English-based law. When I say “Roman” I mean that these laws are written from the point of view accepted as the one which the official Church in the Vatican has as its stance, not based on the old English form of common law. Roman law is seen as a goal to be achieved (and not always realized); English law express what is expected at the moment. Americans, in the English tradition, think that the law should be observed to its particulars. One must interpret Roman law as Roman law, recognizing that the English attitude is somewhat inappropriate, and may even be misleading.

Is this how it works? No wonder Rome never seems to be listened to.

 

[Dauphin]

A priest’s response to a Vatican directive-

Is this how it works? No wonder Rome never seems to be listened to.

If it’s within your means to achieve the goal, then achieve it.

This is just foolish equivocating designed to give license for liturgical abuse.

 

[japhy]

A priest’s response to a Vatican directive-

Is this how it works? No wonder Rome never seems to be listened to.

That quote sounded very familiar to me.

 

[SMHW]

A priest’s response to a Vatican directive-One of the things that one learns when studying Church documents, which I am sure you already know, is that they are written as Roman law, not English-based law. When I say “Roman” I mean that these laws are written from the point of view accepted as the one which the official Church in the Vatican has as its stance, not based on the old English form of common law. Roman law is seen as a goal to be achieved (and not always realized); English law express what is expected at the moment. Americans, in the English tradition, think that the law should be observed to its particulars. One must interpret Roman law as Roman law, recognizing that the English attitude is somewhat inappropriate, and may even be misleading.
Is this how it works? No wonder Rome never seems to be listened to.

I don’t know if this is how, “it works.” But I have heard this point of view expressed by a seminary professor with whom I am acquainted.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

In terms of Roman Law the statement is precisely correct. American law, and therefore our approach to understanding law, is based upon English common law. Church law (Roman Law) is not. In general, American law is “restrictive” in the sense that it regulates what is permitted. Roman law is “permissive” in that is seeks to minimize what is prohibited.

In both American and Roman law the way the law is written is not as important as the way in which it is interpreted. This is why lawyers (whether civil or canon) study case law – how was the law applied. In American law this generally focuses on what’s called “majority cases” meaning they come from particular states or jurisdictions. For canon law “authentic interpretation” comes only from the pope or his designee.

There’s nothing wrong with the statement that was cited by the OP, nor is it “equivocating” for liturgical license. It is the way the Church operates, whether we like it or not.

Deacon Ed

 

[japhy]

My private reaction to that statement was: “Does this mean the Church puts forth laws without expecting them to be followed? That’s probably an over-simplification, but seriously: if the Church puts forth a liturgical law, what’s stopping a priest or bishop from carrying it out in a pastorally-sensitive manner?”

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

In terms of Roman Law the statement is precisely correct. American law, and therefore our approach to understanding law, is based upon English common law. Church law (Roman Law) is not. In general, American law is “restrictive” in the sense that it regulates what is permitted. Roman law is “permissive” in that is seeks to minimize what is prohibited.

In both American and Roman law the way the law is written is not as important as the way in which it is interpreted. This is why lawyers (whether civil or canon) study case law – how was the law applied. In American law this generally focuses on what’s called “majority cases” meaning they come from particular states or jurisdictions. For canon law “authentic interpretation” comes only from the pope or his designee.

There’s nothing wrong with the statement that was cited by the OP, nor is it “equivocating” for liturgical license. It is the way the Church operates, whether we like it or not.

Deacon Ed

I have also read some on the alleged differences between the “Roman” and “English” mindsets concerning law, but haven’t seen it explained so succinctly. To ask a follow-up question: for the reasons explained in this thread, would it be correct to characterize the “Roman” approach to, say, any popular “sin of the flesh” as more of a “failing” (in a pastoral theology sense), vs. our Anglo-American-Germanic approach of treating that same sin as akin to a “moral crime?” It’s certainly been my experience that most confessors are far more merciful and understanding than a lot of posters here, whom I’m glad aren’t on the other side of the screen. This is not to say sin isn’t sin, but I interpret that the Roman approach seems to emphasize the goal of perfection as opposed to the failure to not be perfect.

 

[DL82]

Taking this thread one step further, is this a reason for many of the misunderstandings between Protestants and Catholics?

As a convert, I struggled for a long time with the legalistic language used by the Roman Catholic Church in expressing its’ doctrines, and even considered going Orthodox because of their more philosophical approach. Then a Byzantine Rite Catholic deacon explained to me that the same concepts explained in legal terms in Roman thought can be explained in philosophical terms in Greek thought, it’s just different cultures playing to their strengths.

Maybe the Anglo-Saxon/English/German mindset is different again, calling for a different cultural expression of the same truths? Once we surmount that obstacle, many of the differences between Protestant and Catholic may seem less huge than they did before.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I have also read some on the alleged differences between the “Roman” and “English” mindsets concerning law, but haven’t seen it explained so succinctly. To ask a follow-up question: for the reasons explained in this thread, would it be correct to characterize the “Roman” approach to, say, any popular “sin of the flesh” as more of a “failing” (in a pastoral theology sense), vs. our Anglo-American-Germanic approach of treating that same sin as akin to a “moral crime?” It’s certainly been my experience that most confessors are far more merciful and understanding than a lot of posters here, whom I’m glad aren’t on the other side of the screen. This is not to say sin isn’t sin, but I interpret that the Roman approach seems to emphasize the goal of perfection as opposed to the failure to not be perfect.

The theology of the Catholic (and Orthodox for that matter) Church regarding sin is that it is akin to a sickness. Thus, the sacraments are medicinal. So, yes, it would be more Roman to call sin a “failing” rather than a “moral crime.”

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Taking this thread one step further, is this a reason for many of the misunderstandings between Protestants and Catholics?

As a convert, I struggled for a long time with the legalistic language used by the Roman Catholic Church in expressing its’ doctrines, and even considered going Orthodox because of their more philosophical approach. Then a Byzantine Rite Catholic deacon explained to me that the same concepts explained in legal terms in Roman thought can be explained in philosophical terms in Greek thought, it’s just different cultures playing to their strengths.

Maybe the Anglo-Saxon/English/German mindset is different again, calling for a different cultural expression of the same truths? Once we surmount that obstacle, many of the differences between Protestant and Catholic may seem less huge than they did before.

I would suggest that most Protestants come out of a legalistic process that is akin to English common law or American law (German law is very similar, although not precisely the same). And, yes, there is a difference in how the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Catholic Church express the same things. In part this derives from a different basis in philosophy and in part from a desire on the part of the Western mind to be precise. Even here there are differences between the American and Roman mind. Rome is more likely to use an expression that is hyperbolic while the American mind is likely to interpret that hyperbole literally.

However, we cannot and should not say that the theological or philosophical differences between the Catholic Church and the various Protestant communities is simply a matter of cultural expression. It is far deeper than that, although at root there is a significant issue of how the German mind interpreted something that was written by a Greek and interpreted in a different context from that of the original.

Deacon Ed

 

[scriabin]

Deacon Ed-- Thankyou for your information. So–this *is *the way it works in the mind of pastors? Or, more specifically, where would they learn this in seminary–in a class on Canon Law?

Where would I get more information? Where did you get your information?

Thanks for your time.

 

[EasterJoy]

A priest’s response to a Vatican directive…

Isn’t that rather an exerpt from a priest’s response to a parishioner’s criticisms?

Seriously, though, what did the priest in question say, when asked the question posed by the thread?

 

[quiet52]

My private reaction to that statement was: “Does this mean the Church puts forth laws without expecting them to be followed? That’s probably an over-simplification, but seriously: if the Church puts forth a liturgical law, what’s stopping a priest or bishop from carrying it out in a pastorally-sensitive manner?”

That is my reaction to the statement also. For years I’ve heard priests say things like “well, these Vatican instructions aren’t infallible” and “it’s impossible to follow them” – even in recent months about Redemptionis Sacramentum (on liturgical abuses).

I’m glad that my bishop has been addressing some (not all) of the abuses recently.

As to certain other issues, especially moral ones, documents are still being ignored by a vast majority of priests, it seems.

 

[japhy]

Isn’t that rather an exerpt from a priest’s response to a parishioner’s criticisms? Seriously, though, what did the priest in question say, when asked the question posed by the thread?

“Your final accusations that I am ‘care-free’ in my attitude to Liturgy and ‘disobedient’ is, if I may be honest, very offensive. Be careful when you become judgmental - the Lord Jesus says that you will be judged as you judge others.”

 

[scriabin]

Isn’t that rather an exerpt from a priest’s response to a parishioner’s criticisms?

Quite right.

Seriously, though, what did the priest in question say, when asked the question posed by the thread?

Sorry, I can’t remember exactly where I got this or exactly what they were talking about; but you certainly can apply it to just about anything—liturgy (ex. “priests should follow the rubrics”), moral teaching (ex. Humanae Vitae), theology (ex. “refer to
God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–not just as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”), etc.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

A priest’s response to a Vatican directive-

Quote:
 	 		 One of the things that one learns when studying Church documents, which I am sure you already know, is that they are written as Roman law, not English-based law. When I say "Roman" I mean that these laws are written from the point of view accepted as the one which the official Church in the Vatican has as its stance, not based on the old English form of common law. Roman law is seen as a goal to be achieved (and not always realized); English law express what is expected at the moment. Americans, in the English tradition, think that the law should be observed to its particulars. One must interpret Roman law as Roman law, recognizing that the English attitude is somewhat inappropriate, and may even be misleading.

Is this how it works? No wonder Rome never seems to be listened to.
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/quote.gif

It would be helpful to know what type of church documents he was referring to and how this should play out in real life.

 

[EasterJoy]

Sorry, I can’t remember exactly where I got this or exactly what they were talking about; but you certainly can apply it to just about anything—liturgy (ex. “priests should follow the rubrics”), moral teaching (ex. Humanae Vitae), theology (ex. “refer to
God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–not just as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”), etc.

If memory serves correctly, it was a letter that japhy referred to in a web citation on a different thread.

“Your final accusations that I am ‘care-free’ in my attitude to Liturgy and ‘disobedient’ is, if I may be honest, very offensive. Be careful when you become judgmental - the Lord Jesus says that you will be judged as you judge others.”

This is all a ticklish business, for we are in much the same position as we are when, as adults, we approach our parents on family matters. Were these letters passed on to the bishop? Discerning whether this pastor’s reply was appropriate and dealing with the obedience of priests in his diocese is within his authority and duty, after all.

 

[japhy]

It would be helpful to know what type of church documents he was referring to and how this should play out in real life.

If memory serves correctly, it was a letter that japhy referred to in a web citation on a different thread.

It wasn’t a reference to any particular Church document. It was his justification for not celebrating Mass according to the Roman Missal (omitting parts, adding parts of his own, etc.).

Were these letters passed on to the bishop? Discerning whether this pastor’s reply was appropriate and dealing with the obedience of priests in his diocese is within his authority and duty, after all.

He wasn’t my pastor; he’s a religious priest, so if the letters are sent to anyone else, first they should go to his superior.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It wasn’t a reference to any particular Church document. It was his justification for not celebrating Mass according to the Roman Missal (omitting parts, adding parts of his own, etc.).

The Roman Missal is a rather important legal document!