The Pope is not bound by Canon Law, but the Pope follows the correct procedures when he wishes to perform an official act that has the force of law.
We would have a very bad Pope indeed if he decided that because he can do anything he wants, his word should always be considered law.
When a judge wishes to rule over a court, he puts on a robe, he sits on the bench, and he uses the gavel. He ensures that his judgements are entered correctly in the reporter’s record and the clerks carry out his wishes. This is all done through a formal process so that there can be no doubt about the judge’s actions.
When a judge goes to a dinner party, he converses casually with his friends and colleagues, and while he can speak authoritatively on matters of law, nobody comes away from the dinner thinking that the judge has made formal rulings in cases, and there is no court reporter taking down his words and looking for official judgements.
When the President of the United States wants to do something, he goes through the channels. He signs a document, he sends a memo. He can probably give verbal orders to the correct person in certain cases. But generally, when he does something legal, he goes on record with it, and signs off, for example, an executive order, a bill becoming law.
What the President can’t do is hold a press conference and hold up a bill from Congress and say “This bill is now a law!” If he hasn’t signed it, that won’t fly. He hasn’t gone through the correct channels, he is not in the correct venue to make executive actions. A press conference is a time to answer questions and make statements to reporters.
Likewise, a homily is the time to expound on the Scriptures and teach doctrine. It is a liturgical act during which the clergy exercise their teaching office. It is not the venue for decrees or legislation. The Pope’s words were ambiguous, because he did not explicitly say “I have excommunicated them!” or “They have excommunicated themselves” he said “They are excommunicated!” (I read the Italian original.) If the Pope meant to pass a sentence then he would have signed a document to be released in conjunction with his homily. He would not have relied on the press to get the word out to the criminals that a censure has been issued, he would have sent letters. The Curia would have an unmitigated heart attack if the Pope suddenly decided to issue verbal decrees in homilies.
Your example of canonization is absurd. Because the agreements were waived through the proper channels. The Pope submits signed memos to the appropriate dicastery and they authenticate them. The canonization ceremonies are public, formal liturgical acts. I am 99% sure that a written act of canonization is presented during the ceremony. The action taken is written into various Church documents, especially Acta Apostolicae Sedis. No, if a bishop made an off-the-cuff remark in a homily that said “Elizium23 is a saint”, that would not carry the force of a canonization ceremony either. So you’re looking at apples and oranges.
I have never said that the Pope is bound by Canon Law. To take an example of his largesse, look at Holy Thursday when he washes the feet of women. He is clearly taking liberties with liturgical law in that respect. He doesn’t need to rewrite the Missal or make a formal announcement, he just does the liturgical action. That in itself is an example of his power as Lawgiver. Let me be crystal clear: he CAN do anything he wants but he DOESN’T do many things.
He can excommunicate the Mafia but he did not do so. He made an off-the-cuff remark which was backed up by the clarification in the Press Office. That’s their job now, to make sure the world knows what the Pope actually meant. I am sure that Jimmy Akin and Dr. Ed Peters will weigh in shortly, in fact I am counting on it so that I have more ammunition, although I had hoped against hope that a simple statement from the Vatican spox would be clear enough.
I didn’t know that. So the priests use their judgment if they know someone is mafia and joins the communion line?