Our Church; Our Faith & Decentralization

[PJM]

The below quote is taken from the WANDERER News Paper: Feb 18, 2016 Page 2A; “News Notes”; and I have read it elsewhere on Catholic Media as well

“The speech, in which the Pope spoke extensively about the theme of “synodality” and emphasized the need for a “healthy de-centralization,” will be “important for the work of the reform of the Curia,” Father Lombardi said”.

In recent months Catholic Media has sporadically, but with consistency reported on Pope Francis’s “intent”’ for “Healthy-decentralization” of Church Governance

[1] What exactly does this mean?

[2] Is this a HIGHLY significant change?

[3] What can we expect its Short and Long term effects to be?.

[4] When might we see this enacted?

[5] How is this an element of the talked about Reform of the Curia?

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Polycarp1]

I don’t know, maybe we are supposed to break off from the Catholic Church and go start other churches… Oh wait , no that won’t work!

 

[dmar198]

The below quote is taken from the WANDERER News Paper: Feb 18, 2016 Page 2A; “News Notes”; and I have read it elsewhere on Catholic Media as well

“The speech, in which the Pope spoke extensively about the theme of “synodality” and emphasized the need for a “healthy de-centralization,” will be “important for the work of the reform of the Curia,” Father Lombardi said”.

In recent months Catholic Media has sporadically, but with consistency reported on Pope Francis’s “intent”’ for “Healthy-decentralization” of Church Governance

[1] What exactly does this mean?

[2] Is this a HIGHLY significant change?

[3] What can we expect its Short and Long term effects to be?.

[4] When might we see this enacted?

[5] How is this an element of the talked about Reform of the Curia?

God Bless you,

Patrick

Perhaps the Holy Father is building on the desires of Pope Benedict XVI:

“I decentralized [some] beatifications in order to make these figures more visible in the specific places they came from. Perhaps a saint from Guatemala does not interest us in Germany, and vice versa, someone from Altötting is of no interest in Los Angeles, and so on, right? I also think that this decentralization is more in keeping with the collegiality of the episcopate, with its collegial structures, and that it is suitable for stressing how different countries have their own personalities and these are especially effective in these countries. I have also seen how these beatifications in different places touch vast numbers of people and that people say: ‘At last, this one is one of us!’.” source

 

[CuriousMike]

All I have to say is we don’t want this turning every Diocese into a completely independently-governed institution that only answers to the Vatican on finances or trivial things.

Decentralisation, if it means the control is shared around more, could be a good thing.

Again - We are ONE, HOLY and CATHOLIC. Not One, Holy OR Catholic. It is ALL or NONE.

Our teachings cannot be different wherever you go, nor should the Liturgy.
Otherwise, we would reduce our Church to that of our Protestant brethren. Taking the example of the Anglican Church here in Australia, its generally liberal in practice in the cities (while looking conservative). In the country, the Anglican Church is very baptist, while looking very liberal and “cruisey.”

We do not want this to happen to the Catholic Church, and I hope clergymen, whether Priests, Bishops or otherwise do not misinterpret this to mean something along those lines.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

One could argue that “decentralization” - however you define that - has been the norm and tradition of he Church for 1900 years. Only since the communications and technology advances of the 20th Century have various administrative matters seemingly been pulled into Rome either by design or default.

 

[commenter]

Decentralization of doctrine, definitely not good. Marriage, for instance, is created by God.

Decentralization of administrative procedures, adjustment to local practices and conditions, ok.

Pope Francis himself has not hesitated to remove a bishop or two, and lecture others on the need for change. I would not regard him as especially a decentralizer. He is very much consistent with papal authority.

 

[Genesis315]

Ideally, bishops should act like true vicars of Christ and the supreme teachers, governors, and “sanctifiers” (to coin a phrase) in their particular Churches. They should also coordinate and work in harmony with their fellow bishops. They are not just supposed to be middle management or representatives of the Pope.

The Bishop of Rome’s primacy is at the service of unity. His jurisdiction and teaching authority extends over all the particular Churches and all the faithful for this reason. Where bishops or local synods harm the unity of faith and charity within the Church, or in general when some measure would be expedient for strengthening the unity in faith and charity of the Church, the Pope needs to take action.

Based on that, it is not surprising that in different times and circumstances, Popes (with the curia assisting) have exercised more or less direct control.

There seems to be many Church leaders, including the Pope, who think in the current circumstances the Pope doesn’t need to exercise as much control in some matters. We’ll see what happens!

 

[Genesis315]

Decentralization of doctrine, definitely not good. Marriage, for instance, is created by God.

If you mean by this that doctrine will be different and not have the same meaning and understanding in all the particular Churches, then you’re correct that this would be very bad. This would be contrary to unity and the Pope would need to step in to defend, maintain, and advance the unity of faith.

However, bishops have true teaching (aka doctrinal) authority. It’s their job to teach the true faith to their flocks. They should do this. They should condemn errors that crop up in their Churches and explain and expound upon doctrines that their particular flocks need explaining and expounding. They shouldn’t just rely on Rome to do all the teaching. This is where “decentralization” of teaching can be a good thing–again, provided the Pope steps in if the bishop instead departs from the unity of faith or where there is some doctrinal dispute among the Churches that needs to be settled.

 

[PJM]

Perhaps the Holy Father is building on the desires of Pope Benedict XVI:

“I decentralized [some] beatifications in order to make these figures more visible in the specific places they came from. Perhaps a saint from Guatemala does not interest us in Germany, and vice versa, someone from Altötting is of no interest in Los Angeles, and so on, right? I also think that this decentralization is more in keeping with the collegiality of the episcopate, with its collegial structures, and that it is suitable for stressing how different countries have their own personalities and these are especially effective in these countries. I have also seen how these beatifications in different places touch vast numbers of people and that people say: ‘At last, this one is one of us!’.” source

Thank you so much! The Parish Apologetic s site is great!

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

All I have to say is we don’t want this turning every Diocese into a completely independently-governed institution that only answers to the Vatican on finances or trivial things.

Decentralisation, if it means the control is shared around more, could be a good thing.

Again - We are ONE, HOLY and CATHOLIC. Not One, Holy OR Catholic. It is ALL or NONE.

Our teachings cannot be different wherever you go, nor should the Liturgy.
Otherwise, we would reduce our Church to that of our Protestant brethren. Taking the example of the Anglican Church here in Australia, its generally liberal in practice in the cities (while looking conservative). In the country, the Anglican Church is very baptist, while looking very liberal and “cruisey.”

We do not want this to happen to the Catholic Church, and I hope clergymen, whether Priests, Bishops or otherwise do not misinterpret this to mean something along those lines.

I AGREE!

We put,

Thanks,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

One could argue that “decentralization” - however you define that - has been the norm and tradition of he Church for 1900 years. Only since the communications and technology advances of the 20th Century have various administrative matters seemingly been pulled into Rome either by design or default.

Perhaps, BUT I don’t think [personally] that is what Rome has in mind

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Decentralization of doctrine, definitely not good. Marriage, for instance, is created by God.

Decentralization of administrative procedures, adjustment to local practices and conditions, ok.

Pope Francis himself has not hesitated to remove a bishop or two, and lecture others on the need for change. I would not regard him as especially a decentralizer. He is very much consistent with papal authority.

Thanks!

But it seems to ME that He is the one promoting this decentralization:shrug::

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Ideally, bishops should act like true vicars of Christ and the supreme teachers, governors, and “sanctifiers” (to coin a phrase) in their particular Churches. They should also coordinate and work in harmony with their fellow bishops. They are not just supposed to be middle management or representatives of the Pope.

The Bishop of Rome’s primacy is at the service of unity. His jurisdiction and teaching authority extends over all the particular Churches and all the faithful for this reason. Where bishops or local synods harm the unity of faith and charity within the Church, or in general when some measure would be expedient for strengthening the unity in faith and charity of the Church, the Pope needs to take action.

Based on that, it is not surprising that in different times and circumstances, Popes (with the curia assisting) have exercised more or less direct control.

There seems to be many Church leaders, including the Pope, who think in the current circumstances the Pope doesn’t need to exercise as much control in some matters. We’ll see what happens!

Interested take,

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

If you mean by this that doctrine will be different and not have the same meaning and understanding in all the particular Churches, then you’re correct that this would be very bad. This would be contrary to unity and the Pope would need to step in to defend, maintain, and advance the unity of faith.

However, bishops have true teaching (aka doctrinal) authority. It’s their job to teach the true faith to their flocks. They should do this. They should condemn errors that crop up in their Churches and explain and expound upon doctrines that their particular flocks need explaining and expounding. They shouldn’t just rely on Rome to do all the teaching. This is where “decentralization” of teaching can be a good thing–again, provided the Pope steps in if the bishop instead departs from the unity of faith or where there is some doctrinal dispute among the Churches that needs to be settled.

You have highlighted a real concern here. The German Bishops seem to have indicated such a shift in authority?

Thanks,

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Louman127]

I haven’t looked into this much but this is what came to me so I will just post it:

Or it could mean a step in which the Pope is trying to gain unity of all Christians. Perhaps a way that all East and West Churches can come together under the one head and accept Papal Authority but at the same time keep their customs and theology but in a way it will still be in conformity and without error. Perhaps all will be able to submit to the one head because we will work more integrated with one another. All the fruits of all the Eastern and Western Churches all in one without pride in the way of anything. But will still, if need be, allow the Pope to have the final say as the official leader here on earth.

 

[commenter]

Thanks!

But it seems to ME that He is the one promoting this decentralization:shrug::

Patrick

The pope has not hesitated to try to influence national affairs, whether it be slamming a bishop in one place for too much luxury, or slamming a politician who is into building walls.

“Reforming” the Curia usually is interpreted as decentralization of some kind. Pope Paul did it in the 1960s, JP II in the 1980s. It is probably something that needs doing every generation or so. What happens is that good administrators get entrenched into offices and procedures take on a life of their own apart from their original purpose. Changes in the world and the Church present different challenges. Unforeseen problems arise that the Church needs to respond to, that did not exist in the 1980s, or 1960s.

Is he telling each bishop’s conference, or each diocese, to decide doctrinal or moral things on their own? Not that I have heard so far. Two recent moves: he allowed laity to recieve absolution from SSPX priests, and women to be included in foot washing. I know on the first he bypassed the local bishops. On the second, he may have (not sure).

 

[PJM]

All I have to say is we don’t want this turning every Diocese into a completely independently-governed institution that only answers to the Vatican on finances or trivial things.

Decentralisation, if it means the control is shared around more, could be a good thing.

Again - We are ONE, HOLY and CATHOLIC. Not One, Holy OR Catholic. It is ALL or NONE.

Our teachings cannot be different wherever you go, nor should the Liturgy.
Otherwise, we would reduce our Church to that of our Protestant brethren. Taking the example of the Anglican Church here in Australia, its generally liberal in practice in the cities (while looking conservative). In the country, the Anglican Church is very baptist, while looking very liberal and “cruisey.”

We do not want this to happen to the Catholic Church, and I hope clergymen, whether Priests, Bishops or otherwise do not misinterpret this to mean something along those lines.

I AGREE!

Let us pray!

PJM

 

[PJM]

I haven’t looked into this much but this is what came to me so I will just post it:

Or it could mean a step in which the Pope is trying to gain unity of all Christians. Perhaps a way that all East and West Churches can come together under the one head and accept Papal Authority but at the same time keep their customs and theology but in a way it will still be in conformity and without error. Perhaps all will be able to submit to the one head because we will work more integrated with one another. All the fruits of all the Eastern and Western Churches all in one without pride in the way of anything. But will still, if need be, allow the Pope to have the final say as the official leader here on earth.

Great Q

BUT, would this NOT then require redefining the TRUTH?

Pope Benedict XVI taught:

“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth” [to which I ADD AMEN!]

There is a foundational teaching in Moral Theology that states: THE END DOES NOT {CANNOT} JUSTIFY THE MEANS"

God Bless you, good point,

PJM

 

[PJM]

The pope has not hesitated to try to influence national affairs, whether it be slamming a bishop in one place for too much luxury, or slamming a politician who is into building walls.

“Reforming” the Curia usually is interpreted as decentralization of some kind. Pope Paul did it in the 1960s, JP II in the 1980s. It is probably something that needs doing every generation or so. What happens is that good administrators get entrenched into offices and procedures take on a life of their own apart from their original purpose. Changes in the world and the Church present different challenges. Unforeseen problems arise that the Church needs to respond to, that did not exist in the 1980s, or 1960s.

Is he telling each bishop’s conference, or each diocese, to decide doctrinal or moral things on their own? Not that I have heard so far. Two recent moves: he allowed laity to recieve absolution from SSPX priests, and women to be included in foot washing. I know on the first he bypassed the local bishops. On the second, he may have (not sure).

Thank you,

May I ask if you have been reading Catholic News sites in the past 6 months or so?

I certainly DO agree with the top portion of your post.

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” seems to be to be a curia possibility?

God Bless you

PJM

 

[Brendan_64]

Decentralisation as a practical means of creating a more efficient administration should not be an issue. However decentralisation motivated by ideological reasons is more problematic.

We have already had the concept of allowing a ‘pastoral approach’ as a fudge that effectively runs counter to actual teachings. To allow bishops conferences to run semi-autonomous national Churches which the power to determine the ‘pastoral approach’ to doctrine in their nation effectively puts us into a position similar to the Anglican Communion. Do we really want to go there?