It is important to understand that the CDWDS has responded with semeral messages, but not to the one that people are looking for. The letter is very diplomatic. Which I wonder how long it’s going to take the faithful to be as diplomatic as the Vatican.
- The letter states what the writer already knew. You cannot deny communion on the tongue. Otherwise, the writer would not have written.
- I thanksf the writer for writing (diplomatic move # 1).
- I promises to make some contacts and asks some questions (diplomatic move # 2).
It does not promise to change anything. Because accordin to canon law a bishop can grant a dispensation from certain actions and rules:
**Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority. **
Here is the glitch. The bishop is not dispensing from procedural or penal laws. This is another category of law. Distribution of Holy Communion does not fall under either of these. This are laws that govern the courts. This is a not a court issue. The other side of the glitch is that there some laws from which only the Apostoli See can dispense. This raises the question, is communion on tongue one of those. That’s not written anywhere. What has been written is that the conferences of bishops mays dispense from communion on the tongue as long as they have the indult, which we do in many countries.
Section 2 of canon law.
§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 291.
I remember studying this one in the seminary. In English it means that a bishop can can grant a dispensation of matter that is reserved for the pope, before contacting the poep, if he believes that the situation is serious. He must sill inform the Holy See and the Holy See has the choice to uphold or turn over the dispensation. In the meantime, the dispensation stands until Rome speaks.
If the bishop says, because of swine flue, everyone is dispensed from communion in the hand and it will not to be available for the short-term, the decision stands until it is overturned, if it is overturned.
That’s why the letter from the CDWDS does now answer how this is going to be solved. Because the writer does not know the answer. They after making contact with the bishop, they may decide to support his decision, since it si a short-term dispensation from the norm. They may turn it around. The bishop may want a hearing with the Holy Father, in which case it turns around again and the commuion on the tongue is banned again until the pope decides. This could go on longer than tthe swine flue. The Sacred Congreation knows this. Therefore, they avoid over turning these things as long as they have the word of the bishop that this is going to be short-term. Then the waiting game begins to see if the bishop will comply with what he promised.
To answer someone’s queston, "how do me make them change?’ You don’t, because you can’t No one can make anyone change. You can lead the horse. That’s all.
However, there is a wonderful way to be happy, despite the fact that you can’t change others. Our holy Father Francis wrote may admonitions that he added to our rule. He is one that I find very helpful. It keeps me at peace and focussed on the things that I can change.
**Admonition 11. That one must not be seduced by Bad Example.
- To the servant of God nothing should be displeasing save sin. And no matter in what way any one may sin, if the servant of God is troubled or angered he treasures up guilt to himself.
2 The servant of God who does not trouble himself or get angry about anything lives uprightly and without sin.**
The point is very simple. If you want to be without sin, don’t let someone else’s sin lead you to the sin of anger. What is very interesting is that Francis understood justifiable anger. But he also understood humanity. Therefore, he made no room for justifiable anger in this thelogy. He knew that men play that card all too often. He was not going to create wiggle room for those who abuse that card. In his mind, God knew the difference and that’s all that mattered. If you are angry, you assume that you are in sin, go to confession and get past it. If the anger is justificable the grace of confession wi a bonus that will be applied elsewhere.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
