What authority does the Pope actually have over the clergy?

[Sirach2]

JReducation:

There is a tendency on both sides. One side tries to stick the law so literally that the true meaning of obedience and authority is lost. The other side tries to water down the law to the point that the law may as well not exist, because it fails to represent the reality that the Church had in mind when it wrote the law in 1983.

Some very excellent teaching on this can be found in the introduction to the new Code. I particularly esteem this paragraph:

“From these principles which ought to guide the process of revising the Code, it is quite clear that there is a need to apply everywhere the doctrine of the Church expressed by the Second Vatican Council, especially its determination that attention is to be paid not only to the external social dimensions of the Mystical Body of Christ but also and especially to its internal life. And in point of fact the consulters were guided by these principles in drafting the new text of the Code.”

 

[Sirach2]

JReducation:

Archbishop Mueller recently said that the laity, unless they are trained in Canon Law and theology, should not dabble in it because they always get it wrong. I don’t think that he meant it to be disrespectful to the laity, because he recognizes that there are lay canon lawyers and lay theologians. I think that he is trying to be respectful to canon law and theology by protecting the two disciplines from being misrepresented by those who do not know how to read them properly. One could even say that he’s trying to protect the universal Church by telling those who are not experts not to tamper with very delicate matters, because they can do much harm.

OTOH, Bro. Jay, could this just be Abp. Mueller’s opinion? I noted this paragraph in the introduction:

The new systematic organization which, as it were, spontaneously emerged slowly during the revision process, is based on two principles, one of which is fidelity to the more general principles already determined by the central committee, the other of which is its practical usefulness so that the new Code can be easily understood and used not only by experts but also by pastors and indeed by all members of the Christian faithful.

What he says is undoubtedly true to a large degree, but if the Code was written specifically so that all the faithful can easily understand it, then maybe he was overstating this a bit?

 

[JReducation]

On May 6, the Holy Father addressed the International Union of Superiors General for religious orders, religious congregations and institutes of consecrated life. In speaking to the brothers and sisters who represent the 3 million religious men and women in the Catholic Church, the Pope Francis address obedience.

Just as I had explained above, he explained that obedience is an openness to the Holy Spirit. It is doing the will of God, which is mediated through human authority. At the same time, human authority is at the service of those who profess obedience. It is not the role of ecclesial authority to lord it over those who profess obedience.

The statement can be found in VIS.

This statement by the Holy Father is exactly what we have been saying about the problem of taking Canon Law very literally on this particular subject. Obedience is not simply a matter of following orders. There are components to obedience. The subject must discern the voice of the Holy Spirit. The superior (including the pope) must confirm that what the subject hears is indeed the voice of the Holy Spirit. However, this places a moral responsibility on the superior to be attentive to and to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, the superior, including the pope, cannot simply give orders to those who profess obedience. He must serve them. It is his moral duty to seek their best interest; herein enters the obligation to exercise authority with justice and charity. Authority that is not exercised with justice and charity is not legitimate authority, because it is not servant authority, as the Holy Father describes the role of the superior.

As you can see, there is much more than what is written in Canon Law. One must remember that the purpose of Canon Law is to summarize, not to spell out every detail of every possible situation. We tend to read Canon Law very narrowly. If it says X it must mean X. The Church knows that X stands for something much bigger.

Archbishop Mueller recently said that the laity, unless they are trained in Canon Law and theology, should not dabble in it because they always get it wrong. I don’t think that he meant it to be disrespectful to the laity, because he recognizes that there are lay canon lawyers and lay theologians. I think that he is trying to be respectful to canon law and theology by protecting the two disciplines from being misrepresented by those who do not know how to read them properly. One could even say that he’s trying to protect the universal Church by telling those who are not experts not to tamper with very delicate matters, because they can do much harm.

This is certainly the case in this discussion. There is a tendency on both sides. One side tries to stick the law so literally that the true meaning of obedience and authority is lost. The other side tries to water down the law to the point that the law may as well not exist, because it fails to represent the reality that the Church had in mind when it wrote the law in 1983.

We must remember that terms such as love, service, and charity are rarely found in canon law. Bl. John Paul II deliberately ordered that these terms be avoided in writing Canon Law, because these terms are theological and Canon Law is not theology. Canon Law must be interpreted in the light of theology. To put it another way, the Church’s theological definition of obedience, authority, the papacy, promise, and vow guides the application of the law. The law never guides theology.

**CORRECTION: **

The members of the Union of Superiors General were not invited to this gathering. It was only for female superiors general. I just found out today. I don’t know why the male members were not part of the gathering.

 

[JReducation]

OTOH, Bro. Jay, could this just be Abp. Mueller’s opinion? I noted this paragraph in the introduction:

What he says is undoubtedly true to a large degree, but if the Code was written specifically so that all the faithful can easily understand it, then maybe he was overstating this a bit?

No it was not an opinion. It was actually an order that he gave to the SSPX. But one has to assume that such an order is not only for their benefit. It would make no sense.

The term faithful has to be interpreted correctly. In law, the term means the People of God. It’s a collecting noun. It does not mean “everyone”.

In other words, the Fathers knew that not everyone was going to understand it and there was no way that they could write it so that everyone could understand it unless they dumbed it down to a point that is dangerous. Jurisprudence, be it ecclesial or civil has a language, legislator and an audience.

Canon Law follows certain rules, which allow for canon lawyers all over the world to read it and come away with shared meaning. Sometimes, those rules require language and methods of speaking that are not those of the layman. I don’t mean lay as in laity. I mean lay as in non-lawyer. This includes clergy and religious as well as members of the laity.

I know that there are many things in the code that I have no idea what they’re talking about and I make no attempt to explain it to anyone else. There are parts of the law that we were never taught in the seminary, because Rome had said that those parts of the law were reserved to experts and we were not going to be experts. We were just going to be parish men. We learned laws that related to our work in parishes.

When I became superior, I had to take a course in that part of the law that applies to consecrated life, societies of apostolic life and the vocation of the faithful. This part of Canon Law is not taught in seminaries, because it’s a very specialized area that only superiors need to know. If you walk into any parish and ask a priest “What are the legal rights of a religious in simple vows and those of a religious in solemn vows,” he’ll look at you and ask you, “What’s the difference between simple and solemn vows?” He doesn’t know. Some don’t know that there are two kinds of consecration.

 

[Sirach2]

thanks - that was very helpful.

 

[otjm]

I don’t see how you can say precedent imposes any limit on the Pope’s power. The only limit on his power is divine law itself. As far as the governance of churches, he can erect and abolish dioceses by fiat, and appoint and transfer bishops by fiat, so it’s pretty hard to argue that it is outside his power to govern a diocese against the bishop’s will.

In theory, the Pope’s power is unlimited. And even that theory is limited; the Pope, to begin with is an alter Christus; and is to act as Christ would act. That in itself is limiting.

Furthermore, precedent is limiting in that (at least theoretically, if not actually) some things were hammered out which set the precedent, among those, the question of (oh, I hate to say this - cliché) “What would Christ do?”.

Precedent is not absolutely binding unless it is a moral imperative; short of that it is practically binding as the Pope is not a completely free agent - he answers to Christ. the buck tops on his plate, but you can rest assured he does not operate in a vacuum; he will seek advice, and consider how any act may have repercussions elsewhere, and how it might be viewed in other circumstances.

So yes, in theory, the Pope is not bound; but in the real world, there are a number of considerations that any Pope is going to reflect upon when choosing to act. And consistency in application is not a bad thing.