It seems very clear that the rift between the more conservative elements of Bishops and the more moderate members among them has widened in the face of the controversies which have been occasioned by Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (AL) and the recent letter of Cardinal Burke and three other Cardinals asking for clarification of the teachings contained therein. Cardinal Burke has publicly threatened a formal act of correction if the Holy Father does not respond.
This open challenge to the Pope is an interesting development in the Catholic Church.
Until this Pontificate, it was unheard of for Bishops to argue in public. The Catholic Hierarchy seemed always to speak with one voice.
During the years of Pope Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI people who did not share the same mindset as the Vatican were often censured. Yet, in the last few days, Bishops have taken to the media to spat with the Pope and each other.
The following are just a few examples of the public comments which various Church leaders have made most recently.
Cardinal Sarah of Guinea (who also heads up the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments), joined Cardinal Burke and his associates in the public criticism of Pope Francis.
Cardinal Sarah had suggested earlier this year that priests should go back to the “ad-orientum” position of saying mass. “Ad-orientum” basically means that the priest stands with his back to the people so that all face east. This was the position that priests used up until the Second Vatican in the 1960s. At the Council, the Church decided to change this so that the priest faced the people.
Cardinal Sarah, and other traditionalists, have been advocating for the reversal of this decision. Sarah suggested that the Church’s new Liturgical Year would be the best time for this to be implemented (the new Church Year happens to begin on the first Sunday of Advent).
Days after his comments, he was called in to see the Holy Father. Following that meeting, the Vatican issued a statement saying that there would be no such changes.
Earlier this week, Cardinal Sarah (who many conservatives are would like to see as the next Pope, the first from Africa) said Church teaching on sin and communion cannot change. “Not even a Pope can circumvent or alter Divine Law,” he insisted.
Just days before being made a Cardinal himself by Pope Francis), the newly appointed Archbishop of Newark, USA, Joseph Tobin, publicly said his American counterpart, Cardinal Burke, was “at best naive” when he was asked to comment on the private letter made public. Cardinal-electTobin called the incident “troublesome”.
Another American, the Archbishop of Chicago and a personal appointee of Francis who was also made a Cardinal last week, Blase Cupich, said that Catholics who have doubts about the Pope’s exhortation should seek “conversion in their lives”. A rather sharp retort, indeed.
As I noted in a previous article, retired Greek Catholic Bishop, Frangiskos Papamanolis, who is the emeritus bishop of Syros, Santorini and Crete, accused the letter-writing four of risking “schism” in the church.
The Greek Bishop said that he was “deeply concerned for the good of the Cardinals' souls” for “two very serious reasons” of “heresy” and “scandal”. In the strongest response yet, the Bishop accused the four Cardinals themselves of receiving communion “sacrilegiously” – not the divorced and remarried, as they had suggested.
On the other side of the controversy, the Auxiliary Bishop of Lublin, Józef Wróbel, came to the Cardinals’ defense earlier this week, stating that “Amoris Laetitia is not well written" and that the Cardinals “did well in asking for clarification.”
Wróbel was then joined by Kazakhstan Bishop Athanasius Schneider who stated that the Cardinals “only did their basic duty” to guard the “revelation transmitted through the Apostles” so that it might be “faithfully interpreted.” He went on to praise Cardinal Burke and the three other Cardinals for being courageous and said that they were victims of “hush-up strategies and slander campaigns”.
Schneider added, seemingly hitting back at the Greek Prelate Papamanolis, that his reaction to the four cardinals’ letter was “unusually violent and intolerant” and that “among such intolerant reactions one could read affirmations such as, for instance: the four cardinals are witless, naive, schismatic, heretical, and even comparable to the Arian heretics”. (For the record, the Arian heresy was an argument about the divine and human nature of Christ in 321AD.) Bishop Schneider's reference to this theological battle seemed overly dramatic and irrelevant to the issue being argued about in AL.
Even the Holy Father himself has entered into the public fray. Although he has offered no formal response to the four Cardinals, he has, in an interview with the Italian newspaper, Avvenire, criticized “a certain legalism” and said that some people thought issues were “black and white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”.
In the same interview, the Pope also dismissed critics who claimed he was trying to “Protestantize” the Catholic Church. Last month he traveled to Sweden to mark 500 years since the Reformation. He urged Catholic-Lutheran reconciliation while visiting in the city of Malmo. Responding to a question about this, Francis said that he “will not lose sleep” about such provocative comments.
Truly, the Pope seems not to be perturbed by critics.It is very apparent that he believes that the pastoral approach of the Catholic Church needs a make-over and he continues to shape that approach not so much by speaking and writing but by his actions and temperament.
Francis has returned again and again to the question of how the leadership in the Church behaves. He has challenged Bishops and Priests several times about their lifestyles and attitudes.
Just recently, he warned Clergy about their use of money: “Do not allow money to become your Lord,” he said. Apart from a certain Augustinian monk named Luther who raised these questions, such issues have been raised before by Early Church theologians, medieval theologians (many of them saints like Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas) and contempory exponents of Catholic social ethics like Leo XIII, Pius XII and Saint Pope John XXIII.
If, by writing a letter – and then making it public – Cardinal Burke believes that he and his associates could corner the Pope and get the answer they wanted, their strategy appears to be doomed to failure. It is unlikely that the Holy Father feels cornered.
However, the four Cardinals have now placed themselves in a rather difficult position. They are but four Cardinals out of 228 from 79 countries. They are not a majority by any stretch of the imagination.
It is ironic that when 12 Cardinals wrote a letter to Francis last year, which was leaked to the media, the Cardinals were most indignant and insisted on the fact that it was a private letter. They were expressing their unhappiness with the way that he decided to change the process at the Synod of bishops to allow people to speak freely. Now, it seems, it is okay for these same Cardinals to go public on a private letter to the Holy Father voicing their objections to AL.
Such petulant behavior is anything but edifying coming as it does from persons in positions of both leadership and prestige within the Church Hierarchy.
On this side of the Atlantic, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has fired back at remarks which newly-elevated Cardinal Farrell made suggesting that Chaput's diocesan guidelines for implementing AL are causing “division.”
Archbishop Chaput stated, “I wonder if Cardinal Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion.”
Cardinal Farrell — one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken American supporters and Prefect of the newly established Congregation for Family Life — said that he disagreed with Archbishop Chaput issuing his own guidelines for Philadelphia. Cardinal Farrell insisted that implementing the Pope's exhortation should be done “in communion” with all U.S. bishops by way of the USCCB.
The center of Farrell’s criticism appears to be Chaput’s insistence that the document be interpreted, as Chaput has previously stated, “within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life.” Archbishop Chaput’s guidelines unequivocally state that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy.”
For Cardinal Farrell, this is problematic.
“I don't share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no," the Cardinal told Catholic News Service. "I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at — each case as it is presented to us,” he said. “I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple.”
But Chaput called Farrell’s criticism of his guidelines, as well as the fact that he issued the guidelines as a Bishop acting in his own diocese, “puzzling.”
“Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable,” Chaput said.
“I think every bishop in the United States feels a special fidelity to Pope Francis as Holy Father. We live that fidelity by doing the work we were ordained to do as bishops. Under canon law — not to mention common sense — governance of a diocese belongs to the local Bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a Conference, though Bishops' Conferences can often provide a valuable forum for discussion. As a former resident bishop, the Cardinal Farrell surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality,” he added.
Archbishop Chaput doubled down on his key for interpreting the exhortation, stating that any implementation that contradicts not only Sacred Scripture but the Church’s previous Magisterial teaching is contrary to the mission of the Church given to her by Christ.
“Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own Magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce,” he said.
And yet, in September, the Pope himself seemed to indicate his intentions in AL, when he wrote to the bishops of Argentina that there was “no other interpretation” of the Exhortation other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion.
Pope Francis has clearly indicated the direction in which he wants the American church to go.
How this will play out among the American Bishops as a whole is uncertain to be sure.
For their part, the U.S. Bishops responded earlier this week by electing two staunch conservatives to the top posts in the Bishops’ Conference (USCCB).
In what was widely viewed as pushback against the Pope’s progressive agenda, the Bishops chose Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and a known conservative, as president of the USCCB. Cardinal DiNardo was one of 13 Cardinals to sign a letter to Pope Francis in October 2015 raising several objections about a left-wing manipulation of the controversial Synod on Marriage and Family Life.
Elected to serve as Vice President of the Conference was another conservative, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez, a member of Opus Dei. Together with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, Archbishop Gomez was passed over by Pope Francis in the recent selection of new U.S. cardinals, despite his impressive résumé and the importance of Los Angeles as an Archdiocese.
The bickering, it seems, continues and has taken on a nasty and irreverent tone as well. To the average Catholic, this is terribly confusing and quite unseemly.
How this controversy will end is anyone’s guess at this point in time.
Let us pray to the Holy Spirit for unity and peace within the Body of Christ.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
IS CARDINAL BURKE PREPARING TO ISSUE THE POPE A CANONICAL WARNING?
As I previously noted, willful obstinance is itself a necessary element of the crime of heresy, it does not suffice that its presence be presumed; it must be confirmed.
A canonical warning accomplishes this by removing any chance of innocent ignorance, and/or providing the suspect with a chance to affirm what was denied in a moment of weakness.
In addition to the canonical warning, in most cases the loss of office also requires a Declaratory Sentence of the crime.
There are some scholars who maintain that a Pope who professes a heresy cannot be warned. They say that a warning requires a judgment, and since “the first See is judged by no one”, no one is permitted to warn a Pope. They further maintain that a warning must come from a superior, and since the Pope has no superior on earth, it follows that he cannot be warned.
Both of these objections fail to consider that a warning can be either an act of justice (which is proper to a superior), or a work of mercy and therefore an act of charity. As an act of charity, an inferior can certainly warn, or fraternally correct, a superior, “provided,” wrote St. Thomas, “there be something in the person that requires correction.”
Once the Pope’s pertinacity has been sufficiently established, an imperfect Ecumenical Council would issue a Declaratory Sentence of the crime of heresy, which declares that the Pope has willfully professed heresy and has shown himself to be obstinate and incorrigible.
It must be understood that the Declaratory Sentence merely confirms what has already occurred, namely, that the Pope has deprived himself of the Pontificate by virtue of his willful and persistent crime of heresy. The Declaratory Sentence does not cause the deposition of the Pope. It merely confirms that the Pope has deposed himself of his office.
Cardinal Burke has said that his threatened act of issuing a "formal correction" should be considered an act of charity not a judgment of justice. I wonder if he is not suggesting that a future formal act of correction might not be seen to be the first warning which would proceed a move on his part to attempt to convene the College of Cardinals to take further canonical actions.
In other words, is the Cardinal somehow laying the groundwork for an eventual attempt to institute a process to actually depose Pope Francis?
I know this sounds incredulous, but still I wonder.
Certainly, the recent actions of Cardinal Burke have disturbed many Catholics.
On Wednesday retired Greek Catholic Bishop, Frangiskos Papamanolis, who is the emeritus bishop of Syros, Santorini and Crete, accused the letter-writing four of risking “schism” in the church. The Greek bishop said that he was “deeply concerned for the good of the cardinal’s souls” for “two very serious reasons” of “heresy” and “scandal”. In the strongest response yet, the bishop accused the four of them of receiving communion “sacrilegiously” – not the divorced and remarried, as they suggest.
Papamanolis said: “The fact that you are the proud holders of the title of cardinal does not change the meaning of your words, which are gravely offensive for the Bishop of Rome. If you are ‘deeply concerned for the true good of souls’ and moved by ‘an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful’, I, dearest brothers, am ‘deeply concerned for the good of your souls’, for your two very serious sins: the sin of heresy (and apostasy)? This, indeed, is the way schisms begin in the church) and the more serious sin of scandal given publicly to the Christian people.”
We can only hope that Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis will find a pathway to dialogue and resolution before such a terrible wound is inflicted upon the Body of Christ.
What is certain at this point, however, is that the rift between the conservative leadership which Cardinal Burke represents and moderate leaders who support Pope Francis has publicly widened. In an unprecedented fashion, a number of Prelates have openly made statements repudiating Cardinal Burke’s recent actions and statements. They have responded in kind.
When Cardinals and Bishops war among themselves as they have been doing so publicly, the Christian faithful are left in a state of wonderment and confusion. As the rhetoric intensifies, there is serious danger of scandal indeed.
In my next article, I shall offer just a sampling of the comments which certain members of the Hierarchy have offered in recent days.
A canonical warning accomplishes this by removing any chance of innocent ignorance, and/or providing the suspect with a chance to affirm what was denied in a moment of weakness.
In addition to the canonical warning, in most cases the loss of office also requires a Declaratory Sentence of the crime.
There are some scholars who maintain that a Pope who professes a heresy cannot be warned. They say that a warning requires a judgment, and since “the first See is judged by no one”, no one is permitted to warn a Pope. They further maintain that a warning must come from a superior, and since the Pope has no superior on earth, it follows that he cannot be warned.
Both of these objections fail to consider that a warning can be either an act of justice (which is proper to a superior), or a work of mercy and therefore an act of charity. As an act of charity, an inferior can certainly warn, or fraternally correct, a superior, “provided,” wrote St. Thomas, “there be something in the person that requires correction.”
Once the Pope’s pertinacity has been sufficiently established, an imperfect Ecumenical Council would issue a Declaratory Sentence of the crime of heresy, which declares that the Pope has willfully professed heresy and has shown himself to be obstinate and incorrigible.
It must be understood that the Declaratory Sentence merely confirms what has already occurred, namely, that the Pope has deprived himself of the Pontificate by virtue of his willful and persistent crime of heresy. The Declaratory Sentence does not cause the deposition of the Pope. It merely confirms that the Pope has deposed himself of his office.
Cardinal Burke has said that his threatened act of issuing a "formal correction" should be considered an act of charity not a judgment of justice. I wonder if he is not suggesting that a future formal act of correction might not be seen to be the first warning which would proceed a move on his part to attempt to convene the College of Cardinals to take further canonical actions.
In other words, is the Cardinal somehow laying the groundwork for an eventual attempt to institute a process to actually depose Pope Francis?
I know this sounds incredulous, but still I wonder.
Certainly, the recent actions of Cardinal Burke have disturbed many Catholics.
On Wednesday retired Greek Catholic Bishop, Frangiskos Papamanolis, who is the emeritus bishop of Syros, Santorini and Crete, accused the letter-writing four of risking “schism” in the church. The Greek bishop said that he was “deeply concerned for the good of the cardinal’s souls” for “two very serious reasons” of “heresy” and “scandal”. In the strongest response yet, the bishop accused the four of them of receiving communion “sacrilegiously” – not the divorced and remarried, as they suggest.
Papamanolis said: “The fact that you are the proud holders of the title of cardinal does not change the meaning of your words, which are gravely offensive for the Bishop of Rome. If you are ‘deeply concerned for the true good of souls’ and moved by ‘an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful’, I, dearest brothers, am ‘deeply concerned for the good of your souls’, for your two very serious sins: the sin of heresy (and apostasy)? This, indeed, is the way schisms begin in the church) and the more serious sin of scandal given publicly to the Christian people.”
We can only hope that Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis will find a pathway to dialogue and resolution before such a terrible wound is inflicted upon the Body of Christ.
What is certain at this point, however, is that the rift between the conservative leadership which Cardinal Burke represents and moderate leaders who support Pope Francis has publicly widened. In an unprecedented fashion, a number of Prelates have openly made statements repudiating Cardinal Burke’s recent actions and statements. They have responded in kind.
When Cardinals and Bishops war among themselves as they have been doing so publicly, the Christian faithful are left in a state of wonderment and confusion. As the rhetoric intensifies, there is serious danger of scandal indeed.
In my next article, I shall offer just a sampling of the comments which certain members of the Hierarchy have offered in recent days.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
CAN AN HERETICAL POPE BE DEPOSED FOR THE CRIME OF HERESY: SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the crime of heresy in this way:
"Heresy is the willful and obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; " (Paragraph 2089)
The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective (material) heresy and formal heresy.
The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is considered to be in objective heresy. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council, we now speak of them as our “separated sisters and brothers”.
The person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
Only the person who both willfully and obstinately denies some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same is guilty of the crime of heresy.
When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. For Prelates, the additional penalty of the loss of office is likewise attached to the crime of heresy.
It is important to understand that, for a person to be guilty of the crime of heresy, he or she must be both willful and obstinate in their denial or doubt. Thus, before the penalty of excommunication (and loss of office) becomes effective, the person must be given an opportunity to renounce his or her denial or doubt.
For this reason, canon law requires that a warning be given before a Prelate is excommunicated and loses his office. This aspect of canon law is founded on divine law and is considered so necessary that even one who publicly defects from the faith must be warned before losing his office.
The warning determines, with a sufficient degree of certitude, whether or not the person who has professed heresy is willful and obstinate, rather than merely mistaken, or perhaps only guilty of a regrettable statement made out of human weakness, which might be a sin, but not necessarily the crime of heresy.
Since willful obstinance is itself a necessary element of the crime of heresy, it does not suffice that its presence be presumed; it must be confirmed. The warning accomplishes this by removing any chance of innocent ignorance, and/or providing the suspect with a chance to affirm what was denied in a moment of weakness.
In addition to the canonical warning, in most cases the loss of office also requires a Declaratory Sentence of the crime.
Some have claimed that a Pope who professes a heresy cannot be warned. They say that a warning requires a judgment, and since “the first See is judged by no one”, no one is permitted to warn a pope. They further maintain that a warning must come from a superior, and since the Pope has no superior on earth, it follows that he cannot be warned.
Both of these objections fail to consider that a warning can be either an act of justice (which is proper to a superior), or a work of mercy and therefore an act of charity. As an act of charity, an inferior can certainly warn, or fraternally correct, a superior, “provided,” wrote St. Thomas Aquinas, “there be something in the person that requires correction.”
Once a Pope’s willful obstinance in heresy has been sufficiently established, an imperfect Ecumenical Council would issue a Declaratory Sentence of the crime of heresy, which finds that the Pope has willfully professed heresy and has shown himself to be both obstinate and incorrigible.
John of St. Thomas explains that this declaration must come from an Ecumenical Council. He wrote: “regarding the deposition of the Pope with respect to the declaration of the crime, [it] in no way pertains to the Cardinals alone but to a General (Ecumenical) Council.”
It should also be noted, as Fr. Wernz S.J. has observed, that the Declaratory Sentence of the crime “does not have the effect of judging a heretical pope, but of demonstrating that he has already been judged by virtue of divine law.”
Thus, the Declaratory Sentence merely confirms what has already occurred, by affirming that the Pope has deprived himself of the Pontifical Office.
The Council does not cause the deposition of the Pope. It merely confirms that the Pope has deposed himself by virtue of his willful and obstinate heresy.
Admittedly, this is a very rare situation which the Church may be facing: a Pope in danger of a formal correction for introducing error into the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Church.
We can only pray that the Holy Spirit touch the hearts and minds of everyone thus far involved and allow kinder and gentler words of dialogue resolve what has the potential of bringing great harm to the unity of the Church.
"Heresy is the willful and obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; " (Paragraph 2089)
The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective (material) heresy and formal heresy.
The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is considered to be in objective heresy. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council, we now speak of them as our “separated sisters and brothers”.
The person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
Only the person who both willfully and obstinately denies some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same is guilty of the crime of heresy.
When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. For Prelates, the additional penalty of the loss of office is likewise attached to the crime of heresy.
It is important to understand that, for a person to be guilty of the crime of heresy, he or she must be both willful and obstinate in their denial or doubt. Thus, before the penalty of excommunication (and loss of office) becomes effective, the person must be given an opportunity to renounce his or her denial or doubt.
For this reason, canon law requires that a warning be given before a Prelate is excommunicated and loses his office. This aspect of canon law is founded on divine law and is considered so necessary that even one who publicly defects from the faith must be warned before losing his office.
The warning determines, with a sufficient degree of certitude, whether or not the person who has professed heresy is willful and obstinate, rather than merely mistaken, or perhaps only guilty of a regrettable statement made out of human weakness, which might be a sin, but not necessarily the crime of heresy.
Since willful obstinance is itself a necessary element of the crime of heresy, it does not suffice that its presence be presumed; it must be confirmed. The warning accomplishes this by removing any chance of innocent ignorance, and/or providing the suspect with a chance to affirm what was denied in a moment of weakness.
In addition to the canonical warning, in most cases the loss of office also requires a Declaratory Sentence of the crime.
Some have claimed that a Pope who professes a heresy cannot be warned. They say that a warning requires a judgment, and since “the first See is judged by no one”, no one is permitted to warn a pope. They further maintain that a warning must come from a superior, and since the Pope has no superior on earth, it follows that he cannot be warned.
Both of these objections fail to consider that a warning can be either an act of justice (which is proper to a superior), or a work of mercy and therefore an act of charity. As an act of charity, an inferior can certainly warn, or fraternally correct, a superior, “provided,” wrote St. Thomas Aquinas, “there be something in the person that requires correction.”
Once a Pope’s willful obstinance in heresy has been sufficiently established, an imperfect Ecumenical Council would issue a Declaratory Sentence of the crime of heresy, which finds that the Pope has willfully professed heresy and has shown himself to be both obstinate and incorrigible.
John of St. Thomas explains that this declaration must come from an Ecumenical Council. He wrote: “regarding the deposition of the Pope with respect to the declaration of the crime, [it] in no way pertains to the Cardinals alone but to a General (Ecumenical) Council.”
It should also be noted, as Fr. Wernz S.J. has observed, that the Declaratory Sentence of the crime “does not have the effect of judging a heretical pope, but of demonstrating that he has already been judged by virtue of divine law.”
Thus, the Declaratory Sentence merely confirms what has already occurred, by affirming that the Pope has deprived himself of the Pontifical Office.
The Council does not cause the deposition of the Pope. It merely confirms that the Pope has deposed himself by virtue of his willful and obstinate heresy.
Admittedly, this is a very rare situation which the Church may be facing: a Pope in danger of a formal correction for introducing error into the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Church.
We can only pray that the Holy Spirit touch the hearts and minds of everyone thus far involved and allow kinder and gentler words of dialogue resolve what has the potential of bringing great harm to the unity of the Church.
Monday, November 28, 2016
CAN AN HERETICAL POPE BE DEPOSED? IF SO, HOW AND BY WHOM?
We have seen, from the teaching of the Council Fathers of Vatican I, that it is within the realm of possibility for Pope to lose the faith internally, and it is also possible for him to err in teaching the faith externally, provided he does not meet the conditions set down by in the Council's Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus.
Before proceeding further, however, permit me to make something very clear. As I examine these issues, I in no way wish to assert or infer that Pope Francis has in any way whatsoever acted in a manner which, even remotely, makes him vulnerable to an accusation of the crime of heresy regarding anything he has said or written.
My examination of these issues is an academic inquiry into the historical, theological and canonical understanding of the Universal Church concerning such a possibility and the various remedies that might be applied in what must be understood to be extremely rare situations.
With this understanding, I wish now to examine the question of whether an heretical Pope could be deposed from the Papal Office as well as the person(s) who could legitimately conduct the process.
The commonly held position of theologians and canonists down through history is that an heretical Pope can be deposed for the crime of heresy.
Most regarded among these is Fr. Francisco Suarez, whom Pope St. Pius V called Doctor Eximus et Pius (Excellent and Pious Doctor). He is considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits. In his commentary on this point, he states that, according to Pope Clement I (who was ordained by Saint Peter the Apostle himself) “Peter taught that an heretical Pope should be deposed.”
Who would be in charge of the Deposition and what process would be followed?
The prevailing thought regarding the Deposition of a Pope accused of the crime of heresy holds that only an Ecumenical Council could oversee such a canonical process.
John of St. Thomas explained why. He wrote: “since the matter at hand concerns the Universal Church, it must be overseen by the tribunal that represents the Universal Church, which is that of a General (Ecumenical) Council”.
However, this begs the question: how can the Church convene an Ecumenical Council to oversee the deposing of a Pope, when an Ecumenical Council can only be called and overseen the Pope himself?
In answering this question, theologians and canonists make a distinction between what they term as a "perfect council" and an "imperfect council".
A perfect council is one in which the body is united to its head, and therefore consists of the Bishops and the Pope together. This is sometimes referred to as an "absolutely perfect council". Such a council has the authority to define doctrines and issue decrees that regulate the Universal Church.
An imperfect council is one that is convened “with those members who can be found when the Church is in condition in which the Pope himself cannot act for whatever reason.”
Cardinal Cajetan refers to an imperfect council as “a perfect council according to the present state of the Church”, and explains that such a council “can involve itself with the universal Church only up to a certain point”.
Unlike a perfect council, an imperfect council cannot define doctrine or issue decrees that regulate the universal Church, but only possesses the authority to decide the matter that necessitated its convocation.
The Council of Constance is often cited as an example of an imperfect council. It was convened during The Great Western Schism, when there were three claimants to the Papacy and sufficient uncertainty as to which of the three was the true Pope. The Council ended the Schism by deposing or accepting the resignation of the Papal claimants, which then paved the way for the election of Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name Martin V.
Another example is that of [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols. A council was convoked for the purpose of discussing this case.
Lastly, we note the case of Pope Symmachus, when a council at Rome was gathered to treat those things which were presented to it.
History reveals that the Pontiffs, who, being accused of various crimes and wanting to exonerate themselves of the charges, did so in the presence of a General (Ecumenical ) Council."
It appears, then, that only an imperfect Ecumenical Council would be the body capable of overseeing the Deposition of a Pope from the Papal Office.
But who specifically would have the authority as well as the practical ability to convene such an imperfect Ecumenical Council?
From my reading of the extant testimony of history, it appears that the canonical competence to convoke such an imperfect Ecumenical Council resides in the College of Cardinals who would take it upon themselves to summon the Bishops of the Universal Church to hear the case and issue a Declaratory Sentence, if warranted.
While there are no explicit legislative texts governing such a situation, it would seem fitting and appropriate that the College of Cardinal be unanimous in their decision to call for the convocation of an imperfect Ecumenical Council to consider the Deposition of a Pope from the Papal Office.
Still, there is need to consider the following two questions. What precisely constitutes the crime of heresy for which a Pope could be deposed? What specific authority would an imperfect Ecumenical Council exercise in declaring that a Pope has been deposed?
We shall explore these two questions in the next article.
Before proceeding further, however, permit me to make something very clear. As I examine these issues, I in no way wish to assert or infer that Pope Francis has in any way whatsoever acted in a manner which, even remotely, makes him vulnerable to an accusation of the crime of heresy regarding anything he has said or written.
My examination of these issues is an academic inquiry into the historical, theological and canonical understanding of the Universal Church concerning such a possibility and the various remedies that might be applied in what must be understood to be extremely rare situations.
With this understanding, I wish now to examine the question of whether an heretical Pope could be deposed from the Papal Office as well as the person(s) who could legitimately conduct the process.
The commonly held position of theologians and canonists down through history is that an heretical Pope can be deposed for the crime of heresy.
Most regarded among these is Fr. Francisco Suarez, whom Pope St. Pius V called Doctor Eximus et Pius (Excellent and Pious Doctor). He is considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits. In his commentary on this point, he states that, according to Pope Clement I (who was ordained by Saint Peter the Apostle himself) “Peter taught that an heretical Pope should be deposed.”
Who would be in charge of the Deposition and what process would be followed?
The prevailing thought regarding the Deposition of a Pope accused of the crime of heresy holds that only an Ecumenical Council could oversee such a canonical process.
John of St. Thomas explained why. He wrote: “since the matter at hand concerns the Universal Church, it must be overseen by the tribunal that represents the Universal Church, which is that of a General (Ecumenical) Council”.
However, this begs the question: how can the Church convene an Ecumenical Council to oversee the deposing of a Pope, when an Ecumenical Council can only be called and overseen the Pope himself?
In answering this question, theologians and canonists make a distinction between what they term as a "perfect council" and an "imperfect council".
A perfect council is one in which the body is united to its head, and therefore consists of the Bishops and the Pope together. This is sometimes referred to as an "absolutely perfect council". Such a council has the authority to define doctrines and issue decrees that regulate the Universal Church.
An imperfect council is one that is convened “with those members who can be found when the Church is in condition in which the Pope himself cannot act for whatever reason.”
Cardinal Cajetan refers to an imperfect council as “a perfect council according to the present state of the Church”, and explains that such a council “can involve itself with the universal Church only up to a certain point”.
Unlike a perfect council, an imperfect council cannot define doctrine or issue decrees that regulate the universal Church, but only possesses the authority to decide the matter that necessitated its convocation.
The Council of Constance is often cited as an example of an imperfect council. It was convened during The Great Western Schism, when there were three claimants to the Papacy and sufficient uncertainty as to which of the three was the true Pope. The Council ended the Schism by deposing or accepting the resignation of the Papal claimants, which then paved the way for the election of Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name Martin V.
Another example is that of [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols. A council was convoked for the purpose of discussing this case.
Lastly, we note the case of Pope Symmachus, when a council at Rome was gathered to treat those things which were presented to it.
History reveals that the Pontiffs, who, being accused of various crimes and wanting to exonerate themselves of the charges, did so in the presence of a General (Ecumenical ) Council."
It appears, then, that only an imperfect Ecumenical Council would be the body capable of overseeing the Deposition of a Pope from the Papal Office.
But who specifically would have the authority as well as the practical ability to convene such an imperfect Ecumenical Council?
From my reading of the extant testimony of history, it appears that the canonical competence to convoke such an imperfect Ecumenical Council resides in the College of Cardinals who would take it upon themselves to summon the Bishops of the Universal Church to hear the case and issue a Declaratory Sentence, if warranted.
While there are no explicit legislative texts governing such a situation, it would seem fitting and appropriate that the College of Cardinal be unanimous in their decision to call for the convocation of an imperfect Ecumenical Council to consider the Deposition of a Pope from the Papal Office.
Still, there is need to consider the following two questions. What precisely constitutes the crime of heresy for which a Pope could be deposed? What specific authority would an imperfect Ecumenical Council exercise in declaring that a Pope has been deposed?
We shall explore these two questions in the next article.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
CARDINAL BURKE PREPARED TO ISSUE FORMAL ACT OF CORRECTION TO POPE FRANCIS
Cardinal Burke is one of four cardinals who have written to the Pope asking for a clarification of Amoris Laetitia (AL). The Cardinals contend that the Apostolic Exhortation is ambiguous and could be interpreted to contradict Church teaching on the moral law and on the question of Communion for the remarried who do not abstain from marital intercourse.
The Cardinals forwarded the letter to Pope Francis on September 19, 2016. As of the writing of this article, the Holy Father Pope, while acknowledging its receipt by way of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has yet to respond.
In the face of the Pope's reticence, Cardinal Burke has provided copies of the letter to various media outlets.
When he was asked during an interview about what would happen if Pope Francis continued to remain silent, Cardinal Burke replied: “Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.”
Cardinal Burke’s suggestion that there is need of a “formal correction” follows a lengthy debate over whether the remarried can receive Communion while in a sexually active relationship outside marriage. Cardinal Burke insists that the Church has taught that this is contrary to the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage.
It should be noted that AL makes no direct reference to this issue. Some bishops have interpreted a footnote in Chapter VIII to allow for the possibility that some remarried people can receive Communion, even if they are still in a sexual relationship.
Most recently, the Holy Father favored such an interpretation by the Argentine Conference of Catholic Bishops. Perhaps alluding to this development, Cardinal Burke stated: “Even diocesan directives are confused and in error.”
He added that there was ”tremendous division” in the Church over Communion and other related points, concerning the moral law and marriage.
Cardinal Burke defends his decision to bring the matter to public attention “because so many people are saying: "We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the Cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us."
Let us now carefully examine extraordinary step Cardinal Burke is prepared to take in issuing a formal act of correction to the Holy Father for the serious errors which he contends Pope Francis has introduced into the dogmatic teachings of the Church in the areas of Faith and Morals.
The Cardinal has stated that such a formal correction of a Pope is rare within the tradition of the Church. Quite an understatement to be sure. Just how rare is evidenced not only in the scant number of recorded cases but in the lack of clear legislative texts which even allow for such a possibility.
I wish to point out that some Church historians and experts in Scripture and theology do not agree on all the cases which I will cite in this ongoing series of articles. Some say there are only two such incidences and others say there are as many as five. Two or five instances of formally correcting a Pope in the history of the Papacy which spans two millennia! Rare, indeed!
Before referencing the actual cases themselves, it is important to note the thorny issues which a formal act of correction raises relative to the dogma of indefectibility.
The question is this: is a claim that a Pope has seriously erred in his teaching regarding Catholic Faith and Morals itself an act which is contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church?
One must ask, therefore, if it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic, and, if so, what means would the Church possess to remedy such a dangerous situation.
Here's the problem: if the Holy Spirit, the Consoler to Whom Christ entrusted with the welfare of the Church, could permit a man to be raised to the Papal Office whose words and actions risked leading countless souls into sin and heresy, surely the same Spirit would provide the Church with the means necessary to protect herself, and to remedy the dire situation.
An historical footnote here is most helpful in making the point. During the First Vatican Council, Bishop Zinelli, a Relator for the Deputation of the Faith (the body charged with explaining the meaning of the schemas to the Council Fathers), said the following about the hypothesis of an heretical Pope: “God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking”.
Some deny even the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy. They argue on the basis of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, that the Pope can never commit the sins of apostasy, heresy, or schism, nor can he ever teach heresy. They hold fast to their belief that the Grace of God and the promise of Jesus that the Church will remain indefectible absolutely prevent the Pope from going astray, or teaching grave error. For each valid Pope is the Rock on which the Church is founded. And no valid Pope can ever become invalid, for the same reasons.
This very same principle of indefectibility also prevents the body of Bishops throughout the world from committing apostasy, heresy, or schism, as a body, and from teaching heresy as a body (not individually). Moreover, and more importantly in the present context, no invalid Pope can ever be accepted as if he were valid by the body of Bishops. For the Church is the Body of Christ, enlivened by the Holy Spirit. Neither the head of the Church on earth, the Pope, or the body of Bishops can go astray. All such claims are contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
And so, those who hold to this position would conclude that anyone accusing a validly elected Pope of heresy commits the crime of heresy himself by acting in a way that is contrary to the dogma of indefectibility.
There is another point of view, however, which holds just the opposite opinion and which appears to be more in keeping with the teachings of the Church proclaimed by the Council Fathers of Ecumenical Council Vatican I.
The conditions for Papal Infallibility are defined by Vatican I as follows:
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."
Here we see that the Holy Spirit assures infallibility only when a pope, (a) using his supreme apostolic authority in the exercise of his office as teacher of all Christians (b) defines a doctrine, (c) concerning faith and morals, (d) to be held by the universal Church.
If any of these three conditions are lacking, infallibility is not engaged and error is possible.
Therefore, when considering whether a Pope can teach errors regarding faith and morals, the following three distinctions must be made:
1) A Pope teaching as a private person.
2) A Pope teaching as the Vicar of Christ on matters of faith or morals, but not intending to define a doctrine.
3) A Pope, teaching as Christ's Vicar, defining a doctrine of faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church.
It is only in the last instance that the charism of infallibility will prevent the Pope from erring. What this means is that, not only can a Pope err when teaching as a private theologian, he can also err in official papal documents, as long as he does not intend to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church.
In light of the foregoing, we can see that it is within the realm of possibility for a Pope to lose the faith internally, and it is also possible for him to err in teaching the faith externally, provided he does not meet the conditions set down by Vatican I.
So, left with the possibility that the Pope accused of heresy without doing violence to the dogmatic teaching of the Church's indefectibility, what mechanism or means exist for such a determination and how would the Church proceed to such a declaration?
Weighty matters indeed which we will examine as our series on this matter continues.
The Cardinals forwarded the letter to Pope Francis on September 19, 2016. As of the writing of this article, the Holy Father Pope, while acknowledging its receipt by way of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has yet to respond.
In the face of the Pope's reticence, Cardinal Burke has provided copies of the letter to various media outlets.
When he was asked during an interview about what would happen if Pope Francis continued to remain silent, Cardinal Burke replied: “Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.”
Cardinal Burke’s suggestion that there is need of a “formal correction” follows a lengthy debate over whether the remarried can receive Communion while in a sexually active relationship outside marriage. Cardinal Burke insists that the Church has taught that this is contrary to the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage.
It should be noted that AL makes no direct reference to this issue. Some bishops have interpreted a footnote in Chapter VIII to allow for the possibility that some remarried people can receive Communion, even if they are still in a sexual relationship.
Most recently, the Holy Father favored such an interpretation by the Argentine Conference of Catholic Bishops. Perhaps alluding to this development, Cardinal Burke stated: “Even diocesan directives are confused and in error.”
He added that there was ”tremendous division” in the Church over Communion and other related points, concerning the moral law and marriage.
Cardinal Burke defends his decision to bring the matter to public attention “because so many people are saying: "We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the Cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us."
Let us now carefully examine extraordinary step Cardinal Burke is prepared to take in issuing a formal act of correction to the Holy Father for the serious errors which he contends Pope Francis has introduced into the dogmatic teachings of the Church in the areas of Faith and Morals.
The Cardinal has stated that such a formal correction of a Pope is rare within the tradition of the Church. Quite an understatement to be sure. Just how rare is evidenced not only in the scant number of recorded cases but in the lack of clear legislative texts which even allow for such a possibility.
I wish to point out that some Church historians and experts in Scripture and theology do not agree on all the cases which I will cite in this ongoing series of articles. Some say there are only two such incidences and others say there are as many as five. Two or five instances of formally correcting a Pope in the history of the Papacy which spans two millennia! Rare, indeed!
Before referencing the actual cases themselves, it is important to note the thorny issues which a formal act of correction raises relative to the dogma of indefectibility.
The question is this: is a claim that a Pope has seriously erred in his teaching regarding Catholic Faith and Morals itself an act which is contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church?
One must ask, therefore, if it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic, and, if so, what means would the Church possess to remedy such a dangerous situation.
Here's the problem: if the Holy Spirit, the Consoler to Whom Christ entrusted with the welfare of the Church, could permit a man to be raised to the Papal Office whose words and actions risked leading countless souls into sin and heresy, surely the same Spirit would provide the Church with the means necessary to protect herself, and to remedy the dire situation.
An historical footnote here is most helpful in making the point. During the First Vatican Council, Bishop Zinelli, a Relator for the Deputation of the Faith (the body charged with explaining the meaning of the schemas to the Council Fathers), said the following about the hypothesis of an heretical Pope: “God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking”.
Some deny even the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy. They argue on the basis of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, that the Pope can never commit the sins of apostasy, heresy, or schism, nor can he ever teach heresy. They hold fast to their belief that the Grace of God and the promise of Jesus that the Church will remain indefectible absolutely prevent the Pope from going astray, or teaching grave error. For each valid Pope is the Rock on which the Church is founded. And no valid Pope can ever become invalid, for the same reasons.
This very same principle of indefectibility also prevents the body of Bishops throughout the world from committing apostasy, heresy, or schism, as a body, and from teaching heresy as a body (not individually). Moreover, and more importantly in the present context, no invalid Pope can ever be accepted as if he were valid by the body of Bishops. For the Church is the Body of Christ, enlivened by the Holy Spirit. Neither the head of the Church on earth, the Pope, or the body of Bishops can go astray. All such claims are contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
And so, those who hold to this position would conclude that anyone accusing a validly elected Pope of heresy commits the crime of heresy himself by acting in a way that is contrary to the dogma of indefectibility.
There is another point of view, however, which holds just the opposite opinion and which appears to be more in keeping with the teachings of the Church proclaimed by the Council Fathers of Ecumenical Council Vatican I.
The conditions for Papal Infallibility are defined by Vatican I as follows:
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."
Here we see that the Holy Spirit assures infallibility only when a pope, (a) using his supreme apostolic authority in the exercise of his office as teacher of all Christians (b) defines a doctrine, (c) concerning faith and morals, (d) to be held by the universal Church.
If any of these three conditions are lacking, infallibility is not engaged and error is possible.
Therefore, when considering whether a Pope can teach errors regarding faith and morals, the following three distinctions must be made:
1) A Pope teaching as a private person.
2) A Pope teaching as the Vicar of Christ on matters of faith or morals, but not intending to define a doctrine.
3) A Pope, teaching as Christ's Vicar, defining a doctrine of faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church.
It is only in the last instance that the charism of infallibility will prevent the Pope from erring. What this means is that, not only can a Pope err when teaching as a private theologian, he can also err in official papal documents, as long as he does not intend to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church.
In light of the foregoing, we can see that it is within the realm of possibility for a Pope to lose the faith internally, and it is also possible for him to err in teaching the faith externally, provided he does not meet the conditions set down by Vatican I.
So, left with the possibility that the Pope accused of heresy without doing violence to the dogmatic teaching of the Church's indefectibility, what mechanism or means exist for such a determination and how would the Church proceed to such a declaration?
Weighty matters indeed which we will examine as our series on this matter continues.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
BACK FROM SAN DIEGO AND A DELIGHTFUL THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY
I just returned from a truly wonderful celebration of the Thanksgiving Day holiday with friends in San Diego.
The changes in temperature at this time of year can be rather sudden and somewhat drastic within the course of the same day. We had a mixture of both warm and cool days, sunny and overcast. But that is to be expected during the Fall, isn't it?
I pray and trust that all of you had a truly Happy Thanksgiving and that you did take the time to utter a prayer of gratitude to our Gracious and Merciful God, Who loves us beyond our imagining.
Tomorrow, I shall continue my articles concerning Cardinal Burke's letter to the Holy Father and the implications of these actions upon the Pope and the Universal Church of which he is the Chief Shepherd and Vicar of Christ.
It's good to be back home in Scottsdale with my kitties (Cowboy and Snuggles) who keep me company and watch over me, lest they miss their meals and treats! The catsitter took good care of them. And once they get over sulking because I was away, things will be just fine again.
More tomorrow. Have a great holiday weekend.
More tomorrow. Have a great holiday weekend.
Monday, November 21, 2016
A BLESSED AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING -- TAKING A HOLIDAY TRIP BUT WILL BE BACK NEXT WEEK
Dear Readers,
It's Thanksgiving Week. I will be taking a trip to visit friends in San Diego, California. It is such a joy to celebrate this holiday with them and to be in the company of such a wonderful and loving family as they. I will be leaving Scottsdale on Tuesday and return next Saturday evening.
During this time, I will not be posting any articles to the blog,
Getting away and taking time rest and enjoy good company (and great food) is so necessary to healthy living.
It's healthy and good for me and the same for all of you as well.
So, let's get away from our keyboards for these few precious days during which we make memories that will last a lifetime.
To all of you, my prayers and best wishes for a truly Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving celebration.
In the midst of the turkey and football games, let us first and always remember to thank God for all His blessings, for the gift of faith and the generous Mercy He offers us in spite of our sinfulness and human frailty. Let us ask Him to give us generous hearts and spirits to share our bounty with those who have not and to be cheerful in doing so.
Our plenty is an opportunity for Grace by sharing and by caring. Let us never forget the privilege that is ours to sacrifice a bit of the bounty we have with those who not as fortunate as we.
Peace and goodness to everyone. I will be back next Sunday, the First Sunday in Advent (my goodness!), with a new post.
Father Joe
It's Thanksgiving Week. I will be taking a trip to visit friends in San Diego, California. It is such a joy to celebrate this holiday with them and to be in the company of such a wonderful and loving family as they. I will be leaving Scottsdale on Tuesday and return next Saturday evening.
During this time, I will not be posting any articles to the blog,
Getting away and taking time rest and enjoy good company (and great food) is so necessary to healthy living.
It's healthy and good for me and the same for all of you as well.
So, let's get away from our keyboards for these few precious days during which we make memories that will last a lifetime.
To all of you, my prayers and best wishes for a truly Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving celebration.
In the midst of the turkey and football games, let us first and always remember to thank God for all His blessings, for the gift of faith and the generous Mercy He offers us in spite of our sinfulness and human frailty. Let us ask Him to give us generous hearts and spirits to share our bounty with those who have not and to be cheerful in doing so.
Our plenty is an opportunity for Grace by sharing and by caring. Let us never forget the privilege that is ours to sacrifice a bit of the bounty we have with those who not as fortunate as we.
Peace and goodness to everyone. I will be back next Sunday, the First Sunday in Advent (my goodness!), with a new post.
Father Joe
Sunday, November 20, 2016
A CLOSER EXAMINATION OF THE 5 QUESTIONS PUT TO POPE FRANCIS BY CARDINAL BURKE AND HIS ASSOCIATE CARDINALS
At this point in our consideration of the letter which Cardinal Burke and his associate Cardinals have sent to the Holy Father seeking clarification of certain issues raised in the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Leatitia (AL), I thought it might be helpful to examine each of the questions (dubia) more closely and attempt to simplify their importance for the average Catholic.
We note that, while the first question concerns a practical matter regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues concerning the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church,
So, let us begin.
I. Question 1 asks whether or not Catholics, civilly divorced and remarried without having had the previous marriage declared invalid by the Church, can avail themselves of the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, if they do not abstain from marital intercourse.
A "yes" answer to the question would be seen by Cardinal Burke to be a denial of the teachings from Scripture and Tradition and constitute a serious error harmful to the Catholic Faith. Those acting on the basis of such a serious error would be acting in bad faith and cooperating in the perpetuation of grave sinfulness.
A "no" answer to the question would be an affirmation of traditional Catholic teaching and disallow any Bishop or Priest from permitting persons in such invalid marital unions from receiving the Sacraments.
II. Question 2 and the subsequent dubia address larger issues related to the doctrinal teachings of the Church concerning Faith and morals.
Cardinal Burke asks whether certain actions, in and of themselves (in their intrinsic nature), are always evil and can never be permitted under any circumstances. The person who commits such actions would always sin objectively, while her or she may not be fully responsible (culpable) of that sin.
A "yes" answer to this question would mean that there are indeed intrinsically evil actions which may never be permitted under any circumstances without committing grave sin objectively.
A "no" answer would mean that the Church's traditional moral teaching has not been overturned by AL.
It should be obvious that a "yes" answer to this question would mean that no situation would permit a divorced and invalidly remarried person who is living in an habitual state of adultery, an intrinsically and gravely evil act, from receiving the Sacraments.
Thus, under no circumstances could a Bishop or a Priest allow a divorced and invalidly remarried Catholic to receive the Sacraments, unless that Catholic rejected the invalid union or abstained from further marital sexual realtions.
III. Question 3 is very closely related to the previous question and again concerns the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church related to Faith and Morals.
Cardinal Burke asks whether or not persons who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment against adultery, theft, murder, or perjury, live in objective situations of grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.
A "yes" answer would mean that the Church's consistent teaching is affirmed in AL.
A "no" answer to this question means that AL has introduced a contradiction into the consistent teachings of the Church and such constitutes a serious error harmful to faith and morals.
Again, a "yes" answer would not permit a Bishop or a Priest to administer the Sacraments to a person in an objective state of habitual grave sin, such as would be the case for a Catholic who is divorced and invalidly remarried having marital sexual relations.
IV. Question 4 is very closely related to the previous two questions but is more nuanced.
Cardinal Burke asks whether or not circumstances or good intentions can ever turn an intrinsically evil act into one that is excusable or even good.
In other words, do the intentions of persons or the circumstances in which they may find themselves ever negate what is an intrinsically evil act and alter it to become either a morally good or at least a moral neutral act.
Here, the "yes" and "no" response is reversed.
A "no" answer would mean that the Church's traditional teachings would be upheld and that no good intention or circumstance, dire or not, alters an action which is in and of itself evil.
A "yes" answer, Cardinal Burke suggests, would constitute serious error being introduced into the consistent doctrinal and dogmatic teachings of the Church based upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
The consequence upon Bishops and Priests administering the Sacraments should now be obvious. A "no" answer would not allow Bishops or Priest to administer the Sacraments to divorced and invalidly married Catholics who do not abstain from marital intercourse.
V. Question 5 is perhaps the most nuanced of all the questions since it addresses the subject of human conscience and the role in plays in matters of moral choice.
Cardinal Burke asks whether or not AL excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience. In other words, can the human conscience ever be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
To be even more exact, can the human conscience be properly and rightfully be formed without reference or referral to the moral teachings of the Church based upon the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition?
A "yes" answer would affirm that the human conscience must always be conformed to the moral teachings of the Church.
A "no" answer would amount to the introduction of serious error into the teachings of the Church on matters pertaining to Faith and Morals.
A "yes" answer would prohibit Bishop or a Priest from allowing a divorced and invalidly remarried Catholic living in an habitual state of adultery from receiving the Sacraments, whether or not the Catholic believes he or she is acting in good conscience.
These 5 Questions are very pointed and highly nuanced. They parse human actions and choices very narrowly and with academic, almost surgical, precision.
However, these inquiries beg a larger question.
Is there any room in this analytical dissection of human choice for allowing that human beings, who make moral choices, are frail and wounded by sin?
Is there any room from such a clinical perspective of moral choice for the Mercy of God to penetrate the heart, the mind and will, of weak and sinful human beings?
I can't help it, but as I read and study Cardinal Burke's letter, with its questions and inferences, the words of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans keep coming back to me. "...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5: 8) I wonder why this is.
To date, Pope Francis has chosen not to respond to the questions put to him by Cardinal Burke and his associates. The reasons for this belong to the Holy Father alone.
Yet, I cannot help but think that the lack of a merciful approach evidenced in the letter is so foreign to this Pontiff for whom the rich and bountiful Mercy of God is so central to the Catholic Faith.
In future posts, I shall address the impact which Cardinal Burke's letter and threatened issuance of a formal act of correction may have upon the unity and tranquility of the Church.
In this as in all things, let us ask the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us as we journey to the Lord Jesus, fortified and nourished by the Grace which comes to us from the loving arms of Holy Mother Church.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
THE QUESTIONS CARDINAL BURKE AND THREE CARDINALS ARE ASKING THE HOLY FATHER TO ANSWER
In the second part of the letter which Cardinal Burke and three other Cardinals sent to Pope Francis on September 19, 2016, requesting that the Holy Father resolve uncertainties raised in Chapter VIII of the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, five questions are presented to the Pope in a way which expects a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
The second part of the letter to Pope Francis reads as follows:
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person "more uxorio" (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by "Familiaris Consortio" n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" n. 34 and "Sacramentum Caritatis" n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live "more uxorio"?
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Several characteristics about the questions are noteworthy.
It should be noted that the questions are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without seeking additional theological discernment or discussion. Cardinal Burke justifies this approach by suggesting that this way of addressing the Apostolic See is an age-old practice and the customary technique utilized when presenting questions to the Holy See.
But, allow me to offer a personal comment here.
It appears that the very form of the questions and the various issues they raise, matters of such tremendous import to the Catholic Faith which the Cardinal insist require resolution and clarification, do not invite or allow for very much clarification whatsoever.
They are not so much questions begging for clarification as conclusions looking for approbation.
On this point, I find that I must agree with the observation of Cardinal-elect Tobin who suggests that Cardinals are either naive or disingenuous in asking the Holy Father to clarify doctrine without comment or explanation, that is, by simply answering "yes" or "no" to pointed questions without reference to any particular context or rationale.
Additionally, the overall tone of the letter is polemic.
This appears to be the spirit of the letter. The official Church has always taught this. You, Pope Francis, are not teaching this. Here's the reasons we present to prove you are wrong. Do you admit your error? Yes or no?
And this is is supposed to be a request for clarification, a request purported to be made in a spirit of fraternal charity?
While I do not wish to impugn the motives of Cardinal Burke and his like-minded associates among the College of Cardinals, I do think that the questions reflect an unwillingness on their part to consider responses which would provide the very resolution of uncertainties they feel are required to protect the integrity of the Catholic Faith itself.
Furthermore, I am inclined agree with the sentiments of the Holy Father who suggests that the letter reveals a rigorism of thought and belief which makes any reasonable expectation for further dialogue about these matters futile from the outset. Perhaps this is the reason the Pope has yet to respond to the letter itself.
Despite their protestations to the contrary and their repeated claims of respect and charity, Cardinal Burke and his associates in the College, in their impatience and frustration, have chosen to "go public" with the fact that their letter has remained unanswered by the Holy Father as well as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Their decision to open this matter to public scrutiny and comment has placed the Holy Father in a most embarrassing position both personally and in his position as the Vicar of Christ and Visible Head of the Church.
In their precipitous haste to address these issues publicly, the Cardinals have chosen a course of action that is petulant at best and potentially scandalous at its worst.
No matter how justified they believe they are, no matter how worthy and noble their concern to defend the Catholic Faith, they have acted dishonorably and provided the enemies of the Church and the forces of evil with much ammunition to aim at and wound the Body of Christ.
It's true, Your Eminences, the end does not justify the means, when the means are hurtful and divisive to the tranquility and unity of the People of God.
Would not have patience and a concern to maintain harmony within the Body of Christ, while still seeking dialogue with Christ's Vicar, not have been the more prudent and charitable course of action? If not, why not?
Cardinal Burke and his associates need take heed of their actions, lest they violate the wisdom of the Sacred Scriptures they are apt to so readily espouse: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." (Book of Proverbs 11: 29)
Bearing this in mind, I shall attempt in subsequent articles to examine each of the questions put to the Holy Father in detail so that the reader (and the average layperson) can at least understand the issues the Cardinals are raising.
I shall leave it to the Vicar of Christ to provide answers to these questions, if and when the Holy Father believes that doing so would be necessary in serving His mission to proclaim the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church.
More to follow.
May the Lord bless our Holy Father, and all those who sincerely entrust themselves to his pastoral care. May the Lord bless Cardinal Burke and his associates in the College and soften what appears to be a hardness of both mind and heart in their desire to defend the Catholic Faith. May the Holy Spirit come to the aid of the Church in this moment and always.
The second part of the letter to Pope Francis reads as follows:
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person "more uxorio" (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by "Familiaris Consortio" n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" n. 34 and "Sacramentum Caritatis" n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live "more uxorio"?
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Several characteristics about the questions are noteworthy.
It should be noted that the questions are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without seeking additional theological discernment or discussion. Cardinal Burke justifies this approach by suggesting that this way of addressing the Apostolic See is an age-old practice and the customary technique utilized when presenting questions to the Holy See.
But, allow me to offer a personal comment here.
It appears that the very form of the questions and the various issues they raise, matters of such tremendous import to the Catholic Faith which the Cardinal insist require resolution and clarification, do not invite or allow for very much clarification whatsoever.
They are not so much questions begging for clarification as conclusions looking for approbation.
On this point, I find that I must agree with the observation of Cardinal-elect Tobin who suggests that Cardinals are either naive or disingenuous in asking the Holy Father to clarify doctrine without comment or explanation, that is, by simply answering "yes" or "no" to pointed questions without reference to any particular context or rationale.
Additionally, the overall tone of the letter is polemic.
This appears to be the spirit of the letter. The official Church has always taught this. You, Pope Francis, are not teaching this. Here's the reasons we present to prove you are wrong. Do you admit your error? Yes or no?
And this is is supposed to be a request for clarification, a request purported to be made in a spirit of fraternal charity?
While I do not wish to impugn the motives of Cardinal Burke and his like-minded associates among the College of Cardinals, I do think that the questions reflect an unwillingness on their part to consider responses which would provide the very resolution of uncertainties they feel are required to protect the integrity of the Catholic Faith itself.
Furthermore, I am inclined agree with the sentiments of the Holy Father who suggests that the letter reveals a rigorism of thought and belief which makes any reasonable expectation for further dialogue about these matters futile from the outset. Perhaps this is the reason the Pope has yet to respond to the letter itself.
Despite their protestations to the contrary and their repeated claims of respect and charity, Cardinal Burke and his associates in the College, in their impatience and frustration, have chosen to "go public" with the fact that their letter has remained unanswered by the Holy Father as well as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Their decision to open this matter to public scrutiny and comment has placed the Holy Father in a most embarrassing position both personally and in his position as the Vicar of Christ and Visible Head of the Church.
In their precipitous haste to address these issues publicly, the Cardinals have chosen a course of action that is petulant at best and potentially scandalous at its worst.
No matter how justified they believe they are, no matter how worthy and noble their concern to defend the Catholic Faith, they have acted dishonorably and provided the enemies of the Church and the forces of evil with much ammunition to aim at and wound the Body of Christ.
It's true, Your Eminences, the end does not justify the means, when the means are hurtful and divisive to the tranquility and unity of the People of God.
Would not have patience and a concern to maintain harmony within the Body of Christ, while still seeking dialogue with Christ's Vicar, not have been the more prudent and charitable course of action? If not, why not?
Cardinal Burke and his associates need take heed of their actions, lest they violate the wisdom of the Sacred Scriptures they are apt to so readily espouse: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." (Book of Proverbs 11: 29)
Bearing this in mind, I shall attempt in subsequent articles to examine each of the questions put to the Holy Father in detail so that the reader (and the average layperson) can at least understand the issues the Cardinals are raising.
I shall leave it to the Vicar of Christ to provide answers to these questions, if and when the Holy Father believes that doing so would be necessary in serving His mission to proclaim the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church.
More to follow.
May the Lord bless our Holy Father, and all those who sincerely entrust themselves to his pastoral care. May the Lord bless Cardinal Burke and his associates in the College and soften what appears to be a hardness of both mind and heart in their desire to defend the Catholic Faith. May the Holy Spirit come to the aid of the Church in this moment and always.
Friday, November 18, 2016
CARDINAL BURKE AND THREE CARDINALS ASK FOR POPE FRANCIS' CLARIFICATION OF TEACHING AND DISCIPLINE CONCERNING DIVORCED AND REMARRIED CATHOLICS
The following is the first part of the letter which Cardinal Raymond Burke and three other Cardinals forwarded to Pope Francis on September 19, 2016 calling upon the Holy Father to "resolve certain "uncertainties" and to "bring clarity" to certain doubts raised by matters addressed in Chapter VIII of the Pope's Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia", which was written following the Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015.
The Cardinals' letter reads as follows:
To His Holiness Pope Francis
and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller
Most Holy Father,
Following the publication of your Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia", theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations that are not only divergent, but also conflicting, above all in regard to Chapter VIII. Moreover, the media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful.
Because of this, we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation.
Now, compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, we, with profound respect, permit ourselves to ask you, Holy Father, as Supreme Teacher of the Faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the "Dubia" that we attach to the present letter.
May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember you in prayer.
Card. Walter Brandmüller
Card. Raymond L. Burke
Card. Carlo Caffarra
Card. Joachim Meisner
Rome, September 19, 2016
To date, neither the Holy Father nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has responded to the letter.
In an interview published on Monday, November 14, 2016, in The National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke indicated the Cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction” should the pope fail to address their concerns.
Subsequently, in a lengthy interview in Avvenire (a newspaper published by the Italian Bishops), the Pope took the opportunity to push back against his critics — he did not name them — who view the faith through the lens of “a certain legalism, which can be ideological."
“Some people — I am thinking of certain responses to Amoris Laetitia — continue to misunderstand," Pope Francis said. “It’s either black or white [to them], even if in the flow of life you have to discern."Asked about critics who accuse the pope of “Protestantizing" the Catholic church — an objection often raised by conservative Catholics in the U.S. — His Holiness said, “I don’t lose sleep over it."
He insisted that he is following the model of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s that set the church on a path to internal reform and greater engagement with the world.
“As for opinions of others," he said, “we always have to distinguish the spirit in which they are given. When not given in bad faith, they help with the way forward. Other times you see right away that the critics pick bits from here and there to justify a pre-existing viewpoint; they are not honest, they are acting in bad faith to foment divisions."
“You see right away that a certain ‘rigorism’ is born out of a lack of something, from a desire to hide inside the armor of one’s own sad dissatisfaction," he said.
Clearly, the Apostolic Exhortation has become a flashpoint for an increasingly open struggle between old guard hard-liners and supporters of Pope Francis.
A signal that there is indeed significant tension between the Holy Father and certain members of the College of Cardinals is suggested by the fact that Pope Francis cancelled a meeting which the Pope traditionally holds with the College preceding the Consistories at which new Cardinals are formally admitted.
And so, the Church finds herself in a rare situation indeed.
In a series of articles which I will post over the course of the next few days, I shall attempt to examine this turn of events and delve deep into Church history to learn whether such situations have arisen in the past and the manner in which the Church may have addressed these at the time.
My next post will treat the second part of the letter which specificies the five particular uncertainties which the Cardinals are requesting that the Holy Father resolve and clarify.
Let us pray that good will and patience will rule the day and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will restore a sense of tranquility to our troubled Church in these difficult and trying circumstances.
Much more to follow on this subject in the days, if not weeks, ahead.
May God bless our Holy Father and the Church always.
The Cardinals' letter reads as follows:
To His Holiness Pope Francis
and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller
Most Holy Father,
Following the publication of your Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia", theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations that are not only divergent, but also conflicting, above all in regard to Chapter VIII. Moreover, the media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful.
Because of this, we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation.
Now, compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, we, with profound respect, permit ourselves to ask you, Holy Father, as Supreme Teacher of the Faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently giving a response to the "Dubia" that we attach to the present letter.
May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember you in prayer.
Card. Walter Brandmüller
Card. Raymond L. Burke
Card. Carlo Caffarra
Card. Joachim Meisner
Rome, September 19, 2016
To date, neither the Holy Father nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has responded to the letter.
In an interview published on Monday, November 14, 2016, in The National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke indicated the Cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction” should the pope fail to address their concerns.
Subsequently, in a lengthy interview in Avvenire (a newspaper published by the Italian Bishops), the Pope took the opportunity to push back against his critics — he did not name them — who view the faith through the lens of “a certain legalism, which can be ideological."
“Some people — I am thinking of certain responses to Amoris Laetitia — continue to misunderstand," Pope Francis said. “It’s either black or white [to them], even if in the flow of life you have to discern."Asked about critics who accuse the pope of “Protestantizing" the Catholic church — an objection often raised by conservative Catholics in the U.S. — His Holiness said, “I don’t lose sleep over it."
He insisted that he is following the model of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s that set the church on a path to internal reform and greater engagement with the world.
“As for opinions of others," he said, “we always have to distinguish the spirit in which they are given. When not given in bad faith, they help with the way forward. Other times you see right away that the critics pick bits from here and there to justify a pre-existing viewpoint; they are not honest, they are acting in bad faith to foment divisions."
“You see right away that a certain ‘rigorism’ is born out of a lack of something, from a desire to hide inside the armor of one’s own sad dissatisfaction," he said.
Clearly, the Apostolic Exhortation has become a flashpoint for an increasingly open struggle between old guard hard-liners and supporters of Pope Francis.
A signal that there is indeed significant tension between the Holy Father and certain members of the College of Cardinals is suggested by the fact that Pope Francis cancelled a meeting which the Pope traditionally holds with the College preceding the Consistories at which new Cardinals are formally admitted.
And so, the Church finds herself in a rare situation indeed.
In a series of articles which I will post over the course of the next few days, I shall attempt to examine this turn of events and delve deep into Church history to learn whether such situations have arisen in the past and the manner in which the Church may have addressed these at the time.
My next post will treat the second part of the letter which specificies the five particular uncertainties which the Cardinals are requesting that the Holy Father resolve and clarify.
Let us pray that good will and patience will rule the day and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will restore a sense of tranquility to our troubled Church in these difficult and trying circumstances.
Much more to follow on this subject in the days, if not weeks, ahead.
May God bless our Holy Father and the Church always.
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS: Part Three
Thus far, we have examined the history and the structure of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In Part Three, we shall consider the essential mission of the USCCB as defined by Vatican II and embodied in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, as we make a critical assessment of the authority which the USCCB exercises versus the authority of a Bishop within his own diocese.
The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 contains eighty-four canons that call for or permit legislative action by the episcopal conference. It is important to note that only in these specific precepts does any conference of Bishops have jurisdictional authority over all the Bishops within the conference and only after the Holy See has affirmed in writing (recognitio) the conference's proposed legislation.
The USCCB (designated the National Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to July 1, 2001) has taken action on twenty-nine canons, thereby establishing particular legislation for all dioceses of the United States and the Virgin Islands. In some instances the conference voted to retain existing norms or regulations, with due regard for any change or modification warranted by changes in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. In other instances they revised existing norms or created new norms where necessary. Those actions requiring recognitio or review by the Apostolic See, in accord with canon 455, §2, have been reviewed by the appropriate Roman dicastery.
With regard to all other actions taken by the USCCB or documents and statements issued by the conference, no bishop has an obligation to adopt the conference’s documents or implement their initiatives within his own diocese. Such actions or statements of the USCCB have no authority for an individual diocese unless the Bishop of that diocese prescribes or implements them either explicitly or implicitly.
The Father of Vatican Council II made clear that episcopal conferences are both practical and desirable for communication and joint legislative action where permitted by law. Yet, over time with the increasingly tendency of the USCCB to issue document upon document and institute a massive bureaucracy of social welfare programs, a reasonable question might be raised as to whether or not the USCCB has taken on a role never intended. Has the USCCB begun to replace or displace the authority of individual Bishops, even within their own dioceses?
Another question may be raised as to whether there is a growing tendency on the part of the Bishops to abdicate to the conference a portion of their episcopal role and duties.
Put more precisely, the concern is this: is the leadership of individual Bishops being undermined by the USCCB habitually speaking with a common voice and creating a complex and costly pastoral ministry composed of manifold social welfare programs?
In other words, is the voice of the USCCB drowning out the voices of Bishops within their own dioceses? Who exercises more influence on individual Catholics? The USCCB or the Bishop who lives among them, experiencing their concerns and ministering to them by way of word and personal example?
Or, on the contrary, is it possible that the stronger the voice of the USCCB, the stronger the voice of most bishops individually and locally?
Does the work of the USCCB enhance an individual Bishop's credibility, moral authority, effective leadership? And how does one gauge whether it increases or decreases—not just for a few prominent bishops but for the great majority of the several hundred bishops, especially the heads of the nearly 200 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States?
Tempted as I am to provide answers to these questions, I defer to Divine Providence and the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete Whom Jesus bestowed to guide and inspire the Church until He comes again.
The inherent tensions between the collective initiatives of the USCCB and the authority of an individual Bishop within his own diocese will require much time and patience before an effective equilibrium can be fully established.
In the meantime, it is most helpful to consistently reiterate and reinforce the proper understanding the exact nature and mission of the Conference as mandated by the Universal Church and respecting the distinctive role of the local Bishop within his diocese. Such an effort is and remains the duty and obligation of the USCCB collectively and the Bishops individually.
The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 contains eighty-four canons that call for or permit legislative action by the episcopal conference. It is important to note that only in these specific precepts does any conference of Bishops have jurisdictional authority over all the Bishops within the conference and only after the Holy See has affirmed in writing (recognitio) the conference's proposed legislation.
The USCCB (designated the National Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to July 1, 2001) has taken action on twenty-nine canons, thereby establishing particular legislation for all dioceses of the United States and the Virgin Islands. In some instances the conference voted to retain existing norms or regulations, with due regard for any change or modification warranted by changes in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. In other instances they revised existing norms or created new norms where necessary. Those actions requiring recognitio or review by the Apostolic See, in accord with canon 455, §2, have been reviewed by the appropriate Roman dicastery.
With regard to all other actions taken by the USCCB or documents and statements issued by the conference, no bishop has an obligation to adopt the conference’s documents or implement their initiatives within his own diocese. Such actions or statements of the USCCB have no authority for an individual diocese unless the Bishop of that diocese prescribes or implements them either explicitly or implicitly.
The Father of Vatican Council II made clear that episcopal conferences are both practical and desirable for communication and joint legislative action where permitted by law. Yet, over time with the increasingly tendency of the USCCB to issue document upon document and institute a massive bureaucracy of social welfare programs, a reasonable question might be raised as to whether or not the USCCB has taken on a role never intended. Has the USCCB begun to replace or displace the authority of individual Bishops, even within their own dioceses?
Another question may be raised as to whether there is a growing tendency on the part of the Bishops to abdicate to the conference a portion of their episcopal role and duties.
Put more precisely, the concern is this: is the leadership of individual Bishops being undermined by the USCCB habitually speaking with a common voice and creating a complex and costly pastoral ministry composed of manifold social welfare programs?
In other words, is the voice of the USCCB drowning out the voices of Bishops within their own dioceses? Who exercises more influence on individual Catholics? The USCCB or the Bishop who lives among them, experiencing their concerns and ministering to them by way of word and personal example?
Or, on the contrary, is it possible that the stronger the voice of the USCCB, the stronger the voice of most bishops individually and locally?
Does the work of the USCCB enhance an individual Bishop's credibility, moral authority, effective leadership? And how does one gauge whether it increases or decreases—not just for a few prominent bishops but for the great majority of the several hundred bishops, especially the heads of the nearly 200 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States?
Tempted as I am to provide answers to these questions, I defer to Divine Providence and the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete Whom Jesus bestowed to guide and inspire the Church until He comes again.
The inherent tensions between the collective initiatives of the USCCB and the authority of an individual Bishop within his own diocese will require much time and patience before an effective equilibrium can be fully established.
In the meantime, it is most helpful to consistently reiterate and reinforce the proper understanding the exact nature and mission of the Conference as mandated by the Universal Church and respecting the distinctive role of the local Bishop within his diocese. Such an effort is and remains the duty and obligation of the USCCB collectively and the Bishops individually.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS: Part Two
Let us now examine the structure of the Conference which is composed of various Standing and Ad Hoc Committees as well as a goodly number of Secretariats and Task Forces implementing what the Conferences has determined are the key elements of its Pastoral Ministry.
The following is an overview of the present structure of the USCCB, including the names of the Bishops (just elected at the General Assembly) to chair them. Please note that I have attached a brief description of the responsibilities of the Programmatic Committees as outlined by the Conference itself.
I. Executive Level and Management Committees
-- Administrative Committee
President (Cardinal Daniel DeNardo, Houston)
Vice President – (Archbishop Jose Horacio Gomez, Los Angeles)
-- Committee on Budget and Finance
Treasurer (Bishop Michael J. Bransfield, Wheeling-Charleston)
Audit Subcommittee
-- Committee on Priorities and Plans
(Bishop George V. Murry, SJ, Youngstown)
-- Executive Committee
(Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, New York)
II. Programmatic Committees
-- Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance
(Archbishop Bernard Hebda of Saint Paul and Minneapolis)
The committee assists the bishops, both individually and collectively, by providing direction for the Conference in the ongoing implementation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and 1990 Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches and in the interpretation of particular law issued by the Conference.
-- Committee on Catholic Education
( Archbishop George Joseph Lucas of Omaha)
Subcommittee on Certification for Ecclesial Ministry and Service
Provides guidance for the educational mission of the Church in the United States in all its institutional settings, including Catholic elementary and secondary schools, Catholic colleges and universities, and college campus ministry. The committee advocates for federal public policies in education that are consistent with Catholic values.
-- Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life, and Vocations
(Bishop Michael Francis Burbidge of Raleigh)
Focused on promoting, supporting, and educating about the Church's pastoral needs and concerns for the priesthood, diaconate, and consecrated life within culturally diverse communities of the United States; and in addressing issues concerning the life and ministry of bishops,
-- Committee on Communications
(Bishop Christopher J. Coyne of Burlington)
Subcommittee on the Catholic Communication Campaign
Under the direction of the Secretary for Communications, staff for the Communications Department are grouped into five teams (offices) with specific areas of expertise to ensure that the broad communication needs of the USCCB are coordinated and implemented in an organic and collaborative manner.
-- Committee on Cultural Diversity in the Church
(Archishop Gustavo García-Siller of San Antonio)
Subcommittee on African American Affairs
Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs
Subcommittee on Hispanic Affairs
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
Subcommittee on Pastoral Care of Migrants, Refugees, and Travelers
The vision of Encuentro 2000 and Ecclesia in America is enlivened throughout the Church by encouraging Catholics from various culturally diverse communities into a fuller participation in the faith, life, and evangelizing mission of the Church.
-- Committee on Divine Worship
(Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson)
Subcommittee on Divine Worship in Spanish
Supports the bishops of the Latin Church, both collectively and individually, in fulfilling their roles as priests and leaders of the worshiping community, especially with the translation of liturgical text and the development of guidelines for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments.
-- Committee on Doctrine
(Archbishop Allen Henry Vigneron of Detroit)
Subcommittee on the Translation of Scripture Text
Subcommittee on Health Care Issues
The committee on Doctrine evaluates complex questions, problems, and programs to determine and define the Catholic point of view. They are also entrusted with teaching the Catholic doctrine and promoting collaboration among theologians.
-- Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
(Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski of Springfield)
Provides guidance and proposes specific approaches for ecumenical and interreligious dialogues. It determines concrete ways of acting in accordance with the Decrees on Ecumenism and on Non-Christian Religions of the Second Vatican Council and with other ordinances and legitimate customs.eld, MA)
-- Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis
(Archbishop Leonard Paul Blair of Hartford)
Subcommittee on the Catechism
Assists the bishops in fulfilling their role as evangelizers and chief catechists in their dioceses by addressing all aspects of evangelization and catechesis for adults, youth, and children. This includes fostering the distribution and implementation of foundational documents related to evangelization and catechesis.
-- Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
(Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami)
Subcommittee on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in advancing the social mission of the Church, within a culturally diverse community, through education, poverty awareness, capacity- and constituency-building, outreach, policy development, advocacy, and the organization of low-income communities. The committee advises the bishops on issues of human dignity, development, and poverty
-- Committee on International Justice and Peace
(Bishop Oscar Cantú of Las Cruces)
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in advancing the social mission of the Church on international justice and peace through policy development, advocacy, education, outreach, and acts of ecclesial solidarity. The committee advises the bishops on international public policy issues, especially integral human development, human rights, religious freedom, and peace
-- Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth
(Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia)
Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in advancing the vocation and mission of the lay faithful, of married couples and families, lay ecclesial ministers, and of young people. Through emphasis on the articulation and application of anthropological and theological principles, founded on magisterial teaching, the committee assists the bishops as they promote in a culturally diverse Church, the evangelization, faith formation and public witness of these persons, leading them toward a deeper commitment to Christ and his Church so as to transform culture and society.
-- Committee on Migration
(Bishop Eusebio L. Elizondo Almaguer Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle)
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Committee on Migration sets broad policies and direction for the Church's work in the area of migration, coordinating closely with the USCCB Administrative Committee, on which the Committee on Migration Chairman serves.
-- Committee on National Collections
(Archbishop Thomas John Rodi of Mobile)
Subcommittee on the Church in Central and Eastern Europe
Subcommittee on the Church in Latin America
Subcommittee on Catholic Home Missions
Subcommittee on the Church in Africa
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in promoting the stewardship dimension of the collections, and in coordinating, supporting, and increasing the revenues of the national collections. These efforts support the Church’s works of social justice, evangelization, education, and national and local institutional development—both domestically and around the world. The committee works collaboratively with other mission-related committees on issues of mutual concern.
-- Committee on Pro-Life Activities
(Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York)
Works to teach respect for all human life from conception to natural death, and organize for its protection.
-- Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People
(Bishop Edward J. Burns of Juneau)
The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all matters related to child and youth protection and is to oversee the development of the plans, programs, and budget of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with comprehensive planning and recommendations concerning child and youth protection by coordinating the efforts of the Office and the National Review Board.
III. Task Forces - Temporary
-- Task Force on Spanish Language Bible
--Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
IV. USCCB departments and programs
Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations
Secretariat of Cultural Diversity in the Church
Secretariat of Divine Worship
Secretariat of Doctrine
Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
Secretariat of Evangelization and Catechesis
Secretariat of Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection
Policy and Advocacy
Secretary of Policy and Advocacy
Government Relations
Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development
Office of International Justice and Peace
Office of Domestic Social Development
Catholic Campaign for Human Development
Education and Outreach
Department of Migration and Refugee Services
Office of Migration and Refugee Policy
Office of Refugee Programs
Secretariat of Catholic Education
Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities
Communications
Secretary of Communications
Catholic News Service
Customer and Client Relations
Media Relations
Operations and Project Management
USCCB Publishing
Administration and National Collections
Secretary of Administration
Office of Finance
Office of Accounting and Business Services
Office of General Services
Office of Human Resources
Office of National Collections
The Church in Central and Eastern Europe
Catholic Home Missions
The Church in Latin America
Peter's Pence
The Catholic Relief Services Collection
The Church in Africa
Catholic Communication Campaign (promotion)
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (promotion)
Other Collections
National Religious Retirement Office
Office for Film and Broadcasting
Office of Information Technology
Certainly, the structure of the USCCB is extensive and complex. Little wonder that the budgetary expense of operating such a bureaucratic organization is rapidly approaching an estimated $ 200 million annually.
In Part Three, we shall consider the effective of the Conference as it seeks to fulfill its primary function as prescribed in Canon Law and those various pastoral initiatives which the Conference has taken upon itself over the course of the past decades.
The following is an overview of the present structure of the USCCB, including the names of the Bishops (just elected at the General Assembly) to chair them. Please note that I have attached a brief description of the responsibilities of the Programmatic Committees as outlined by the Conference itself.
I. Executive Level and Management Committees
-- Administrative Committee
President (Cardinal Daniel DeNardo, Houston)
Vice President – (Archbishop Jose Horacio Gomez, Los Angeles)
-- Committee on Budget and Finance
Treasurer (Bishop Michael J. Bransfield, Wheeling-Charleston)
Audit Subcommittee
-- Committee on Priorities and Plans
(Bishop George V. Murry, SJ, Youngstown)
-- Executive Committee
(Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, New York)
II. Programmatic Committees
-- Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance
(Archbishop Bernard Hebda of Saint Paul and Minneapolis)
The committee assists the bishops, both individually and collectively, by providing direction for the Conference in the ongoing implementation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and 1990 Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches and in the interpretation of particular law issued by the Conference.
-- Committee on Catholic Education
( Archbishop George Joseph Lucas of Omaha)
Subcommittee on Certification for Ecclesial Ministry and Service
Provides guidance for the educational mission of the Church in the United States in all its institutional settings, including Catholic elementary and secondary schools, Catholic colleges and universities, and college campus ministry. The committee advocates for federal public policies in education that are consistent with Catholic values.
-- Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life, and Vocations
(Bishop Michael Francis Burbidge of Raleigh)
Focused on promoting, supporting, and educating about the Church's pastoral needs and concerns for the priesthood, diaconate, and consecrated life within culturally diverse communities of the United States; and in addressing issues concerning the life and ministry of bishops,
-- Committee on Communications
(Bishop Christopher J. Coyne of Burlington)
Subcommittee on the Catholic Communication Campaign
Under the direction of the Secretary for Communications, staff for the Communications Department are grouped into five teams (offices) with specific areas of expertise to ensure that the broad communication needs of the USCCB are coordinated and implemented in an organic and collaborative manner.
-- Committee on Cultural Diversity in the Church
(Archishop Gustavo García-Siller of San Antonio)
Subcommittee on African American Affairs
Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs
Subcommittee on Hispanic Affairs
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
Subcommittee on Pastoral Care of Migrants, Refugees, and Travelers
The vision of Encuentro 2000 and Ecclesia in America is enlivened throughout the Church by encouraging Catholics from various culturally diverse communities into a fuller participation in the faith, life, and evangelizing mission of the Church.
-- Committee on Divine Worship
(Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson)
Subcommittee on Divine Worship in Spanish
Supports the bishops of the Latin Church, both collectively and individually, in fulfilling their roles as priests and leaders of the worshiping community, especially with the translation of liturgical text and the development of guidelines for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments.
-- Committee on Doctrine
(Archbishop Allen Henry Vigneron of Detroit)
Subcommittee on the Translation of Scripture Text
Subcommittee on Health Care Issues
The committee on Doctrine evaluates complex questions, problems, and programs to determine and define the Catholic point of view. They are also entrusted with teaching the Catholic doctrine and promoting collaboration among theologians.
-- Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
(Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski of Springfield)
Provides guidance and proposes specific approaches for ecumenical and interreligious dialogues. It determines concrete ways of acting in accordance with the Decrees on Ecumenism and on Non-Christian Religions of the Second Vatican Council and with other ordinances and legitimate customs.eld, MA)
-- Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis
(Archbishop Leonard Paul Blair of Hartford)
Subcommittee on the Catechism
Assists the bishops in fulfilling their role as evangelizers and chief catechists in their dioceses by addressing all aspects of evangelization and catechesis for adults, youth, and children. This includes fostering the distribution and implementation of foundational documents related to evangelization and catechesis.
-- Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
(Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami)
Subcommittee on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in advancing the social mission of the Church, within a culturally diverse community, through education, poverty awareness, capacity- and constituency-building, outreach, policy development, advocacy, and the organization of low-income communities. The committee advises the bishops on issues of human dignity, development, and poverty
-- Committee on International Justice and Peace
(Bishop Oscar Cantú of Las Cruces)
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in advancing the social mission of the Church on international justice and peace through policy development, advocacy, education, outreach, and acts of ecclesial solidarity. The committee advises the bishops on international public policy issues, especially integral human development, human rights, religious freedom, and peace
-- Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth
(Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia)
Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in advancing the vocation and mission of the lay faithful, of married couples and families, lay ecclesial ministers, and of young people. Through emphasis on the articulation and application of anthropological and theological principles, founded on magisterial teaching, the committee assists the bishops as they promote in a culturally diverse Church, the evangelization, faith formation and public witness of these persons, leading them toward a deeper commitment to Christ and his Church so as to transform culture and society.
-- Committee on Migration
(Bishop Eusebio L. Elizondo Almaguer Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle)
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Committee on Migration sets broad policies and direction for the Church's work in the area of migration, coordinating closely with the USCCB Administrative Committee, on which the Committee on Migration Chairman serves.
-- Committee on National Collections
(Archbishop Thomas John Rodi of Mobile)
Subcommittee on the Church in Central and Eastern Europe
Subcommittee on the Church in Latin America
Subcommittee on Catholic Home Missions
Subcommittee on the Church in Africa
The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in promoting the stewardship dimension of the collections, and in coordinating, supporting, and increasing the revenues of the national collections. These efforts support the Church’s works of social justice, evangelization, education, and national and local institutional development—both domestically and around the world. The committee works collaboratively with other mission-related committees on issues of mutual concern.
-- Committee on Pro-Life Activities
(Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York)
Works to teach respect for all human life from conception to natural death, and organize for its protection.
-- Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People
(Bishop Edward J. Burns of Juneau)
The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all matters related to child and youth protection and is to oversee the development of the plans, programs, and budget of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with comprehensive planning and recommendations concerning child and youth protection by coordinating the efforts of the Office and the National Review Board.
III. Task Forces - Temporary
-- Task Force on Spanish Language Bible
--Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
IV. USCCB departments and programs
Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations
Secretariat of Cultural Diversity in the Church
Secretariat of Divine Worship
Secretariat of Doctrine
Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
Secretariat of Evangelization and Catechesis
Secretariat of Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection
Policy and Advocacy
Secretary of Policy and Advocacy
Government Relations
Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development
Office of International Justice and Peace
Office of Domestic Social Development
Catholic Campaign for Human Development
Education and Outreach
Department of Migration and Refugee Services
Office of Migration and Refugee Policy
Office of Refugee Programs
Secretariat of Catholic Education
Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities
Communications
Secretary of Communications
Catholic News Service
Customer and Client Relations
Media Relations
Operations and Project Management
USCCB Publishing
Administration and National Collections
Secretary of Administration
Office of Finance
Office of Accounting and Business Services
Office of General Services
Office of Human Resources
Office of National Collections
The Church in Central and Eastern Europe
Catholic Home Missions
The Church in Latin America
Peter's Pence
The Catholic Relief Services Collection
The Church in Africa
Catholic Communication Campaign (promotion)
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (promotion)
Other Collections
National Religious Retirement Office
Office for Film and Broadcasting
Office of Information Technology
Certainly, the structure of the USCCB is extensive and complex. Little wonder that the budgetary expense of operating such a bureaucratic organization is rapidly approaching an estimated $ 200 million annually.
In Part Three, we shall consider the effective of the Conference as it seeks to fulfill its primary function as prescribed in Canon Law and those various pastoral initiatives which the Conference has taken upon itself over the course of the past decades.