I think you guys are making a way bigger deal of the rescript about public associations of the faithful than it actually is. It's directly in conformity with Lumen gentium, which said of the power of bishops that "its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful". No doubt behind the scenes, the Holy See has had some kind of problem with public associations being set up too hastily without sufficient oversight. So it wants to take a more involved role in their creation, to ensure that whatever the problems are, they don't happen again. Seems like a pretty big stretch to say that the change somehow makes bishops vicars of the Roman pontiff, or furthers the separation between sacred orders and governance, when it looks like the Holy See is simply stepping in on a matter for the good of the Church.
Or, subsidiarity is a central part of Catholic social teaching and all Catholics are just as much a part of the Church as the man who happens to be sitting on the Chair of Peter, whose opinions on liturgy and lace are only as good as the basis of the opinions, which seems to be that he doesn't personally like it.
What matters is his decisions. Subsidiarity says that he should make only those decisions that absolutely must be made at the worldwide level. Otherwise instead of a Church we just have a corporation run by a micromanaging CEO. The brain must not tell the heart how to beat nor the hand how to grasp. The pope should only ever tell us what is so far beyond the pale that it threatens unity. Otherwise it should be entirely a ministry of encouraging the brethren by point to what is good.
Will this give new control to Rome over public associations of the faithful? Of course not. What will actually happen is that people will just form associations as they see fit. The pope cannot stop free association. But now the local bishop is cut out of the process entirely. If an association is not of the type that the pope likes, they will form with no apostolic guidance. So what has actually been forbidden is not public associations but local bishops guiding public associations. So priests will guide them. And if priests are forbidden from being a part of unapproved lay associations then lay people will guide themselves.
This is just like how people who seek the Extraordinary Form will not stop going just because the pope doesn't approve. They will go where they can go. The pope's moves only serve to cut diocesan bishops out of the equation, which eventually cuts the pope out of the equation. The tighter he grasps the more that slips through his grip.
Subsidiarity allows for prudential disagreement on which matters should be addressed at which level, and it is not the case that the bishop of Rome should only act when it is absolutely essential. With the change, the bishop remains involved, and the necessary communion between the bishop, the Pope and the faithful is preserved. The fact that the associations which the Apostolic see would disapprove of will not be able to be erected is precisely the point. It seems that you think that includes all groups contrary to the preferences of the Pope, while I think it will merely stop those which do not have legitimate charisms or pose threats to faith and communion.
Prudential disagreement, and we are prudentially disagreeing. The disagreement will get clearer and clearer the more they try to shove the entire worldwide Church into their tiny box. Bishops are not supposed to be "involved". They are supposed to be succesors of the Apostles. Peter didn't tell Thomas what sort of lay associations he could start in India.
The idea that the pope is going to be the arbiter of "legitimate charisms" is so laughably anti-historical. Do you really believe that everyone whom the pope doesn't like has no charism of the Holy Spirit? Everyone? And then when the next pope comes, the Holy Spirit might shift tremendously? And were Fr. Maciel and Cardinal McCarrick threats to faith and communion? And so JPII was wrong about some things. And if the pope can read things that wrong, then perhaps it is not possible to run the whole Church from Rome.
No, Peter didn't tell Thomas what lay associations to start, nor did Thomas start any lay associations at all, as far as I am aware. The Church isn't identical to the first century and it doesn't need to be.
No, I don't believe that everyone the pope "doesn't like" has no charism. But I don't think the Holy See will reject associations based on what the pope merely dislikes. I trust the pope, not to infallibly know everything or be correct all the time, but to decide fairly based on what he knows. Because I believe he's a man of good will. And yeah, sometimes the Holy See will make mistakes like the ones you mention, but this will not exacerbate that.
But why is it a good thing? That is the part that doesn't make sense to me. Why would it be good for there to be more central control which will lead to more uncontrolled activity? It sounds to me like a rejection of the whole theory of the Church.
The Church is not one human person in Rome dictating God's will to the whole world. That is more like what a protestant accuses Catholics of saying the Church is. I really don't care what he thinks because he has shown himself to be a weak thinker. I don't mind that a guy in Rome will have his own opinions but I don't like him constantly insulting my brothers and sisters whom I love. And then I am supposed to believe that it is all for the good of the family. It is so like the symptoms of an abusive parent. The Accuser of the Brethern is an evil spirit.
It's good insofar as it presumably addresses whatever problem people raised to Pope Francis and that he intended to address by the rescript. I'm not privy to such information so I always assume that canonical changes happen for reasons and not just because Pope Francis wants to throw his (significant) weight around. I don't agree that Francis is a weak thinker or that he insults the faithful.
If in general we trust men of good will who have received the top level of the sacrament of holy orders to decide fairly based on what they know, and if we prefer to have the pope decide things rather than have bishops decide things, do we prefer the pope to decide things because we don't think that bishops are men of good will, or do we prefer the pope to decide things because we don't think that bishops know as much about a local situation as the pope does? A tendency towards centralization presents two merely practical risks in this regard: one, that sometimes (not at present, but I could consult Dante for examples) the papacy is having a moment; two, that the perfect transmission of necessary information simply does not scale. In the long run Christ has already won and everything contributes to our sanctification, which is some comfort, but occasionally we do make it harder on one another than is really necessary.
I think most bishops are people of good will as well, but that doesn't mean it is bad for the Holy See to be closely involved in the approval of lay associations.
It is fascinating to me that people are looking for logical consistency from a canon law perspective in Pope Francis' actions (e.g., synodal way vs. removing ability of bishops to sponsor nascent religious orders and crushing religious movements in the name of Vatican II while ignoring central tenets of Vatican II that go against his objectives). Just look at what he did in France this month, removing the ability of a bishop to ordain priests and deacons! How can we be surprised by these actions if he is willing to suspend the ability of a bishop to ordain his own priests and deacons? This is a pope who is obsessed with power and cares little for doctrinal consistency. Consider Pope Francis' four postulates from Evangelii Gaudium:
* time is greater than space
* unity prevails over conflict
* realities are more important than ideas
* the whole is greater than the part
His goal seems to me to cruelly destroy communities with traditional leanings (e.g., the TLM crowd) and to centralize power in order to achieve this, all the while empowering those he agrees with to act outside of Rome's direct purview (e.g., communion for divorced and remarried, gay marriages/blessings in Germany, etc.). Is it logically consistent to act like a cruel strongman with some groups and to claim powerlessness when dealing with other groups? It depends on one's objective. Pope Francis is a Peronist caudillo at heart. That's why his four postulates from a church encyclical are found in a letter by Juan Manuel de Rosas. He has adopted the governance style of S. American dictators and eschews the example of Christ.
O wow, Brendan, I didn’t connect until now that you were the Wendy’s pricing guy on the Advisory Opinions podcast last year. Love it.
I think you guys are making a way bigger deal of the rescript about public associations of the faithful than it actually is. It's directly in conformity with Lumen gentium, which said of the power of bishops that "its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful". No doubt behind the scenes, the Holy See has had some kind of problem with public associations being set up too hastily without sufficient oversight. So it wants to take a more involved role in their creation, to ensure that whatever the problems are, they don't happen again. Seems like a pretty big stretch to say that the change somehow makes bishops vicars of the Roman pontiff, or furthers the separation between sacred orders and governance, when it looks like the Holy See is simply stepping in on a matter for the good of the Church.
Or, subsidiarity is a central part of Catholic social teaching and all Catholics are just as much a part of the Church as the man who happens to be sitting on the Chair of Peter, whose opinions on liturgy and lace are only as good as the basis of the opinions, which seems to be that he doesn't personally like it.
What matters is his decisions. Subsidiarity says that he should make only those decisions that absolutely must be made at the worldwide level. Otherwise instead of a Church we just have a corporation run by a micromanaging CEO. The brain must not tell the heart how to beat nor the hand how to grasp. The pope should only ever tell us what is so far beyond the pale that it threatens unity. Otherwise it should be entirely a ministry of encouraging the brethren by point to what is good.
Will this give new control to Rome over public associations of the faithful? Of course not. What will actually happen is that people will just form associations as they see fit. The pope cannot stop free association. But now the local bishop is cut out of the process entirely. If an association is not of the type that the pope likes, they will form with no apostolic guidance. So what has actually been forbidden is not public associations but local bishops guiding public associations. So priests will guide them. And if priests are forbidden from being a part of unapproved lay associations then lay people will guide themselves.
This is just like how people who seek the Extraordinary Form will not stop going just because the pope doesn't approve. They will go where they can go. The pope's moves only serve to cut diocesan bishops out of the equation, which eventually cuts the pope out of the equation. The tighter he grasps the more that slips through his grip.
Subsidiarity allows for prudential disagreement on which matters should be addressed at which level, and it is not the case that the bishop of Rome should only act when it is absolutely essential. With the change, the bishop remains involved, and the necessary communion between the bishop, the Pope and the faithful is preserved. The fact that the associations which the Apostolic see would disapprove of will not be able to be erected is precisely the point. It seems that you think that includes all groups contrary to the preferences of the Pope, while I think it will merely stop those which do not have legitimate charisms or pose threats to faith and communion.
Prudential disagreement, and we are prudentially disagreeing. The disagreement will get clearer and clearer the more they try to shove the entire worldwide Church into their tiny box. Bishops are not supposed to be "involved". They are supposed to be succesors of the Apostles. Peter didn't tell Thomas what sort of lay associations he could start in India.
The idea that the pope is going to be the arbiter of "legitimate charisms" is so laughably anti-historical. Do you really believe that everyone whom the pope doesn't like has no charism of the Holy Spirit? Everyone? And then when the next pope comes, the Holy Spirit might shift tremendously? And were Fr. Maciel and Cardinal McCarrick threats to faith and communion? And so JPII was wrong about some things. And if the pope can read things that wrong, then perhaps it is not possible to run the whole Church from Rome.
No, Peter didn't tell Thomas what lay associations to start, nor did Thomas start any lay associations at all, as far as I am aware. The Church isn't identical to the first century and it doesn't need to be.
No, I don't believe that everyone the pope "doesn't like" has no charism. But I don't think the Holy See will reject associations based on what the pope merely dislikes. I trust the pope, not to infallibly know everything or be correct all the time, but to decide fairly based on what he knows. Because I believe he's a man of good will. And yeah, sometimes the Holy See will make mistakes like the ones you mention, but this will not exacerbate that.
But why is it a good thing? That is the part that doesn't make sense to me. Why would it be good for there to be more central control which will lead to more uncontrolled activity? It sounds to me like a rejection of the whole theory of the Church.
The Church is not one human person in Rome dictating God's will to the whole world. That is more like what a protestant accuses Catholics of saying the Church is. I really don't care what he thinks because he has shown himself to be a weak thinker. I don't mind that a guy in Rome will have his own opinions but I don't like him constantly insulting my brothers and sisters whom I love. And then I am supposed to believe that it is all for the good of the family. It is so like the symptoms of an abusive parent. The Accuser of the Brethern is an evil spirit.
It's good insofar as it presumably addresses whatever problem people raised to Pope Francis and that he intended to address by the rescript. I'm not privy to such information so I always assume that canonical changes happen for reasons and not just because Pope Francis wants to throw his (significant) weight around. I don't agree that Francis is a weak thinker or that he insults the faithful.
If in general we trust men of good will who have received the top level of the sacrament of holy orders to decide fairly based on what they know, and if we prefer to have the pope decide things rather than have bishops decide things, do we prefer the pope to decide things because we don't think that bishops are men of good will, or do we prefer the pope to decide things because we don't think that bishops know as much about a local situation as the pope does? A tendency towards centralization presents two merely practical risks in this regard: one, that sometimes (not at present, but I could consult Dante for examples) the papacy is having a moment; two, that the perfect transmission of necessary information simply does not scale. In the long run Christ has already won and everything contributes to our sanctification, which is some comfort, but occasionally we do make it harder on one another than is really necessary.
I think most bishops are people of good will as well, but that doesn't mean it is bad for the Holy See to be closely involved in the approval of lay associations.
It is fascinating to me that people are looking for logical consistency from a canon law perspective in Pope Francis' actions (e.g., synodal way vs. removing ability of bishops to sponsor nascent religious orders and crushing religious movements in the name of Vatican II while ignoring central tenets of Vatican II that go against his objectives). Just look at what he did in France this month, removing the ability of a bishop to ordain priests and deacons! How can we be surprised by these actions if he is willing to suspend the ability of a bishop to ordain his own priests and deacons? This is a pope who is obsessed with power and cares little for doctrinal consistency. Consider Pope Francis' four postulates from Evangelii Gaudium:
* time is greater than space
* unity prevails over conflict
* realities are more important than ideas
* the whole is greater than the part
His goal seems to me to cruelly destroy communities with traditional leanings (e.g., the TLM crowd) and to centralize power in order to achieve this, all the while empowering those he agrees with to act outside of Rome's direct purview (e.g., communion for divorced and remarried, gay marriages/blessings in Germany, etc.). Is it logically consistent to act like a cruel strongman with some groups and to claim powerlessness when dealing with other groups? It depends on one's objective. Pope Francis is a Peronist caudillo at heart. That's why his four postulates from a church encyclical are found in a letter by Juan Manuel de Rosas. He has adopted the governance style of S. American dictators and eschews the example of Christ.