Interesting idea. I just figured the sentence was originally "The new pope seems to want a debate on the theological merits of the reforms" and got *almost* changed to a different order. A linguistic mix-up would be cooler.
Because of the TWO HOUR delay in fixing this, a horribly long time in internet years, perhaps we can expect the mystery to be revealed, in reparation.
While this may appear to be an "in the weeds" issue, it gets to the heart of the problems caused by the Bergoglian papacy. Pope Francis was admittedly someone not well versed in canon law nor theology. His expertise was in chemistry. Unfortunately, he relied too heavily on Ghirlanda with his anti-Vatican II understanding of governance.
Kudos to Cardinal Ouellet for bringing back theology to questions of governance, and as you imply, to Pope Leo for wanting to bring in both theology and canon law to the governance of the Church. His argument may not hold water but at least it is a theological response and not the pure tyrannical voluntarism of the Bergoglians.
While it will be difficult, P.E. needs a serious overhaul, including returning to the distinction between Congregations and Councils. Pope Leo must certainly be aware of this, and while it will take time, pray that this dangerous anti-Vatican II understanding of governance be totally rejected.
As an aside, it appears that Pope Leo may also be moving away from the canonical decisions that Pope Francis wanted to make due to Ghirlanda's hatred of Opus Dei.
Thank you for the analysis. Very interesting. Intuitively I don’t see the problem with a more dynamical form of governance, with lay people involved in, and ordained people taking responsibilities for, the decisions — like in a married couple, where the wife is involved and participates in the headship of her husband. As long as the head heads and the body bodies, things are ordered and nice. I don’t know if definitive clear lines should be drawn in terms of who-does-what, I think it depends on the pastoral situation, hence one needs a healthy dialogue between the head and the body at all times. (Note that this is my intuitive thinking; the canonical and theological underpinnings of the question of governance are way over my simple knowledge. If someone wants to share useful resources, I’d be happy to read more!)
I worry that as the debate is reduced to "the pope can theoretically do it, therefore he must", we devolve into volonté générale, and who is the clearest expression of said volonté générale.
The bombast about "ecclesiological advances" and "prophetic gestures" rubs me the wrong way. Can't they just say, "This thing is different from what we've done in the past, but actually, there are some strong arguments in its favor, and here they are"?
They could of course, and should, say this, but this is an argument that the church authorities are almost incapable of making (and many traditionalists incapable of accepting). Instead, a improvement has to be disguised, wrapped up in the sort of prose written by Cardinal Ouellet, which I found impenetrable.
Honestly, the prose style is enough to make someone suspicious—it seems like a tell that the arguments for the change are not strong enough to stand on their own, or that there is some sort of discontinuity (beyond just an "improvement") that needs to be presented in exaggeratedly positive terms in order that it not attract negative attention. I'm not conversant enough with the issue to have a strong view about all this, and I don't consider myself opposed to the change, but it's odd.
1. Instead of getting excited about all the new powers and administrative innovations they "discern" the Holy Spirit wants them to wield, those with authority in the Church would be better off worrying about their responsibilities. Authority didn't come to them for the purpose of establishing and perpetuating a bureaucracy but for entirely other purposes.
2. Getting a bunch of lay people involved in "church governance" also means getting secular society involved: the state, the oligarchy, foundations, academia. They can go on and on about charisms and so forth, but are we ready to have these degenerate secular institutions playing a strong role in the governance of the church? Because that is exactly what will happen when lay people are given more authority. Witness Germany, where the bishops are doing their best to lay down their miters before the rather disgusting liberal establishment in their country, the same way the patriotic church in China ultimately answers to the CCP. This is a prudential matter as well as a theological one and I don't think we are ready to have this discussion.
Exactly, the highly credentialed - in our day this usually means a person who is highly compromised by the spirit of the times - are going to be the ones picked, and then where are we?
Indeed. One might observe that reflexive disdain for expertise is a common, compromising "spirit of the times" all its own...and a source of no end of trouble and misfortune when indulged.
1) I wonder if it would be too reductive to simply start with this proposition:
"Anyone may administer--and certain laypeople may be particularly well-suited for administrative roles in the Church--but *governance* is inherent in and proper to Holy Orders, particularly the fullness of the same entrusted to the episcopate."
2) "Primatial Munus" seems like a good name for a prog band.
Cardinal Ouellet's initial criticism that the change was "“a Copernican revolution in the governance of the Church” seems very odd, in view of the fact that the Copernican revolution was fully justified. Might one conclude that, subconsciously at least, Ouellet was entertaining the possibility that Pope Francis' changes were justified?
The pope comes from a world where for every priest doing the Lord’s work, there are four laypeople working for the Lord in the Church as well. It’s only natural for him to want more lay people around using their charisms for the good of the Church. My bird feeder sees a lot of Cardinals, all the time, and that is great, but seeing the bluebirds around as well makes for a better garden.
"The new pope seems to want a debate reforms on their theological merits"
The 'a' is causing problems.
It needs an additional “to” - as in, “seems to want to debate.”
“A,” curiously enough, means “to” in Spanish - I wonder if we had a linguistic mix up here.
Interesting idea. I just figured the sentence was originally "The new pope seems to want a debate on the theological merits of the reforms" and got *almost* changed to a different order. A linguistic mix-up would be cooler.
Because of the TWO HOUR delay in fixing this, a horribly long time in internet years, perhaps we can expect the mystery to be revealed, in reparation.
While this may appear to be an "in the weeds" issue, it gets to the heart of the problems caused by the Bergoglian papacy. Pope Francis was admittedly someone not well versed in canon law nor theology. His expertise was in chemistry. Unfortunately, he relied too heavily on Ghirlanda with his anti-Vatican II understanding of governance.
Kudos to Cardinal Ouellet for bringing back theology to questions of governance, and as you imply, to Pope Leo for wanting to bring in both theology and canon law to the governance of the Church. His argument may not hold water but at least it is a theological response and not the pure tyrannical voluntarism of the Bergoglians.
While it will be difficult, P.E. needs a serious overhaul, including returning to the distinction between Congregations and Councils. Pope Leo must certainly be aware of this, and while it will take time, pray that this dangerous anti-Vatican II understanding of governance be totally rejected.
As an aside, it appears that Pope Leo may also be moving away from the canonical decisions that Pope Francis wanted to make due to Ghirlanda's hatred of Opus Dei.
Thank you for the analysis. Very interesting. Intuitively I don’t see the problem with a more dynamical form of governance, with lay people involved in, and ordained people taking responsibilities for, the decisions — like in a married couple, where the wife is involved and participates in the headship of her husband. As long as the head heads and the body bodies, things are ordered and nice. I don’t know if definitive clear lines should be drawn in terms of who-does-what, I think it depends on the pastoral situation, hence one needs a healthy dialogue between the head and the body at all times. (Note that this is my intuitive thinking; the canonical and theological underpinnings of the question of governance are way over my simple knowledge. If someone wants to share useful resources, I’d be happy to read more!)
I worry that as the debate is reduced to "the pope can theoretically do it, therefore he must", we devolve into volonté générale, and who is the clearest expression of said volonté générale.
And complement not compliment.
The bombast about "ecclesiological advances" and "prophetic gestures" rubs me the wrong way. Can't they just say, "This thing is different from what we've done in the past, but actually, there are some strong arguments in its favor, and here they are"?
They could of course, and should, say this, but this is an argument that the church authorities are almost incapable of making (and many traditionalists incapable of accepting). Instead, a improvement has to be disguised, wrapped up in the sort of prose written by Cardinal Ouellet, which I found impenetrable.
Honestly, the prose style is enough to make someone suspicious—it seems like a tell that the arguments for the change are not strong enough to stand on their own, or that there is some sort of discontinuity (beyond just an "improvement") that needs to be presented in exaggeratedly positive terms in order that it not attract negative attention. I'm not conversant enough with the issue to have a strong view about all this, and I don't consider myself opposed to the change, but it's odd.
1. Instead of getting excited about all the new powers and administrative innovations they "discern" the Holy Spirit wants them to wield, those with authority in the Church would be better off worrying about their responsibilities. Authority didn't come to them for the purpose of establishing and perpetuating a bureaucracy but for entirely other purposes.
2. Getting a bunch of lay people involved in "church governance" also means getting secular society involved: the state, the oligarchy, foundations, academia. They can go on and on about charisms and so forth, but are we ready to have these degenerate secular institutions playing a strong role in the governance of the church? Because that is exactly what will happen when lay people are given more authority. Witness Germany, where the bishops are doing their best to lay down their miters before the rather disgusting liberal establishment in their country, the same way the patriotic church in China ultimately answers to the CCP. This is a prudential matter as well as a theological one and I don't think we are ready to have this discussion.
I fear you may be correct. See, e.g., Notre Dame, and recent appointments. When spots and influence become up for grabs, the activists prowl about.
Exactly, the highly credentialed - in our day this usually means a person who is highly compromised by the spirit of the times - are going to be the ones picked, and then where are we?
Why are we attacking credential people as being ‘compromised by the spirit’?
Indeed. One might observe that reflexive disdain for expertise is a common, compromising "spirit of the times" all its own...and a source of no end of trouble and misfortune when indulged.
1) I wonder if it would be too reductive to simply start with this proposition:
"Anyone may administer--and certain laypeople may be particularly well-suited for administrative roles in the Church--but *governance* is inherent in and proper to Holy Orders, particularly the fullness of the same entrusted to the episcopate."
2) "Primatial Munus" seems like a good name for a prog band.
Cardinal Ouellet's initial criticism that the change was "“a Copernican revolution in the governance of the Church” seems very odd, in view of the fact that the Copernican revolution was fully justified. Might one conclude that, subconsciously at least, Ouellet was entertaining the possibility that Pope Francis' changes were justified?
The pope comes from a world where for every priest doing the Lord’s work, there are four laypeople working for the Lord in the Church as well. It’s only natural for him to want more lay people around using their charisms for the good of the Church. My bird feeder sees a lot of Cardinals, all the time, and that is great, but seeing the bluebirds around as well makes for a better garden.