Cardinal says Curia reform will have ‘Francis effect’

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Cardinal says Curia reform will have ‘Francis effect’ Jul 8, 2019 13:57:35 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2019 13:57:35 GMT

Indian cardinal says Curia reform will have ‘Francis effect’

In a file photo, Pope Francis walks next to Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias as he leaves the morning session of the extraordinary

Synod of Bishops on the family at the Vatican Oct. 9, 2014.

Crux Now | Jul 6, 2019

ROME - Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay, India, is one of Pope Francis’s closest advisers. He’s a member of the council of cardinals re-writing the Vatican’s constitution, and he was also tapped to be one of the four coordinators of a recent Church summit on the protection of minors.

Gracias told Crux said that the reorganization of the Roman Curia - the central government of the Catholic Church - will have a “Francis effect,” and have evangelization, service and charity as its three key pillars.

Crux spoke with Gracias on July 3 about the Vatican’s new constitution, a possible papal visit to India, and other issues. What follows are excerpts of that conversation.

Crux: You were in Rome last week for the meeting of the council of cardinals that advises the pope, and now you’re back. What brought you to the Eternal City this time?

Gracias: Several things, meetings … I’m participating in the anglophone meeting for the protection of minors that brings together English-speaking bishops from around the world. I also had a meeting at the Secretariat of State to follow up on the February meeting [the summit on sexual abuse.]

The pope recently issued two motu proprios that are connected to that meeting, which focused on the protection of minors. When will we see the next follow-up to that meeting?

We’ve had a few meetings already, and I hope that by the end of the year we’re going to have formalized our contributions. Some changes in canon law might still follow, and we also want to put more flesh on the pope’s motu proprio.

There’s one area in the protection of minors that is to make sure that the perpetrators don’t do it again. But there’s also the promotion of good practices to create safe environments, through the training of priests, laity, family - prevention. And that is something that we need to take care of. There are a lot of challenges still, but a lot is being done.

The new constitution is clearly no longer coming out “before the summer.” What is its new due date?

It was wishful thinking to think that it would come out in June. The draft is ready, but we asked for feedback from all over the world and the Curia. And there have been a lot of comments that we haven’t been able to see yet. But there’s a group working on it, and tomorrow I will have a Skype conference to follow up. But my hope is that either by September - or December at the latest - the constitution will be public.

Is it true that there are some sections that are still being written, like the role of the spokesperson or that of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors?

The draft is ready; but some issues have come up, and we’re reviewing them. Like the whole question of how much should these be linked to the Curia or be more independent. For instance, the spokesperson. Is it that they are the spokesman for the pope, or the Curia? Because one is more concrete, the other gives them more access.

What will be some of the new elements of the constitution, Praedicate Evangelium?

One key element is that the Curia has to be at the service of the pope but also the bishops’ conferences. The Curia is appointed by the pope, but it has to help everyone.

It will eventually require changes in canon law, because the Curia has always been at the service of the pope, but now it will be at the service of the pope and other bishops, of the universal Church. This is a major change.

Another major change is that we have given episcopal conferences a central place, even if there’s still some doubts about what their juridical validity is. But they are effective and a present situation in the world, so there’s a section on them.

Synodality and collegiality have also come out, but the principal things are being at the service of the pope and the bishops.

What does it mean that the Curia will be at the service of the bishops’ conferences?

This is Pope Francis’s idea that we want to be at the service for bishops’ conferences to know that the Curia serves, is accompanying them, helping them. The Curia is doing tremendous work, dioceses wouldn’t work without them. The mentality is changing, but it has to be strengthened by the law. Once upon a time, you could only reach the Curia when you came every five years, now it’s easier, with phones, emails, etc.

And also, preaching the Gospel. It’s is the central element of the Church, so the first priority is going to be preaching the Gospel. Then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and then the social service of the Church, reaching out to those in the peripheries.

We hope that the office of the papal almoner will become a dicastery. The message is to focus on evangelization, service, charity. These are the “Francis effects” in the Curia.

Some of the proposals of the constitution will require changes in canon law. Will you go through the canon afterwards?

In some cases we will have to, because you can’t have the constitution contradicting canon law.

Shouldn’t that have been done before?

That’s too cumbersome. But the Holy Father can simply say, we’re changing these Codes, and it will have to be done. It’s taking a lot of time, but this will be done. One of the reasons we took a lot of time is because before we began drafting, we met with all the dicasteries. I thought there wouldn’t be so much feedback seeing that we consulted with them before, but it seems people kept thinking about it!

Changing gears. Is the pope going to India?

We hope so. He wants to go. I’ve also been negotiating with the government, because since the pope is a head of state, he needs the invitation from the government. Now that the election is done, we have to talk about when he might come and where. Before the elections, the prime minister told me it was possible, but that the right slot of time had to be found.

A lot of people seeing India from outside fear that the fact that the government was reelected means there’s going to be an increase in radicalization, with a growth of hatred towards religious minorities. Are you afraid for the Christian community?

I would not say I’m afraid, no. Ultimately, it’s our government, and we have to work with it. My only hesitation, anxiety, is that there’s no opposition practically for the government, and this is not good for any country. You need the checks and balances, and the Church is only 2 percent, and obviously, we can’t be that opposition.

We are in touch with the government, and hopefully we will be able to work together. It’s a Hindu-majority country, and we have to accept that. [Is that what the famous Catholic missionaries to India said in the past, that we have to accept that the majority of the population is pagan? Is this what St. Thomas the Apostle said, is this what St. Francis Xavier said? No! Their charity, compassion, and zeal for the salvation of souls drove them to help souls reach Heaven, through the saving waters of Baptism!]

But everyone should be safe, no matter their religion?

Yes, this is true. And the government also has to be inclusive. And I hope for that.

On July 1, a court ruled that the police had to stop investigating the claim that you had covered up a case of abuse, saying that you’d done what you had to do. Did you, at any time, think the result could be different? That there was more you could have done?

We’re absolutely certain that we did what we should have done. Even in the previous judgement, the judge said that there was no allegation over the way it was handled for over five years, and that suddenly they were reaching out. But there’s sufficient documentary evidence: I met with the survivor in the afternoon, and left for the airport shortly thereafter, telling my auxiliary to go to the police, which he did the very next day. I worry about the image that the Church might have, of having covered up; and absolutely not.

What has been the impact of the February meeting in India?

I think that the bishops are conscious of their responsibility, and we’ve had national guidelines for some years now, even if we don’t have enough personnel in every diocese to address these issues when they arise. For this reason, I’m working on having some dioceses share their resources when it comes to this, have a commission that can work for more than one. We haven’t had many cases, but we know that there are, without a doubt. The Church is bleeding with this in every country.

There’s always more to be done, but the Church had a set of guidelines even before the government did in India, even if Rome took some time to approve those guidelines!

Is there any update on the declaration of martyrdom of the victims of Kandamal, perhaps the worst anti-Christian pogrom of the early 21st century, with over 100 people killed in a matter of days, and some 50,000 people finding refuge in a nearby forest?

I offered to help with my own experts from Bombay, to take the first steps, but I confess that I’m not fully up to date. I spoke with people in the Vatican Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, because there’s no doubt in my mind that they are martyrs, but some here in Rome and in India are conscious that the time has to be right because of the local situation, but we should at least begin the process, have it ready.

I’ve spoken with the victims, relatives, wives and survivors, and I think that there wouldn’t be doubt, from what they said, that they are martyrs. Thank you for reminding me that we need to move this along.

Anything else?

Keep India in your prayers. We have a lot to offer the world, and the Church.

[Red font emphasis - The Catacombs]

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Cardinal says Curia reform will have ‘Francis effect’ Jul 8, 2019 14:11:37 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2019 14:11:37 GMT

Jul 8, 2019 13:57:35 GMT Admin said:

Synodality and collegiality have also come out, but the principal things are being at the service of the pope and the bishops.

We hope that the office of the papal almoner will become a dicastery. The message is to focus on evangelization, service, charity. These are the “Francis effects” in the Curia.

Some of the proposals of the constitution will require changes in canon law. Will you go through the canon afterwards?

In some cases we will have to, because you can’t have the constitution contradicting canon law.

Here is the warning given by Archbishop Lefebvre against this encroachment upon the Papal authority,

otherwise known since Vatican II as Collegiality:

Collegiality excerpt from "I Accuse the Council"

Archbishop Lefebvre conferring during Vatican II

This segment about the debate on Collegiality during the Second Vatican Council is an excerpt from

Archbishop Lefebvre's book, I Accuse the Council!

Vatican II: the Second Session—Third Intervention (Oct. 1963)

Intervention connected with the notion of “Collegiality” in the schema, "The Church" (Chap.2)

This third intervention related to the question of collegiality, which some wanted to introduce into the Church’s doctrine concerning the relative powers of the pope and bishops. The term “college” had already been in use in the Church for many centuries, but all those who used it readily admitted that it meant a college of a particular nature.

The attempt to apply the term “collegiality” to the relations which united the pope and the bishops meant that an abstract and generic notion was being applied to a particular college. The “college” was in danger of no longer being considered as a particular college having an individual at its head, a person with full power vested in himself. Instead the tendency would be to diminish the autonomy of this power and to make it dependent in its exercise on the other members.

It was clear that this was the aim envisaged—to set up a permanent collegiality which would force the pope to act only when surrounded by a senate sharing in his power in an habitual and permanent way. This was, in fact, to diminish the exercise of the power of the pope.

The Church’s doctrine, on the other hand, states that for the College to be qualified to act as a college with the pope, it must be invited by the pope himself to meet and act with him. This has, in fact, only occurred in the Councils, which have been exceptional events.

Hence the emphatic interventions which occurred, in particular that of Bishop Carli.

Text of the Intervention (read publicly)

Venerable Brethren,

I am speaking on behalf of several Fathers, whose names I am handing to the General Secretariat.

It has seemed to us that if the text of Chap.2, nos.16 and 17, be retained as it is at present, the pastoral intention of the Council may be placed in grave danger.

This text, in fact, claims that the members of the College of Bishops possess a right of government, either with the Sovereign Pontiff over the universal Church or with the other bishops over the various dioceses.

From a practical point of view, collegiality would exist, both through an international Senate residing in Rome and governing the universal Church with the Sovereign Pontiff, and through the national Assemblies of Bishops possessing true rights and duties in all the dioceses of one particular nation.

In this way national or international Colleges would gradually take the place in the Church of the personal Government of a single Pastor. Several Fathers have mentioned the danger of a lessening of the power of the Sovereign Pontiff, and we are fully in agreement with them.

But we foresee another danger, even more serious, if possible: the threat of the gradual disappearance of the essential character of the bishops, namely that they are “true pastors, each one of whom feeds and governs his own flock, entrusted to him in accordance with a power proper to him alone, directly and fully contained in his Order.”

The national assemblies with their commissions would soon—and unconsciously—be feeding and governing all the flocks, so that the priests as well as the laity would find themselves placed between these two pastors: the bishop, whose authority would be theoretical, and the assembly with its commissions, which would, in fact, hold the exercise of that authority.

We could bring forward many examples of difficulties in which priests and people, and even bishops find themselves at variance.

It was certainly Our Lord’s will to found particular churches on the person of their pastor, of whom He spoke so eloquently. The universal Tradition of the Church also teaches us this, as is shown by the great beauty of the liturgy of episcopal consecration.

That is why the episcopal assemblies, based upon a moral collegiality, upon brotherly love and mutual aid, can be of great benefit to apostolic work. But if, on the contrary, they gradually take the place of the bishops because they are founded upon a legal collegiality, they can bring the greatest harm to it.

In order then to avoid transmitting to colleges the functions of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the bishops, we suggest another text in the place of nos.16 and 17, and we submit it to the Conciliar Commission.

(There follows the names of the eight Fathers of the Council who signed this intervention.)

New text suggested in the place of that in Chap.2, no.16, p.27, of the schema, "The Church"
No. 16: The Episcopal College and its head

According to the Gospel, St. Peter and the other Apostles founded a College, instituted by Our Lord Himself, insofar as they remained in communion among themselves under the authority of St. Peter. Similarly, the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are united among themselves.

Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church teach us that only in extraordinary cases did the Apostles and their successors meet together in Councils, and act as a collegiate body under the guidance of Peter or of the Roman Pontiffs. The Apostles, in fact, fulfilled their mission personally and transmitted their power to their successors as they themselves had received it from Our Lord.

The Holy Council of Trent, basing itself on these sacred traditions, confirms that the Roman Pontiff alone possesses in his own person a full, Ordinary episcopal power over the universal Church. As to the bishops. the successors of the Apostles, as true pastors, they feed and govern their own flock entrusted to them, each bishop with a personal power, direct and complete. deriving from his sacred consecration.

Thus at times the bishops also, either some of them or altogether, upon a summons from or with the approval of the Roman Pontiff, meet as a true and proper College, acting with a single authority to define and rule the interests of the universal Church or of individual churches.

Such is the constant and unanimous Tradition of the Catholic Church and no one can call it in question. Such is the ineffable and wonderful Constitution of the Church. which has remained unchangeable up to the present day and is destined to remain so up to the end of time, in accordance with Our Lord’s promises.

It is true that present circumstances make it advisable for the bishops to meet more frequently, united in the charity of Christ, in order to share in common their thoughts, desires. decisions, and pastoral cares, keeping always perfect unity, however, without diminishing the power of the Roman Pontiff, or that of each individual bishop.

Commentary on the session by Archbishop Lefebvre

The result of these interventions was an important modification of the text, but it was not yet, however, completely satisfactory. The Holy Father was therefore respectfully urged to make a clear statement which would avoid any ambiguous interpretation of the text. And it was the insertion of the nota explicative that restored the traditional teaching. This note was very unwillingly accepted in Liberal circles. Henceforth it forms part of the Acts of the Council and modifies Chap.2 of the schema, The Church.

Fourth Intervention (Nov. 6, 1963)

On the schema for the decree, "The Bishops and Government of the Dioceses"

This intervention concerned the schema entitled De Pastorali Munere Episcoporum in Ecclesia. This schema returned to the relations of the bishops with the pope and again tried to introduce new formulae which would limit the freedom of the pope in the exercise of his functions.

In the schema proposed, it was stated on p.6, no.3, lines 16-20:

The power of the Roman Pontiff remaining unchanged as regards reserving to himself in all things the causes that he himself shall judge fit to retain, whether they come within his jurisdiction of their very nature, or to keep the unity of the Church..."

The second reason mentioned here introduced a new element which changed Canon 220 [1917 Code of Canon Law—Ed.]. The latter says, in effect:

Those causes are called major which because of their importance revert to the Roman Pontiff alone, whether by their nature or whether by a positive law."

Thus, instead of a positive law which is none other than Canon Law, a criterion was introduced which would allow the powers that the pope reserves to himself—“the guardianship of the unity of the Church”—to be contested.

Moreover, on p.7 of the schema the question arises of the choice of the bishops who could assist the Roman Congregations by their work. A distinctly democratic climate was introduced here:

Bishops of different nations, each designated by his national episcopal conference, shall be nominated by the Apostolic See in the various Congregations."

Text of the Intervention

Venerable Fathers,

The introduction clearly states: “The Second Vatican Council now begins to deal with subjects which are strictly and truly pastoral.” Nevertheless, these subjects cannot be studied thoroughly and honestly unless one bases one’s examination on definite theological principles.

Thus two statements must be made, in my opinion, about Chap.1, which deals with the relations between the bishops and the Sovereign Pontiff.

1. As it has been drawn up, this chapter is clearly based—and that most excellently—on principles of divine Catholic doctrine which are certain and already defined, especially by the First Vatican Council.

Furthermore, this chapter is in very close agreement with the words of the Sovereign Pontiff in his recent addresses.

Speaking of the bishops associated with him in the exercise of his functions, the Sovereign Pontiff explicitly used the phrase “in conformity with the reaching of the Church and with Canon Law.” The judgment of the Sovereign Pontiff in no way postulates a new principle. Canon 230 had already declared:

The Most Reverend and Most Eminent Cardinals form the Senate of the Roman Pontiff and assist him in the government of the Church as his principal counselors and auxiliaries.”

Nevertheless, in order to safeguard in every way what are certain basic principles, two amendments seem to me to be essential:

p.6, line 16: for the words 'or to keep the unity of the Church,' let the terms of Canon Law, Canon 220, be substituted, 'or by positive law.' "

p.7, lines 12-23: let the words 'should be designated by the national episcopal conference' be re-worded in order to safeguard fully the liberty of the Sovereign Pontiff in the exercise of his power."

2. As the relations between the bishops and the Sovereign Pontiff must be based upon principles which are absolutely certain, in no way can mention be made of the principle of juridical collegiality. In fact, as His Eminence Cardinal Brown pointed out, this principle of juridical collegiality cannot be proved.

If, by some miracle, this principle should be discovered in this Council, and solemnly affirmed, it would then be logically necessary to assent, as one of the Fathers has almost declared:

The Roman Church has erred in not knowing the fundamental principle of her divine Constitution, namely, the principle of juridical collegiality. And that over many centuries."

Logically, too, it would have to be stated that the Roman Pontiffs have abused their power up to the present day, by denying to the bishops rights which are theirs by divine law. Could we not then say to the Sovereign Pontiff what some have said to him in equivalent terms: “Pay what thou owest”?

Now, this is grotesque and without the slightest foundation.

To conclude: if we are speaking of moral collegiality, who will deny it? Everyone admits it. But such collegiality only produces moral relations. If we are speaking of juridical collegiality, on the other hand, then, as Bishop Carli has said so well:

It can be proved neither by Holy Scripture, nor by theology, nor by history.”

It is thus more prudent not to have recourse to this principle, since it is by no means certain.

Footnote

1 Cf. the definitive text of the constitution Lumen Gentium, nos.22-23.