I've always thought this was a debate that had profound academic ramifications, but not a lot of practical ramifications. Especially with regards to the Curia, they do not issue rulings in their own name. The entire vatican apparatus really is a unitary executive. Why that would preclude a layman I have never understood.
I've always thought this was a debate that had profound academic ramifications, but not a lot of practical ramifications. Especially with regards to the Curia, they do not issue rulings in their own name. The entire vatican apparatus really is a unitary executive. Why that would preclude a layman I have never understood.
The biggest problem seems to be optics, in that nobody wants to portray rome as an absolute monarchy, where bishops are mere functionaries of the Pope should they be involved in curial governance. Which.... they are, at least in regard to curial governance. Nothing stopping a layman from participating in that aspect of governance at the behest of the pope outside of ruffling people's perceptions.
Yet those advocating those more radical reforms have little desire to do that for obvious reasons (in that they would still act in the popes name, and under his authority, not as MPs of a ceremonial monarch), and bishops and priests surely aren't likely to enthusiastically back a limiting of their prestige.
Yet I do think there will come a time when a future pope dispenses with the show and just delegates certain curial authority to a lay individual. In this Francis seems to be leaning in that direction.
You're wrong about one crucial thing - the participation in governance that you are saying could easily be granted to laypeople is (in many relevant cases) coeval with holy orders. A layman is not competent to receive the power of governance of clerics - period. There are certainly some dicasteries that could be staffed by laymen: Communication, Dicastery in the Service of Charity, Dicastery for Laity Family and Life, Dicastery for Integral Development, are the ones that are most obvious. But the Dicastery for Religious (DICLSAL) exercises governance over clerics! A layperson simply cannot do that. The governance of the Church is something Jesus left to the Apostles, not to laymen. As they used to say in the Middle Ages, "opportet sacerdos praeesse."
You completely missed what I said. Nowhere did I say that a laymen governs over clerics in their own right. Especially since I make clear in the beginning that just as a curial prefect doesn't issue rulings in their own name, neither would a laymen.
This question is far more problematic (and by problematic I mean impossible) when it comes to diocesean governance (which does not stem from the pope and many of its actions are intrinsically reliant upon a bishop as a successor to the apostles) but even today the Curia acts in the name of the Pope, not in their own authority.
Not sure that I *completely* missed it - I think we are both roughly on the same page here. My point is that the Pope cannot delegate certain powers of governance connected to offices (i.e prefects of dicasteries) to those who are not competent to hold them because they lack holy orders. That would include power of governance over religious clerics as in this case. As I understand it, this is a matter of divine law, not positive law, since it was to the apostles that this authority was originally given.
There are different opinions about this, but mine is that it’s a travesty.
At least, if you have a different reading of c. 274 I would be interested in hearing it.
And your point about diocesan bishops is well taken.
I've always thought this was a debate that had profound academic ramifications, but not a lot of practical ramifications. Especially with regards to the Curia, they do not issue rulings in their own name. The entire vatican apparatus really is a unitary executive. Why that would preclude a layman I have never understood.
The biggest problem seems to be optics, in that nobody wants to portray rome as an absolute monarchy, where bishops are mere functionaries of the Pope should they be involved in curial governance. Which.... they are, at least in regard to curial governance. Nothing stopping a layman from participating in that aspect of governance at the behest of the pope outside of ruffling people's perceptions.
Yet those advocating those more radical reforms have little desire to do that for obvious reasons (in that they would still act in the popes name, and under his authority, not as MPs of a ceremonial monarch), and bishops and priests surely aren't likely to enthusiastically back a limiting of their prestige.
Yet I do think there will come a time when a future pope dispenses with the show and just delegates certain curial authority to a lay individual. In this Francis seems to be leaning in that direction.
It would be nice if they would open up curial roles to recruit from Catholics internationally.
You're wrong about one crucial thing - the participation in governance that you are saying could easily be granted to laypeople is (in many relevant cases) coeval with holy orders. A layman is not competent to receive the power of governance of clerics - period. There are certainly some dicasteries that could be staffed by laymen: Communication, Dicastery in the Service of Charity, Dicastery for Laity Family and Life, Dicastery for Integral Development, are the ones that are most obvious. But the Dicastery for Religious (DICLSAL) exercises governance over clerics! A layperson simply cannot do that. The governance of the Church is something Jesus left to the Apostles, not to laymen. As they used to say in the Middle Ages, "opportet sacerdos praeesse."
You completely missed what I said. Nowhere did I say that a laymen governs over clerics in their own right. Especially since I make clear in the beginning that just as a curial prefect doesn't issue rulings in their own name, neither would a laymen.
This question is far more problematic (and by problematic I mean impossible) when it comes to diocesean governance (which does not stem from the pope and many of its actions are intrinsically reliant upon a bishop as a successor to the apostles) but even today the Curia acts in the name of the Pope, not in their own authority.
Not sure that I *completely* missed it - I think we are both roughly on the same page here. My point is that the Pope cannot delegate certain powers of governance connected to offices (i.e prefects of dicasteries) to those who are not competent to hold them because they lack holy orders. That would include power of governance over religious clerics as in this case. As I understand it, this is a matter of divine law, not positive law, since it was to the apostles that this authority was originally given.
There are different opinions about this, but mine is that it’s a travesty.
At least, if you have a different reading of c. 274 I would be interested in hearing it.
And your point about diocesan bishops is well taken.