The appointment of a cardinal pro-prefect for the Dicastery for Religious could defuse a long-simmering canonical debate over the link between sacred orders and authority in the Church
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.
After reading up on Sister Brambilla's career and work, it seems like an... ok pick.
We'll see how it goes. At least it's not a pick along the lines of the Undersecretary Sister(-in-name-only) Nathalie Becquart.
My one area of speculation is whether or not Sister Brambilla will reform the somewhat-recent changes to the Church's laws surrounding the formation of religious postulants and novices. It now takes a minimum 12 years to reach final vows. Many good women's orders were shocked and dismayed, and I distinctly remember reading somewhere a lament of one Mother Superior, something along this line: "how can I ask these ladies to undergo formation for 12 years to reach their vocation? It's like a woman going through a 12-year-long engagement to be married!"
Yes, I shared the reaction of that Mother Superior when I heard this proposal for "up to 12 years to final vows". Has the Vatican lost interest in the survival of the religious life, or at least in the survival of enclosed orders?
Although it is less extreme, a similar consideration applies to the idea for a propaedeutic year for the diocesan priesthood. You need a preparation period as long as a doctor? Not good enough. You also need a propaedeutic period of one to two years before major seminary.
It might be a coincidence that vocations to the diocesan priesthood in England and Wales have fallen through the floor since the propaedeutic year was introduced in the late 1990s and two out of four seminaries have closed, with very likely more to come.
Of course we have also had the abuse scandal and total doctrinal chaos since the 1990s. But extending the training period cannot have helped, especially with an increased age of entry to seminaries.
I will be "hung, drawn, and quartered" by my fellow priests for merely putting this in writing; but if you really want to add to the priestly formation program so as to benefit priests and their people, I would put the "propaedeutic" year after ordination. Of course you would have to call it something different. After ordination, spend three months in a parish, then two weeks back at the seminary. A week of retreat, then a week to discuss all the questions you have after you have actually been a priest. Repeat the cycle for a year.
This is a brilliant idea. It'd be even better if those priests received feedback from the parish priest for the three-month term plus a select few laypeople from the parish, too.
Well, it currently takes at least 9 years to become a priest:
Propaedeutic Year: 1 Year
College Seminary: 4 Years
Theology: 4 Years
(Pastoral Year: 1 Year)
A pastoral year is optional. In some diocese it is mandatory, but that may change with the new structure for priestly formation that has been implemented. (The last semester of the fourth year of theology is spent full time in a parish.) However, for most seminarians a pastoral year exists to address issues related to formation. Since those issues won't magically disappear, it would be foolish to think that the need for pastoral years will disappear. (After 8 or so years in a seminary, even psychologically healthy - or one could say particularly psychologically healthy - men need a break to the "relative normalcy" of a parish.) So for many seminarians it is closer to 10 years of formation. If a man has an undergraduate degree, it is usually closer to 8 years. So while 12 years of formation for the religious order in the previous comment rightly seems long, it is not all that different from other formation programs.
However, this does highlight the underlying, fundamental issue: To paraphrase my (former) seminary rector: "The proposition that increasing the time spent in formation will decrease the number of those who depart from Holy Orders or religious life ... is ... unproven .... "
Some say that the default approach by governments to problems is to spend more money; or by corporations that everything can be solved by increasing the salaries of executives. In the Church, it is "add another year to formation." All of these are ... unproven ... to put it mildly.
Canonically this makes zero sense... How can a layman or -woman exercise the power of governance over clerics? The Ghirlandaian novelty is that Sr. Brambilla "delegates" this power to Cdl Prefect Artime. But this is a power which she has never possessed, and is not competent to receive, not being in orders herself!
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.
After reading up on Sister Brambilla's career and work, it seems like an... ok pick.
We'll see how it goes. At least it's not a pick along the lines of the Undersecretary Sister(-in-name-only) Nathalie Becquart.
My one area of speculation is whether or not Sister Brambilla will reform the somewhat-recent changes to the Church's laws surrounding the formation of religious postulants and novices. It now takes a minimum 12 years to reach final vows. Many good women's orders were shocked and dismayed, and I distinctly remember reading somewhere a lament of one Mother Superior, something along this line: "how can I ask these ladies to undergo formation for 12 years to reach their vocation? It's like a woman going through a 12-year-long engagement to be married!"
Yes, I shared the reaction of that Mother Superior when I heard this proposal for "up to 12 years to final vows". Has the Vatican lost interest in the survival of the religious life, or at least in the survival of enclosed orders?
Although it is less extreme, a similar consideration applies to the idea for a propaedeutic year for the diocesan priesthood. You need a preparation period as long as a doctor? Not good enough. You also need a propaedeutic period of one to two years before major seminary.
It might be a coincidence that vocations to the diocesan priesthood in England and Wales have fallen through the floor since the propaedeutic year was introduced in the late 1990s and two out of four seminaries have closed, with very likely more to come.
Of course we have also had the abuse scandal and total doctrinal chaos since the 1990s. But extending the training period cannot have helped, especially with an increased age of entry to seminaries.
I will be "hung, drawn, and quartered" by my fellow priests for merely putting this in writing; but if you really want to add to the priestly formation program so as to benefit priests and their people, I would put the "propaedeutic" year after ordination. Of course you would have to call it something different. After ordination, spend three months in a parish, then two weeks back at the seminary. A week of retreat, then a week to discuss all the questions you have after you have actually been a priest. Repeat the cycle for a year.
This is a brilliant idea. It'd be even better if those priests received feedback from the parish priest for the three-month term plus a select few laypeople from the parish, too.
"sister in name only"?
Well, it currently takes at least 9 years to become a priest:
Propaedeutic Year: 1 Year
College Seminary: 4 Years
Theology: 4 Years
(Pastoral Year: 1 Year)
A pastoral year is optional. In some diocese it is mandatory, but that may change with the new structure for priestly formation that has been implemented. (The last semester of the fourth year of theology is spent full time in a parish.) However, for most seminarians a pastoral year exists to address issues related to formation. Since those issues won't magically disappear, it would be foolish to think that the need for pastoral years will disappear. (After 8 or so years in a seminary, even psychologically healthy - or one could say particularly psychologically healthy - men need a break to the "relative normalcy" of a parish.) So for many seminarians it is closer to 10 years of formation. If a man has an undergraduate degree, it is usually closer to 8 years. So while 12 years of formation for the religious order in the previous comment rightly seems long, it is not all that different from other formation programs.
However, this does highlight the underlying, fundamental issue: To paraphrase my (former) seminary rector: "The proposition that increasing the time spent in formation will decrease the number of those who depart from Holy Orders or religious life ... is ... unproven .... "
Some say that the default approach by governments to problems is to spend more money; or by corporations that everything can be solved by increasing the salaries of executives. In the Church, it is "add another year to formation." All of these are ... unproven ... to put it mildly.
I mean, the church is just an NGO anyways, right?
Canonically this makes zero sense... How can a layman or -woman exercise the power of governance over clerics? The Ghirlandaian novelty is that Sr. Brambilla "delegates" this power to Cdl Prefect Artime. But this is a power which she has never possessed, and is not competent to receive, not being in orders herself!
" ...suitably disciplined." 🤣