There was a lot of buzz leading up to the the note on world financial matters released by the Holy See on Monday.
One of the first references I saw to it was in a story with a headline something like “Major Vatican Document to Be Released Monday.” I clicked on the story and saw that the document in question was to be released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. My eyebrows immediately went up, and I began pondering the sense in which the term “major” was being used.
I suspect that the person who wrote the headline was using the term in its ordinary sense, which would signify a document of great importance relative to others issued by the Holy See, on some kind of absolute or general scale. You know, the way a papal encyclical is a major document.
But I suspect that the person who wrote the headline was under a misimpression, because the document was not major in this way.
“Major” is a relative term, and while it might be accurate to say that the document was “major” by the lights of the PCJP, it was not major in the overall Vatican sweep of things. The mere fact that it’s being issued by the PCJP tells you that much.
That’s no slight to the PCJP. It is a dicastery (department) of the Holy See, with its own proper work and role. It’s just not a venue the pope uses to issue major documents, when “major” is read in terms of the Vatican as a whole.
Because of the controversial nature of the document, it attracted a great deal of comment in the press, with some loving and some loathing it. Others loved certain aspects of the document and loathed others. And there was a great deal of discussion regarding what kind of authority the document has.
George Weigel stated:
The truth of the matter is that “the Vatican” — whether that phrase is intended to mean the Pope, the Holy See, the Church’s teaching authority, or the Church’s central structures of governance — called for precisely nothing in this document. The document is a “Note” from a rather small office in the Roman Curia. The document’s specific recommendations do not necessarily reflect the settled views of the senior authorities of the Holy See; indeed, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the press spokesman for the Vatican, was noticeably circumspect in his comments on the document and its weight. As indeed he ought to have been. The document doesn’t speak for the Pope, it doesn’t speak for “the Vatican,” and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote:
I can say this: Thanks be to God this “white paper” doesn’t form part of the Holy Father’s Ordinary Magisterium.
Every once in a while the Holy See’s smaller offices, Pontifical Councils and so forth, have to put out a paper to justify their budgets and remind everyone that they take up valuable space. These documents, which do not form part of the Holy Father’s Magisterium, can deal with critical issues like how to be a safe driver. The dicasteries keep busy by hosting seminars on how to play sport and so forth.
Mark Brumley states:
Even though Catholics are not obliged to accept the policy proposals of this “note,” many Catholics will nevertheless want to hear what the council says, and others are likely to be influenced by it, even though it does not represent “the Vatican’s position” (contrary to what some media accounts and some leftwing Catholics would lead you to believe).
Each of these gentlemen is correct in the assertion that the document does not represent the Church’s teaching authority or magisterium—at least the document as a whole does not. (It does contain quotations from other documents which do carry magisterial authority, and those passages carry the same authority as they had in their original context.)
This is stuff that people who make a close study of the Holy See and the way it operates are aware of, but the secular media doesn’t pay close enough attention to know, and they regularly misrepresent things. Because the media doesn’t know how to process these things, they haven’t done a good job informing the general public about them, and so the ordinary person gets misleading headlines like “Pope Calls for World Bank” or things like that.
So how do we know that gentlemen like Weigel, Zuhlsdorf and Brumley are correct?
What I’d like to do here is offer a few brief thoughts on the subject. First, in this post, let’s deal with the question of how “major” the document is or—per Weigel and Zuhlsdorf—what the status of the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace is. In a second post, we’ll look at the question of whether documents like this represent the Magisterium of the Church.
First, let’s talk about the Roman Curia—the set of “dicasteries” or departments that includes the PCJP (the picture above is Pope Benedict addressing the Curia in 2009). The basic document governing the Curia is an apostolic constitution issued by John Paul II in 1988 called Pastor Bonus (Latin, “Good Shepherd”). This document provided the overall legal and organizational framework within which the Curia works today (though Pope Benedict has modified it a bit). According to the document:
Art. 1 — The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. It thus strengthens the unity of the faith and the communion of the people of God and promotes the mission proper to the Church in the world.
It then explains the concept of a dicastery and an institute more closely:
Art. 2 — § 1. By the word “dicasteries” are understood the Secretariat of State, Congregations, Tribunals, Councils and Offices, namely the Apostolic Camera, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, and the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. . . .
§ 3. Among the institutes of the Roman Curia are the Prefecture of the Papal Household and the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.
Another thing that Article 2 of Pastor Bonus explains is that:
§ 2. The dicasteries are juridically equal among themselves.
This means that they have an equality before the law, though it does not mean that they are all equal in duties or influence. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law
While the dicasteries are technically juridically equal, they are not equal in importance or power. Normally no dicastery has any power over another; each responds directly to the pope regarding its activity (p. 479; on cc. 360-361).
The commentary then, in further passages, remarks on some of the differences in the influence and power of different dicasteries, noting that the Secretariat of State plays a central role and is especially close to the pope, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has an especially influential role among the congregations, etc.
In practice, it is not difficult to determine the relative influence of particular departments. They are, in fact, listed in Pastor Bonus itself in terms of their relative importance. Notice that Article 2 lists the Secretariat of State first, then the Congregations, then Tribunals, then Councils, and then Offices. This is the same order that you find if you go to the Roman Curia’s page on the Vatican web site. You’ll see exactly the same list of categories, in the same order (and further expanded and extended to include additional bodies).
This is the basic power structure within the Curia. While all departments may be juridically equal, those dicasteries that are higher up in the hierarchy have more influence in practical terms and those which are lower have less. The Secretariat of State has the most influence, followed by the Congregations. These include the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has the most influence of all congregations (which is why it’s listed first in every such list; it doesn’t come in this order alphabetically in Latin; the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Congregation for Clerics, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would all come before it alphabetically in Latin), then other dicasteries with portfolios sufficiently weighty to be given the status of Congregation. Afterwards there are the Tribunals, and then we get to the Councils, one of which is the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. And it’s not at the top of the Council list. It’s the fourth one down in another non-(Latin-)alphabetical list of Councils that gives at least something of an idea of the relative influence of each Council.
As the commentary quoted above notes, these departments do not normally exercise power over each other. For the most part, they function in dependently based on their own particular missions. There are, however, exceptions. The Secretariat of State plays a coordinating role among the dicasteries to some extent. When a question of doctrine is in dispute, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gets called in. The Signatura (one of the Tribunals) may be called upon to settle certain disputes between dicasteries about which one is competent in a particular area. And the pope himself can always intervene and make other provisions. But the general level of authority is indicated by the hierarchy given in Pastor Bonus, and Councils are not at the top of it.
This is why Weigel refers to the latter as a “rather small office” in the Curia and why Zuhlsdorf refers to it as one of the Curia’s “smaller offices.” This isn’t true just in terms of staff size. It’s true in terms of their relative level of authority.
It’s also why I raised my eyebrows at the claim that a “major” document would be released by the PCJP. As a Council, it occupies a place (and not the first place) on the fourth tier of dicasteries, and it’s not the kind of department that is used to issue “major” documents in terms of the overall sweep of things at the Vatican. A given document may be major compared to documents the Justice and Peace council normally issues, but under ordinary circumstances they won’t be major compared to documents issued, say, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments—or the pope himself.
If one wants to accurately assess the import of a particular document, an important part of that assessment will be the nature of the one issuing the document.
That still doesn’t get us to the question of whether the document represents the teaching authority or Magisterium of the Church, though, so let’s talk about that next time.
Comments
Post a Comment
Has a Curia ever betrayed the Pope?
Looking forward to the rest of this analysis. I’m sure you will be honest and fair in assessing this document’s importance and content, though I have a hunch that you will probably be a bit more critical towards it than I would.
As for the reaction of the mainstream media, I think that, for once, their intent was probably not malicious : they just thought it was fair to call it a “major” document because 1) it deals with “major” issues (the financial and economic crisis) ; 2) it “majorly’ interests them as opposed to a document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on a precise point of Catholic teaching (which, let’s be honest, he’s quite understandable for secular medias).
To Thibaud’s guess, I’d add a third component:
“3. It provides crypto-socialists in the Church’s lay ministries with yet another excuse for accusing the rest of us of heresy.”
Come on, friend. In certain things unity, in doubtful liberty, in all things charity. We can disagree on economic issues without calling each other heretics or suspecting a nefarious plot amongst the Roman Curia (or even amongst the secular media. Many secular journalists hate the Catholic Church but I am sure that many do not and are just honestly clueless about it).
Didn’t Harry Truman say, “The buck stops here?” Granted, the Pope cannot keep his thumb on everything going on in the Vatican, but when someone makes a big blooper, that someone is accountable. If there is no correction or clarification, and if those responsible are not replaced, then the supreme authority is responsible. This is a problem because of the metastasized bureaucracy which began under Paul VI. Why have a “Peace and Justice” office at all? It has a history of gross misjudgments.
A question to ask - Does even a “low-level” office issue a statement without having it vetted by the Secretary of State or other office? I seem to remember reading that all documents for public consumption from an office are examined for fidelity to the teaching of the church. This does not give it magisterial weight, but it does mean that it is line what the church teaches. Is the vetting indeed occur?
Second - the constant drumbeat of this office or this group is committing a heresy or has made a misjudgment is becoming damaging not only to the church itself, but to many of the faithful. ALthough I am sure I am left of many people who write here I am still a Catholic and if I put more emphasis on the social teaching of the church vis-a-vis poverty and how it should be relieved then others does not make me a heretic or a crytpto-socialist or any other “non-catholic” type.
This document should lead to a reasoned discussion of the role of our greed in society and of how much emphasis we put on the government or other entity to control our greed and devolve into name-calling and statements about one office being a mistake or anther being correct.
Just the thoughts of a Catholic trying to make his way through life with the help of Christ and teh Church.
Enough of this insane church gibberish. The people must go back to the just the Holy Spirit and their higher selves.
I would like to comment on word inflation. “Major” being a relative adjective is subject to inflation. At least in American English, people use “extremely”, e.g. important, to mean “very”, e.g. important, when neither adverb applies. So is it a surprise when a minor adjective like “major” gets used that is really means “minor”. Unless of course you want to sell newspapers or promote an ideology.
Thansk, Jimmy! This was helpful in a Christian forum I frequent, where there was a lot of freewheeling specualtion goin’ on. I’m looking forward to part 2 of your analysis.
I think that one of the reasons this document is getting so much attention from the press is that its content appeals most strongly to that particular group which knows the least about the Church. The mainstream media is notorious not only for its extreme progressive bias but also for its profound ignorance about the true nature and workings of the Catholic Church. As proof, I bet that if you contacted the people in the media who are promoting this as an important Church document, not one of them would be able to define subsidiarity or explain its significance in Catholic thought or why it is at odds with the content of this document.
An important problem already alluded to is that such a statement coming out of the Vatican may be from a minor department, may be just a “Note”, may not represent official policy, and may not be definitive Church teaching BUT for most of the world and for many Catholics these qualifications are unknown. It is held as a declaration by the Catholic Church from its highest authorities. And as such it risks bringing the Church’s teaching authority into disrepute. For it does not just lay down principles it makes recommendations in the economic and political sphere that many will consider beyond their competence, even incompetent. And if in this area why not others?
Exactly right, Margaret. The progressives in the media and the progressive in the Church are locking arms, so as to force-feed this nonsense to the masses (no pun intended, although I fear some of us may start hearing this dribble at Mass during the homily).
The ‘note’ may be unimportant in itself and the Peace and Justice may an irrelevant dicastery. However, the note becomes very very important when we take into account that Pope Benedict XVI mentioned the need for an enigmatic “World Political Authority” in his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate. I guess the present note shed some light on what the Pope really meant two years ago.
I just took the time to read encyclicals from Popes Leo, Pius, JOhn and John Paul II and Benedict and find that this “note” seems to be really aligned with their messages. Jamie B. I guess then the dribble you allude to is encyclical dribble. And I guess unbeknown to many historians Popes Leo, Pius , John Paul II and Benedict became progressives. Lindsay if the church is incompetent in this sphere then I guess outside liturgy and Christ like areas - except all things on earth come from God. What makes most sad is that the comments I see here demonstrate what JK Galbreth said “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. This is a truly sad day for Catholic thought.
Not so fast, Andy.
I’m also acquainted with the previous encyclicals. Church teaching is not contrary to a “World Political Authority” provided such authority is itself Catholic. What we have now, however, is very different. What’s being proposed is not a new expanded version of the Holy Roman Empire. In such case I’d promptly agree. What’s being proposed now is simply the endorsement of the UN policy.
Andy, I agree with your earlier comment with respect to civility towards one another, and I definately agree with your last comment with respect to justification for selfishness. I would consider myself to be the opposite of you though (right of center here). So I do question, as I too have read those encyclicals, your interpretation of what you read. I came away with an opposite view than you. Is it possible that we are BOTH reading our bias into them? I think so.
“The Vatican’s Frightening Call for an End to Economic Freedom
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:10 AM
By: Richard Viguerie
The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has long been a source of radical political thinking within the Catholic Church. This week’s statement by the Council, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public,” confirmed the radical economic agenda of the leftist intellectuals who hold sway there.
Outside the classroom of a major university, it would be hard to find a more socialism-based economic plan than the one espoused in the statement.
Not only does it legitimize the various “Occupy” crowds, its criticism of capitalism goes beyond the Council’s past commentary on economics to call for nothing less than the abolition of economic freedom and the establishment of a new world economic system managed by the United Nations.
The plan, while couched in terms of a voluntary change for greater world good, would actually require that nations surrender their sovereignty to a new world body endowed with the authority to tax and manage all movement of capital between counties.
Unfortunately, by choosing the discredited United Nations as the vehicle to implement its call for a more just world economy, the Vatican statement demonstrated a distressing lack of connection with what has really gone on at the United Nations.
Gone would be the constitutional protections of freedom, life, and property that Americans now enjoy. In their place would be rules set by a new world governing body run by countries like Iran, Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia.
If the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is any indication, implementing the Vatican statement would achieve exactly the opposite of the desired result.
Far from creating a more just world economic order and empowering the powerless, a supranational financial regulatory scheme run by the U.N. would deprive billions of people across the globe of their economic freedom and concentrate power in the hands of a few faceless international bureaucrats.
The Church intellectuals who advocate such means to achieve “social justice” never seem to get to the point where they reconcile the repression necessary to make it work with the spiritual freedom necessary to Christianity.
As in the past, this latest effort to use inherently coercive secular tools to achieve the Church’s social goals is much more likely to undermine the moral authority of the Church than it is to achieve social justice.”
Jennifer - I would agree that we are reading the encyclicals through our own lenses. It is that interpretation that allows us to have a discussion. John B. - I appreciate your comments about the “World Political Authority” although I might disagree, but I am not a scholar of papal encyclicals. I can only read them through my own understandings of the Catholic Social Teachings. I would appreciate any references so I can follow what you are saying more clearly. I would hope we could agree that there is something wrong with the way the world seems to be moving, even if we have a different view of how to correct the path.
When Pope John XXIII was once asked, “How many people work in the Vatican?” he allegedly answered, “About half.”
Raise an eyebrow? I’m not even surprised… You act as if the media hasn’t made sensationalist stories before based on sheer ignorance or simply outright stupidity. In a media world where journalists freely label porn stars as being ‘devout Catholics’ without blinking, none of this should come as any surprise. What surprises me is the Church’s gnorance or habit of giving the mainstream media any credit whatsoever. This ain’t the 1800s. The Church needs to desparately get on board with the reality of the situation and step up its media efforts to make things as clear as possible. The Church needs to treat the media like the dummies they are. Corporations learnt to do that a long time ago. The Church continues to fail at this and wonders why things are getting out of hand. They need to spell things out and realize they’re dealing with people who don’t know what the heck a ‘dicastery’ is…
Andy,
Immortale Dei by Leo XIII, among others (Syllabus, e.g.), teaches us that a State has the moral obligation to publicly profess the Catholic faith. Therefore, if that so called “World Political Authority” is to be a political body with real authority and with means and power to enforce its decisions (not merely a council nor an association of free States), it has to be Catholic. Please notice that the Holy See, being currently a sovereign independent State, will also render part of her sovereignity in temporal matters to such “World Political Authority”. That’s an absurd unless that “Authority” is officialy Catholic, which of course is uthopic as far as we can foresee.
John B. Thank you for your reference to Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei - I had/have not as yet read that - it looks like a weekend job as I have papers to grade today and tomorrow - the encyclicals I had the opportunity to read, were listed as Social Justice Encyclicals, the search I did, brought them to me. I look forward to reading this one as well. Again thank you.
Just because a World Bank is most likely extremely misguided for the here and now (and perhaps for decades and centuries to come) doesn’t mean this document is bad. The UN is similarly bad, but which of you is calling for the Vatican to leave it? A World Bank is probably more likely to occur than not in our growing global interdependence, no matter what the Vatican’s position. The Vatican should help form its vocabulary, at its infancy stages, advocating for a preferential option for the poor, rather than bury its head in the sand.
“Therefore, if that so called “World Political Authority” is to be a political body with real authority and with means and power to enforce its decisions (not merely a council nor an association of free States), it has to be Catholic. Please notice that the Holy See, being currently a sovereign independent State, will also render part of her sovereignity in temporal matters to such “World Political Authority”.”
Vatican City only has observer status at the U.N., probably for precisely this reason. The Biblical validation for this is 1 Cor 6:1-4: any political body that resolves conflicts and differences must, for Christians, be made up of Christians. TO allow unbelievers to set policy and judgements over believers is (in St. Paul’s words) “shameful”.
Very informative.
Do you think the Vatican will sell its priceless art treasures if this world body decides the money should be spent providing fresh water to the thousands of Africans who are dying of bad water?
If you believe in an “ideology of economic liberalism” (aka free market corporatist capitalism) you don’t agree with the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Sorry.
I promise to be charitable to you even though you do not act this way to me. I have been called many names for agreeing with the Church. What a blessing!
Once more thing… Peace and justice are not ‘minor’ issues.
“Do you think the Vatican will sell its priceless art treasures if this world body decides the money should be spent providing fresh water to the thousands of Africans who are dying of bad water?”
Rolf- can we put you down to purchase some of the art then?
No, I don’t have much money. I was expecting to be on the receiving end.
“Do you think the Vatican will sell its priceless art treasures if this world body decides the money should be spent providing fresh water to the thousands of Africans who are dying of bad water?”
“Rolf- can we put you down to purchase some of the art then?”
“No, I don’t have much money. I was expecting to be on the receiving end.”
Might I point you, then, to John 12:3-6?
James 5
Warning to Rich Oppressors
“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.”
Luke 6:24
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.