NEWSLETTER NO. 160 DECEMBER 2009
1. Apostolic Constitution:
Anglicanorum Coetibus [4th November, 2009]
2. Complementary Norms for the
Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) [4th November,
2009]
3. Holy See Press Release [20th
October, 2009]
4. The Significance of the Apostolic
Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus" (Fr Gianfranco
Ghirlanda, S.I.) - from L'Osservatore Romano [18th
November, 2009]
5. Commentary (Mgr Gordon Read)
6. Special Faculties: Dismissal from
the Clerical State (Congregation for the Clergy) [18th April,
2009]
7. Commentary (Bishop John Jukes)
8. Additional commentary (Mgr Gordon
Read)
9. Disciplinary Action against Fr
Tomislav Vlasic: Commentary (Mgr Gordon Read)
10. Restructuring the Pontifical
Commission Ecclesia Dei: Commentary (Mgr Gordon Read)
11. The 'Hermeneutic of Reform' (Mgr
John Hadley)
12. The 'Hermeneutic of Reform': A
Response (Mgr Gordon Read)
13. Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage in Cases of Defect of Form (Mgr Gordon Read)
14. British & Irish Tribunal
Statistics 2008 (Fr Peter Kravos)
15. Address of the Very Rev Dr Ian
Waters at the Catholic Theological College, East Melbourne at
his installation as a Senior Fellow [5th June, 2008]
16. Letter from the Society's
President to the new Archbishop of Birmingham, Rt Rev Bernard
Longley [2nd October, 2009]
On 20 October 2009, Archbishop Vincent
Nichols gave a press conference at Archbishop’s House
4 November 2009 Westminster in connection with the “forthcoming
Apostolic Constitution on the reception of Anglicans into the
Catholic Church by means of the establishment of “Personal
Ordinariates.” At the press conference was also Archbishop Rowan
Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the Conference
information was made public about an Apostolic Constitution
eventually to be called Anglicanorum Coetibus. The document
gave information about the reception into the Catholic Church in a
manner that would allow for those being received (personally) being
able to preserve “elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and
liturgical patrimony”.
The press conference on 20 October indicated that the Apostolic
Constitution would appear shortly (see Documents No I, II and III).
The press release, however, intimated in broad terms what the
Apostolic Constitution was going to say. A number of people have
asked why there was a several week gap between the press release and
the publication of the Apostolic Constitution No specific reason was
given by the Holy See. However, there was some speculation that it
was because there were still arguments going on in Rome about the
issue of celibacy (hardly likely). It also had been advanced in jest
that the Holy See wanted to feel the temperature of the water or
even being able to make changes in advance of publishing the
constitution. However, the Apostolic Constitution is now with us and
so the reasons for any delays is somewhat academic.
All manner of comment emerged, some for and some against the Vatican
move. There were those Anglo-Catholics who were utterly delighted
with the Vatican move; something which had been asked for back in
the early nineties when there was the last influx of Anglicans into
the Church and Catholic priesthood. There were those (Ruth Gledhill
leading the pack) who savaged the Holy See (and specially the Pope)
for stealing, poaching, ambushing (all terms were used in the press)
members of the Church of England. There were those who condemned the
whole move by the Holy See for the adverse impact upon ecumenical
discussions. There were those theological and historical circles
which launched forth against the Holy See, really, for upsetting the
delicate ecumenical ecclesiological balance of ecumenical
discussion. There were those who condemned the Archbishop of
Canterbury for not having rebuked the Holy See for the lack of
notice for the whole move itself. An article on the Apostolic
Constitution and the Complementary Norms, which accompanied it, have
been written by an outstanding Canon Lawyer and Rector of the
Gregorian University (see Document No.IV). Monsignor Gordon Read has
also – in a very short space of time – produced a commentary (see
Document No.V).
The Congregation of the Clergy issued
some specific faculties to diocesan bishops in April 2009.
There has been some puzzlement as to whether these new faculties
(see Document No.VI) are the same as those instructions issued in
Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutelae. However, it is quite clear
same that Sacramentorum Sanctitatis deals with those cases
reserved to the Holy Father. These faculties from the Congregation
of the Clergy are intended for local situations not involving
paedophilia or other criminal charges. (See Document No. VI)
There are three faculties which are concerned with clerics who have
attempted marriage or where there has been a scandalous breach of
divine or Canon Law; or with clergy who have abandoned the priestly
ministry for more than five years. The manner of dealing with such
cases is clearly set out by Bishop John Jukes in Document No. VII).
Monsignor Gordon Read, in addition, has analysed the faculties and
has presented them for immediate use (Document No.VIII).
There have been reports in the press
concerning a Father Tomislav Vlasic (referred to now as Mr Vlasic),
who, time back, was associated with Medjugorje. Clearly, to his
Order and to the Holy See he was something of a “tiresome cleric”.
Action has taken place to reduce him to the lay state (obviously not
at his own request) and dismissal from the Order of Friars Minor.
However, not surprisingly this action has been taken by some to
indicate future condemnation of the Medjugorje phenomenon (as
referred in the official document). On the other hand, the action
taken against Mr Vlasic has been regarded as a means of protection
of the whole Medjugorje phenomenon from wild cat members of the
Order of Friars Minor.
The correspondence set out in Document No.IX shows that the action
has been taken solely against one member of the Friars Minor for
reasons of disobedience and perhaps other inappropriate behaviour.
This is followed by a very long background of the existence of the
Diocese of Mostar - Duvno which involves a transfer of the area of
Medjugorje from the order of Friars Minor to the Bishop of Mostar
and Duvno as well as problems experienced by the Franciscans from
two (now expelled) other Franciscans, namely Father Peter Barbaric
and Father Bozo Radoz. The whole has been commented upon by
Monsignor Gordon Read.
As it will be seen from all this material the consideration concerns
the authenticity of the Medjugorje phenonmenon. This is still, by
instructions from the Holy See, being studied at the level of the
local Bishop; and nothing on this point has emanated from the
Diocese of Mostar-Duvno; nor from the Holy See.
On 2 July 1988, Pope John Paul II
established the Commission Ecclesia Dei, which was the device
to deal with matters arising from the re-introduction of the 1962
rite of the Mass (the Tridentine Rite). Then, so as to extend and
update the instructions in Ecclesia Dei, the present Holy
Father issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on 7 July
2007. In this document there were hints (Article 11) of a
possibility of a change of form or additional functions. On 2 July
2009, a further motu proprio was issued Ecclesia Unitatem
which contained these slight modifications. The principal change
was that the Commission would now fall under the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith and its prefect Cardinal Levada. Clearly,
one of the underlying principles is that no doctrinal questions
should be dealt with by the Commission; but should have the
oversight of the CDF whose role is to deal with all matters of
doctrine. Monsignor Gordon Read examines these new regulations and
also the liturgical ramifications (see Document X).
In CLSN No.158 (June 2009, pp.17-20)
Monsignor Gordon Read took up a point made by the Holy Father in an
Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005) about “the Hermeneutic
of Continuity". Monsignor John Hadley, the Chancellor of the Diocese
of Nottingham, has written a short comment, the substance of which
concerned “my strange position of a agreeing wholeheartedly with the
content of Monsignor Read’s piece, but disagreeing with the title:
the Hermeneutic of Continuity”. Monsignor Hadley prefers the term
“The Hermeneutic of Reform” and says why. (See Document No,XI).
Monsignor Read has added a short note (see Document No.XII).
This is a topic which surfaces from time
to time. The occasion here was a paper given by Monsignor Gordon
Read at the CLSGBI Canon law Conference of 2009 in Scotland. The
paper begins with an analysis of Napolean’s wedding to Josephine
which took place on 15 December 1809. Surprisingly the proposed
grounds for a declaration of nullity (which was instantly put in
train after the marriage) was Napolean’s lack of consent! However,
things turned out differently. On 9 January 1809 the diocesan
authorities in question declared the marriage null and void on the
grounds of “the absence of the lawful parish priest” and of
witnesses.
Monsignor Read distinguishes the difference between the invalidity
of marriage by reason of, on the one hand, the absence of canonical
form, and, on the other hand, by reason of the defect of canonical
form. The bulk of cases dealt with presently in these islands are
based on the absence of the canonical form: i.e. marriage by a
person bound to the form of marriage in a register office or some
other non-catholic Church. The author goes on with documentation
required in this kind of case and gives background information about
the decrees tanetsi (from the Council of Trent) and Ne
Tenere (of August 1907).
Monsignor Read then goes into a number of cases which have reached
the Rota on the grounds of defect of canonical consent. He gives
some examples of such cases (a) when, specially, Bishops have
celebrated the marriage on the presumption that because they are
Bishops they are automatically enabled to celebrate the marriage
(i.e. without the necessary delegation). (b) relatives of the one
marrying celebrating the marriage without delegation; (c) the lack
of authority to delegate. He also goes into the question involving
common error. He considered decisions given (a) coram
Defilippi of 9 November 2000: (Monitor Ecclesiasticus 2004,
128, pp.319-337); (b) coram Caberletti of 12 June 2003, (Periodica,
2004, 93, pp.327-376); (c) coram Stankiewicz (Studia
Canonica 1995, 29, pp.515-531; coram De Angelis of 3 June
2005; (Studies in Church Law 2006, pp.515-531). Monsignor
Read has minutely analysed these decisions. They are of the greatest
importance in dealing with such case of Defect of Canonical Form
(see Document No. XIII).
In CLSN No.158 (June 2009) mention was
made (pp.3 and 34-37) of a legal battle which had taken place in
California last year and this year. The last situation covered in
the June number of CLSN was that the Supreme Court in California had
declared that any law which discriminated on the basis of a sexual
orientation would be "constitutionally suspect in California”. What
next happened was that the people of California voted on this
particular issue; and they voted that they did not want same sex
marriages; and the Supreme Court had to acknowledge that this was
the will of the people! A statement was issued by Archbishop Kirtz
of Louisville, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defence of
Marriage “lording the decision of the Californian Supreme Court.
The principal number-cruncher of the
Canon Law Society is Father Peter Kravos. He has built up a
fascinating statistical picture of numbers in the tribunals of
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland for the year 2008. These
statistics derive from the statistical returns supplied by each
diocese to the Secretariat of State. There are one or two anomalies
in that some tribunals interpret various questions quite
differently; but Father Kravos has been “number-crunching” for some
time and now knows the intricacies of these differences. Numbers in
bulk are usually difficult to appreciate, but pictures and numbers
are very helpful. In consequence the figures in table 1; but the
graphs of the same figures are mesmerising.
Looking at the Scottish figures (between 1992 and 2008, the spike
which occurs in 1998 is astonishing – both for cases introduced and
for cases completed. Someone from the Scottish tribunal must know
the answer to a question about this extraordinary fact. What is
equally interesting is that the figures for the next year (1999)
dropped to about the same as the figures for 1997.
Another startling fact is that in England and Wales the number of
cases concluded was up above the 4000 mark originally, and then was
introduced around 2000; and from that time onwards there was a
steady decline. What is also interesting is that in 1998 in Ireland,
there was a similar spike and in Scotland; but smaller, and then
thereafter a steady decline. Some readers of CLSN must have a view
as to what was significant about the year 1998. Table 8 deals with
the payment of fees to tribunals in connection with nullity cases. A
number of tribunals seem to have reached up to 50% of their costs;
one tribunal recovered 98% of their costs and – remarkable - two
tribunals recovered 100%. However, one of these is the Appeal
Tribunal of Southwark. The other is a diocesan tribunal of First
Instance. Perhaps that tribunal should conduct seminars for cost
recovery! (see Document No. XIV).
A piece of information not picked up
until recently was the installation of Father Ian Benjamin Waters as
a Senior Fellow of the Catholic Theological College, East Melbourne
on 5 June 2008. The address of the Deputy master is reproduced at
Document XV, together with the speech of acceptance by Father
Waters. The CLS expresses all congratulations to Father Waters on
this academic triumph. Father Waters is a Judicial Vicar of the
Melbourne Tribunal; a long standing member of the Canon Law Society;
and a regular visitor to its Conferences.
The Holy see announced the appointment
of Bishop Bernard Longley as the new Archbishop of
Birmingham. The new Archbishop had been an Auxiliary Bishop of
Westminster. He was ordained a priest in 1981 by the Bishop of
Arundel and Brighton and the same Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor
consecrated him as an Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster in 2003. The
President wrote a letter of congratulations to the new Archbishop on
behalf of the Society. (see Document No.XVI).
Warm congratulations to Monsignor John
Chaloner on having been appointed Privy Chamberlain to His Holiness.
Monsignor Chaloner is the Associate Judicial Vicar for Oslo as well
as a Judge of the Salford tribunal. Ad multos annos.
