Holy See – Communio

Cardinal Coccopalmerio speaks about marriage, communion to divorced and remarried

Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio was chosen by Pope Francis to head a new commission for the study simplifying of the annulment process. The Cardinal is the President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; he spoke with Salvatore Cernuzio of ZENIT and the text of the interview was released on ZENIT on October 3, 2014.

The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops begins tomorrow but tonight in Rome there is a vigil service presided over by the Pope and a packed St Peter’s Square. He set the tone of wanting the Church at her various levels oriented toward the Lord in prayer.

The interview is not terrifically insightful or revealing of “possible” changes to our pastoral practice with regard to marriage and family life, or about giving a new theological anthropology, but it is a text that ought to garner some attention not only for experts but for those who work in pastoral contexts like the parish and universities. It follows:

ZENIT: The Synod is already at our door. With what state of mind do you approach this great Assembly? What are your hopes, but also your fears?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: There is, certainly, some concern because we will be addressing delicate questions, on which opinions are diverse. The fear, which is justified, is that there will be some reason for opposition. However, I believe that, if each one of us says freely and sincerely what he thinks and others listen to him with patience and with the desire to compare and reflect further, all will be well. In this connection, I trust in the help of the Holy Spirit, that He may illumine our minds and, above all, make us open to one another.

ZENIT: The international media has given much attention to the subject of the Sacraments for civilly remarried divorced persons, theorizing in fact that there will be “clashes” and angry debates during the Assembly between conservative and progressive factions. What do you think?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: I think the subject of Communion for remarried divorced persons is important, because there are persons who live experiences of suffering and, therefore, expect a word of light and comfort from the Church. However, obviously, this isn’t the only topic: there are many others that, perhaps, are more important. The real topic, the main one, is to make the beauty of marriage and the family understood, despite the fact that such an adventure also entails effort. If the Synod succeeds in giving, especially to young people, a more beautiful, more enthusiastic sense of marriage and the family, it will certainly have achieved the most important result. Then as well, of course, it will have to address “burning” issues, but it will do so in a wider and more serene atmosphere.

ZENIT: In regard to these burning issues, how do you define them? What is your position? In which of the two “factions,” if we can so describe them, are you?

Cardinal Cocopalmerio: I cannot anticipate here my intervention in the Synod. I only think that, following the Lord’s Gospel and it being a question of so many persons living in painful situations, we are called to commit ourselves to give satisfying and adequate answers to the needs of today.

ZENIT: Among the topics connected to the Synod are also the juridical and canonical implications of the matrimonial bond. In fact last week Pope Francis instituted a study commission for the annulments process, and made you a member. Should we describe this as a strategic move of the Pontiff on the eve of the Synod?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: I would rather say an intelligent move that put to the fore one of the questions that the Synodal Assembly will certainly be working on. From many sides it has been suggested that the procedures be simplified to come to the declaration of an eventual matrimonial nullity. Hence this Commission works outside of the Synod but also in service of the Synod, being able to give it a notable contribution. The Pope did well in instituting it.

ZENIT: Isn’t there the risk that with a simplification of the procedures of matrimonial nullity the evangelical principle of the indissolubility of the Sacrament will be questioned?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: The procedure for the declaration of matrimonial nullity serves to declare if a marriage is valid or not. Therefore, it isn’t a procedure for the annulment of the matrimonial bond but it serves simply to see, to confirm, to take into account the validity or invalidity of the bond. If the bond is not valid, there is the pronouncement of the nullity of the marriage; if it is valid, its existence is confirmed. It is, therefore, a procedure oriented to seeking the truth: does this bond exist or not?

The procedure for the declaration of matrimonial nullity does not put in question the principle of the indissolubility of marriage: it tends only to examine if in a concrete case, there is or is not a marriage. If the bond was never born, it is no longer about dissolubility or non-dissolubility, but about the non-existence of matrimony. Therefore, even if the procedure is simplified, it must never fail, however, in the finality of establishing the reality. And if the simplification impedes coming to knowledge of the reality it would not be good.

ZENIT: On the practical plane, there is an increase in requests for nullity. Almost 50,000 marriages in the world celebrated in church have been annulled, of which more than 2,400 alone were in Italy. Will it be possible, with this Commission, to meet these requests?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: I don’t have the statistics, therefore I cannot know how to reply. However it seems to me that the current language is erroneous: marriages are not “annulled.” What is declared is only that the bond does not exist because it was never born, in as much as at the moment of the celebration an essential requisite was lacking, as happens, for instance, when one who marries excludes the indissolubility of marriage.

ZENIT: In the Instrumentum laboris of the synod, one reads that the Assembly will study a more valid pre-matrimonial pastoral ministry but also a strategy to support young couples after the Sacrament. In your opinion, up to now has this type of ministry been a lacuna in the Church?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: The pastoral intention is very important. The preparation for marriage should be carried out with passion and diligence so that the future spouses are supported in a conscious and joyful way. Perhaps in some parts of the world this ambit is not taken care of or not sufficiently taken care of. I am certain that the Synod will insist on this point and will be able to renew methods and structures. Even more important, then, is post-matrimony, the follow-up, that is, the new couples that have met, for instance, with difficulties in their matrimonial life which they didn’t have as engaged couples. It is necessary to support couples, especially in their difficult moments in which there are disillusions, relational difficulties caused, for instance, by reasons of work or health.

ZENIT: I would like to hear your thought on unions between persons of the same sex. On other occasions, you have stated that homosexuals are not condemned and, if there are also stable unions between them, what is important is that they not be confused with the family and with matrimony. Can you clarify this concept?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Matrimony is a precise reality; it is the union between a man and a woman, which is stable, open to generation: it is a concept of matrimony to be maintained with commitment and honesty. Therefore, the other unions cannot in all honesty be called matrimony. And when we say matrimony we also say family. The problem, therefore, is not so much not to condemn unions between persons of the same sex: every person, in fact, has his conscience and, therefore, makes his choices. The problem is to see if legislation can include in its ordering forms of homosexual union especially in relation to adoption.

ZENIT: What is your point of view on this issue?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: I have questioned myself many times in this regard. By tendency I am decidedly opposed to the possibility of a homosexual couple adopting children. I have much difficulty with this, because one thing is the choice that two persons can make of their life, of their relationship, another is to have this choice carried out on someone outside, little persons, incapable of deciding. If I were a lawmaker I think I would prohibit it.

ZENIT: What are the greatest risks?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: First of all, those of an anthropological nature, because — let’s say it clearly – one can discuss everything, but spontaneously one feels that the education of a child is not to be entrusted to a homosexual couple. However, here we are entering in a very complex matter in which I don’t feel competent. I say spontaneously that the adoption of children by same-sex couples is certainly something foreign to my conviction. From the legislative point of view, I confirm, I would not permit it.

ZENIT: So many, however, object that in face of cases of abandonment or mistreatment of minors, it would be better if a child was received by two persons, even of the same sex, who in any case can guarantee him/her affection and support …

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Yes, certainly, when faced with the reality of street children, totally abandoned, as the many I have seen, and they are an excruciating sight, perhaps the thought comes that a “homosexual couple is better.” But let’s be clear: it would be as if saying that in face of a great evil a lesser evil is preferable. Deep down something remains that is difficult to accept.

ZENIT: Can there ever be an opening of the Church in this regard?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: I don’t think the Church could ever accept the legitimacy of a homosexual union from an objective point of view. The Church can respect this choice of life, presupposing that it was made in full good faith. It is something else, however, to say that this union is objectively something good and acceptable.

ZENIT: So many people, perhaps misunderstanding, expect great openings on the part of Pope Francis. In connection with the Pontiff, it came to my mind that about two years ago, on the eve of the March Conclave, you hoped in an interview that “the new Pope would be first of all a witness of the Faith, capable of listening and of dialogue; that he be able to bring love and joy to the world; but that he also be able to evaluate his collaborators and appoint in the Papal Curia personnel of very high technical and spiritual formation.” In light of what Bergoglio has done in these months of pontificate, has your hope been heard?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Yes, absolutely. Among the many things that could be said of Pope Bergoglio, one is obvious above all: he loves persons, he makes each one feel that he considers him important, that he listens to him and, therefore, appreciates him. By expressing love, he gives joy.

ZENIT: Are you pleased with the reform of the Curia that is underway?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Let’s keep in mind that we are still in one phase – let’s say – of the work in progress. Moreover, the Holy Father came from far away; he had not lived in Rome and must still enter in certain mechanisms and certain structures of the Curia.

ZENIT: However in the C9, the Council of Cardinals instituted by the Pope to help him in the government of the Church, are there not truly “curial” names …

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Yes, it’s true. However, the nine Cardinals give pastoral guidelines that are then taken by experts and translated into effective. This is the praxis. Moreover, there is a clarification to be made …

ZENIT: Which one?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: That the reform of the Curia must start from a specific presupposition: the Curia is made up of persons, of Dicasteries, that is, of subjects each one of whom carries out an activity of the Pope. The Holy Father has to carry out so many tasks for the government of the universal Church, but he can’t do everything alone, because he doesn’t have the time or the specific competencies. Therefore, every “subject” – at present we have 26 Dicasteries in the Curia (Congregations, Pontifical Councils, Tribunals, Offices) – helps the Pope to carry out a task. And he has more or less value to the degree that he carries out this activity and does it well. The whole reform of the Curia must rotate around this: what activity of the Pope does this dicastery carry out? Does it do it well?

ZENIT: And if it doesn’t do it well?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: It can also be closed. If there are Dicasteries that carried out an activity of the Pope in the past but that today are no longer necessary, then they can be abolished.

ZENIT: Therefore, in this case also, are we moving towards a strong simplification?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Yes, a simplification could be exercised but, if we follow the criterion of what the Pope needs today, there could even be an enlargement. In the sense that, if the Holy Father intends to carry out an activity, of which there was no need before, he can institute a new organism. It’s the case, for instance, of the Commission for the Protection of Minors.

ZENIT: One last question. The Synod will conclude on Sunday, October 19, the day in which Pope Francis will beatify Paul VI. Were you able to know Pope Montini in person?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Yes. It was he who ordained me a priest. I was one of the last 30 priests ordained by Cardinal Montini before he left the Diocese of Milan, so I was always united to him by bonds of spiritual sonship.

ZENIT: What memory do you have in particular of the Pontiff?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: More than as Archbishop I remember him as Pope. I like to describe his figure with a phrase that a Cardinal once said and that always left me astounded: “Montini believes in God.” See, he was someone who believed in God, therefore in man and therefore he loved God and people.

ZENIT: Are you happy to see him beatified?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Obviously very much. I would like to see him canonized soon …

Which is it: Holy See, the Vatican, or the Catholic Church?

Always distinguish your terms, especially as they are related to the Church…Do you know the differences in terms: Holy See, Vatican and the Catholic Church??? They are not the same…our Catholic faith has an order, you know. I was told once I was too fussy. Really?

Father Jerabek, a student at the Pontifical Atheneum of the Holy Cross (Rome) doing work in canon law is also a priest of the Diocese of Birmingham (AL), briefly identifies the differences in terms.

The primate of Canada gets it!

A friend mine sent me this photo of the Archbishop of Quebec, primate of Canada and cardinal of the Roman Church, Gérald Cyprien Lacroix, I.S.P.X., … at a parish function, and who is he sitting with? This is awesome; a prelate who gets it. And, of course it being Quebec, wine on the table with kids!

A pastor getting to know his sheep; a man of God witnessing to the love the Messiah has for children! This is evangelization!

Loris Capovilla becomes cardinal of the Roman Church

The Holy Father created 98 year old Archbishop Loris Francesco Capovilla a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. Because of age Capovilla did not go to Rome to receive the cardinal’s rad biretta and ring, so the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Cardinal Sodano, went to him to bestow the honor in Sotto il Monte. This town is the area where Angelo Roncalli was born. Cardinal Capovilla received as his titular church Santa Maria in Travestere. The former cardinal titular of Santa Maria is Jozef Glemp of Warsaw who died in January 2013.

His Eminence has been a priest for 74 years and a bishop for 47. He’s the former archbishop of Chieti and the former Prelate of Loreto.

The new cardinal was the distinguished secretary of Blessed John XXIII, to be canonized on 27 April 2014.

A brief video of the ceremony is here.

Pope Francis writes to new cardinals

Dear Brother,

On the day in which your designation is made public to be part of the College of Cardinals, I wish to express to you a cordial greeting together with the assurance of my closeness and my prayer. I hope that, as associate of the Church of Rome, clothed in the virtues and sentiments of the Lord Jesus (cf. Romans 13:14), you will be able to help me, with fraternal effectiveness, in my service to the universal Church.

The Cardinalate does not signify a promotion, or an honor, or a decoration. It is simply a service that calls for enlarging one’s vision and widening one’s heart. And, although it seems a paradox, this ability to look far ahead and to love more universally with greater intensity can only be acquired by following the same way of the Lord: the way of abasement and humility, taking the form of a servant (cf. Philippians 2;5-8). Therefore, I ask you, please, to receive this designation with a simple and humble heart. And, although you must do so with joy and gladness, do it in such a way that this sentiment is far from any expression of worldliness, from any celebration that is foreign to the evangelical spirit of austerity, sobriety and poverty.

Farewell, then, until next February 20, in which we will begin two days of reflection on the family. I remain at your disposition and, please, I ask you to pray and to have others pray for me.

May Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin protect you.

Fraternally,

FRANCIS

From the Vatican
January 12, 2014

Wow! What a letter to read! Imagine receiving such a letter if you were nominated to the cardinalate in the Catholic Church. The papal letter is brief, direct, and an unexpected fraternal gesture expressing clear hopes (expectations?) for the men entering into the College of Cardinals. I hope not only the cardinals listen to what the Holy Father has to say, but the rest of us, too. What is said to the new cardinals is said to all the faithful!

Symbolic of the new form service for Christ and the Church is the adoption of the color red, expressed most often as “the red hat” (seen above) and the reception of a new ring. These are classic signs to the deeper reality of love and service. The wearing of the color red, the donning of the biretta (hat) and the wearing of the cardinal’s ring is a clear sign of willing to die for the Church, and to be of service to the Church at all costs. You might say that being a cardinal is all-consuming in all forms of service that others (deacon, priest, bishop & faithful lay person) may not have: the prayers for the new cardinal at the time of the consistory have a clear element of martyrdom in them. The martyrdom of a cardinal –which hasn’t happened in a while– ought to be a spark for new life in the Paschal Mystery.

One of the striking lines in the Pope’s letter is enlarging one’s vision and widening one’s heart. Other parts of the letter that we ought to note is how the cardinal relates to the person of the bishop of Rome: in a personalistic way. Moreover, Francis asks the new cardinals to celebrate with joy yet in a sober manner that is not triumphalistic keeping in mind what the Scriptures reveal.

Monsignors curbed

It was reported today that Pope Francis curbed the use of the ecclesiastical title of monsignor. Some priests I know will be mad and some will go on antidepressants. The papal directive is that the monsignor title will be not available for those under 65 and that when it is bestowed, it be the title of “Chaplain to His Holiness”; the other two titles are shelved (i.e., Prelate of Honor and Prothonatary Apostolic). Gerard O’Connell’s article in Vatican Insider is here.

In the archdiocese where I live there are few monsignori: for the last 30 plus years the archbishops have rarely bestowed the title on priests, though very few have it. In neighboring dioceses like Bridgeport and New York priests crave the honor and too many feel they are entitled to it. Sadly, too many of those who have received the title of monsignor are sycophants and many unseemly characters who are less loyal to Jesus Christ and the sacrament of the Church than to his bishop. A bishop no longer in Connecticut used the title to reward those who he were behind him in all things–those who never questioned his authority; the criteria to judge a man’s worthiness was understood to be subjective.

In fact, and in my opinion, for a good many priests the discernment of service was too connected with preferment. The call to genuinely serve all people for ever really was sclerotic. Some monsignors would state that being a priest was difficult enough today and that they deserved a little bone now-and-again. The regular ministry of salvation of souls, spiritual and corporal works of mercy, preaching and the administration of sacraments was not enough, not meaningful enough.

Catholics are often happy with their parish priest’s genuine and holy “accomplishments” for the Church; they enjoyed the bishop’s recognition. But laboring in the Lord’s vineyard, no matter how long and how hard, does not warrant such reward. Some are arguing that doing away with outward ecclesiastical signs is a kind of iconoclasm. I doubt it. In fact, what the pope did is not iconoclasm by definition. Ecclesiastical titles neither create nor diminish careerism in the church, necessarily. The careerist attitude is born of another reality based on sin and not discipleship and apostleship. It is true we all like some measure of respect and acceptance for the bishop and society. Human nature will foster other ways for reward. We already of the mentality of the ‘better’ parish, the influential diocesan job, or a softer ministry, or “doing your own thing.”. Humanity can skirt the monsignor title with titles like “executive committee, ” the “Special Advisor to the Bishop” and “Senior Priest.” I am sure some bishop or clever canonist will devise something to reward the worthy.

The place of monsignori in a diocese is not really the only thing that needs reform. Careerism will still exist in a most horrible way with the translating a bishop from one See to another and the creation of auxiliary bishops. Again, we just had a bishop in the State who got “promoted” to a a larger diocese after leaving the diocese in great debt and seeking preferment. After all, he “deserved it.”

Is this move no the part of the Holy Father a jab at tradition? Perhaps, but I would not want to place that criticism on him. It seems to be true that “Pope Francis going back to older traditions” and that is what I think is key for us. An older tradition is sometimes best especially if there it is perceived to be less inclined to immature and sinful behavior. But I would look it this way: Pope Francis comes from a religious order that does not accept the mentality of preferment. The Society of Jesus has always been against, and rightly so, the notion of serving the Lord with the idea of reward in mind and heart. Following under the standard of the cross has a very deep meaning that I think is operative in Francis as the bishop of Rome.

The Jesuit Constitutions (Part X, N°6 [817]) based on experience and desire of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, is against Jesuits being made bishops. Bishops are not monsignors, I know. But the idea is the same when it comes to prelacy. Hence, a Jesuit priest when he makes his final profession in the Society of Jesus vows:

I also promise that I will never strive for or ambition any prelacy or dignity outside the Society; and I will to the best of my ability never consent to my election unless I am forced to do so by obedience to him who can order me under penalty of sin. And moreover, if I shall find out that anyone [another Jesuit] is seeking to secure anything of the two aforementioned things or is ambitioning them, I promise that I will communicate his name and the entire matter to the Society or its Superior.

Pope establishes commission for protection of minors, pastoral care of victims

Many in the world are watching the Church and how she is addressing the needs of a contemporary Church. The concerns of the College of Cardinals at the last papal election reflected the concerns of the faithful. With a good sense there a new things happening. One such innovation is Francis creating the Council of Cardinals to advise him on the administration of the Church. This work is being shared. Another innovation was announced today: a special commission will be set up to have oversight on matters pertaining to the protection of children and the pastoral care the victims. Clearly, this move of the Pope is a continuation of the good work of Pope Benedict regarding the sin and crime of sexual abuse. I pray that the commission will act decisively and with mercy and justice.

Speaking for the Council of Cardinals, Sean Cardinal O’Malley gave this to the press at the Holy See:

At the briefing on Thursday morning, 5 December, at 1 p.m., alongside the Director of the Holy See Press Office, there participated Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley, archbishop of Boston, member of the Council of Cardinals, who gave the following Declaration:

“Continuing decisively along the lines undertaken by Pope Benedict XVI, and accepting a proposal presented by the Council of Cardinals, the Holy Father has decided to establish a specific Commission for the protection of minors, with the aim of advising Pope Francis on the Holy See’s commitment to the protection of children and in pastoral care for victims of abuse. Specifically, the Commission will:

1. study present programmes in place for the protection of children.

2. formulate suggestions for new initiatives on the part of the Curia, in collaboration with bishops, Episcopal conferences, religious superiors and conferences of religious superiors.

3. indicate the names of persons suited to the systematic implementation of these new initiatives, including lay persons, religious and priests with responsibilities for the safety of children, in relations with the victims, in mental health, in the application of the law, etc.

The composition and competences of the Commission will be indicated shortly, with more details from the Holy Father in an appropriate document.”

Cardinal O’Malley then quoted some of the lines of action proposed by the Commission under constitution.

* * *

The meetings will conclude tomorrow afternoon [Friday], completing the review of the different Congregations of the Roman Curia initiated during these recent days.

The next round of meetings is scheduled for the 17, 18 and 19 February, preceding the Consistory of the College of Cardinals due to take place on the 20 and 21 of the same month, and the Consistory for the Creation of new cardinals on 22 February, Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, and the solemn Concelebration of Sunday 23.
In addition, the meeting of the Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops is scheduled to take place in the days immediately after (24-25 February).

Pope meets the Council of Cardinals, again

The Pope and the Council of Cardinals begin their second meeting today, and running until Thursday. His Holiness established the agenda to study the need for substantial reform of the Roman Curia, to consider other proposals for change, and to advise the Pope on general matters of Church governance. Several changes have been already announced. Various Congregations will be visiting with the Council.

The next scheduled meeting of the Council will happen on 17-18 February, the eve of the Pope’s first consistory for the creation of new cardinals, set for 22 February. The Consistory will give the Pope the opportunity to meet with the College of Cardinals since his last meeting with him following his election to the See of Peter.

New cardinals to be created in February 2014

Vatican Radio and the French news agency I-Media broke the news today that the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, will create new cardinals in a Consistory to be held February 21 and 22, 2014. No names have been mentioned and there won’t be names likely until February.

At the same time, Pope Francis is holding a meeting with all cardinals in Rome to discuss possible reforms.

By February 2014, there will b 14 vacancies of 120 that are noted in Canon Law. By March, there would be 16. The 120 limit is an arbitrary number established by Pope Paul VI.

Possible cardinals to serve in the Roman Curia: Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the new Secretary of State, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Archbishop Beniamino Stella, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. There could be more if Pope Francis makes more changes in his curia.

Plus, there are residential archbishops around the world. I would not expect new cardinals in the USA.

Why the Bishop of Limburg is important for our conversion

Lots of attention has been given these past weeks to the spending habits of the bishop of Limburg, The Most Reverend Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, 52, known in the secular media as “Bishop Bling-Bling.”

Some people think that the case of “Tebartz-van Elst is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Christian Weisner, spokesman for the German branch of We Are Church, an organization advocating Catholic church reform. “There is a real clash of cultures between Germany’s current cardinals and bishops –nominated under John Paul II or Benedict XVI — and Pope Francis.”

I don’t follow the organization “We are Church” but I am guessing it is a public lobby that is loosely Catholic and focussed on the misdeeds of Catholic Clergy. I don’t subscribe to lobby groups; and, I don’t think these groups are but a very thin veil leading the faithful to dissent. But, it seems that Mr Weisner is correct; but I don’t think for the same reasons as Weisner thinks. The agenda of Weisner and We are Church is not too coherent with Church teaching and tradition. Weisner speaks of the culture wars faithful Catholics have to face. But I have to wonder if this controversy is really born in the fact that there is a divide between orthodox and unorthodox Catholics and that some of the teachings of Tebartz-van Elst contradicted those of past bishops? It is entirely possible some members of the Church in the Limburg Diocese are pushing some of these things in way to be anti-Benedict XVI.

What can said of the Limburg bishop is possible for all of us. No one is exempt from mistakes. AND yet we ought not be self-righteous to think that this matter pertains to other people. I am not gloating over the imprudence of Bishop Tebartz-van Elst. Demonizing the bishop is unbecoming of Christians. Mercy is what is required here as we are taught today by Pope Francis. We always forgive our brother.

This begs us to ask what is the responsibility of a bishop of the Catholic Church. The responsibility of the bishop is the discernment of what we are saying about God, about our Christian life, about our sanctification, our conversion, about the encounter with the person of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not about social conformity, it is not about social acceptability. The bishop’s responsibility, hence, is to lead the faithful to perfect communion with the Holy Trinity through good witness.

As a friend once said, we go to a baker because we want an appetizing, something delicious. We know that baked goods are not to be poisonous, they are to be delicious, and they are to have a particular deliciousness. Applied to the vocation of a bishop, we would say the vocation of the “profession” determines the responsibility: a bishop’s responsibility is stir our awareness and desires for God. We want to be with God.

How we understand what happened is crucial. The other day Pope Francis exercised his pastoral authority in determining that the Church universal needs a clear judgement on the activities of the Limburg bishop. Pope Francis gave a temporary dispensation from the bishop’s obligation of residence (Cf. Canon Law, 395). Moreover, His Holiness appointed a new vicar general for the good the faithful who will act in the place of the bishop who will be living outside his diocese until Providence provides otherwise. The hope is that this decision will allow for time for the commission to collect and evaluate the data plus it will allow contention to diminish a bit.

Let it be said that the bishop is not suspended as the secular and some Catholic media outlets have reported. In cases like the Limburg case, the bishop is often asked to resign voluntarily or to take a leave. No actual decree of suspension was drawn up. By the Pope’s wisdom the bishop has a leave of absence. There is a difference.

Mercy also requires justice. The matter of the bishop’s conduct needs a principle of good governance that is expressed in the Code of Canon Law, canon 1389, §1, which states:

A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.

What needs to be determined are the facts, the points of abuse of the bishop. So, the bishop of Rome as the supreme legislator and guarantor acted according to his office when he assisted the German bishops to do their job in fraternal correction and to aid the conversion of all, including the bishop. The Code of Canon Law states,

The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely (canon 331).

Catholics know deeply that the Church founded by Christ is NOT a democracy, she is not a dictatorship, the Church does not work from a gesture of sentimental, nor is she the Inquisition. The Church is a sacrament given to us by the Lord. The Church is a guided companionship. She discloses a person, a Divine Person, that is, our Lord and Savior.

What’s at stake is the relational nature of all this? As Pope Francis said to Eugenio Scalfari, “Truth according to the Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ. Therefore, truth is relationship.” We know this to mean that “all this [talk of relationship with Christ] throws me wide open to expecting the Mystery will show Himself….” Jesus entered history to educate us something new. That something new is ourselves as a new creation. Any lack herein of a true relationship with Truth will set us back. And, this may have happened in Limburg: the lack of memory of the Lord.

Having said this, what does Limburg indicate? A multi-million euro building project with a $20,000 bathtub and $482,000 walk-in closets is over-the-top. But Limburg’s bishop is not alone in mis-using money; we have a track record of bishops leaving a diocese in debt by millions of dollars. A good example in the USA is a former bishop of Bridgeport (now he’s administering another diocese) and several other bishops and priests who live in ways wholly inconsistent with their office and responsibility. Bishops now long dead were financially irresponsible with other people’s money leaving their successors to pay off the debt. One can think of good examples in the bishops of Boston and New York. In more recent years bishops like those of Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh to name a few, have all given up grand homes and luxury items favor of more modest living.

The Church, in her wisdom, has taught and asked priests to live simply, even frugally. This is not new news. Just read the Fathers of the Church and the Magisterium on priestly life. Mother Church in her good example has taught that beauty and well-made items reflect the truth of the Incarnation and the dignity of the craftsman; being cheap and stingy are not virtues nor ought they be made such. We are required to be generous to others but not to the point of excess. Beautiful art, vesture, music, words, buildings all communicate the Divine Majesty. Poor and wealth people need beauty. History tells us this fact. Beauty reveals truth.

We ought to recall and confront the argument given by secular priests that they don’t have a vow of poverty as the religious profess. While technically true, simplicity is an objective truth and manner of living that helps all people to conform themselves to Christ crucified and risen. Diocesan priests ought to remember this is clear and consistent teaching of the popes.

Lots of people interpret Pope Francis to say that the Church has to be poor but I think interpreting Francis strictly in terms of finances is superficial. Surely he does mean that we need to be mindful of how use money for ministerial purposes and not self promotion; a Church that is poor is one that is dependent spiritually and affectively (and even materially) on Jesus Christ who gives all things for the good.

Clergymen who live luxuriously are unseemly, even giving scandal, to those who are weak of faith, to Church benefactors who their resources for the Church’s good works of mercy, education and charity. This is not only a matter concerning the Church in Germany but the Church in every place and time. Germany is in the spotlight because too many of the prelates there drive high end cars like Archbishop Robert Zollitsch who has a BMW 740d. “To me that car is not a status symbol; it is the office I use when I am traveling,” Zollitsch said at a press conference. What Zollitsch is doing is defending the indefensible.

We need to learn from this case; we need to pray for our own conversion because this is not only a matter for Bishop Tebartz-van Elst or Archbishop Zollitsch but for all of us. Being self-righteous about this matter is unhelpful and not Christian. What and how they live ought to be a point for our own conformity to the cross. The entire Christian Church is called to live simply for the sake of the Kingdom.