Tag Archives: Canon Law

Decree of Erection

Posted on by
4

Oddly enough, even with our (almost) exhaustive coverage of the event, I don't think that we ever got around to publishing the actual decree by which the English Ordinariate was canonically erected.  So, for the record, here it is.

* * *

DECREE OF ERECTION
of the Personal Ordinariate
of Our Lady of Walsingham

The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. As such, throughout its history, the Church has always found the pastoral and juridical means to care for the good of the faithful.

With the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, promulgated on 4 November 2009, the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, provided for the establishment of Personal ordinariates through which Anglican faithful may enter, even in a corporate manner, into full communion with the Catholic Church. On the same date, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published Complementary Norms relating to such Ordinariates.

In conformity with what is established in Art. I §1 and §2 of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, having received requests from a considerable number of Anglican faithful and having consulted with the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

ERECTS

the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham within the territory of the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales.

1. The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham ipso iure possesses juridic personality and is juridically equivalent to a diocese. It includes those faithful, of every category and state of life, who originally having belonged to the Anglican Communion, are now in full communion with the Catholic Church, or who have received the sacraments of initiation within the jurisdiction of the ordinariate itself or who are received into it because they are part of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.

2. The faithful of the personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham are entrusted to the pastoral care of the Personal Ordinary, who, once named by the Roman Pontiff, possesses all the faculties and is held to all the obligations, specified in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus and the Complementary Norms as well as in those matters determined subsequently by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on request both of the Ordinary, having heard the Governing Council of the Ordinariate, and of the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales.

3. The Anglican faithful who wish to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate must manifest this desire in writing. There is to be a programme of catechetical formation for these faithful, lasting for a congruent time, and with content established by the Ordinary in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith so that the faithful are able to adhere fully to the doctrinal content of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and, therefore, make the profession of faith.

4. For candidates for ordination, who previously were ministers in the Anglican Communion, there is to be a specific programme of theological formation, as well as spiritual and pastoral preparation, prior to ordination in the Catholic Church, according to what will be established by the Ordinary in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in consultation with the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales.

5. For a cleric not incardinated in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham to assist at a marriage of the faithful belonging to the Ordinariate, he must receive the faculty from the Ordinary or the pastor of the personal parish to which the faithful belong.

6. The Ordinary is a member by right of the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales, with deliberative vote in those cases in which this is required in law.

7. A cleric, having come originally from the Anglican Communion, who has already been ordained in the Catholic Church and incardinated in a Diocese, is able to be incardinated in the Ordinariate in accord with the norm of can. 267 CIC.

8. Until the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham may have established its own Tribunal, the judicial cases of its faithful are referred to the Tribunal of the Diocese in which one of the parties has a domicile, while taking into account, however, the different titles of competence established in cann. 1408-1414 and 1673 CIC.

9. The faithful of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham who are, temporarily or permanently, outside the territory of the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales, while remaining members of the Ordinariate, are bound by universal law and those particular laws of the territory where they find themselves.

10. If a member of the faithful moves permanently into a place where another Personal Ordinariate has been erected, he is able, on his own request, to be received into it. The new Ordinary is bound to inform the original Personal Ordinariate of the reception. If a member of the faithful wishes to leave the Ordinariate, he must make such a decision known to his own Ordinary. He automatically becomes a member of the Diocese where he resides. In this case, the Ordinary will ensure that the Diocesan Bishop is informed.

11. The Ordinary, keeping in mind the Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis and the Programme of Priestly Formation of the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales, is to prepare a Programme of Priestly Formation for the seminarians of the Ordinariate which must be approved by the Apsotolic See.

12. The Ordinary will ensure that the Statutes of the Governing Council and the Pastoral Council, which are subject to his approval, are drawn up.

13. The location of the principal Church of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham will be determined by the Ordinary in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in consultation with the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales. Likewise, the Seat of the Ordinariate, where the register referred to in Art. 5 §1 of the Complementary Norms will be kept, will be determined in the same way.

14. The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham has as its patron Blessed John Henry Newman.

Everything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 15 January 2011

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

+ Luis F. Ladaria, S.J.
Secretary

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Divorce and Remarriage in "Historic Anglicanism" (Part I)

Posted on by
6

*** UPDATED 06/08/10 9:18 PM EST ***

Marital indiscipline seems to afflict all Western Christian churches and bodies to some degree or other, and even to an extent those in the East (the theory and practice of the Eastern Churches, which rested originally on a basis quite distinct form that of Western Catholics and Protestants, I will not discuss here) as well.  Suffice it to say that, on a theoretical level at least, no Christian church or “denomination,” Eastern or Western ever accepted the practice of “divorce” in the modern sense of the term (that is, the dissolution of a valid marriage with one or both of the parties to that dissolved marriage being free to marry again), however much “pastoral compassion” (or “overlooking, deliberately or otherwise, irregular marital unions”) may, especially in the East, have allowed for the toleration of “marriages” of individuals whose spouses had disappeared some considerable time in the past.  At the Reformation, however, all of the leading Protestant Reformers embraced the view of Erasmus that there were circumstances in which a valid marriage might be dissolved and the parties to it, or at least the “innocent” party, be allowed to remarry, which meant remarry in church, as in Catholic and Protestant countries alike there was no other form of marriage (beyond “common-law marriage” in a few countries such as Scotland — but this was a form of “marriage” of which the offspring were technically illegitimate, and so lacked clear inheritance rights).  Moreover, Protestant church bodies, both Lutheran and Reformed, quickly came to permit divorce, and remarriage after divorce (hereafter termed DaR for short), in a variety of circumstances, among them, for instance, Scotland, where divorce in the modern sense became legally available in 1560, and has remained so ever since.

In England, however, the position was different, despite some initial irregularities, and the Church of England adopted what can be described as the most severe position on DaR of any Western Christian tradition whatsoever. The historic Anglican position on "divorce and remarriage" is clear enough — a resolute “no, never.”

King Henry VIII was firmly and explicitly opposed to DaR; he never in his life had a "divorce" in the modern sense as defined above (although in the 16th Century the term was used to denote any separation of the parties to a marriage during the lifetimes of them both) as all of his four "divorces" were "annulments" (granted by his complaisant Archbishop Cranmer).  Cranmer himself, as a firm Protestant, came to favor DaR in a wide variety of circumstances, and shortly after Henry VIII's death in 1547 he granted a divorce (in the modern sense) to William Parr, then Earl of Essex, later Marquess of Northampton, who subsequently "remarried." (He also granted Sir Ralph Sadler permission to remain married to a woman whom he had married over a decade previously, some years after her husband had disappeared, when that first husband reappeared and tried to extort money from Sadler.)  Provision for DaR was embodied in Cranmer's proposed reformed Code of Canon Law, but that proposal was rejected by the House of Commons in 1553 (as it was again in 1571 when reform-minded MPs tried to pass it despite Elizabeth I's objections).  Under the Catholic Queen Mary, Parr was forced to separate from his wife under threat of excommunication and prosecution for bigamy — and while after Mary’s death in 1558 and the succession of her ambiguously Protestant half-sister Queen Elizabeth I he resumed living with his second wife, one of Elizabeth I's "Ladies in Waiting," the Queen more than once publicly reproached him for "bigamy" — and when he wished to marry again after his second wife died in 1565, she forbade the marriage and refused to permit it until after Parr's original wife died in 1571 (Parr survived his third marriage by only a couple of months).

Under Elizabeth DaR was non-existent and illegal in England under both Common and Canon Law.  Church courts continued to grant "separations from bed and board" to incompatible couples, but these did not allow, and in fact specifically and explicitly forbade, remarriage of either party during the life of the other.  Sometimes it happened regardless: John Thornborough, a clergyman, was granted such a separation from his wife in the 1580s, but went on to contract a remarriage shortly thereafter.  In 1592, when he was appointed Bishop of Limerick (in Ireland), seemingly as a reward for his Catholic-hunting activities, the (Calvinist) Archbishop of York, Matthew Hutton, objected violently to Thornborough's appointment, on the grounds that he was an open bigamist — another Elizabethan bishop, Marmaduke Middleton of St. David's, bishop there from 1582, was deprived of his bishopric for such bigamy just a year later in 1593 — but his letters of protest to the Queen seemingly did not reach her, and the consecration went forward (Thornborough died as Bishop of Worcester in 1641, a firm Calvinist and one of the most stalwart opponents of "Laudianism").

In 1604 new canons promulgated in the Church of England ruled out DaR in all circumstances whatsoever, making provision for "separation" and (in very restricted circumstances) "annulments."  This remained the formal position of the CofE down to (I think) the 1980s — although in Scotland, by contrast, DaR was available in a wide variety of circumstances from 1560 onwards.  From 1670 onwards there was in England there was the phenomenon of "Parliamentary divorce:" an Act of Parliament would grant a couple a divorce, give one (or sometimes both) of them legal permission to remarry, and exempt any clergyman performing the remarriage full exemption from the penalties of the law, both Common and Canon/Civil (the study of Canon Law in England had been abolished in the 1530s, and most of the officials who staffed English church courts thereafter were trained in Roman, or “Civil,” Law): almost 300 such divorces were granted between 1670 (Lord Roos's case) and 1821 (when the farcical public fiasco of George IV's attempt to get such a divorce from his estranged wife ended in failure).  Modern-style divorce became available in England only in 1857, and although after that date no legal penalties could be levied upon clergymen who performed such "remarriages," right down to the 1960s clergymen who did so were effectively "blacklisted" by just about every diocesan bishop, and denied all further preferment within the CofE.

Generally, "low church" or "evangelical" clergy tended to favor DaR in this period (in some circumstances), not least because all foreign Protestant churches, both Lutheran and Reformed, allowed it, and "high-church" (later "Anglo-Catholic") clergy to oppose it in almost all circumstances — but in 1670 it was the strenuous support of "Lord Roos's Bill" by the "Laudian" Bishop of Durham, John Cosin, in the face of the opposition of most of the other bishops, that persuaded the House of Lords to pass it.

I am, however, totally ignorant of the practice of PECUSA from 1785 onwards on this matter, although right down to the 1940s/50s divorce was strongly disapproved of in that church, especially for clergy, for whom , with rare exceptions like the notorious Bishop Pike, divorce alone, with or without remarriage, generally ended all hope of a “successful clerical career.”

We are not finished with this subject yet, but already certain implications have begun to emerge.  Above all, it is clear that a loose marital discipline, whether tricked out in the robes of alleged "pastoral care" or "meeting people where they are," is no part at all of that "Anglican patrimony" which is seeking to be resituated in and restored to Catholic communion.  Rather the contrary: the "Anglican patrimony" is one that has upheld the traditional marital discipline of the pre-Reformation Western Church to a degree that is unparalled among Reformation bodies, and one which was profoundly uncongenial to the Erastian powers-that-be in post-Reformation England — as witness the phenomenon of "Parliamentary divorce."  Another is that in the context of this resituated "Anglican patrimony" one of its functions will be to witness to and uphold the longaeval marriage discipline of the Church, as a counterpoint to those sad failings of Henry VIII that led to the original breach between England and Rome, and thus in a way vindicating the stand of Clement VII, Paul III and Cardinal Pole in opposition to that monarch.  And finally, although there is the hopeful possibility of the ordination of suitable married men to the diaconate and presbyterate in the soon-to-be-erected ordinariats, it has to be emphasized that there is little or no possibility of those in irregular marital situations, and certainly not in DaR situations, to be ordained or to serve in any clerical capacity in them.

(to be continued…)

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Anglicanorum Coetibus Conference Presentations

Posted on by
15
Pusey 012 1024x768 Anglicanorum Coetibus Conference Presentations

(L to R) Fr. Ackerman, Fr Baker, Fr. Ward, Fr. North, Prof. Duffy.

The Anglo-Catholic is pleased to offer the following audio recordings of the presentations at today's Anglicanorum Coetibus Conference held at Pusey House, Oxford.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

Posted on by
9

Following on from my article on Legal and Moral – a Vital Distinction, another phenomenon came to my mind as I was writing a comment to Fr Gray’s article The Language of Canaan. It is a widespread way of thinking among many of our Catholic brethren, both in and out of communion with Rome.

It took me while to begin to analyse the reasons behind some of the odd views of some people. I came across this question on a traditional Catholic blog.

Can a priest wear a chasuble and other vestments for a traditional Latin Mass that were previously used in an Anglican Catholic Church for their services? I am not sure if it is permitted to use such vestments.

I would be tempted to answer in a cynical fashion and allude to the medieval Inquisition and exorcisms of objects as somehow inhabited by evil spirits. As it stands, its represents the opinion of a number of Catholic lay people and occasionally even of priests and seminarians, who should know better. In philsophical terms, like the confusion between law and morality, it is a failure to distinguish between law and ontology. It is the essence of the heresy of Donatism, saying amongst other things that illegal Sacraments (or Sacraments conferred outside the canonical limits of the Church) are invalid. It is also the basis of Feeneyism, that rigorous idea according to which we would have to conclude that the only souls inhabiting Heaven are those who were in their earthly life formally and canonically members of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the analogical notions of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are invalid. That erroneous opinion was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949.

In the question above, we have the notion of vestments that have somehow been profaned or abused by “heretical worship” and unfit for Catholic use. The answer to this question is situated at a disciplinary level. Whenever liturgical materials (vestments, chalices, etc.) are sold and bought, even from “kosher” Catholic sources, it is usual to bless them for liturgical use as if they were new or never used. It is said that a chalice and paten are consecrated by simply using them for Mass, though there is a special rite in the Pontifical involving anointing the chalice and paten with the Holy Chrism. Using an item that has not been blessed is not sacrilege, though it is better to use the blessings of the Church whenever possible.

A priest in a concentration camp would have had no scruple saying Mass with any object capable of containing liquid, some wine bribed out of the guards, a piece of ordinary bread, and no altar or vestments. Mass in such circumstances is not only not wrong, but an act of heroism. On the other hand, if we have the required objects and vestments, it would be wrong not to use them. The Sacrament and the Mass would still be valid, but sinful through a despising attitude in regards to what the Church requires in disciplinary terms.

The title of this article means "wrong in one thing, wrong in everything". Anglo Catholics are often stigmatised as “false Catholics” by Catholic folk, not only because they are not “in the Church", but because they might believe or do some things at variance with usual Catholic belief and practice. There was the old story about the storming of the Cathar stronghold of Montsegur in the middle ages. The question was put to the Inquisition about how one could distinguish between orthodox Catholics and heretics. The answer was Burn them all and God will know his own. In other words, all the people in the castle were “infected”.

Another fallacy we often find is guilt by association. This is the reflection of someone for whom the entire Church is discredited through a minority of iniquitous priests who abuse children. The Nazis used this ploy to condemn all the categories of people they wanted to exterminate.

I ask both Catholics welcoming us into the formal and canonical communion of the Church and our own to reflect very carefully before saying regrettable things or asking regrettable questions, which can cause very intensely hurt feelings and hamper the unity process (the Church is one ontologically, but divided in her human members) between Anglican Catholics and Latin Rite Catholics. We all have much to learn and many prejudices to undo.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

A Matter of Property

Posted on by
Reply

When the possibility of becoming part of an Ordinariate became a reality, like many others we had questions about some of the more practical issues, especially matters relating to property.  Our Lady of the Atonement Church was founded nearly twenty-seven years ago, and when we were received into the Church the parish had very little property at all – just a modest rectory where my family and I were living.  It had very little value, perhaps thirty thousand dollars or so.  Nonetheless, it was listed with the archdiocese as our parish property, and the archbishop's name went on the legal documents.   Over the years the assets of the parish have steadily increased, and now our total property is listed at something over 23 million dollars, all with the Archbishop of San Antonio listed as the "owner," but canonically the property of Our Lady of the Atonement Parish.  Was there going to be any problem in having our property and parish assets transferred to an Ordinariate?  I spoke to our archbishop, and he left no question whatsoever about his cooperation in doing whatever is necessary in both civil and canon law to complete the transfer when the time comes.

This did raise the question of property in my own mind, however.  There will no doubt be parishes and communities becoming part of an Ordinariate, and they may have questions about the status of their property after they become Catholics.  I asked Charles Wilson of the St. Joseph Foundation for a synopsis of the Church's canon law, when it comes to this issue.  He wrote me the following letter, which should be of interest to many who are preparing to act on the Holy Father's offer in Anglicanorum coetibus.

*  *  *  *  *

The Saint Joseph Foundation
11107 Wurzbach, Suite 601B
San Antonio, Texas 78230-2570
(210) 697‑0717 (Voice)
(210) 699-9439 (FAX)

cwilson@st-joseph-foundation.org

Charles M. Wilson
Executive Director

February 26, 2010

Rev. Christopher G. Phillips
Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church
15415 Red Robin Road
San Antonio, Texas 78255

Dear Father Phillips:

I write in response to some questions that have been asked about the status of property now owned by groups of Anglicans or former Anglicans and how that status might change if the groups should come under the jurisdiction of a personal ordinariate erected according to the norms of the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus (AC).

When the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms (CN) were released on November 10, 2009, the first questions asked of the Saint Joseph Foundation came from members of existing Anglican Use Catholic parishes. The primary interest was whether these parishes would be part of a new personal ordinariate and whether their members, even those not of Anglican background, would be able to remain as such. Now we are hearing from current and former Anglicans who wish to be received into the Church; and a special concern among those who are part of local communities that own property is to insure that they maintain control over its disposition. I understand that some have even expressed fear that their property could be sold by the diocesan bishop to satisfy obligations arising from abusive conduct by Catholic clergy. Such a concern is certainly understandable; but we need to recognize some canonical barriers that would significantly reduce the chances of such an injustice actually taking place.

As we know, neither AC nor CN have anything to say about parish property. This is not surprising because secular law on religious property varies from country to country and from state to state in the United States. The authorities in Rome apparently foresee that detailed norms will be contained in the particular law of each ordinariate. And because no personal ordinariates have been erected, there is no such legislation to which we can refer. However, existing law does contain restrictions on the practice of selling the assets of a diocesan parish for any purpose other than for the benefit of that parish; and I am confident that these restrictions, as well as other norms on temporal goods will be reflected in the laws of future personal ordinariates.

We must acknowledge that, in the wake of the clergy sexual misconduct scandal, some diocesan bishops did indeed sell parish property in order to pay damages or settle with accusers before lawsuits were filed. Some bishops have used this opportunity to merge parishes, close an existing church edifice, and sell it for diocesan profit. In similar scenarios, some bishops have simply told a pastor that a piece of property owned by the parish (a convent, school, house, etc.) would be sold and the money used by the diocese; but I would view such acts as blatantly unlawful. While a bishop may hold civil title parish property and is free to dispose of it according to secular laws, he does not own it under canon law. A parish is a separate juridic person and it owns patrimony distinct from the diocese. The pastor is the proper administrator, and his obligations are those of a steward (cf: canon 1284, §1).

In a decision made in 2006, the Congregation for Clergy (prot. no. 2006/0481) provided some much appreciated clarification of key points about parish and parish patrimony. First, the Congregation makes it absolutely clear that when we speak of a parish, we are speaking about people and not a “thing.”  Quoting from canons 369 and 515, a parish is recognized as a community of God’s faithful. The letter goes on to note, “While the parish church and the parish physical plant may be closed, and the name of a particular parish extinguished, the spiritual needs of the portion of the Faithful which once constituted that parish must continue to be provided for in accord with their rights in law.”  With this in mind, the Congregation clearly notes that the assets of a parish MUST be used for the sake of the people who constitute that parish. And, if the parish is merged with another parish, the assets must be given to the parish or parishes that now provide pastoral care of the faithful who previously made up the extinguished parish. In other words, a diocese cannot close a parish and keep its assets. An exception, which would not apply to parishes of personal ordinariates, can be made for personal parishes erected to serve a certain ethnic or national group in cases where that group has become dispersed.

The legal points and argumentation found in the Congregation’s letter are very similar to those used by the St. Joseph Foundation in previous cases that predate the clergy sexual abuse crisis. As those who have challenged a bishop’s decree of parish suppression know, the chance of winning such cases is very low. However, it is refreshing to see the expressed intentions of the Holy See on this point. If we apply the principles, we must accept the fact that the assets of a parish are held in trust under canon for the good of the parishioners. In recent cases from New England, the Vatican has revoked decrees issued by bishops who sought to dispose of parish assets to benefit their dioceses. In practice, parish assets can no longer be viewed as a source of funds to satisfy diocesan obligations and I believe that the same rule would probably apply to the ordinary of an “Anglican Use” ordinariate.

The possibility of a diocesan bishop attempting to sell the assets of the parish of a personal ordinariate that happened to be located in his diocese has also been mentioned. My opinion is that such an act would be ultra vires and that a bishop would not be able to do it any more than he could sell the assets of a parish in a neighboring diocese.

One remaining question concerns how parishes are structured according to civil law. (As you know, I am not an attorney and claim no expertise in the field of bankruptcy law. Moreover, the Foundation does not provide legal services, even though some of our staff and consulting canonists are civil as well as canon lawyers; so whatever I say here is not to be taken as legal advice.) While parishes and dioceses are separate entities according to canon law, this is not always true in secular law. Over time, in the United States dioceses and parishes have been structured under state law in several ways. This remains true today and, for the purposes of this discussion, these structures fall into two broad categories. The first is known as the corporation sole, with a single civil corporation with the diocesan bishop as its sole “member” holding civil title to all the property of the canonically separate parishes. The other is called the corporation aggregate, which follows the pattern of canon law more closely. Each parish is a separate corporation, usually controlled by five trustees: the bishop, the vicar general, the pastor and two lay trustees chosen by the first three. If ordinariate parishes were structured in a similar way, the articles of incorporation or by laws might include a requirement that the dissolution of the corporation or the sale of any real property would require a unanimous vote of the trustees. I believe that this would probably be consistent with canon law. The details of the canonical and civil structures will, of course be decided by the competent ecclesiastical authorities with the assistance of canonical and civil counsel.

The preceding observations should be regarded as personal opinion. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance.

Sincerely,

Charles M. Wilson

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Lay Involvement in the Government of the Personal Ordinariates

Posted on by
3

Over at Ancient Richborough, Bishop Edwin Barnes notes that the Catholic Church is not a democracy.

In view of the aberrations which have sprung from the General Synod of the Church of England, and comparable bodies in other Anglican churches, it comes as a great relief to be assured that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Majorities in favour of women priests mean nothing when those voting have little understanding or knowledge of the history of the Church, nor of Holy Scripture.

Indeed the Catholic Church is not — and can not be — organized according to democratic principles, and, for most (if not all) Anglican jurisdictions, the ecclesiastical government proposed under the personal ordinariates will entail a fundamental constitutional change that ought to be be considered.

Presently, our Anglican synodical structures involve — in addition to bishops — representatives of both the clergy and the laity participating on a practically equal footing.  Clergy and laity are generally organized into separate houses which must concur in order to pass legislation governing the diocese, province, &c.  Essentially, while lip service is paid to the notion of episcopal government, Anglican jurisdictions are organized in the fashion of modern, democratic, secular governments, and apostasy is ever but one vote away.  In principle, there is nothing preventing an Anglican synod from reinterpreting Holy Scripture or Sacred Tradition, rejecting Catholic Faith and Apostolic Order.  This is precisely what has happened in the Episcopal Church and throughout the Anglican Communion in the past several decades.  Continuing Anglicans pride themselves on their orthodoxy and assume that they are immune from the doctrinal corruption now prevalent in the Anglican Communion, but the Continuing jurisdictions, all, have reconstituted the same defective ecclesiastical government which allowed the Episcopal Church to disintegrate into apostasy.  It is only the conservatism of their present membership that prevents the jurisdictions of the so-called Anglican Continuum from falling away from the Faith.

While matters of faith and morals are the exclusive province of the bishops according to Catholic doctrine, there are, of course, very important roles for laity in the Catholic Church and Anglicanorum Coetibus and the Complementary Norms describe how these are to exist in the future personal ordinariates.  While these roles are generally advisory as opposed to governing, they are nonetheless vital in the life of the Church.

On the parish level, the Complementary Norms provide for lay consultation in Article 14.

§1. The pastor may be assisted in the pastoral care of the parish by a parochial vicar, appointed by the Ordinary; a pastoral council and a finance council must be established in the parish.

Obviously, at present, the typical Anglican parish is governed by a vestry, presided over by the rector (who is himself called by the vestry and confirmed by the bishop) and composed of members elected by the congregation.  The vestry is charged with the administration of the temporalities of the parish and assists the rector in his ministry.  Perhaps the vestry will continue to perform the functions of both the pastoral and finance councils mandated by Anglicanorum Coetibus?  This would seem likely.  In any event, while the matter is not addressed specifically in the Apostolic Constitution (as it is left for each ordinariate to decide), where congregational ownership of the parish property is the norm, this practice will be continued under the personal ordinariates.  It remains to be seen what role the lay leadership of the parish will have in the selection of its pastor.  Again, it seems likely that, in accord with long-standing Anglican custom, the Ordinary and the parish council would cooperate in the appointment of the parish priest.

Anglicanorum Coetibus in X. § 3 provides for a finance council to be established in accordance with the norms of canon law.  These are the relevant canons in the 1983 CIC:

THE FINANCE COUNCIL AND THE FINANCE OFFICER

Can. 492 §1. In every diocese a Finance council is to be established, offer which the diocesan bishop himself or his delegate presides and which consists of at least three members of the Christian faithful truly expert in Financial affairs and civil law, outstanding in integrity, and appointed by the bishop.

§2. Members of the Finance council are to be appointed for Five years, but at the end of this period they can be appointed for other Five year terms.

§3. Persons who are related to the bishop up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affnity are excluded from the Finance council.

Can. 493 In addition to the functions entrusted to it in Book V, The Temporal Goods of the Church, the Finance council prepares each year, according to the directions of the diocesan bishop, a budget of the income and expenditures which are foreseen for the entire governance of the diocese in the coming year and at the end of the year examines an account of the revenues and expenses.

Can. 494 §1. In every diocese, after having heard the college of consultors and the Finance council, the bishop is to appoint a Finance officer who is truly expert in Financial affairs and absolutely distinguished for honesty.

§2. The Finance officer is to be appointed for a Five year term but can be appointed for other Five year terms at the end of this period. The finance officer is not to be removed while in this function except for a grave cause to be assessed by the bishop after he has heard the college of consultors and the Finance council.

§3. It is for the Finance officer to administer the goods of the diocese under the authority of the bishop in accord with the budget determined by the Finance council and, from the income of the diocese, to meet expenses which the bishop or others designated by him have legitimately authorized.

§4. At the end of the year, the Finance officer must render an account of receipts and expenditures to the Finance council.

The Apostolic Constitution also orders that each personal ordinariate have a pastoral council.

THE PASTORAL COUNCIL

Can. 511 In every diocese and to the extent that pastoral circumstances suggest it, a pastoral council is to be constituted which under the authority of the bishop investigates, considers, and proposes practical conclusions about those things which pertain to pastoral works in the diocese.

Can. 512 §1. A pastoral council consists of members of the Christian faithful who are in full communion with the Catholic Church—clerics, members of institutes of consecrated life, and especially laity—who are designated in a manner determined by the diocesan bishop.

§2. The Christian faithful who are designated to a pastoral council are to be selected in such a way that they truly reflect the entire portion of the people of God which constitutes the diocese, with consideration given to the different areas of the diocese, social conditions and professions, and the role which they have in the apostolate whether individually or joined with others.

§3. No one except members of the Christian faithful outstanding in firm faith, good morals, and prudence is to be designated to a pastoral council.

Can. 513 §1. A pastoral council is constituted for a period of time according to the prescripts of the statutes which are issued by the bishop.

§2. When the see is vacant, a pastoral council ceases.

Can. 514 §1. A pastoral council possesses only a consultative vote. It belongs to the diocesan bishop alone to convoke it according to the needs of the apostolate and to preside over it; it also belongs to him alone to make public what has been done in the council.

§2. The pastoral council is to be convoked at least once a year.

Obviously, in many ways, the finance and pastoral councils duplicate the functions of our present diocesan synods and lay involvement is an integral component of both.  The difference is that these bodies are consultative and are ultimately subject to the authority of the Ordinary.

Most Anglicans have prided themselves on the maintenance of an episcopacy in Apostolic Succession (even through the upheaval of the English Reformation), but Post-Reformation Anglicanism has neutered episcopal authority in the Church, making it ultimately subject to majority vote in Parliament or synod.  While many aspects of our venerable Anglican tradition will continue virtually unchanged in the personal ordinariates, the Holy See is asking us to place our trust in the shepherds set over us by the Church, to collaborate with our pastors, and, at least in matters of faith and morals, to submit in humility to their judgements.  Lay involvement will continue to be a vital aspect of our common life, but we are called to respect the order that Christ intends in His Church.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

A Canonist Examines Anglicanorum Coetibus

Posted on by
8

Fr. Andrew Cole, a priest of the Diocese of Menevia, living in the Pontifical Beda College, Rome, and studying for a doctorate in canon law at the Pontifical Gregorian University, examines the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus.

I have yet to see an analysis that seems to harmonize with Archbishop Hepworth's statement at the recent FiF UK National Assembly that

Lay people will come into this Anglican body in communion with the Holy See in a simple process that is to be done within their community — not individually — within their community.

At the moment, it remains unclear how congregations will be received, but it is clear from the Archbishop's statement that he expects an innovative solution that is fundamentally corporate (as opposed to individually-professed statements of faith and the reception of the Sacraments of Initiation).

Cross-referencing the Apostolic Constitution and the Complementary Norms will only get one so far.  There are many aspects of Anglicanorum Coetibus that are truly innovative and for which there are no precedents.

Fr. Cole suggests that ordination of Anglican ministers sub conditione will still be permissible in cases of "prudent doubt" (CIC 845, §2).  The commentary of Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J (released simultaneously with the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms) did not mention this possibility.

The good canonist's analysis doesn't bring much new information to the party, but it is posted here for the record.

For reference, the audio of the TAC Primate's talk to FiF UK can be found here.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!