Canon Lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray: The content of the Responsa “goes beyond what is canonically possible”

Recently two canon law evaluations of the Responsa ad dubia of the Congregation for Divine Worship have been published.

IMPORTANT ARTICLE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE RESPONSA ON TRADITIONIS CUSTODES - "Congregation cannot make authoritative interpretations. Juridical status of document highly questionable, does not have legally binding force."

by Father Pierre Laliberté, JCL* 

On 18 December 2021, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) issued a peculiar document, a "Responsa ad dubia" regarding the 16 July 2021 motu proprio of Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes. 

 

At the outset, some formal considerations on this document must be stressed. The main lines of the competencies of the CDWDS can be found as sketched in Pastor Bonus, the 28 June 1988 Apostolic Constitution of John Paul II. Articles 62-70 discuss the role of this congregation, which is to "foster and safeguards the regulation of the administration of the Sacraments, especially regarding their valid and licit celebration." (art. 63) The CDWDS, it must be mentioned, does not possess legislative power. 

 

As a consequence, this Congregation cannot make authoritative interpretations. Responses, in particular this document, are neither general decrees nor instructions (canons 29-34). Such responses to dubia are not binding executive decisions. While the CDWDS has noted that their responses are official and represent the mens Congregationis, they should be seen as just that - an expression of the mind of the Congregation. Since these Responsa do not appear to have been approved "in forma specifica" by the Holy Father, they would not have binding force, and would only bind those who posed the dubia. Despite this document being "consented to" by the Holy Father, the juridical status of this document is highly questionable, and thus cannot be considered as having legally binding force. Some have even stated that the document is "vox et praeterea nihil."

“It is to be hoped that bishops will generously exhaust the legal possibilities of dispensation”—Canon Lawyer Fr. Gero Weishaupt

The following interview was conducted in German by Petra Lorleberg for kath.net. Dr. Gero P. Weishaupt is a priest and canon lawyer. He was Judicial Vicar/Official of the Diocese of 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) 2008–2013, and is Judge of the Interdiocesan Criminal Court of the Dutch Ecclesiastical Province since 2012, Diocesan Judge at the Archdiocesan Office of the Archdiocese of Cologne since 2013, and Lecturer in Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Documents at the Theological Institute of the Diocese of Roermond since 2015. He has published several books and canonical articles. This translation was prepared for Rorate Caeli. It goes without saying that Rorate does not necessarily agree with all of what he says, but his perspective on canonical dispensation is particularly helpful at this time.—PAK

“Traditionis custodes seems like a cannon with which the pope shoots at sparrows”—
Interview with Canon Lawyer Fr. Gero Weishaupt

KATH.NET: Dr. Weishaupt, how urgent would you have considered a motu proprio in the sense of Traditionis custodes in this early summer?

WEISHAUPT: In my opinion, Traditionis custodes oversteps the mark. This motu proprio is disproportionate and seems like a cannon with which the Pope shoots at sparrows.

I do not want to deny that here and there that after Summorum Pontificum there have been undesirable developments that were not the intention of Pope Benedict XVI. For example, Summorum Pontificum was misunderstood when groups of faithful formed in parishes or were joined by faithful who celebrated Mass in the Tridentine form exclusively but avoided Mass in the “Pauline” form. If Summorum Pontificum and the explanatory instruction Universae Ecclesiae had been consistently implemented, such groupings would not have occurred in one parish or another, and Pope Francis’s most recent motu proprio would have been superfluous. But such undesirable developments stayed within limits. The motu proprio Traditionis custodes and its accompanying letter, however, generalize, fail to distinguish, and ignore the many tradition-loving faithful who have found their spiritual home in both forms. Instead of a word of appreciation, the Pope kicks them and drives them back into the ghetto. And the traditional, classical liturgy ends up in the museum.

Can a document based on falsehoods have juridical standing? Can a doubtful law bind?

Given Its Foundational Falsehoods, Does Traditionis Custodes Lack Juridical Standing?

Peter A. Kwasniewski

ARTICLE 1 of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes reads: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

The pope here claims that the Novus Ordo is the only law of prayer for the Roman Rite. It is impossible to see how this is compatible with the history of the Church and with her reverence for the venerable rites of antiquity and the Middle Ages, epitomized in the Missale Romanum of 1570 and its subsequent integral editions. They, too, are the lex orandi and cannot be otherwise. Instead, the motu proprio fumblingly makes “lex orandi” do duty as a juridical, canonical term, able to be applied ad libitum, as if it were an extrinsic label. In reality, the lex orandi is the whole complex of historical prayer texts, ceremonies, and music that make up the Roman Rite.

The only way to sustain the fiction of Article 1 is to claim that there is so great a continuity between the old missal and the new missal that the new one is simply an updated version of the old one—that the Novus Ordo is substantially the same as the traditional Roman Rite that preceded it is. Francis’s letter to the bishops makes just this move:

It must therefore be considered that the Roman Rite, adapted several times over the centuries to the needs of the times, has not only been preserved but also renewed “in faithful obedience to Tradition.” Those who wish to celebrate with devotion according to the previous liturgical form will not find it difficult to find in the Roman Missal, reformed according to the mind of the Second Vatican Council, all the elements of the Roman Rite, especially the Roman Canon, which is one of its most characteristic features.

One can only stare in amazement at the flagrant falsehood of this pair of sentences.

“Beyond Summorum Pontificum: The Work of Retrieving the Tridentine Heritage”: Full Text of Dr. Kwasniewski’s Roman Forum Lecture

The following is the transcript of the lecture I gave at the Roman Forum on July 3. A video of the lecture has been posted at Remnant-TV (link). A synopsis (less than one-third the length) was published at Crisis Magazine on July 7, under the title “Summorum Pontificum at Fourteen: Its Tragic Flaws.” As we near the imminent restriction or suppression of this motu proprio, it is important to step back and look at the bigger picture: What is—or is not—the role of the papacy vis-à-vis the liturgy handed down in tradition? What should our attitude be to abuses of papal authority, particularly in regard to its attempts to “allow” or “forbid” immemorial rites of divine worship? I would draw the reader’s attention to the notes, which contain important supporting material.—PAK

Beyond Summorum Pontificum: The Work of Retrieving the Tridentine Heritage

Peter A. Kwasniewski

 

As we find out more and more about the sheer corruption of the papal court today, which rivals the record of the Renaissance, it seems (if anything) still more remarkable, bordering on the miraculous, that Summorum Pontificum was ever issued at all. It was a watershed moment, a gesture of fortitude and favor, and a clear factor in multiplying old Masses around the world and weakening the modernist hegemony. We were grateful to have a pope who, instead of throwing a bone to the nostalgics—the so-called “indults” of Paul VI and John Paul II—had the courage to say the truth: that the great liturgy of our tradition had never been abrogated and could never be abrogated. In just a few sentences, central claims of Archbishop Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Count Neri Capponi, and others were vindicated.

 

I think it is fair to say right from the start that Summorum Pontificum was useful to our movement in the way that an enormous booster rocket is useful for launching a spaceship into orbit: it has a lot of raw power, but it can only do so much, and when it’s empty, it falls away. Summorum Pontificum is destined to be one of the great papal interventions in all of history, but it is no more than damage control; it is not a pillar, much less a foundation, of a permanent structure. And those who lean on it too much will find themselves crushed by its incoherences. My goal in this presentation will be to walk through Summorum Pontificum and identify its principal flaws, the elements in it that act as weights pulling us down, so that we can resolutely go beyond it to retrieve the fullness of the Tridentine heritage that constitutes the authentic Roman rite.

 

I can imagine what some of you may be thinking: “Rumors are swirling everywhere that Summorum Pontificum is about to be severely curtailed or shelved—and you are complaining about its imperfections? Right now, we’d all be grateful and relieved if we could just hold on to this motu proprio, warts and all.” My response is that unless we understand precisely the weak points of Summorum Pontificum, we will not be able to understand why we are still so vulnerable to the machinations of Francis and his circle, and, more to the point, we will not be able to summon the necessary strength to ignore or to oppose what the Vatican might do to reduce or prevent the celebration of the classical Roman rite. For the motu proprio establishes or reaffirms false principles that are coming back to haunt us, or perhaps have never stopped haunting us. As much as the traditional movement has benefited pragmati­cally from Summorum (and of that, there is no doubt), we must learn to put our weight fully on our own two feet, so that when the legal crutch or brace is suddenly removed, we do not topple over helplessly.

 

The case against masks, presented by a religious Sister in the form of an article from the Summa

Rorate is grateful for the following contribution, offered to us by a religious Sister who wishes to remain anonymous (or rather, who must remain anonymous for the sake of her community).

For the past ten months or so, we have been urged, commanded, and threatened to wear masks. The majority of the populace seems to be complying. It is the exception, rather than the norm, to see unmasked faces at a grocery store, a gas station, or the gym. Christians seem to be like their neighbors in this regard; walking into most Masses on a Sunday morning, one is likely to be “greeted” with masked parishioners, social distancing, and lots of sanitizer.

An Apologia for the Underground: Objections and Replies on the Subject of “Underground” Masses during COVID-19

The following article was submitted to Rorate from a writer in the American Midwest.

The unprecedented suspension of public Masses during COVID-19 left many lay Catholics with the question: “During suspension of public Masses ordered by the bishops of the Church in response to COVID-19, could members of the lay faithful assist with clear consciences at Masses where priests ignored their bishops’ rulings and did not lock the doors?” In the following objections and replies, I develop an answer to this question. I am not a canon lawyer; I claim to have no authority in matters of Church law. With Saint Teresa of Jesus, I simply say,

If these writings contain error, it is through my ignorance; I submit in all things to the teachings of the holy Catholic Roman Church, of which I am now a member, as I protest and promise I will be both in life and death. May our Lord God be forever praised and blessed! Amen, Amen. [1]

Objection 1: 

The lay faithful don’t necessarily have a right to be present at Holy Mass. Therefore, their concern at being barred from Mass by their bishops during the COVID-19 pandemic is not warranted.

A theologian analyzes the morality of the cancellation of public Masses and the closure of churches by the State — superb Thomistic treatment

The author of this letter, a priest and an experienced teacher of moral theology, shared the following text with Rorate Caeli. It was originally prepared as a letter to the priest’s local ordinary. I find it the best treatment I have read so far of these questions.

Letter Reflecting on the Cancellation of Masses and Closure of Churches

+Pax+

8 May 2020

Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces and Queen of All Saints

Your Excellency,

For nearly two months now the Catholic faithful have been deprived of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of Holy Communion, and for many, even of Confession, many priests refusing this ministry. This time has been one of great suffering for all. The unexpectedness of the situation found us all wondering what to do, and those in positions of leadership had to make some very tough and very quick decisions.

De Mattei: Is the principle of legality being extinguished in the Church?

Roberto de Mattei

Corrispondenza Romana

July 10, 201

If Pope Francis should be accused of a crime by any judge, in any part of the world, he should divest himself of his office as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and submit himself to the judgment of a court. This is the logical and necessary conclusion to the stunning decision by which the Holy See denied diplomatic immunity to the French Apostolic Nuncio, Monsignor Luigi Ventura, accused of sexual molestations.

The Holy See could have discharged the Nuncio from his office, and, pending the outcome of the French justice system, initiate a canonical investigation on him, also for his own guaranty. The decision to dispatch the papal representative into the hands of a secular court, violates the institution of diplomatic immunity, the expression par excellence of the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the Church. That same diplomatic immunity, by the way, was invoked to protect the crimes committed in Italy by Pope Francis’s Almoner, Cardinal Konrad Krajewski.

Count Neri Capponi, Defender of the Traditional Mass, Requiescat in pace

Count Neri Capponi (left) with Michael Davies at a FIUV meeting

A dear friend and reader of Rorate Caeli alerted us to the fact that a great traditionalist of the 20th century, Count Neri Capponi, died yesterday, on the feast of St. Lucy. Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace.