May 29, 2012 Martin Mallon (Ireland) Martin's previous articles
I
witnessed an example of Vatican II in action on Pentecost Sunday 2012. An
International Mass was held in our parish, organised by the Liturgy
Committee (LC) of the Parish Council. The LC is made up of non-ordained
faithful and is chaired by a woman.
The
Mass was well attended by the different nationalities living in our parish with
over seven national flags in the opening procession. Two choirs and a folk group
enhanced the liturgy and six Prayers of the Faithful were proclaimed by foreign
nationals in their native tongues. The Mass was concelebrated by three priests,
two Irish and one Polish who was the main concelebrant.
One
aspect I found particularly moving was the saying of the Our Father in each
persons native language at the same time. This was especially appropriate as on
the original Pentecost the disciples spoke in Aramaic and were heard by the
foreigners in Jerusalem in their own native languages. It was beautiful to
witness the Our Father, and the Holy Spirit, once again, made everything
understandable and harmonious. It was much better than if we had all been
speaking Latin; all the different living languages harmonising naturally rather
than one dead language being enforced on everyone. None of this could have been
imagined before Vatican II.
This
Mass was the type of service envisaged by the bishops at Vatican II when they
recommended the formation of Parish Councils. However, this works when the
Parish Priest is open to the teachings and spirit of
Vatican II, but if he is replaced by a PP who is not willing to cooperate
with the Parish Council then that is the end of the story and the end of
International Masses together with other good work being done by our Council.
The
reason this situation can arise is that only the ordained can hold any “power
of governance” in our Church according to Canon Law 129
§1: “Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the
norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in
the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of
jurisdiction.”
Part
§2 of the canon permits the non-ordained faithful to “cooperate in the
exercise of this same power”, but basically the laity have no power of
governance in the Church.
It
is time for this position to change; in Ireland many of the laity, priests and
religious
feel that the “power of governance” was abused by some of the ordained,
particularly the bishops, and that the laity and religious must once again be
enabled to take part in the governing of our Church. This was one of the issues
raised at the meeting in Dublin on May 7, Towards an Assembly of the Irish
Catholic Church.
A
worrying aspect of Canon 129 is that in the 1917 Code of Canon Law the power of
governance included those with tonsures. According to Ladislas Orsy, in his book
Receiving the Council, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 2009: “Tonsure was a
purely ritual act, not a sacrament; the theological status of the tonsured
person remained exactly what it was. He continued to be a lay person. Yet from
the moment he received the tonsure he could participate (and many did) in the
exercise of the power of governance...which is now the exclusive domain of the
ordained persons.” (p. 41)
So
it is shocking to realise that the new updated Code of Canon Law of 1983,
promulgated eighteen years after the Second Vatican Council, should be more, not
less, restrictive and works to prevent the laity from fulfilling their mission
in the Church. It would appear that a teaching of Vatican II has been and is
being contravened.
It
is worth noting that Orsy points out: “History is not on the side of Canon
129. Therefore, the restriction can hardly be grounded in dogma. It must be a
disciplinary provision, and if so, it can be changed.” (p. 39)
How
can Canon Law 129 be changed? What community cannot change a bad law?