Canon Law was definitely my weakest field in ecclesiastic studies. I have found, however, over the years, that knowledge of Canon Law is necessary for pastoral survival and service, especially when trying to understand nuances and possibilities regarding the Sacraments (especially Holy Matrimony). Recently, Canon Law has again entered into the picture of Opus Dei, whereby two canons regarding the nature of personal prelatures have been recently amended. How will/do these changes practically affect the spiritual lives and evangelization efforts of the many members (way-mostly laypersons) of the Work, as well as the countless numbers of clerics and laypersons who are inspired by the teachings of Jesus as transmitted by the holy life and charisms God gave St. Josemaria, founder of Opus Dei? As one of my friends likes to say, “Time will tell…” All I do know is that St. Josemaria was directly instrumental in completely turning my ego-oriented life around to a much larger (and far more interesting) world and mission, first as a layman and now as a priest of Opus Dei’s presbyterate. It was (and still is) a very attractive notion that by our Baptism we are called into a new relationship with God as Our Father (the words are Jesus’) as well as a mission that only each of us can carry out, that is, a unique divine vocation. St. Josemaria was given the foundational grace to promote this reality in and through ordinary, secular, life. Laypersons therefore have a vocation to sanctify their lives and transform the created, wounded, and redeemed world for the greater glory of God. ‘Vocation’ is a very serious word, because everything, and I do mean everything, is at stake regarding its proper understanding and praxis. In the end (and I do mean the The End, as in the Jim Morrison sense) you and I are either saints, or we’re not. Vatican II called this ‘The Universal Call to Holiness’ and Karl Rahner thought it the most important teaching of the whole Council. May Canon Law always reflect and express the teachings of the Church as given to us by Jesus, personally lived out by each of us in the vocation we have been given. Amen.
Below is a roughly (non-official) edited translation of Prof. Geraldina Boni of Bologna U’s recent legal commentary on recent amendments to Canon Law regarding personal prelatures. I find the article interesting, especially because I appreciate genius when I see or hear it, but also because I belong to a personal prelature, and I like to understand my life and what I am expected to do with it (I already said I am ego-oriented). Enjoy a reflective moment of Canon Law and you!
REGARDING THE SIMILARITY OF PERSONAL PRELATURES TO PUBLIC CLERICAL ASSOCIATIONS: Some initial observations on the Motu Proprio of Pope Francis in which canons 295 and 296 relative to personal prelatures are modified
On August 8, just after returning to Rome after celebrating World Youth Day in Lisbon, the Holy Father issued a Motu Proprio (a legislative decree of the Pope’s own authority) whereby he introduced a significant modification to the Code of Canon Law promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1983, with regard to personal prelatures. This legislative action raises, from a purely legal point of view, several important questions, for which it is worth pausing, even if only as a matter of brief professional commentary.
In the first place, it seems natural that, considering the approval of legislation, a canonical expert should focus on formal juridical elements. In this sense, two peculiar procedural modalities, exceptional in themselves, although frequently used in this pontificate, immediately call one’s attention. First, the mode of promulgation of the Motu Proprio through its publication in L’Osservatore Romano: a procedure that is in itself valid, although different from the one usually provided by the Code of Canon Law. The second consists in its immediate implementation, without even the least space for vacatio legis [Editorial note: vacatio legis is a technical term in law marking the period between the announcement of a legislation and its entering into force. Please see Wikipedia]. Such pressing urgency can only be understood considering that the said new canons really only affect the one existing personal prelature, Opus Dei, which currently, after the Motu Proprio, Ad charisma tuendum, of July 14, 2022, is undergoing modification of its statutes. It is natural to wonder if this same urgency has not led to an abandonment…of normal procedural channels, which do not represent empty formalism, but help guarantee the technical perfection of the law, as well as provide instruments through which authentic synodality can be expressed, always respecting the freedom of a Pope to establish the forms and contents of the norms when exercising his Petrine ministry. If we observe that the substantial procedural novelty consists in assimilating personal prelatures to clerical associations of pontifical right with the capacity to incardinate priests, and, similarly, in considering the prelate as a ‘moderator’ with Ordinary faculties, it seems the universal legislator has been guided by and adhered to an interpretation of the canons on personal prelatures that was rejected by the majority opinion…. This approach might not have been adopted if the usual practice of listening to canonical experts and collecting diversified and reasoned opinions in the production of laws had been followed, especially when considering the modification of canons of the Code.
Apart from the doctrinal discussions on the subject, which we cannot dwell on here, any canonist familiar with the traditional terminology used in the Church cannot fail to be somewhat surprised that a ‘prelature’ should be assimilated to an ‘association’. The word ‘prelature’ in canon law identifies the area of jurisdiction of a prelate, and the title ‘prelate’ (as distinct from a merely honorary designation) clearly alludes to jurisdictional authority. The prelatures in the 1917 Code of Canon Law were the so-called ‘nullius dioecesis prelatures’, that is, larger jurisdictional units, today called ‘territorial prelatures’, assimilated to dioceses. Not in vain, the conciliar decree Presbyterorum ordinis, cited at the beginning of the Motu Proprio commented on now, spoke precisely of “peculiares dioeceses vel praelaturae personalis.” It is quite unimaginable that the Vatican II Council Fathers, who only knew about territorial prelatures when they approved the possibility of creating particular dioceses or personal prelatures, were thinking of entities similar to associations. In addition, and as has been widely observed in doctrine, the adjective ‘personal’ indicates that the prelature is defined through personal critera: that is, that the Christian people entrusted to a prelate adhere to a personal criterion rather than the usual one of territoriality. The assimilation to a clerical association would lead one to think that a prelature is composed only of clerics: but, if that were the case, it would not be understood in any way what the ‘personal’ qualification refers to. This is a contradiction difficult to solve. Of course, nihil similia est idem, and the personal ‘prelatures’ resulting from the revision of the Code would not be true and proper clerical associations, but only assimilated to them. However, the jurist must grasp the foundation of the legal analogy in order to accurately discern its consequences. In support of the new legislation on personal prelatures, the Motu Proprio cites the Second Vatican Council, noting that it deals with this figure in relation to the “distribution of clerics, within the scope of the request by all the Churches”, which would seem to justify assimilation. Distributing clergy is nothing more than deploying pastoral organization, the primary and exclusive task of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and not of associative bodies.
In summary, even with these limited considerations, it is not easy to understand the assimilation of two such heterogeneous figures [personal prelatures and clerical associations]. In the case of assimilation…a similarity to clerical associations makes the position of the laity problematic, precisely because laypersons can organically cooperate with clergy,“operibus apostolicis praelaturae personalis sese dedicate possunt” (can. 296). And it is precisely here where the most obvious problem of the recent Motu Proprio arises: by applying it to the only existing personal prelature, Opus Dei, one needs to take into account its social reality, made up of more than 90,000 laypersons spread across the five continents, served by about 2000 priests…. Nor can we forget that in order to protect this charism, St. John Paul II, as Pope Francis recalls in Ad charisma tuendum, had established the personal prelature of Opus Dei, “organically structured, that is, by priests and lay faithful, men and women, headed by their own Prelate….”
In short, precisely in the case of the only personal prelature erected, due respect for the authentic charism regarding its social reality, and for the rights of the faithful involved, would seem to require that the novelty of “assimilation” remain, for now, on mostly on the level of principles. […]
August 18, 2023, by Geraldina Boni, Professor of Ecclesiastical Law of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna
Excerpts and editing are derived from the article’s English translation. The original in several languages can be found here: Livatino Study Center
Let's Repent! 