observing the norms of the newly promulgated Code on the part of those who had   
   the authority and the juridical power to do so.   
      
   The text that the then President of the Pontifical Commission sent to the   
   Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also made   
   reference to the current situation:   
      
   "I can well understand Your Eminence's concern at the fact that the Ordinaries   
   involved did not first exercise their judicial power in order to punish such   
   crimes sufficiently, even to protect the common good of the faithful.   
   Nevertheless the problem seems to lie not with juridical procedure, but with   
   the responsible exercise of the task of governance.   
      
   "In the current Code, the offences that can lead to loss of the clerical state   
   have been clearly indicated: they are listed in canons 1364 õ1, 1367, 1370,   
   1387, 1394 and 1395. At the same time the procedure has been greatly simplified   
   in comparison with the previous norms of the 1917 Code: it has been speeded up   
   and streamlined, partly with a view to encouraging the Ordinaries to exercise   
   their authority through the necessary judgement of the offenders "ad normam   
   iuris" and the imposition of the sanctions provided.   
      
   "To seek to simplify the judicial procedure further so as to impose or declare   
   sanctions as grave as dismissal from the clerical state, or to change the   
   current norm of can. 1342 õ2 which prohibits proceeding with an extra- judicial   
   administrative decree in these cases (cf. can. 1720), does not seem at all   
   appropriate. Indeed, on the one hand it would endanger the fundamental right of   
   defence - and in causes that affect the person's state - while on the other   
   hand it would favour the deplorable tendency - owing perhaps to lack of due   
   knowledge or esteem for the law - towards ambivalent so-called "pastoral"   
   governance, which ultimately is not pastoral at all, because it tends to   
   obscure the due exercise of authority, thereby damaging the common good of the   
   faithful.   
      
   "At other difficult times in the life of the Church, when there has been   
   confusion of consciences and relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline, the   
   sacred Pastors have not failed to exercise their judicial power in order to   
   protect the supreme good of the "salus animarum".   
      
   The letter then proceeds with an excursus on the debate which had taken place   
   during the revision of the Code prior to the decision not to include so- called   
   dismissal "ex officio" from the clerical state. It was considered, in fact,   
   that the causes which might have justified this procedure "ex officio" had   
   almost all been included among the offences for which dismissal from the   
   clerical state was already envisaged (cf. Communicationes 14 [1982] 85). Hence,   
   for precisely this reason, not even the new "Norms for Dispensation from   
   Priestly Celibacy" of 14 October 1980 (AAS 72 [1980] 1136-1137) made reference   
   to this procedure, which the previous Norms of 1971 (AAS 63 [1971] 303-308), by   
   contrast, had allowed.   
      
   "All things considered - the reply concluded - this Pontifical Commission is of   
   the opinion that Bishops must be suitably reminded (cf. can. 1389), whenever it   
   should prove necessary, not to omit to exercise their judicial and coercive   
   power, instead of forwarding petitions for dispensation to the Holy See".   
      
   "While agreeing on the fundamental requirement to protect "the common good of   
   the faithful", the Pontifical Commission considered it dangerous to circumvent   
   certain practical safeguards, preferring instead to exhort those in positions   
   of responsibility to implement the provisions of the law.   
      
   "The exchange of letters between the Dicasteries was concluded, for the time   
   being, with a courteous reply, dated the following 14 May, from the Prefect of   
   the Congregation to the President of the Pontifical Commission:   
      
   "I am pleased to inform you that this Dicastery has received your valued   
   opinion on the possibility of providing for a swifter and more simplified   
   procedure than the one currently in force for the imposition of sanctions by   
   competent Ordinaries on priests guilty of grave and scandalous conduct. In this   
   regard, I wish to assure Your Eminence that the arguments you have put forward   
   will be carefully considered by this Congregation".   
      
   Pastor Bonus extends the Competences of the Congregation (June 1988) The issue   
   appeared to be formally closed, but the problem had not been resolved. In fact,   
   the first important sign of a change in the situation took place via a   
   different route, just one month later, with the promulgation of the Apostolic   
   Constitution Pastor Bonus, which altered the overall structure of the Roman   
   Curia as established in 1967 by 'Regimini Ecclesiae Universae', and reallocated   
   the competences of individual Dicasteries. Article 52 of this pontifical   
   legislation, still in force today, clearly laid down the exclusive penal   
   jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not only with   
   regard to offences against the faith or in the celebration of the sacraments,   
   but also with regard to "more serious offences against morals". The   
   Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "examines offences against the faith   
   and more serious ones both in behaviour or in the celebration of the sacraments   
   which have been reported to it and, if need be, proceeds to the declaration or   
   imposition of canonical sanctions in accordance with the norms of common or   
   proper law" (Pastor Bonus, 52).   
      
   This text, evidently suggested by Cardinal Ratzinger's Congregation on the   
   basis of its own experience, is directly related to what we are examining, and   
   it is even more significant in view of the fact that the previous "draft" of   
   the law - the 'Schema Legis Peculiaris de Curia Romana', prepared three years   
   earlier - did little more than reproduce the formulation of the Dicastery's   
   competences made in 1967 in 'Regimini', saying simply that the Congregation   
   "delicta contra fidem cognoscit, atque ubi opus fuerit ad canonicas sanctiones   
   declarandas aut irrogandas, ad normam iuris procedit" (art. 36, Schema Legis   
   Peculiaris de Curia Romana, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis 1985, p. 35).   
      
   With respect to the previous situation, then, the change introduced by the   
   Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus is of some importance, all the more so   
   since this time it occurred within the context of the norms of the 1983 Code,   
   with reference to the offences defined there as well as to the "proper law" of   
   the Congregation itself. Within a normative framework governed by the above-   
   mentioned criteria of "subsidiarity" and "decentralization", then, the   
   Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus now executed a juridical act of   
   "reservation" to the Holy See (cf. can. 381 õ1 CIC) of a whole category of   
   offences that the Supreme Pontiff entrusted to the exclusive jurisdiction of   
   the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is quite unlikely that a   
   choice of this kind, better defining the competences of the Congregation and   
   revising the Code's criterion regarding who should apply these canonical   
   penalties, would have been implemented at all if the overall system had been   
   working well.   
      
   The norm in question, however, was still insufficient at the practical level.   
   Elementary requirements of the certainty of law now made it necessary to   
   identify exactly what these "more serious offences" were, both those against   
   morals and those committed in the celebration of sacraments, that Pastor Bonus   
   was entrusting to the Congregation, withdrawing them from the jurisdiction of   
   Ordinaries.   
      
   Two Subsequent Interventions of Importance The events described thus far, as we   
   have seen, occurred within a short period of time: a few months during the   
   first half of 1988. In the years that followed - to put it in general terms -   
   efforts were still being made to address emergency situations arising within   
   the Church's penal sphere by following the general criteria of the 1983 Code as   
   broadly summarized in the letter from the Pontifical Commission for the   
   Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law. There were moves to encourage the   
   intervention of local Ordinaries, sometimes accompanied by efforts to   
   streamline the procedures, if necessary by means of a special law, mainly   
   through dialogue with the Episcopal Conferences concerned. Later, in the course   
   of the 1990s, there were numerous meetings and proposals of this kind,   
   involving different Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, as can be readily   
   documented.   
      
   Yet repeated experience confirmed the inadequacy of these solutions and the   
   need to find others of greater scope, operating on a different level. Two   
   solutions in particular significantly altered the framework of canonical penal   
   law on which the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts has been working in   
   recent months, and both were instigated by the current Pontiff, in perfect   
   continuity with the concerns he expressed in the above-mentioned letter of   
   1988.   
      
   The first initiative, now quite widely known, concerns the preparation in the   
   late 1990s of the Norms on the so-called 'delicta graviora', which effectively   
   implemented article 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus by   
   specifically indicating which crimes against morals and which crimes committed   
   in the celebration of sacraments were to be considered "more serious" - thus   
   bringing them under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congregation for the   
   Doctrine of the Faith.   
      
   These Norms, finally promulgated in 2001, inevitably appeared to "go against"   
   the criteria provided by the Code for the application of penal sanctions, so   
   much so that in many areas they were immediately branded "centralizing" norms,   
   whereas in reality they were responding to a particular need for "completion",   
   aimed in primis at resolving a serious ecclesial problem regarding the proper   
   functioning of the penal system and in secundis at ensuring uniform treatment   
   of this type of case throughout the Church. To this end the Congregation had   
   first to prepare the relevant internal procedural norms, and likewise to   
   reorganize the Dicastery so as to harmonize this judicial activity with the   
   Code's rules on processes.   
      
   In the years after 2001, moreover, and on the basis of the juridical experience   
   acquired, the then Prefect of the Congregation obtained from the Holy Father   
   new faculties and dispensations to deal with the various situations, to the   
   point of actually defining new offences. In the meantime it was recognized that   
   the "grace" of dispensation from priestly obligations and the consequent   
   reduction to the lay state of clerics found guilty of very serious crimes was   
   also a grace given 'pro bono Ecclesiae'. For this reason, in some particularly   
   serious cases, the Congregation did not hesitate to ask the Supreme Pontiff for   
   the decree of dismissal 'ex officio' from the clerical state in the case of   
   clerics who had committed appalling crimes. These subsequent modifications are   
   now codified in the Norms on the 'delicta graviora' published by the   
   Congregation last July.   
      
   There is, however, a second and much less well-known initiative of the current   
   Pope that I should also like to mention briefly, since it has certainly helped   
   to change the overall application of the Church's penal law, namely his   
   intervention as a Member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples   
   in the preparation of the special faculties that, similarly by way of necessary   
   "completion", were granted to that Congregation for purposes of addressing   
   other kinds of disciplinary problems in mission territories.   
      
   It is not hard to understand that, owing to the scarcity of resources of every   
   kind, the obstacles to implementation of the Code's penal law system were felt   
   particularly keenly in mission territories dependent on the Congregation for   
   the Evangelization of Peoples, which, broadly speaking, represent almost half   
   of the Catholic world.   
      
   Hence, in its Plenary Assembly of February 1997, the Congregation decided to   
   request from the Holy Father "special faculties" which would allow it to act   
   administratively in specific penal situations on the margins of the general   
   provisions of the Code: the Relator of that Plenary Assembly was the then   
   Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is public   
   knowledge that these "faculties" were updated and extended in 2008, while   
   others of a similar nature and manner, have since been granted to the   
   Congregation for the Clergy.   
      
   It seems unnecessary to add more. Specialized studies have already been   
   published which offer a good account of the variations in the Church's penal   
   law system produced by all these initiatives. Experience will tell to what   
   extent the modifications to Book VI that are now in preparation, keeping in   
   mind these new faculties, will succeed in restoring balance. For present   
   purposes, though, my principal intention has been to highlight the crucial role   
   played, in this more than 20-year process of renewing penal discipline, by the   
   decisive action of the current Pope, to the point that - together with many   
   other practical initiatives - it truly constitutes one of the "constant   
   elements" in the activity of Joseph Ratzinger.   
   .../VIS 20101202 (4170)   
      
   SUMMARY   
      
   --- MPost/386 v1.21   
    * Origin: Sursum Corda! BBS =Meridian, MS= bbs.sursum-corda.com (1:396/45)