Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5—July 22, 1971
(Copyright 1971 NC News Service)
INTERVIEW WITH NC NEWS SERVICE
Cardinal Suenens On Proposed Basic Law Of Church
BY RICHARD M.
GUILBERSON JR.
(Copyright, NC
News Service)
BRUSSELS, Belgium (NC)
— The proposed basic law of
the Church - the “Lex
Fundamentalis” — has
become a subject of sharp
controversy.
The following exclusive
interview on the topic was
given to NC News by Cardinal
Leo Suenens of
Malines-Brussels, Belgium.
QUESTION:
The first version of the
proposed Constitution of the
Church, known as “Lex
Fundamentalis” (Basic Law)
met widespread criticism.
Nevertheless an even more
unsatisfactory new version, it
appears, has been sent to
every bishop in the world,
and they are expected to send
in their consultative vote on
it before Sept. 1.
Why should such a vote be
asked before the Sept. 30
opening of the world Synod
of Bishops in Rome and what
do you think of the manner
in which their consultation is
being carried out?
ANSWER:
I would have the utmost
reserve as to the validity of
such a consultation of the
bishops. Insufficient time was
alloted for a serious
examination of a document
of such importance, which
was prepared in almost
complete secrecy over the last
five years.
It is not possible, in such a
short space of time, to
adequately consult our
departments of theology and
canon law, not to mention
the specialists of other
disciplines concerned with
the proposed constitution.
But mere consultation is
not enough. The document
should have been discussed in
a collegial manner. Yet such
discussion never took place,
either in the commission of
cardinals entrusted with the
supervision of the work ~ we
never even met together - or
in the International
Theological Commission as
such.
The episcopal conferences
have practically no time now
to make a joint study of it.
Everyone knows what a
world of difference there is
between a hasty consultation
and seriously prepared
consultations in the local
churches over a sufficient
period of time.
Furthermore, apart from
the haste and lack of
preparation for a valid
consultation, there remains
the fact that it is being
carried out in a secret or
semi-secret manner.
The text is not accessible
to the Christian public and
yet it is of vital concern to
them, since what is at stake is
a constitution they will have
to live under.
How is it possible then, in
such conditions, to discuss it
openly with qualified people
and with the diocesan
councils of coresponsibility
concerned by this
constitution? How then does
this conform to the desire of
the Pope for “the precious
collaboration of the bishops
who, in their turn, will be the
interpreters of the sentiments
of the people of God?”
(Discourse, 23 June, 1970 on
the reform of the Code [of
Canon Law]). And how
could we not think that such
a procedure, if it were to be
maintained, would not be a
negation of the recent
instruction of the Pontifical
Commission on Social
Communications Media, an
instruction confirmed by the
Holy Father, in which we
read:
“Public opinion is an
essential expression of human
nature organized in a society.
Moreover, if public opinion is
to be formed in a proper
manner, it is necessary that,
right from the start, the
public be given free access to
both the sources and the
channels of information and
be allowed freely to express
its own views.”
Finally, lest there be a
doubt about the applicability
of these general principles to
the Church itself, the
communications instruction
affirms: “Since the Church is
a living body, she needs
public opinion.. .Without
this, she cannot advance in
thought and action ...
“Since the development of
public opinion within the
Church is essential, individual
Catholics have the right to all
the information they need to
play their active role in the
life of the Church.”
It would be bitter irony if,
on an occasion of such
importance for the Church,
we did not put into practice
the principles we proclaim.
I frankly admit that I
myself am all the more
anxious, since it is known
that the promotor of the
consultation, Cardinal
[Pericle] Felici [president of
the Pontifical Commission for
the Revision of the Code of
Canon Law] wrote sometime
ago in L ’ 0 sservatore
Romano, that the Pope is
sovereignly free to decide or
not on a constitution for the
Church, with or without
consultation of the episcopal
college.
This opinion is in
accordance with the letter of
the law as it stands in the
Church today, but after
Vatican II and the second
Synod of Bishops in 1969
such a position is a denial of
the spirit of Vatican II and
shows how urgent it is that
the meaning of true
collegiality be clarified.
Replying to numerous
criticisms, the undersecretary
of the Commission for the
Revision of the Code of
Canon Law, recently declared
at a Vatican press conference
that the text of the Lex
Fundamentalis was open to
the widest consultation. This
is in formal opposition to the
initial instruction.
But for such a consultation
to be effective, its very
procedure should have been
studied right from the start,
and the respective roles of
bishops, priests and laity in
its elaboration should have
been clearly defined. Here,
theology and technique
would have their say. This
belated invitation to
“openness” in an attempt to
calm criticism, cannot
remedy this grave initial
ommission.
QUESTION:
But even supposing a
normal procedure, with
adequate preliminary study,
do you think it at all possible
to draw up a satisfactory Lex
Fundamentalis, or basic law
of the Church?
ANSWER:
I prefer to leave to
theologians and canonists the
question of whether a
fundamental or constitutional
law of the Church is at all
possible. It should be noted
however, that such a
fundamental law would be a
law above the laws, a law
which would regulate and be
the point of reference for al
future laws.
It is clear, then, that we
have here a singularly
difficult question, for in a
project like this there is
always a great risk that one
will dogmatize the juridical
and legalize the dogmatic.
Care must be taken to
avoid the danger of not
distinguishing sufficiently
between what pertains to
faith, theology, history or
sociology, on the one hand,
and what pertains to the
strictly juridical, on the other
hand.
Vatican II reminds us very
opportunely that the Church
is a mystery of God whose
roots plunge deep into the
Trinitarian mystery itself, and
which on every side overrides
our human classifications. We
must remember that, during
the first 20 centuries of its
existence, the Church never
felt the need of defining
herself in such a juridical
way. For those who very
rightly place great importance
on tradition, this deserves
serious consideration.
Then again, under the title
“Lex Fundamentalis,” one
can place very different
things. Does it mean a
constitution of the Church,
which is analagous to a civil
constitution? In every
hypothesis, a constitution
should contain the whole of
the duties and rights of
subjects and rulers, and
should also provide the
necessary guarantees against
the arbitrariness of authority
at every level. As it is, the
Lex Fundamentalis, in the
text given for examination,
contains no guarantees of this
kind. This is an unpardonable
omission in a juridical
document which aims at
covering essentials.
Does the Lex
Fundamentalis aim only at
giving the principal directives
which should orientate the
work of the Commission for
the Revision of the Code of
Canon Law? In this case,
then, it would be a more
modest contribution and a
more attainable one.
When the bishops in the
synod of 1967 gave the
“green light” for a future Lex
Fundamentalis, the consensus
covered something vague and
novel. One cannot reasonably
argue from this that there was
an agreement on a “Charter
of the Church” of this type
which would be valid for all
future times.
QUESTION:
But, leaving the question
of theology aside, do you
think that if it were a
possibility, Lex
Fundamentalis would be
opportune at this time?
ANSWER:
Here I answer without
hesitation: certainly not.
To being with, I do not
believe that in the way it is
actually conceived, it answers
a need. The council with
“Lumen Gentium,”
illuminated by “Dei Verbum”
and other complementary
conciliar texts, has given us
the doctrinal preface as a
point of departure for the
complete revision of the Code
[of Canon Law]. But far
beyond these conciliar texts
there is in the Church a
fundamental law, valid for all
time, which is called the
GospeL It is dangerous to try
to mold the Gospel into legal
texts.
One cannot say often
enough that the Church is
founded not on the law but
on the word of God to which
the magisterium itself must
humbly submit.
Quotations here and there
from Scripture -- and these
are very rare indeed - or an
occasional mention of the
Holy Spirit will not
compensate for the absence
of biblical perspective and
assure its primacy.
On the other hand, a
charter such as this one, if
published at this time, runs
the risk of completely
blocking all future
development, not only
theological but also canonical
and pastoral. Even if it is
affirmed that the Lex
Fundamentalis on certain
points is only provisional, it
should be made clear what
would be the criterion for
distinguishing between the
fundamental and the
accidental. A “fundamental”
law is by definition definitive,
consequently it wou Id
immobilize the present
evolution on important
points that Vatican II did not
resolve nor even touch upon.
These problems are vital
for the future of the Church.
To name only a few of them,
they include the precise
relationship between primacy
and collegiality, the theology
of the local churches, the
nature of the synod, the place
and the role of the College of
Cardinals in the election of
the pope, the form of
corresponsibility suited to the
laity in the Church, etc.
These are not secondary
questions but ones which, by
their very nature, are matters
for collegial discussion.
A fundamental law which
ignores these basic questions
is doomed from the very
beginning.
All this is not to say that
the Church, just like any
other visible society* does not
need a set of “traffic
regulations.”
If she is “Communion and-
mystery”, she is also a
“hierarchical institution,”
and this implies order and
authority and laws. But this
Lex Fundamentalis about
which we are speaking is
something very different.
Certain texts could serve as
points of departure or
working papers for the new
Code of Canon Law, but they
must not enjoy any privileged
status. They must not be
“canonized.”
DETROIT (NC)-A far
reaching Michigan Supreme
Court decision, outlining legal
rights of a fetus, triggered
speedy speculation of its
effects on liberal abortion
legislation now pending in the
state legislature in Lansing.
The court’s 5-2 decision
held the estate of an 8-month
male fetus, killed as a result
of an automobile accident,
legally could sue for damages.
Proponents of
abortion-on-demand
legislation quickly pointed
out that the age of the fetus
involved in the case, eight
months, is in compliance with
proposed abortion legislation.
But opponents contend the
age is insignificant and drew
on the wording of the
decision for substantiation.
Sponsor of the state
Senate-apporved abortion
bill, Sen. Gilbert E. Bursley
of Ann Arbor, said he agrees
with the court decision, but
added: “Had the fetus
involved been one or two
months old, the court’s
decision would have a vital
impact on the bill. But it was
eight months old. I don’t
think it should affect the bill
which sets the cut off time
for abortions at 20 weeks.
“I think it is extremely
significant,” stated Fredrick
Stone, director of the Detroit
archdiocesan family life
bureau. “The court decision
did not pinpoint the age of
the fetus, but in the choice of
words made it quite clear that
the fetus is alive.”
Stone quoted the majority
opinion written by Justice
The warning expressed
recently in a different
context by Father Emile
Rideau, S.J., is appropriate
here: “An order which stifles
life is just as harmful as the
chaos of anarchy”.
QUESTION:
May I ask you what, in
your view, is the strongest
criticism of this proposal?
ANSWER:
I have read numerous
articles in newspapers and
magazines not only from
Belgium, but from France,
Italy, America and many
other countries. All the
authors of these articles have
this in common: they feel
Thomas E. Brennan: “A fetus
living within the mother’s
womb is a living creature; it
will not die when separated
from her unless the manner
the time or the circumstances
of separation constitutes a
fatal trauma.”
“Does it not follow,
suggested Stone, “that the
guardian of an aborted child
could bring suit aganist the
doctor, the hospital or even
the mother?”
Justice Brennan’s
statement asserted: “The
phenomenon of birth is not
the beginning of life; it is
merely a change in the form
of life.
“The fact of life is not to
be denied. Neither is the
wisdom of the public policy
which regards unborn persons
as being entitled to the
protection of the law,” it
continued.
Justice Thomas G.
Kavanagh, who signed the
majority opinion, lent
support to abortion
opponents’ reasoning when
he stated: “It should be
noted that no distinction was
made in the case as to the age
of the fetus. A fetus is a
person regardless of how old
he is. It would be pure
speculation, however, to say
what effects the decision has
upon abortion legislation.”
The abortion bill has
cleared the House Committee
on Social Services and
Corrections and now awaits
action by the full state House
of Representatives. A heated
battle has been predicted
when it reaches the floor.
that the Lex disavows the
spirit and also the letter of
Vatican II. Professor Alberigo
of Bologna has made a very
detailed study of the Lex
from this point of view. One
cannot fail to be impressed
by his conclusion. It is very
evident that the Lex is a clear
regression in regard to the
orientation of Vatican II.
The inclusion of 102
quotations from Vatican II ~
complete quotations or
sometimes curiously
incomplete ones - will not
eliminate this conclusion
after attentive study. In fact
the ecclesiology implied in
the Lex stresses to the
maximum the absolute
monarchical character of
Sen. Bursley predicted that
when the bill is considered
“there will be two or three
tempestously heated days.”
“It is unlikely the bill, as it
now reads, will pass the
House. I expect it to be
junked-up by amendments,”
he continued.
“I am very curious to
know how the legislature can
vote on a change on the
abortion law now,” said Mrs.
Gloria Klein, founder of the
statewide Right to Life
Committee, “in view of the
court’s decision. We are
hopeful it might color the
decision of some of the
fence-sitters in the House.”
Both sides agree that if the
bill passes the House and the
liberal measure becomes law,
legal battles involving its
constitutionality in the courts
are assured.
The state Supreme Court
ruling in favor of the fetus
avoided referring to its age
and did not settle on the
question at what point life
legally begins. The liberal
abortion measure sets the
cut-off mark for abortions at
20 weeks, but opponents
contend life begins at
conception.
Offered the hypothetical
case of abortion-on-demand
legislation becoming law and
then being contested before
the Michigan Supreme Court,
Justice Kavanagh
commented: “We would have
to use the same reasoning on
its constitutionality as we did
with our recent decision.”
pontifical authority and
minimizes to the utmost the
collegiality of the bishops and
the coresponsibility of
Christians at every level.
The Church as a
communion, as a sacramental,
a eucharistic and an
eschatological reality is not
clearly defined. The juridical
aspects predominate over the
spiritual and charismatic
elements in the Church; the
pontifical function is isolated
from the episcopal college, a
thing which “Lumen
Gentium” carefully avoided;
the synod remains attached
to the primacy, not to the
collegiality of the bishops;
the laity is seen again in a
negative way as being
nonclergy, etc.
The opinion that I express
to you is not only a personal
one; it is one that I have in
common with a considerable
number of theologians
throughout the world, many
of whom have recently
expressed their views in a
signed public document.
QUESTION:
May I ask how the Lex
would affect ecumenism?
Would it facilate or hinder
the reunion of the Christian
churches?
ANSWER:
I think that the
non-Roman Christian
churches will be struck at
once by how, on important
points, this text is far behind
the Decree on Ecumenism
adopted by the Council.
One does not find the
theological perspectives
underlying certain
expressions used by the Pope
in addressing [Orthodox
Ecumenical Patriarch]
Athenagoras [of
Co nstantinople] or, more
recently, in his discourse at
the ceremony of the
canonization of the English
Martyrs, on which occasion
he again called a non-Roman
Christian church a
“sister-church”.
Furthermore, every word
that underestimates or
minimizes coresponsibility, at
any level, is in itself an
obstacle for ecumenism and,
needless to say, a juridical
approach to the mystery of
the Church is an ecumenical
route beset with difficulites.
One can understand that,
from the point of view of
ecumenical-minded Catholics,
the Lex has been received
with consternation. One of
them, Father Maurice Villain,
S.M., in a striking article in
the [Paris daily] Figaro wrote
that to adopt the Lex would
result * in the death of
ecumenism.
Because I feel so strongly
about this danger of
damaging all ecumenical
efforts toward visible unity, I
think it is my duty to express
my fears concerning this
document.
QUESTION:
Would you permit me to
ask a question which is of
particular interest to
Americans. The Lex
Fundamentalis speaks of the
rights of man (Canon 10-24):
Do you feel that these rights
are adequately spelled out
and sufficiently guaranteed?
ANSWER:
In the “bill of rights” to
which you refer, there is
certainly progress, but the
propositions are sometimes
too timid and fearful. One
would long to cry out, seeing
so much emphasis placed on
caution and prudence: “Do
not be afraid, have
confidence in the Holy Spirit
at work in the hearts of all
members of the Church.”
But, all in all, it is a
positive affirmation.
However, unhappily, it
remains very vague, without
any juridical guarantees or
possibility of due process.
The law, by its very nature,
should envisage the most
difficult situations and the
most serious conflicts. That is
its function.
Summing up, 1 would say
that I was struck to see how
singularly unjuridical and
unprecise the Lex
Fundamentalis is, once it
leaves the domain of
pontifical authority and its
modes of exercise. It is
evident that a balance
between rights and duties has
not yet been acquired.
Neither has there been an
exact delineation of the
different areas of
responsibility nor have the
principles of subsidiarity or
of collegiality been clearly
defined.
QUESTION:
If this constitution were
adopted, how do you think it
would be received in the
Church?
ANSWER:
You know as well as I do
that within the Church today
there is a very definite
anti-institutional trend. I
strongly fear that this trend
will be greatly reinforced.
[Jacques] Nobecourt, Roman
correspondent of the French
newspaper Le Monde,
emphasized the danger of
such a reaction. This
temptation of “disinterested
ness” amongst many
Christians is grave, and we
must do all we can for the
love of the Church to combat
it.
We must be very aware
that in today’s world a
constitution cannot be
imposed on a people simply
by a decree of authority.
Every Christian should
participate, either directly or
indirectly, in the different
stages of preparing the laws.
This is coresponsibility.
Already in the 12th
century Gratian wrote lines
which have not lost their
significance today: “Laws
become laws when they are
promulgated but they
become living realities when
they are incorporated in the
daily lives of the people.” (1)
This does not mean that
the Church is a democracy
where power emanates from
the people. No, but with total
respect for episcopal and
pontifical authority there is a
participation on the level of
the priests and the laity that
cannot be ignored. There is
no mention in the Lex
Fundamentalis of priests’
senates or pastoral councils. I
know that these organizations
are not operating efficiently
in many places, since they are
still only in an experimental
stage. Nevertheless they
cannot be left unrecognized
and passed over in silence as
if they did not exist.
In conclusion, I feel that,
unhappily, we must reject the
present text because it does
not lend itself to correction.
More time is needed to
prepare a more thorough and
flexible document to be
discussed eventually at some
future syond. Until then, let
us leave all doors and
windows open.
We must allow the Holy
Spirit to lead His Church with
a minimum of legalism and a
maximum of openness to the
dynamism of life. Our serene
confidence in the Holy Spirit,
present and active in His
Church, is our best, our final
and decisive guarantee. It is
He who will tell us, step by
step, through the ever-present
magisterium and through the
fidelity of the people of God
how to live the Gospel -- our
Lex Fundamentalis par
excellence - and so meet the
needs of the men in the world
of today and tomorrow.
(1) In dicto ad c. 3, D. IV:
“Leges instituuntur com
promulgantur firmantur com
moribus utentium
appro bantur.”
Yardstick—
■■■*
(Continued from Page 4)
their rush to understand yet another’problem,
indulge themselves in endless hysterical and
foreboding conclusions about the very same
people whom, from the other direction,
conservatives are likely to see excitedly and not
always with reason as their new-found allies and
saviors.”
This is another way of saying that Middle
America, with all its faults and imprefections,
deserves better than to be flattered and wooed,
on the one hand, by the George Wallaces of this
world, and, on the other hand, to be made fun
of pharasaically by self-righteous students and
intellectuals, who are experts at detecting the
moat of bigotry in the eye of the hardhat, for
example, but have yet to recognize the beam of
bigotry in their own.
a
I $
Know Your
Faith
The ‘KNOW YOUR FAITH’ SERIES is on a short
vacation. The 1971-72 SERIES is scheduled to begin
with the issue of September 23.
JJ.V.V.V.'AViV.WAK’^X 1
CARDINAL LEO SUENENS
BY COURT RULING
Speculation Triggered
On Mich. Abortion Bill