Official Note of the Authority of the Institute The Commissioner Volpi liquid Church law!!!
On 1 July the following output is “Official Note of the Authority of the Institute,” dual signature of the Secretary-General, Father Alphonsus Maria Bruno FI, and Commissioner Apostolic Father Fidenzio Volpi OMF Capp., Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Conception:
” In view of some serious abuses that have harmed the image and at the same proper religious life of the Institute, please note the heads of all the homes that Mariane removal, even for short periods of Religious assigned to them can be only with the express written permission from the respective national delegation if the trip takes place within it, or the Commissioner’s Apostolic if you go abroad.
These provisions shall also apply to the Reverend Fathers Guardians and Vicars Officers.
To them require the posting of this notice in the albo of each House Mariana, his reading of the Community and the timely execution of the provisions in it.
Rome, July 1, 2014 »
We would like to argue that this Note is a further step towards the degiuridizzazione of the Church. The statement may appear severe and disproportionate, but we will try to show how the value of the document in question goes far beyond the events of the Institute founded by Father Stefano Manelli.
The question of the role of law in the Church is one of the crucial clash between the Catholic tradition and modernism, although it is among the least openly discussed. The Church was built by our Lord Jesus Christ as asocietas perfecta , ie a society sufficient to itself, with, at its core, all that needs. That’s the legal time is essential for every human community, which, if it is not regulated by your own, must borrow to others, thus ceasing to besocietas perfecta , to become societas imperfecta , indebted to another company in its own right. Hence the traditional care of the Church in respect of its domestic law, with attention to the forms and formalities, note that, at first glance, you could also appear excessive, but that has always played the dual role of safeguarding the independence of the Body Mystical Christ, in his human side, and to give greater substance and strength in the salvific mission of the Bride of Jesus, for this purpose has always been present in canon law as a norm “supercostituzionale” we would say today, through the principle of salus animarum suprema lex .
Modernism, however, attempted to deprive the life of the Church the legal aspect, considered unsuitable to accommodate the changing nature of the inspiration of the Spirit, in the name of a carismatismo, often unexpressed, which tends to justify or condemn individual stocks, not on the basis of legal certainty, but according to their membership or not the line of the renewal pursued by it, in a sort of double standard Leninist sauce Catholic: when the norm contradicts the anxiety of novelty, it should not be applied, as it contradicts “the inspiration of the Spirit”; when, however, the same rule may help quell the Tradition, sorry to “modernize the Church”, hitting those who are opposed to the “winds of change”, then it must be applied with extreme rigor, perhaps forcing it to what you need.
Canon law, far from the oppression of formalist whose fabled modernists, is the most concrete guarantee of a concrete realization of justice in the life of the Church, why unfair rules may find application, if not abuse, and thus with a crime, even on a purely legal: the unjust rule is never true norm, but always anti-juridical action, because it contradicts the natural law, hierarchically superior to the positive rules (imposed by the legislator).This principle is valid for all legal, even for those who deny it, in canon law is formalized explicitly.
Here is the elimination of legality and its replacement with the carismatismo and ideological politicization of action, far from opening up spaces of freedom, allowing the most blatant abuses.
And the note from which we started is an outstanding example. The Constitutions of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, no. 70, read as follows:
” The brothers should dwell in their own religious house observing a common life and can not assentarsene unlicensed Father’s guardian. And if it comes to a prolonged absence [for months] , the Minister General, with the consent of his Council, and for good cause, may grant to a monk living outside the home of the Institute, but for no more than a year, unless it is for health reasons, study or ministry to be carried out on behalf of the Institute (cf. canon 665 § 1). For a longer period is necessary indult from the Holy See . ”
Etiquette According to the interior, then, to go abroad you have to ask permission from the National Delegate (acting as Provincial).
What is the logic of the conjunction of the Constitutions and the internal Etiquette? The validity of the reasons why a brother may leave his habitual residence is decided by the nearest or, to be more precise, by the scope from which the friar himself out if he leaves the house and, therefore, comes from ‘ authority of the Father Guardian, the latter will give permission; if you have to go abroad, and thus evade the authority of the National Delegate, these will be to authorize it. The logic is so simple as to be trivial: who better than the person who has authority over a particular area can be related to the needs of the individual friar with those in the field governed by him? With the added benefit that is to decide who is closest to the actual personal situation (the monk) and collective.
What he says, however, the Note: For travel within the state, decides the national delegation, and for those abroad, even the Apostolic Commissioner.
For the canon law (constitutions) the friar is a resource, an asset, a grace of God, of which the manager may decide to deprive the scope that it lacks. To abuse (hereafter prove that the Note is a legal violation disguised as a rule), however, the presence of the friar in a given area is a danger, which may decide to run the monk in charge of the environment in which the present becomes . The right part of the confidence in the subject, until proven otherwise; abuse totalitarian and anti-juridical, however, part of the systematic mistrust, against which even the evidence to the contrary becomes, de facto , impossible.
The law is the protection of people, while deposing his freedom of will is for the holder of power, which is not seen more limited in his activity, from the norm.
More specifically, the Commissioner may extend beyond the Constitutions? Can violate them? It can change them? No, because the Commissioner is a superior general pro tempore . And, if the Superior General could change at will the Constitutions, they have no further value and reduce the life of the Order to the pure subjection to the will of the Superior. Other than the self-attributed to Father Manelli!
You could say that the pope’s authority is superior to that of the Constitutions and that, therefore, as Father Volpi enjoys the confidence of the Pope, the authority of the Pope covers the Commissioner’s actions. But this is false.
Official Note of the Authority of the Institute
It will be said that it is formalism. I have not! It is the most elementary rules of guarantee against abuse. The Constitutions are written codification of the lives of members of a religious order: violate them is to violate their lives, changing them means changing their lives. It’s just that, if the Pope wants to do it, is forced to do it in person, assuming full responsibility and that this power can not be left to someone who, at least in theory, can then be repudiated tomorrow by the Holy See.
As you can see, this note is not only a violation of the law, but it is a blatant violation; and this being obvious (would almost say ostentatious) makes a real attack to the whole legal system: it is as if the Commissioner said: “Canon law does not allow it, but my mission is over the legal system because I enjoy the confidence of the Pope and, therefore, I do what I think is appropriate, regardless of the law. “
Once again (and we fear that it will not be the last) the story of the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception is true litmus test of the degree of depth reached by the crisis in the Church, the crisis of which the eclipse of the law is far from being an integral part secondary.