“The Law of Christian Freedom in the Spirit”: New Impulses for Church Legislation

Abstract

“Church’s law is first and foremost lex libertatis”—this proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI (2008) inspired the author, a Catholic canonist, to attempt an aspectual reflection on the question of the quality and relevance in Ecclesia of contemporary legislation, keeping in mind the universal (ecumenical) goal of Church law: salus animarum. For in the face of today’s “signs of the times”, it is impossible to avoid the question of how, in legislating this law, interpreting and applying it, to safeguard and optimize the operability of communion bonds (bonum commune) along with the realization of subjective rights (bonum personae)? It is necessary to ask what contemporary proposals for legislative activity can serve to stimulate “organic development in the life […] of the ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it” (John Paul II)? The inescapable context for this reflection today is the epochal enunciation, according to some, of Pope Francis “it is clear that ecumenical dialogue […] enriches canon law”. In the author’s opinion, the last decade has brought two interesting answers to the questions formulated above. The two “ecumenical enterprises”—to use Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s apt phrase—“fill the historical juridical deficit”; especially since theologians and jurists from different traditions have not yet worked together to demonstrate the ecumenical potential of church law. The results of this work—offering original methodologies—are the idea of “receptive ecumenism”, by Catholic canonist Paul Murray, and Norman Doe’s project, culminating in the Statement of Principles of Christian Law, produced by the International Panel of Experts. Both “ecumenical enterprises” give new impetus to ecumenical initiatives, but also, according to Francis’ quoted words, carry with them the potential to enrich church law and serve its renewal.

1. Introduction

The end of the fourth decade of the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici 1983) in force in the Latin Church provides a good opportunity to reflect on the vitality of the famous idea of aggiornamento, the expansiveness of which—determined by the dynamics of harmonization vetera et nova—is, on the one hand, the hallmark of the great event of the Ecumenical Council Vaticanum II (1962–1965), on the other hand, the program marker of the said codification, and more broadly of the entire Church legal system.

What is worth noting, in the Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, promulgating the CIC/1983, John Paul II proclaims the primacy of love, grace, and charism, while at the same time, among the (legally) relevant factors “which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church”, he highlights “the Church’s commitment to ecumenism” (Ioannes Paulus II 1983, p. XII). Thus, in the enunciation of the Pope—the great teacher of personalism—the contours of the “institution of freedom” are unveiled—with the original ius communionis, whose point of reference, in addition to the hic et nunc communicated means of salvation (Word, sacrament), is the concrete man (person) redeemed by Christ. Hence arises the need for ever-new reflection on this specific legal order—invariably in the key of salus animarum, a system principle that postulates an ecclesiological discourse based on a solid anthropological foundation.

With the purpose of the Church law before our eyes, we cannot avoid the question of how, in the making of the provisions of this law, their interpretation and application, to secure and optimize the operability of communion bonds (bonum commune) together with the realization of subjective rights (bonum personae). In other words, using the teaching of the quoted apostolic constitution, in which the Church legislator refers to the visible social structure of the communication of grace and faith, it is appropriate to ask what contemporary proposals for legislative activity could serve to stimulate “organic development in the life […] of the ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it” (Ioannes Paulus II 1983, p. XI).

This article is an attempt to show the value of new trends in the Christian legal and legal-pastoral space, generating impulses for Church legislation. The hypothesis that these trends represent an opportunity “for the Church, with the help of the current Church legal system, to become more and more what it wants to be and what it should be in accordance with the teaching of the Council” (Hallermann 1997, p. 462; cf. Hallermann 2014, p. 85) will be verified. In turn, the ecumenical meaning of such a program thought resounds in the final conclusion of the well-known monograph by the Protestant expert Dietmar Konrad: “canon law […] must serve to operationalize the Christian message in the world”1.

The study of the topic was designed in three stages: (1) the hermeneutic horizon of the lex libertatis paradigm; (2) the idea of receptive ecumenism; (3) the ecumenical declaration of principles of Christian law.

2. The Hermeneutic Horizon of the lex libertatis Paradigm

Cardinal Walter Kasper, former President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, highly distinguished in the field of ecumenical dialogue (See Russo 2018) and, according to many experts, the most eminent theologian alive today—time and time again inspires with his profound reflections, whose hallmarks are at the same time: reading of the current “signs of the times” and fresh thought about the Church and her law. What attests to the fact that some segments of this original project of aggiornamento (meticulously put together into a complete “picture” like a jigsaw puzzle) are worth reaching for, is the instructive formula (Cf. Demel 2018, p. 173; see also Demel 2015a) of the German dogmatist, included in the title of this study: “the law of Christian freedom in the Spirit”. Behind it there is an in-depth theological reflection associating the ecclesiology of community (communio) with the idea of “unity within diversity”2; and on the legal-canonical level, a reflection penetrating the central theme of the relationship of the structural principle of communio (Cf. Rouco Varela 2000, p. 308) (and its systemic analogue in the form of the criterion of the highest law in the Church: salus animarum suprema lex = Sinnbestimmung des Kirchenrechts (Kasper 1997, p. 61)) with the personalist paradigm of lex libertatis (See Pastwa 2016). It is safe to say that it is in this “place” that the pioneering thought of the prominent theologian and canonist culminates. The aforementioned paradigm, resonating, among other things, in the application of various variants of the flexibility of law (See Kasper 2016; Schüller 1993, pp. 63–75; Fumagalli Carulli 2003, pp. 63–75), opens the horizon of the self-realization of the person in the “person-creating” process of “participation” (See Wojtyla 1979a, pp. 178–80, 1979b, pp. 273–308) in the image of the Triune God (Cf. Ghirlanda 2001, pp. 397–98).

Therefore, Markus Graulich is right when he emphasizes that Church law is an anthropological category par excellence—both in the sense of subjective and objective law (Graulich 2006, p. 408). Indeed, on the one hand, the individual person can always count on the Church for system protection and promotion of his inalienable rights. On the other hand, lex Ecclesiae provides the Church community of persons with an indispensable regulatory instrument. It guarantees the order of social relations, i.e., organizing them according to the principles of “higher justice” (Paulus VI 1973, p. 100) and, at the same time, harmonizing the rights/duties of the members of the community in such a way as to enable freedom-based, peaceful coexistence oriented toward the common good.

If we add to this that the legal order in question grows out of the dynamics of the faith of the Church-People of God (ordinatio fidei), and the creativity inscribed in this order gives a spiritual profile to the propagation of the life of communion, both legislation and legal practice (Cf. Ohly 2014, p. 106)—then the relevance (timeless!) of the appeal/manifesto of Walter Kasper: “to make sure that the law in the Church may be and become the true law, that is, the law of Christian freedom in the Spirit” (Kasper 1976, p. 38), becomes all too clear in the eyes of an expert on the subject.

Two other statements by Cardinal Kasper are, somehow, an elaboration of this original maxim. The first, highlighting the fact that the Church is a sacramental sign of salvation—not an abstract, ahistorical, impersonal one, but a concrete one, present in human reality, in the activities of persons/communities, which consist of life, religious and ethical attitudes (Cf. Sobański 2000, p. 215). In a well-known article that appeared in The Jurist, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity first emphatically states: “The codification and the subsequent legal activity of the Church cannot be limited to looking backwards to the vetera but have to take into account also the new thrusts and orientations of the Council”3. And further, in the same article, a passage in which the cardinal refers to the experience of four decades of post-conciliar legislation and application of law cannot go unnoticed. It is in this context that the conviction arises that the commitment to ecumenism is not, as it cannot be, merely an expression of the activity of the Magisterium itself—after all, it is at the same time a concretization/actualization of the sensus fidei fidelium in the area of the Church’s broadly understood pastoral-evangelizing mission. Contrary to the initial strong resistance of some circles under the banner of anti-Juridism (Cf. Rouco Varela 1998, p. 9; Baura 2003, pp. 159–60) (law as an alleged obstacle4 to pastoral ministry), the canonical norms (especially the codes: CIC/1983 and CCEO (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990)) have contributed significantly—in general—to achieve the desired aggiornamento effect in the mentioned sensitive field, but also—in specific terms—have determined that ecumenism has become an irreversible way of the Church (Kasper 2009, p. 189).

It should come as no surprise how much this voice of Walter Kasper coincides with the teachings of Pope Francis in the Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium:

“[…] the Church carries out the performative interpretation of the reality brought about by the Christ event and nourished by the gifts of wisdom and knowledge by which the Holy Spirit enriches the People of God in manifold ways—from the sensus fidei fidelium to the magisterium of the bishops, and from the charism of the prophets to that of the doctors and theologians”.

(Franciscus 2018, p. 6)

And yet there is no shortage of strong voices even today—such as that of the German canonist Judith Hahn—that many pastors in German-speaking countries not only do not feel supported by canon law, but are rather restricted as well (Hahn 2018, p. 154). The two positions of well-known experts from the same cultural (language) background seem to touch the heart of the problem. The Church must recognize “the signs of the times”, William Rees concedes, and constantly ask herself whether the current law is the best one—right and necessary in today’s reality. All this in order to pave the paths of the Church’s evangelization mission and bring effective help to Christians in their concrete life circumstances—towards the realization of the goal: salus animarum (Rees 2020, p. 173). On the other hand, Sabine Demel—taking up the discourse explicite in the perspective of lex libertatis and using the words of the appeal/manifesto of Walter Kasper—stresses with emphasis that if the law is to serve life in the Church, and not vice versa (the life of the Church/in the Church—to serve the law), then both the hierarchical Church community and each member of this community cannot unreflectively petrify the existing system of legal norms. All the baptized—with a view to the desired expediency and effectiveness of these norms—should feel responsible5 for seeking (new) ways to optimize the process of establishing and applying leges ecclesiasticae6. In a word, to strive “for the law in the Church to be and become the true law, that is, the law of Christian freedom in the Spirit” (Demel 2018, p. 173).

3. Around the Idea of Receptive Ecumenism

Among the well-known enunciations of John Paul II, two deserve to be remembered by the Christian world for their ideological significance and prophetic potential in setting the path of the Church’s aggiornamento in the third millennium (Ecclesia semper reformanda). First, the Pope recognizes Vatican II as a “providential event,” the opening of a “new era” (Ioannes Paulus II 1995a, p. 16)—a magna charta on the path of the Church in the 21st century (Kasper 2007, p. 18). Secondly, the great ecumenical encyclical Ut Unum Sint (UUS) (Ioannes Paulus II 1995b)—in addition to his personal confession: “for me […] the ecumenical task is one of the pastoral priorities of my Pontificate” (UUS, n. 99)—brings a proclamation in which the Bishop of Rome engages all his magisterial authority:

“At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the ‘signs of the times’” (UUS, n. 3).

It is impossible to read this universal memento of John Paul II without recalling the context of a similar message, equally fundamental in its meaning. The Pope addresses his words to a wide audience: pastors of communities, but also to entire ecclesial communities—called to share responsibility for the state and development of the ius Ecclesiae with integrity and solidarity7. Above all, it is a matter of carefully affirming those norms that—in connection with the realization of the overall goal: the revival of the salvific presence of the Church—favor the clarity and credibility (!) of Christian witness (Cf. Sobański 2000, pp. 214–15). In the Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones, promulgating the CCEO (Ioannes Paulus II 1990b), John Paul II emphatically declares:

“What pertains to the universal ecumenical movement, stirred up by the Holy Spirit to perfect the unity of the whole Church of Christ, the new Code is in no way the least obstacle but rather greatly advances it” (Ioannes Paulus II 1990b, p. 1035).

Among the comments advocating contemporary deeper reflection on the ideological message of the quoted words of the “Pope of the turn of the millennium,” noteworthy are the voices of German canonists Heribert Hallermann and Myriam Wijlens. Professor Hallermann unambiguously understands the relevance of these enunciations, formulating a radical yet general thesis: “The progress made in the field of ecumenism will and must be of great importance for the development of law in the Church” (Hallermann 2014, p. 87). However, adds the author, such a programmed process of Church law renewal must necessarily be rooted in novus habitus mentis—if one recalls the criterion strongly exposed by the great promoter of code reform, Pope Paul VI8. Only under such circumstances will the realized aggiornamento show its much-anticipated dynamic-functional and developmental face, above all on the plane of ecumenical interpretation and application of the law (Hallermann 2014, pp. 87–91).

A reading of the indicated magisterial statements of John Paul II, on the other hand, leads Professor Myriam Wijlens9, not so much to accurate yet loosely thrown together statements, but to the development of a coherent position whose originality and novelty can hardly be overestimated. The canonist is of the opinion that if one takes the doctrine laid out in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (UR) (Sacrosanctum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II 1965b) under the microscope, and to an even greater extent the phenomenon he calls “the spirit of Vaticanum II”, it is fully legitimate to conclude that the unity of the Church of Christ constitutes the overriding hermeneutical criterion for all activity of its communities; let us add—according to the logic defined by the law of the Spirit: co-participation and co-responsibility. This measure must be applied—consistently—to activities in the legislative and executive spheres, lawmaking and application (Wijlens 2004, p. 13; see also Wijlens 2003). And the purpose of these actions (the teleology of church law)—invariably person-centered—is clearly defined. The idea is that each baptized person—as a full-fledged subject of Christian activity—develops his life of faith in libertate et in communione, in a specific Church community10, in his religious homeland (See Sobański 1981).

And yet another—nodal—idea defines Myriam Wijlens’ theological-legal discourse in question. Before presenting the ideological meritum, it is appropriate to return briefly to the remarks on the ethical-legal imperative of realizing iter oecumenicum (UUS, n. 15) (from the first part of this paper). This track is also taken up by the canonist when she inscribes her reflections explicite in the current of conciliar ecumenical thought as laid out in Ut Unum Sint, citing the opinions of the encyclical’s incomparable commentator, Cardinal Walter Kasper11.

Well, the papal document culminates, as it were, in the proclamation that ecumenism should permeate the entire life of Christ’s Church:

“[…] it is absolutely clear that ecumenism, the movement promoting Christian unity, is not just some sort of ‘appendix’ which is added to the Church’s traditional activity. Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her life and work, and consequently must pervade all that she is and does; it must be like the fruit borne by a healthy and flourishing tree which grows to its full stature”.

(UUS, n. 20)

As an instructive commentary on this proclamation, it is worth considering (and so does Miriam Wijlens (Wijlens 2004, p. 13)) two relevant excerpts from the speech of the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, opening the Council’s 2001 plenary session. The first: on the close connection between renewal and reformation and conversion—essential from the perspective of the ecumenical concept of communio as unity within diversity and diversity within unity:

“In this interim stage two form of ecumenism are important and interrelated: ecumenism ad extra through ecumenical encounters, dialogues and co-operation, and ecumenism ad intra through reform and renewal of the Catholic Church herself. There is no ecumenism without conversion and reform (UR 6–8; UUS 15–17). It is particularly important for us also to develop a ‘spirituality of communio’, in our own church and between the churches. […] [Just like that] we can find credibility for the ecumenical concept of communio as unity within diversity and diversity within unity”.

(Kasper 2002, p. 20)

In the second, equally important passage from this speech, Walter Kasper—following the doctrine of Ut Unum Sint (See Koch 2022, pp. 503–6)—strongly emphasizes (Kasper 2005, p. 513) the importance of spiritual ecumenism:

“[…] from its very beginning the ecumenical movement has been and will continue to be an impulse and a gift of the Holy Spirit (UR 1; 4). So, preeminence among all ecumenical activities belongs to spiritual ecumenism, which is the heart of all ecumenism (UR 7–8; UUS 21–27).

(Kasper 2002, p. 20)

Thus, in Miriam Wijlens’ theological and legal inquiries, the horizon of the original idea of receptive ecumenism gradually emerges. A synthesis of the subsequent steps of this interesting discourse is as follows:

• In the apostolic constitution that Pope John Paul II promulgated, CIC/1983, an important place is given to the indication that “ecumenical commitment”—as an essential part of the Vatican II opus magnum—should determine new legislation. And here is an important point: the Pope speaks clearly about the “commitment to ecumenism (studium […] ab Ecclesia in oecumenismum impendendum)”, and not about setting a strict legal framework on the doctrine of ecumenism! Latin studium means “commitment characterized by zeal and eagerness. This is much more than just ‘translating’ the doctrine into norms, it is as well an attitude of mind and heart” (Wijlens 2004, p. 12).
• The previously signaled thesis needs to be deepened: if the unity of Christ’s Church is to become the overriding hermeneutical criterion of all its activity in the communal and individual dimensions (facilitated by lex Ecclesiae understood as lex libertatis), then the path to unity leads through conversion, renewal, and reform. And here what comes to aid is the concept of receptive ecumenism, developed at the Center for Catholic Studies at Durham University, UK, under the guidance of its precursor, Catholic theologian Paul D. Murray (Murray 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2014); a concept that has gained adherents (See Ryan 2021) among respected theologians/canonists: Catholic (the aforementioned Walter Kasper, Myriam Wijlens), Protestant (Justin Welby—Archbishop of Canterbury since 201312) and Orthodox (Viorel Coman of the University of Bucharest13). What is more, as far as the Catholic side is concerned—a kind of laurel to the concept in question is given by the official 2019 response to the document of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, entitled “The Church: Towards a Common Vision” (2013) (The Church: Towards a Common Vision 2013). “The Catholic Response”, a document of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, affirms that “the Catholic Church commits itself to the new paths opened by receptive ecumenism. In addition to Pope John Paul II’s description of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts, receptive ecumenism emphasizes in a special way the importance of being open to learn from others”14. Thus, as it turns out, the thesis that unity is an overarching hermeneutical criterion (in the activity of authors of ecclesiastical legislation and animators of a legal order based on lex libertatis) finds strong support in receptive ecumenism as a promising, and arguably soon leading, methodologies of inter-Christian dialogue. Myriam Wijlens accurately recapitulates this line of argumentation (Wijlens 2011, pp. 1–3) when she raises the issue of a fundamental lesion of perspective—from the current one into a radically different one. So far, ecumenical dialogues have focused very much on explaining what others (other Churches) can learn from us (our Church). This radical shift consists in reversing the question: What do we need to learn or even should we learn—or receive with integrity—from others? (Wijlens 2011, p. 2; cf. Murray 2008b, p. 32).
• The call to organic structural unity needs to be taken up anew—this is how Miriam Wijlens puts the first of the two main assumptions of receptive ecumenism. Unfortunately, today, along with opinions that unity can no longer be treated as a reachable goal in the near future, a tendency (which must be resisted15) is gaining legitimacy, to focus primarily on collaboration in practical matters of service and mission, at the expense of dialogues concerning doctrinal and ecclesiological issues (Wijlens 2011, p. 2). Meanwhile, in view of Christ’s call Ut unum sint (John 17:21): “to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach full communion” (UUS, n. 3)—it is necessary to open wide into a space of real ecclesial learning (Wijlens 2011, pp. 2–3). Here is one remark: the authenticity of any such activity—as Walter Kasper brilliantly highlights—is verified in setting it on a spiritual basis in readiness for conversion (metanoia)16, in an attitude of listening and openness to the Spirit, humility, and respect for the dialogue partner, in a word, in a commitment to spiritual ecumenism (Kasper 2004, p. 160; cf. Pizzey 2019, pp. 103–6). There is another (second) ideological assumption that harmonizes with this last finding: the receptive ecumenism should be seen as a transformative process. Well, one cannot stop at the issue, what can we learn from each other? It is necessary to go beyond that and seek an answer to the question: what prevents Christian churches from actually learning?” (Wijlens 2011, p. 3) “What are the organizational, psychological, sociological and cultural barriers to effective receptive learning taking place?” (Murray 2008b, p. 37) This liberation from barriers and obstacles presupposes the cooperation of scholars from many different disciplines, such as theology, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and so on. Only in this way—via libertatis in Spiritu—will a true process of transformation towards “unity in diversity” be opened up, a process accompanied by the question of how, through the exchange of gifts, we can be enriched within ourselves (Wijlens 2011, p. 3).
• In the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (LG) (Sacrosanctum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II 1965a), Vatican II teaches that the Church is “at the same time holy and always in need of being purified” (sancta simul et semper purificanda (LG, n. 8)), and as such is called “to continual reformation” (ad hanc perennem reformationem (UR, n. 6)). No one else but the Holy Spirit plays a decisive role in establishing when and where a renewal is necessary (See De Mey 2011). Thus, from the very foundation of the lex Ecclesiae—as an authentic law of the Spirit—it enables and supports the process of renewal, and in a negative sense, prevents stifling it (Wijlens 2017, p. 238). In the practice of Church life, this must mean active and present concern, not only of the shepherds-legislators but also of the entire people of God17 endowed by the Spirit of truth with discernment in matters of faith (sensus fidei fidelium) (LG, n. 12; see also Pastwa 2018)—for regulating the personal-community structures in which “the life of Christ is poured into the believers” (LG, n. 7; cf. Sobański 2000, p. 211). This is where receptive ecumenism comes in. This is where receptive ecumenism opens up new fields of cooperation. Fundamental, in Myriam Wijlens’ view, is the cooperation of theologians and canon lawyers. It consists in the fact that the former, interpreting current Church reality in the light of the living word of God in Spiritu Sancto, identifies “areas” in need of support by way of canonical structures. Canon lawyers, on the other hand, undertake the task: first to clarify whether the new theological insights harmonize with existing norms, and then in dialogue with theologians identify where there is a need for reform (Wijlens 2011, p. 11).
• An important instrument in introducing the principles of receptive ecumenism already at the level of legislation is a sharpened awareness of its two steps: doctrinal content (in the language of law)—determining the modality of laws18. More specifically, in the first step, the legislator must identify the doctrine that needs to be supported and protected by canon norms. In the second step, it determines what legal theories call a “modality” or a “structure” fitting for the community here and now (Wijlens 2011, pp. 5–6). Miriam Wijlens emphasizes the importance of distinguishing the aforementioned two steps. The adopted logic of legislation—firstly—allows for the affirmation of the idea of unity in diversity along with the appreciation of the principles of subsidiarity and decentralization, as well as taking into account the cultural context, especially the legal culture in which the Church operates—which is also reflected in the renewed ecclesiastical structures. A dedicated style of legislative action—secondly—it “allows for a careful analysis and appropriate response when the norms are not received or fall into disuse or cannot respond adequately to changed needs and circumstances: when the cause of the non-reception lies with the doctrine, the teaching office while respecting the ‘sensus fidei’ needs to respond; but when the modality is not appropriate (any longer) the legislator must provide for another modality”19.
• In the end, it is about the possibility of a healthy—in the spirit of lex libertatis—regulation of the tension between diversity and unity both on a synchronic and diachronic level. The church of all times and of all places has—through the Spirit of Christ—the potential, to change and adapt to new challenges and circumstances (Wijlens 2011, p. 8). And it is precisely the last link in the chain of premises/arguments of this interesting discourse that ultimately proves why Walter Kasper is right when he claims that receptive ecumenism gives a handle to usher in a “new spring” in the ecumenical movement (Kasper 2008, p. VIII). For, as the idea discussed here assumes, one church can learn from another (denominationally different) that by means of other modalities (adopted in the lawmaking process), similar/identical goals of church laws can be better achieved (ratio legis). In this connection, the question posed by Myriam Wijlens should be regarded as rhetorical: “whether accepting the modality of another church would enhance the restoration of Christian unity?” (Wijlens 2011, p. 8) In this regard, an overly instructive example cannot be overlooked. It concerns Pope John Paul II’s famous appeal, expressed in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, where he invites other churches and their leaders to reflect with him about the exercise of the Petrine ministry (UUS, n. 95; Wijlens 2011, p. 8; see also Oeldemann 2020).

4. Around the Ecumenical Declaration of Principles of Christian Law

The 24th International Congress of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches, held 16–20 September 2019 in Rome, widely echoed in the circles of theologians and legal canonists. It was decided by two speeches delivered by the spiritual leaders of the Orthodox (Bartholomew 2019) and Catholic (Franciscus 2019) Churches, which went far beyond the pattern of ordinary commemorative speeches. The surprise was the epochal novum of Pope Francis’ statement (“for the first time in papal history” (Hill 2024, p. 286)) that church law is not only an aid to ecumenical dialogue but also an essential dimension of it (Franciscus 2019). No less revealing threads were found in the extensive speech of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the opening of the Congress, with symbolic words about an “ecumenical enterprise” that “fills a historical legal deficit”. The broader context of this speech reveals the horizon of the original idea (project), which cannot be ignored in our reflection:

“This past March we had the chance to be personally informed at the Ecumenical Patriarchate about the significant canonical work of an ecumenical panel of religious leaders, jurists and theologians from ten Christian traditions worldwide—Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, Old Catholic and Pentecostal. The outcome of the research work of this panel has been a Statement of Principles of Christian Law (Christian Law Panel of Experts 2016), based on the book Christian Law: Contemporary Principles, by Professor Norman Doe, one of this Congress’s speakers. These Principles were induced from similarities drawn precisely from a comparative study of the regulatory instruments of the participating Christian canonical traditions.

We express our gladness that a special workshop within the framework of this Congress is dedicated to this important Statement, which is a means of unity and collaboration between Christians of different traditions. This Statement is being fed into the work of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and its Faith and Order Commission, which in 2017 established at Geneva a partnership with the above-mentioned ecumenical panel, in fulfillment of the acknowledgment by the WCC in 1974 that “church law” should be treated and studied as an instrument of ecumenism.

We congratulate the Organizing Committee of this Congress for the inclusion within its proceedings of a discussion about this project, which is designed to fill the historical juridical deficit in the ecumenical enterprise”20.

The novelty and groundbreaking relevance of Norman Doe’s work, appreciated by Patriarch Bartholomew, is further described by an expert on the subject matter John Witte, Jr. who points to a series of outstanding items in the oeuvre of the professor of law at Cardiff University: from his opening 1990 title on Fundamental Authority in Late Medieval English Law (Doe 1990) to the referred to in the inaugural speech “2013 masterwork” on Christian Law: Contemporary Principles (Doe 2013). In the Foreword to the next book (2020), enlarging the said oeuvre, Professor Witte highlights the highest of Norman Doe’s contributions: “[he] has demonstrated that church law is an important but oft-neglected foundation for principled Christian ecumenism” (Witte 2020, p. VII).

Norman Doe himself, in recent publications, raises the problem of the still unoccupied vital sector of the space of ecumenical freedom (Sacrosanctum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II 1966, nn. 1–2; UUS, n. 8). He sees two fundamental reasons for this state of affairs. First, the ecumenical movement, with its historical theological focus, has not previously appreciated21 the role of church law in shaping relations between churches and fostering greater mutual understanding between them. Second, theologians and jurists from different traditions have not to date worked together on an ecumenical appreciation of the potential of church law (Doe 2020a).

Yet the juridical instruments of churches have not thus far played a central role in ecumenical discourse, this reaching out is now seen as the “missing link” in ecumenism (Doe 2020b). This was also the intention of Professor Norman Doe, whose project—based on the original method: “Comparative Canon Law in the Ecumenical Endeavor”—was successfully tested in the Anglican Church. Norman Doe’s colleague, Professor Mark Hill22, convened the Christian Law Panel of Experts in Rome in 2016, and launched under the aegis of the World Council of Churches (WCC) the process of universalizing the idea in question. He was accompanied by the overly legitimate question, “If the methodology of comparative analysis can produce Principles of Canon Law common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion, why can’t the same scientific method discern similarities in the law, order and polity of all Christian denominations sufficient to produce a synthesis of Common Principles of Christian Law?” (Hill 2019, p. 10).

In order to be convinced of the research effectiveness of Norman Doe’s method, it is enough to briefly read through the passages of the mentioned, famous monograph (Christian Law: Contemporary Principles), in which the patron of the ecumenical declaration of the principles of Christian law makes a synthetic23 presentation of the results of the implementation of his project. In the final part it is worthwhile to look into the various elements of this evaluation:

• “A comparison of the juridical instruments of churches reveals a high degree of similarity as to the nature and objects of the institutional church, the forms of ecclesiastical regulation, and the purposes, structure, effect, relaxation and interpretation of church law” (Doe 2013, p. 44).
• “Theological ideas are most evident in provisions about the nature and objects of the institutional church and the purposes of its juridical instruments, which themselves indicate that Christians in all the traditions share in the common action of making justifying, relaxing and interpreting laws” (Doe 2013, p. 44).
• “From the similarities between these laws of Christians it is possible to articulate shared principles of Christian law. Each church defines itself legally by reference to its territoriality, polity and objects. An institutional church is an ecclesial community with a defined geographical compass (international, national, regional or local), a distinct membership organized on the basis of ecclesiastical units (such as provinces, districts or congregations), an autonomous and distinctive system of government, and whose objects include proclaiming the Gospel, administering the sacraments and serving the wider community” (Doe 2013, p. 44).
• “All the churches employ the term how to describe many of their regulatory instruments. Laws are found in codes of canon law, charters and statutes, constitutions and bylaws, books of church order, covenants and, occasionally, customs. All of the churches also operate systems of ecclesiastical quasi-legislation—informal rules that are nevertheless prescriptive in form and generate the expectation of compliance” (Doe 2013, p. 44).
• “It is a principle of Christian law that juridical instruments serve the objects and mission of the church, implement theological propositions, and are subject ultimately to the law of God, as revealed in Holy Scripture. These regulatory instruments are composed of a variety of juridical formulae, including precepts, prohibition and permissions cast as principles and rules, rights and duties, functions and powers. In turn, binding and/or exhortatory, and various devices (such as undertakings) are played to ensure compliance by those to whom they are addressed. Provision is sometimes made for the relaxation of laws, by means of dispensation, economy of other form of equity, but this is more evident in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Presbyterian juristic traditions” (Doe 2013, pp. 44–45).
• “It is a principle of Christian law that juridical instruments should be interpreted by reference to their test and context, and that the church itself has the authority to interpret its own lunes through a wide range of institutions competent to de se” (Doe 2013, p. 45).

5. Conclusions

Two assumptions accompanied the development of the theme, whose leitmotif is the title formula by perhaps the most eminent living theologian Walter Kasper, referring to the words of Pope Benedict XVI: “Church’s law is first and foremost lex libertatis” (2008). The first premise is an ecumenical view through the eyes of a Catholic canonist of Christ’s Church as an “institution of liberty”—with an original ius communionis, whose point of reference, in addition to the means of salvation (Word, sacrament) communicated here and now, is the concrete human being (person) redeemed by Christ. The second premise expresses the conviction of the need for constant reflection on this specific legal order, in which “the freedom to proclaim the Gospel” (UUS, n. 3) is immanent—accompanied by the systemic principle of salus animarum, which postulates an ecclesiological discourse based on a solid anthropological foundation (personalism).

The first part of the study shows, on the basis of the excellent expert analyses of Walter Kasper and Sabina Demel, the legitimacy of loudly articulating today the Church-wide (ecumenical) memento: the law is to serve the life in the Church, and not vice versa—the life of the Church/the Church is to serve the law! Both the hierarchical community and each member of that community cannot unreflectively petrify the established system of ecclesiastical legal norms. All the baptized—with a view to the desired desirability and effectiveness of these norms—should feel responsible for seeking (new) ways to optimize the establishment and application of leges ecclesiasticae.

It is, in fact, about the continuous renewal of the ius Ecclesiae, so that, on the one hand, the individual person can always count on the Church for the systemic protection and promotion of his inalienable rights. On the other hand—so that these leges provide the ecclesiastical community of persons with an indispensable regulatory instrument; it should guarantee the order of social relations, i.e., organizing them according to the principles of “higher justice” and, at the same time, harmonizing the rights/duties of the members of the community in such a way as to enable freedom-based, peaceful coexistence, oriented towards the common good.

Pope Francis’ epochal statement (Franciscus 2019), in the opinion of some, “it is clear that ecumenical dialogue […] enriches canon law” (alongside another: “canon law is not only an aid to ecumenical dialogue, but also an essential dimension”) provided the impetus for two consecutive installments of scholarly reflection on the title’s new impulses for Church legislation. The two “ecumenical enterprises,” to use Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s apt phrase, “fill the historical juridical deficit.” Both give new impulses to ecumenical initiatives, but also, according to Francis’ quoted words, carry with them the potential to enrich Church law and serve its renewal.

In the first endeavor, opening a real process of transformation towards “unity within diversity”, the declaration of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (2019) is fully verified: “receptive ecumenism emphasizes in a special way the importance of being open to learning from others”. Indeed, the scholarly works of Paul Murray—the founder of the idea of receptive ecumenism—and Myriam Wijlens reasonably conclude that while unity as a Church-wide structural principle is the overriding hermeneutical criterion, the activity of the authors of Church legislation finds potentially strong support in receptive ecumenism as a promising, and arguably soon leading, methodology for inter-Christian dialogue. A good example of this is John Paul II’s ever-present appeal inviting other churches and their leaders to reflect with him about the exercise of the Petrine ministry (UUS, n. 95).

No less relevant appears the second ecumenical project associated with the name of Norman Doe, creator of the Principles of Canon Law common to the churches of the Anglican Communion, and then patron of the process of universalizing his own idea, based on the methodology of comparative analysis. His close associate Mark Hill was right that the same scientific method could be used to identify similarities in the legal order/system of all Christian denominations and create a synthesis of common principles of Christian Law.

Today we can confidently say that the Statement of Principles of Christian Law developed by the International Panel of Experts (Christian Law Panel of Experts 2016), as well as the idea of receptive ecumenism recommended by eminent experts and gradually implemented, shed light on the pastoral character of the church law, and above all, open a whole new chapter in the use of the ecumenical potential of lex libertatis.