Trust in the Church has been ‘destroyed’ for many in recent years
Such is the assessment of Monsignor Martin Grichting, an esteemed professor of canon law, the emeritus Vicar General of the Diocese of Chur and a former consulter for the Congregation for the Clergy.
The Church is suffering from a widespread and devastating lack of trust, largely due to the pontificate of Pope Francis, whose reign saw departures from Catholic teaching on marriage, the nature of the Church, and the role of the Church in salvation.
Such is the assessment of Monsignor Martin Grichting, an esteemed professor of canon law, the emeritus Vicar General of the Diocese of Chur and a former consulter for the Congregation for the Clergy in the Vatican.
“This trust has been shaken in the Church; for many, it has been destroyed,” he writes. {Grichting’s analysis first appeared in InfoVaticana, but the official English translation is published here with Mgr. Grichting’s permission. The full text is below.}
Grichting points to key moments such as Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, the Abu Dhabi Declaration, and the Synod on Synodality as contributing to the crisis he refers to:
Pope Francis has turned the indissolubility of marriage into a farce through “Amoris Laetitia.” It now applies only in theory. In practice, with a few “pastoral distinctions”—on whatever basis, by whomever—one can live in adultery with a clear conscience. The Vatican’s non-liturgical blessing of few seconds for same-sex and unmarried couples (“Fiducia supplicans”) represents a further departure from Christian marriage.
He warns also that these issues “persist under Pope Leo XIV,” including with the Synod on Synodality and the work of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops which recently published “a heretic text that relativizes Church teaching on marriage and the family (Final Report of Study Group 9 regarding ‘complex issues’).”
The monsignor points also to the heavy restrictions on the traditional liturgy – implemented by Pope Francis in 2021. “Laypeople are humiliated by being forbidden to celebrate this form of the Eucharist in parish churches. These faithful are driven underground or into the Society of St. Pius X, whose very existence is then lamented.”
He points to the apparent contradiction whereby the Holy See has turned a blind eye to the increasingly heterodox actions of the German episcopate, while being swift and harsh against the Society of St. Pius X in their adherence to traditional teaching. The Germans, Grichting writes, go “unchecked” despite the fact they have for years “been undermining the sacramental order of the Church with their ‘Synodal Path’ and institutionalizing the blessing of same-sex couples.” In contrast the SSPX “is threatened with excommunication by virtue of the Pope’s absolute authority.”
Regarding the Holy See’s two-fold response to the Germans and the SSPX, Grichting comments that the Pope is disregarding Lumen Gentium no 21 “concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders and demands acceptance of the Constitution on the Liturgy…These double standards are destroying the trust of many faithful.”
Pointing to a distorted exercise of papal authority, Grichting notes how the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations is the “undoubtedly problematic — attempt to limit papal omnipotence when its boundary no longer seems to be Church doctrine.”
By way of repairing the damage within the Church, Mgr. Grichting urged the Pope to “heal the wounds inflicted on Church doctrine,” but warned this would not be achieved through “dictates, threats, and double standards.”
“The Society of St. Pius X is not the disease, but a symptom,” he wrote. “This symptom can be combated with excommunication. Papal supremacy undoubtedly permits this legally. But the disease will not be healed by this. It will continue to fester and divide and weaken the Body of Christ, the Church.”
For Grichting, the Pope must be more pro-active not just to penalize the SSPX, but to repair the devastating crisis of doctrine and authority which is now rampant within the Church.
A Crisis of Trust in the Church
Only papal consistency can heal the wounds inflicted on church unity. A guest commentary by Martin Grichting
The Catholic liberal Lord Acton (1834–1902) famously said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In democracies, the conclusion drawn from this is that power must be mistrusted and limited. It is therefore checked, among other things, by the recognition of fundamental rights, by the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial), by subsidiarity and federalism, by referendums, and by term limits. Through a “social contract” among all citizens—the constitution—people agree to share political power in this way. But even this does not always sufficiently restrain it.
In the Church, the problem of power is even more acute. For none of the aforementioned means of fragmenting power exist there. Rather, according to the doctrine of the faith and the Code of Canon Law (CIC/1983), the Pope possess “by virtue of his office supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (c. 331).
The Pope, then, possesses absolute power. Does absolute power within the Church therefore lead to absolute corruption? If one views the Church solely through human eyes, one would have to say: Yes, that is the case. But when viewed through the eyes of faith, this is not true. For there exists a single “instrument” to limit papal omnipotence: it is unconditional obedience to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, to which the Pope is bound in his conscience. Only because the Church as a whole and the Pope in particular are bound by this limitation of power is it possible for absolute power to be entrusted to a single person within it. Mistrust of power is thus overcome in the Church by the fact that the faithful have confidence that the Pope knows himself to be bound by unconditional obedience of faith in the exercise of his power, which is in itself unlimited.
This trust has been shaken in the Church; for many, it has been destroyed. Pope Francis has turned the indissolubility of marriage into a farce through “Amoris Laetitia.” It now applies only in theory. In practice, with a few “pastoral distinctions”—on whatever basis, by whomever—one can live in adultery with a clear conscience. The Vatican’s non-liturgical blessing of few seconds for same-sex and unmarried couples (“Fiducia supplicans”) represents a further departure from Christian marriage. Ambiguous gestures such as the Pachamama cult in the Vatican and the “Document on Human Fraternity” (Abu Dhabi Declaration) from 2019 have effectively denied Christian universalism of salvation. The appointment of laypeople to Vatican leadership positions involving the exercise of governing authority constitutes a break with the Second Vatican Council (LG 21; Nota explicativa praevia 2). It undermines the sacramental-hierarchical order of the Church. This situation persists under Pope Leo XIV. In the wake of “synodalism,” the Apostolic See published a document that attempts to justify the rejection of the Second Vatican Council (Final Report of Study Group 5 regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders and “potestas sacra”). Without comment—and irresponsibly—the Apostolic See has published a heretic text that relativizes Church teaching on marriage and the family (Final Report of Study Group 9 regarding “complex issues”).
Even serious liturgical abuses are ignored or downplayed by bishops and the Holy See. Yet the followers of the extraordinary form are harassed. Priests are prevented or made to find it difficult to celebrate the Eucharist in this manner. Laypeople are humiliated by being forbidden to celebrate this form of the Eucharist in parish churches. These faithful are driven underground or into the Society of St. Pius X, whose very existence is then lamented.
The Pope allows German bishops, who for years have been undermining the sacramental order of the Church with their “Synodal Path” and institutionalizing the blessing of same-sex couples, to continue unchecked. It is said that discussions have taken place with them. The Society of St. Pius X, however, is threatened with excommunication by virtue of the Pope’s absolute authority. The Pope disregards the Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen Gentium” (No. 21) concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders and demands acceptance of the Constitution on the Liturgy (“Sacrosanctum Concilium”). Both are documents of the same Council. These double standards are destroying the trust of many faithful.
The Society of St. Pius X’s announcement that it will consecrate bishops on its own initiative is an expression of a loss of trust in the Pope. And the sympathy for this act, which extends far beyond the Society’s followers, shows that for many, trust has given way to mistrust. Too much has happened, and the consequences are devastating. For more and more Catholics are realizing that Church doctrine no longer serves as the limit to the hierarchy’s actions. This is the illness from which the Church truly suffers. And it cannot be healed by exercising papal omnipotence through threats and excommunications. For if the unchecked power of the stronger party is decisive within the Church, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: this power must be limited. The ordination of bishops against the Pope’s will is ultimately the—undoubtedly problematic—attempt to limit papal omnipotence when its boundary no longer seems to be Church doctrine.
If we are to avoid further limitations on papal omnipotence caused by schisms, there is only one way forward: the Pope must heal the wounds inflicted on Church doctrine. Only in this way can he address the mistrust and restore confidence. He will not succeed in doing so through dictates, threats, and double standards. The Society of St. Pius X is not the disease, but a symptom. This symptom can be combated with excommunication. Papal supremacy undoubtedly permits this legally.
But the disease will not be healed by this. It will continue to fester and divide and weaken the Body of Christ, the Church. The Pope holds the key to healing the disease. He must use it and cannot sit out the problem. For even not to govern is to govern. This is also a consequence that follows from papal omnipotence.