Dissent Continues: American Catholic Council Responds to Archbishop Allen Vigneron

This is another in a series of articles exposing the deeply fallacious claims of the 'American Catholic Council'

This is another in a series of articles exposing the deeply fallacious claims of the "American Catholic Council," which plans to convene in Detroit in June of 2011 to pursue an "American Catholic Church." In this installment, their recent claim to be in accord with Canon Law is discredited by the Code of Canon Law itself  as well as it's official commentary.

P>GRAND RAPIDS, MI--Adding to their baseless claim of fidelity to Vatican II, leaders of the "American Catholic Council" (ACC) now profess to be in accord with Canon Law. In truth, ACC's actions violate the Code of Canon Law-and the "spirit of Vatican II'' that shaped the 1983 Code-adding to the tumultuous swirl of contradictions and unverifiable claims that render their movement so transparently groundless.

ACC co-chairs Janet Hauter and John Hushon recently issued an "Open Letter Response" to Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron, in the wake of his repudiation of the self-proclaimed "council" that will convene in Detroit in June of 2011. (The ACC agenda calls for an "American Catholic Church" with democratic elections of bishops and parish priests, ordination of women and married people, and acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered lifestyles-while somehow maintaining "communion with the Pope.") Their letter to Archbishop Vigneron provides a field day's worth of material to further discredit the movement; I have space in this article to peel back only this little bit of that onion's skin:

"We are exercising our right and duty under Church Law to assemble, discuss, and offer recommendations 'on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.' (Canon 212.3)"

Let's do something Hauter and Hushon probably hoped we wouldn't do: read Canon 212 in its entirety, along with an authoritative commentary explaining what it really means. Canon 212 deals with the obligation of the faithful to obey Church authority, as well as their right to voice opinions.  Paragraph 1 of this Canon states: "The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church." Paragraph 2 follows: "The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church."

Paragraph 3 is the one cited by ACC: "In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which [the faithful] possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."

A subsequent Canon, as well as authoritative commentary provided by the Canon Law Society of America (which bears a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur), reveal how ACC has at the very least misinterpreted and at worst misrepresented this Canon and blatantly broken another one.

The Canon Law Society of America's commentary on Canon 212.3 states (with emphasis mine): "[The Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, #37] indicated opinions were to be expressed, if the occasion should arise, through institutions established for such a purpose by the Church.. Some might consider that the kind of institution called for by the Council is provided simply by the system of approaching pastors first and then the rest of the faithful; this, however, is to take the term 'institution' in a remarkably broad sense."

The "American Catholic Council" is not a Church-established institution, and as such is not covered by Canon 212.3. In fact, it stands in direct violation of Canon 216, which states (again, emphasis mine): "All the Christian faithful, since they participate in the mission of the Church, have the right to promote or to sustain apostolic action by their own undertakings in accord with one's state and condition; however, no undertaking shall assume the name Catholic unless the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority is given."

The "American Catholic Council" knows full well it does not have permission from legitimate Church authority to use the name "Catholic." Thus they are breaking one Canon while falsely claiming adherence to  another, in a desperate attempt to make their project appear legitimate.

Another passage from the Canon Law Society's commentary speaks volumes about the true status of ACC.  Speaking of "opinions in the Church" with regards to Canon 212, the commentary states (emphasis mine): "Clearly an opinion carries greater weight depending both on the competence of the person who expresses it and the soundness of the evidence that supports it." Breaking one Canon while misrepresenting another-as well as gross misrepresentation of the teachings of Vatican II-eliminates any claim to competence.  Failing to provide a single piece of evidence from Vatican II documents to support their claim of fidelity to the Council eliminates any sense of credibility.

And that's just one little paragraph from their deeply fallacious "Open Letter Response" to Archbishop Vigneron.

In future articles I will continue to pick apart the claims made in that letter, as well as other ACC materials, as further evidence that this group has not a single leg to stand on. Catholic Online readers can help by spreading the word about this seriously misguided movement and discouraging any participation in it.

_____

James Penrice is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online