Whenever someone in Church governance is going to issue a decree, i.e. make an official decision, that person must first consult with “those whose rights might be injured by the decision” (c. 50). Consultation does not imply “consent,” i.e. the person making the decision doesn’t have to get “those whose rights might be injured” to agree with the decision, but the person does have to consult.
Reflecting on this, I have asked myself: “What’s the point?” If the person in power — the diocesan bishop, the vicar general or whomever — can make the decision regardless of what others think, even those who might be negatively impacted, why not just let him make it? What’s gained by forcing the decision-maker to jump through this extra hoop? Even if people don’t like an authority’s decision, they also dislike authorities who don’t “do anything.” Why make it hard to “do something?”
I’ve often been accused of accumulating a somewhat eclectic set of anecdotes. So, I pray the reader and professional scripture scholars forgive me for stepping out of my lane a bit. A reading of Lot’s Wife that has piqued my interest is one that places some of the blame for her ultimate salinification on her husband. Lot, like Abraham, was the recipient of many of God’s blessings, but it does not seem evident that he spoke of these things or noted the invisible origins of his visible prosperity. Thus, when angelic visitors knocked on his door to get him out of doomed Sodom, he could give no credible witness to the presence of God in his life and the life of his family: Lot’s “sons-in-law thought he was joking” (Genesis 19:14). Add to that Lot’s morally defunct choice to offer his daughters to appease an angry mob (Genesis 19:8), and is it any wonder Lot’s Wife did not feel motivated to follow him blindly out of her home and city?
While for us the name “Sodom” is always inextricably connected with doom, it was Lot’s Wife’s home, a place where she had lived, had raised those daughters, found sons for them to marry, feasted and fasted, reveled and grieved. Who wouldn’t think twice, even look back, if the one leading doesn’t speak to you about deeply held beliefs, doesn’t even seem to see you or hear your concerns or share your cares? Though not bound by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Lot would have done well to consult, even briefly, with his wife, before charging out the door and expecting her to follow him, keeping her eyes straight ahead.
That’s not to say that, after consultation, they would have stayed in Sodom. The place was slated for destruction by Divine Judgment. The good decision, the right decision for Lot to make as leader and governor of his family, was to flee. No consultation would have changed that, but it might have meant one more person made it out of Sodom alive.
Father Matthew Crane is the vicar of canonical affairs for the Diocese of St. Cloud.