Authority of Bishop over Religious Orders

[Herculees]

The authority of a bishop over a religious order in his diocese depends on whether the religious order is a diocesan religious order or a pontifical religious order. A diocesan religious order has direct submission to the bishop of the diocese they belong to, and therefore have obedience to that bishop. A religious order that exists because of pontifical approval (approval of the Holy Father) has direct submission to the Holy Father. Having said this it would be hard-pressed to refuse the directive of a bishop in whose diocese their religious house is in IF the mission the bishop is asking them to fulfill is the mission of the religious order. Example: A religious order that has as its mission the three fold mission of Eucharist, Liturgy, and Service to the Priesthood. If the bishop were to ask that order to set up the Cathedral every Sunday morning for the celebration of Mass they would be hard-pressed to say no as that is the work that they committed themselves to.

 

[Digitnomy]

Example: A religious order that has as its mission the three fold mission of Eucharist, Liturgy, and Service to the Priesthood. If the bishop were to ask that order to set up the Cathedral every Sunday morning for the celebration of Mass they would be hard-pressed to say no as that is the work that they committed themselves to.

Perhaps I’m being too permissive, but it seems to me such a religious order could easily say no to this request, on grounds that…

• They already have their own mass they celebrate as a community at that time
• The order’s house is a long distance from the cathedral.
• They have very particular traditions as to how they pursue their ministry, none of which involve acting as glorified sacristans

 

[Herculees]

The religious order I was thinking of is a women’s religious order so they do not celebrate Mass.
Of course if distance was an issue that would definitely be a reason to not do as asked but if it was a reasonable distance then one would be hard-pressed to say no.
This particular order has the three fold apostolate of Eucharist, Priesthood, and Liturgy. They fulfill these mission by making vestments for priests and deacons. They run liturgical stores, and they have Eucharistic Adoration. They also provide for the care of retired priests, and this order does act as a Sacristan at the Cathedral as requested.

• They have very particular traditions as to how they pursue their ministry, none of which involve acting as glorified sacristans

 

[poche]

The bishop can say “get out of my diocese.”
This happened in Baton Rouge. The bishop told a certain religious community not to invite certain dissident theologians to give a presentation. The group disobeyed that bishop. That entire community was told to vacate the diocese.

 

[commenter]

However, if a religious order has a house (friary, monastery) where members of the order lived that is not attached to a diocesan parish, the chapel of the monastery would not necessarily be subject to the bishop, even if the public were allowed to attend masses celebrated by the order

It’s a matter of degree. If it’s only a few laity, or only on occasion that many laity attend, the bishop wouldn’t be involved. If there are more Laity attending, if this Mass is publicly promoted to the faithful in general, and only if there were serious, plausible complaints, the more likely the bishop would get involved. It’s now a de facto public ministry.

In my city there is a “Jesuit school” that once had more priests than lay teachers, but now has only two Jesuits. Thus the rules that applied in 1970 may not apply now, in terms of bishop/religious order, in terms of what happens at that school.

 

[goout]

I thought there were some orders which answered to the Vatican and not to the bishops?

EWTN is like that. Not sure if it’s the order or the apostolate or what. JP2 put them under the authority of Rome when local authorities in the US tried to gain control of the network.
I am regurgitating this by memory from Mother Angelica’s biography.)

 

[mrsdizzyd]

JP2 put them under the authority of Rome when local authorities in the US tried to gain control of the network.

Yes. Sometimes these things are necessary when the local authorities exert undue pressure on a community. It’s so unfortunate.

Edit. Not Mother Lange. Someone help me. Who was the foundress in Canada who was removed from her leadership role in her community. She was force to do menial work.

Edit 2: found her. Blessed Marie Anne Blondin.

 

[nunsuch]

And Mother Blondin is now Blessed. [I’ve written about her in a paper on using sacraments as instruments of discipline and power.] So …

 

[TomH1]

It is my understanding that even if an institute is of diocesan right the bishop requires the permission of the Holy See to close it down.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not from what I’ve seen

A religious order which was approved by the Bishop, was shut down by the new Bishop after the former retired. He didn’t have to get permission from Rome as he has full authority in his own dioceses.

If the order had Papal Approval, then he would’ve had to go through Rome who would’ve shu it down if necessary.

 

[TomH1]

What about parishes runned by religious orders? Does the Bishop has authority to intervene with their operation?

Yes, he does. The care of the parish may be in the care of a religious order. This will be an arrangement agreed between the diocesan bishop and the competent major superior of the order. The parish remains part of the diocese although the religious priests have the day-to-day care of the people in it. Ultimately the care of the souls in that parish belongs to the bishop. Therefore, he can decide how the religious priests provide that care in the same way as if the parish was in the care of a secular priest incardinated in the bishop’s diocese.

Where the bishop’s authority ends is with regards to the internal governance of the religious house. That belongs to the proper superiors thereof and not the bishop.

 

[TomH1]

Canon 584 says the suppression of an institute of consecrated life can only be suppressed by the Holy See. The commentary* thereon says this applies to institutes of diocesan right.

*Beal, J. P., Coriden, J. A. and Green, T. J. (eds) (2000) New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Paulist Press (ISBN-13: 9780809140664).

 

[dochawk]

In my city there is a “Jesuit school” that once had more priests than lay teachers, but now has only two Jesuits. Thus the rules that applied in 1970 may not apply now, in terms of bishop/religious order, in terms of what happens at that school.

The Jesuits are a separate issue. They aren’t merely “pontifical” as described above, but an “exempt order.”

In terms of running the school, they remain a Jesuit institution, without being subject to the bishop.

In terms of liturgy for the school alone, I really don’t know how much, if any, authority the bishop has. I do recall that he was commemorated in the Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[runningdude]

so would you say that the members always work outside of any diocese?

I am not sure I understand the question…

A diocese is a geographic territory. If a religious order has a ministry within the territorial limits, they are by definition working inside the diocese.

 

[Vico]

Can. 370 is a rare situation. In such a situation, there is no diocesan bishop, and the local superior of the religious order is given care of the lay faithful in region. It is not really was asked in the question, where a religious order has a presence in a diocese.

You wrote: “Can. 370 is a rare situation. In such a situation, there is no diocesan bishop, and the local superior of the religious order is given care of the lay faithful in region. It is not really was asked in the question, where a religious order has a presence in a diocese.”

I responded that “the original post said “work in” so would you say that the members always work outside of any diocese?” by which I mean:

So would you say that the religious orders members of religious orders for which Can. 370 applies always work outside of any diocese?

 

[commenter]

The Jesuits are a separate issue. They aren’t merely “pontifical” as described above, but an “exempt order.”

In terms of running the school, they remain a Jesuit institution, without being subject to the bishop.

The Jesuits themselves May be exempt, and Jesuit seminaries may be exempt, but an open to the public type institution with most decisions made by laypeople and a couple Jesuits on staff might no longer be a Jesuit institution. It would be an institution in the Jesuit Tradition.

 

[nunsuch]

Actually, the “identity” of the institution has more to do with its charter and its board of trustees than in the number of actual Jesuis on staff.

 

[commenter]

I would be interested in documentation describing the specific Jesuit kind of exemption, as opposed to what other Pontifical orders have.

 

[dochawk]

try searching for “Exempt order” (with quotes, to force them to appear together in that order.

I don’t have cites off the cuff. Come to think of this, I learned this stuff in the days before the interweb thingie, so . . .

I recall that there were only something like two such orders/societies, and I forget the other.

Part (all?) of it has to with the origin and original papal purpose of the order; they were papal operatives (not quite the right word) in the counter-reformation.

I would be shocked to find that anything short of the Jesuits or the Pope could transform a Jesuit school into just “Jesuit tradition” . . .

 

[runningdude]

So would you say that the religious orders members of religious orders for which Can. 370 applies always work outside of any diocese?

It would only be within the territory of the abbey that the religious order works outside of a diocese; the territory of the abbey is equivalent to a diocese. However, the same order likely has other ministries within the territory of dioceses throughout the world.