Bishops' actual power

[JesuXPIPassio]

The Code of Canon Law stipulates that if one were to be made a Cardinal, he would fall under direct authority of the Pope, and he would not be subject to Diocesan Bishops; for example, he needs not any permission from the local Bishop of where he is to hear Confessions.

It also stipulates that members of a Personal Prelature do not fall under the authority of a Bishop.

With all this talk of a bishop’s authority, it raises a question – what actual authority does the Bishop have? This is a very broad question, I know, but it really looks as if the Vatican has the real privilege of governance. To select a cathedral, for example, a Bishop needs authority from the Vatican. If I’m not mistaken, judging from all the squabbling with that Archbishop in Wisconsin, the Vatican also has final say over church designs. To sell a Catholic hospital, the local Church here needed permission from the Vatican. Even in some areas that do not fall directly under the Vatican’s, the National Conference of Bishops legislates, and the Vatican confirms. In this case, the local Bishop really isn’t empowered to do much. I remember there being a big story where I live where the Bishop at the time wished to sell a historical church to land developers (it sits on very good real estate); that, too, was overturned by the Vatican.

Aside from the more ceremonial aspects like ordaining, chrismating, consecrating churches, excommunicating (which can also be over-ruled by the Vatican), what real things can Bishops do?

 

[Easy1213]

The bishops of the Church have complete authority of customs in their particular diocese, as well as the role of defense of Faith and Morals held as universal truths by the complete mystical body of the Church.

The entire communion of bishops, including archbishops and the pope, hold certain authority as the collective magisterium.

In a bishop’s particular diocese, he as relatively free reign over issues of practice within the church, such as liturgical music, age at which a Catholic is confirmed, and other things that are merely custom and not what has been revealed as Divine truth.

This is because what may fly for a diocese in the southwest of the US may not resonate with the culture & spirituality of the southwestern Philippines.

 

[Aramis]

Aside from the more ceremonial aspects like ordaining, chrismating, consecrating churches, excommunicating (which can also be over-ruled by the Vatican), what real things can Bishops do?

They grant or reject annullments (subject to appeal to the Rota).
They may charter religious societies, orders, and houses.
They may declare a person, shine, miracle, etc., worthy of veneration, subject to review by Rome (This actually is the 1st step towards beatification, and eventual canonization as a saint, in most cases).
They may assign or relieve pastors and other clerics of their diocese.
They may replevin the properties of parishes that have left the church.
They may give imprimatur to written works.
They may indult requirements of canon law for individuals, classes of individuals, or specific groups, on either a case by case basis, or for a fixed term of time. (EG: A bishop could release his diocese from Sunday obligation if some good reason came along. This actually is done quite often for holy days of obligation which fall on a Monday; the bishop may declare the obligation fulfilled by Sunday mass.)
They may remove non-ordained ministers faculties at will.
They may accept or deny petitions for change of sui iuris church of canonical enrollment.
They may try persons for violations of canon law.
They may charter a major seminary.

 

[Easy1213]

oh yeah… that too.

 

[twf]

Bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches also have a considerable greater degree of autonomy. This is particularly true in the patriarchal churches sui juris (those Eastern Catholic Churches led by a patriarch) where bishops are selected by the particular church’s synod and not the Vatican. Eastern bishops (collectively) have total control over particular law, liturgy, customs, disciplines, etc.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

The Code of Canon Law stipulates that if one were to be made a Cardinal, he would fall under direct authority of the Pope, and he would not be subject to Diocesan Bishops; for example, he needs not any permission from the local Bishop of where he is to hear Confessions.

It also stipulates that members of a Personal Prelature do not fall under the authority of a Bishop.

With all this talk of a bishop’s authority, it raises a question – what actual authority does the Bishop have? This is a very broad question, I know, but it really looks as if the Vatican has the real privilege of governance. To select a cathedral, for example, a Bishop needs authority from the Vatican. If I’m not mistaken, judging from all the squabbling with that Archbishop in Wisconsin, the Vatican also has final say over church designs. To sell a Catholic hospital, the local Church here needed permission from the Vatican. Even in some areas that do not fall directly under the Vatican’s, the National Conference of Bishops legislates, and the Vatican confirms. In this case, the local Bishop really isn’t empowered to do much. I remember there being a big story where I live where the Bishop at the time wished to sell a historical church to land developers (it sits on very good real estate); that, too, was overturned by the Vatican.

Aside from the more ceremonial aspects like ordaining, chrismating, consecrating churches, excommunicating (which can also be over-ruled by the Vatican), what real things can Bishops do?

Quite a bit. They can do almost anything and are subject to no one but the Holy Father. Sure, we’ve had some bishops go astray and they are corrected by Rome. But as long as they are teaching and mandating within the confines of what the Church has already said, they can do quite a bit.