Bishops and national conferences

[Mustard]

Not sure if I’m on the right forum, but it seems to be the most appropriate. My question is basically, am I correct in thinking that once a bishop is appointed, he is answerable to nobody except Rome? That the the idea of a national bishops’ conference is a relatively new one and that should an individual bishop choose to go against the line taken by the conference, well, go for it, Your Excellency? I’m wondering what might happen should somebody appoint a bishop who encourages the Latin Mass, speaks out loudly, publically and controversially on issues which are sensitive, and generally gets the media shouting “Agghhh!!! Bigot!!! Hater!!!” (which is a surefire way of knowing he’s a good bishop). Would the national conference have any authority to rein him in, or is he a totally free agent except for Rome? What exactly is canon law on this point?

 

[MorEphrem]

To my understanding, in the Latin Church, you are correct in saying an ordinary is the ordinary of their diocese without question except to Rome. Historically, there used to be primates with overseer-jurisdiction over dioceses in their geographic locality (and I mean more so than archbishops) but that is no longer the case - nor was it ever in the US.

As for organizations such as the USCCB, they’re supposed to act as a peer advisory group, hence why the majority of the bishops in the USCCB have collectively agreed to move feasts but some have not. There isn’t supposed to be any compulsion of the collective over the individual ordinary. That’s normatively speaking, however. The USCCB violates that all the time by trying to impose some kind of collective authority like a national synod… recently they took a bucket vote for the Eastern bishops as to whether or not married men should be permitted for ordination in the US without external approval and the USCCB arbitrarily said it would have to be 100% of the Eastern bishops who approve, otherwise it’s canned for the entire US. Well sure enough 2 bishops said no and so that was that. There are so many violations of an ordinary’s own authority in that I cannot even begin… different *sui iuris *Churches imposing their authority over others, ordinaries having to have an absolute vote to act as an ordinary in their own diocese. Bah, I’m rambling. Anyway, I’m sure anyone who defies the USCCB will be targeted by the aggression of other bishops. I don’t know how it works outside the US.

 

[L_Marshall]

The Ordinary is answerable to Rome. As far as I understand, there are cases where Canon Law or a similar authority defers a decision to a bishop’s conference; the Ordinary would be expected to follow these decisions, since they carry the weight of law. Not many decisions are left to a bishop’s conference though, in this respect.

That being said, a bishop who is going against the grain two much is likely to get flak from other bishops. They may contact the nuncio or one of the Vatican’s Congregations, which could step in, if the situation merited it.

 

[commenter]

At various times bishops have taken positions very different from other bishops, and very different from the conference as a whole. This was especially true in the 1980s, for instance.

I wouldn’t assume that the apparent lessening of public disagreement among the bishops - if that is the case - is the result of USCCB pressure, nor is it bad. There still are bishops who regularly get trashed by the media, which is anti-Catholic increasingly. We live in a time when the media will exploit every difference between one bishop and the next. The media would love to have a few hundred loose canons, both liberal and conservative, each with a different agenda, speaking loudly and independently every week or so. It might make a few conservatives feel good when conservative bishops speak out boldly as lone rangers - take that, and that, and THAT! - but we don’t want bishops whose job is to “make conservatives feel good” we want bishops who can successfully impact on the Church and the country, often in a conservative direction. That takes unity.

That’s what the bishops are now doing, especially under Cardinal George and Cardinal Dolan. The USCCB now is in my opinion far more consistent both with the Holy See and the laity than it was 30 years ago. Even if the USCCB didn’t exist, the Vatican wouldn’t want lone rangers on the left or the right. This country is approaching the point where bishops will all hang together, or they will all hang separately. Under Communism the Polish bishops would meet in secret session, come to an agreement on priorities, and then take a strong public stand focusing on a few strategic issues. The Communists would have loved a few lone rangers, each with their own agenda, wiling to break ranks.

With 300 independent agendas, there would be at least 100 different agendas; if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. YOU might be happy because your favorite bishop “says it like it is” (as would every other bishop) but nothing would be changed.

 

[billcu1]

A metroploitan Archdiocese like Archbishop Lori’s Baltimore Archdiocese does have in some case appeal power over suffragan sees. If the tribunal for example of my disocese wouldn’t grant me an anullment I could appeal to the Archdiocese. Correct me anyone if I’m wrong.

 

[Corki]

Not sure if I’m on the right forum, but it seems to be the most appropriate. My question is basically, am I correct in thinking that once a bishop is appointed, he is answerable to nobody except Rome? That the the idea of a national bishops’ conference is a relatively new one and that should an individual bishop choose to go against the line taken by the conference, well, go for it, Your Excellency? I’m wondering what might happen should somebody appoint a bishop who encourages the Latin Mass, speaks out loudly, publically and controversially on issues which are sensitive, and generally gets the media shouting “Agghhh!!! Bigot!!! Hater!!!” (which is a surefire way of knowing he’s a good bishop). Would the national conference have any authority to rein him in, or is he a totally free agent except for Rome? What exactly is canon law on this point?

There are a few, and very few, issues where a Bishop must follow the decisions of the national conference. For example, there are some liturgical norms that are decided on a national level. If a Bishop wanted to go against them, he would need permission from the
CDW.

In the US, we have had several outspoken Bishops who went against the grain of the majority of the USCCB. Since a Bishop has authority in most things for his diocese, that’s just find. (and yes, sometimes the media calls that Bishop names and worse). The USCCB has no authority in that regard. Even the Vatican has very little control as long as the Bishop isn’t breaking canon law or preaching heresy.

 

[janeway529]

There are a few, and very few, issues where a Bishop must follow the decisions of the national conference. For example, there are some liturgical norms that are decided on a national level. If a Bishop wanted to go against them, he would need permission from the
CDW.

In the US, we have had several outspoken Bishops who went against the grain of the majority of the USCCB. Since a Bishop has authority in most things for his diocese, that’s just find. (and yes, sometimes the media calls that Bishop names and worse). The USCCB has no authority in that regard. Even the Vatican has very little control as long as the Bishop isn’t breaking canon law or preaching heresy.

It should be also noted that sometimes even the USCCB will leave it up to the diocesan bishop to decide because the situation (i.e. culture) of one diocese or ecclesiastical province may not be the case in another.

 

[commenter]

Canon law presupposes the virtue of prudence be practiced. Not every action that may be permissible is necessarily prudent, considering the current context. The current context is that the Catholic Church in many countries, including the US, is under attack by the media, the government, and other secular forces. Many bishops who are more liberal, or more conservative, than other bishops may bring up issues in closed session that they would not do at a press conference.

It is not the USCCB that is silencing conservative (or liberal) bishops who disagree on some things. Canon law mandates prudence, mandates efforts towards unity. For isolated bishops to go off on their own, in today’s hostile climate, is imprudent. That goes against canon law.