Cupich names woman to new COO role in Chicago Archdiocese

[dans0622]

Interesting idea. The bishop clearly has the authority to create such an ecclesiastical office (see cc. 145ff, c. 469-470). I have yet to see a description of the purpose of the office and how it compares/interacts with the office of moderator of the curia (c. 473.2), chancellor (c. 482), and financial administrator (c. 494). The notion of a “COO” seems most akin to moderator of the curia…

Dan

 

[Havard]

Is it me, or is there a bit of both misogyny and an anti-priest/patriarchy sentiment in this thread?

Lay women can perform most executive roles within a diocese (Chancellor, General Counsel, CFO, Director of Communications/Development/HR/Schools, etc.). So can priests. The best person for the job should get the job, whoever that is. That’s what a meritocracy is.

 

[Sarcelle]

Is it me, or is there a bit of both misogyny and an anti-priest/patriarchy sentiment in this thread?

Lay women can perform most executive roles within a diocese (Chancellor, General Counsel, CFO, Director of Communications/Development/HR/Schools, etc.). So can priests. The best person for the job should get the job, whoever that is. That’s what a meritocracy is.

No it is not just you.

I can also sense both.

 

[Havard]

No it is not just you.

I can also sense both.

 

[Joe_5859]

COO is definitely more than finance. My issues is that I’m not sure why even the more traditional roles cannot be filled by women. Why can’t there be a female vicar general?

Canon Law would have to be changed for that one. A Vicar General has to be a priest (not simply a man). This is because he exercises certain specific authority on behalf of the bishop.

There are other “high ranking” positions in a diocese (like Chancellor) that can be held by lay people, men or women. But pretty much anything with “Vicar” in the title has to be a priest because they are in a sense “standing in” for the bishop when they exercise their responsibilities.

Some dioceses sort of get around these types of Canon Law requirements by creating positions like COO (or “Executive Assistant” or a number of other names) for lay people to functionally do mostly the same sort of things that a vicar would do. The people making these decisions are far more versed in Canon Law than anyone on this thread, so I’d tend to trust that they are doing it right without violating Canon Law.

Now, could one argue that some dioceses/bishops are trying to find “loopholes” in order to avoid giving these positions to priests? I suppose. I think that’s a bit more cynical than warranted. A lot of times, it is simply because the priests are needed in the parishes rather than the chancery.

I think we will continue to see more and more of this. I don’t think it need scandalize us. The Pope is still the Pope and the bishops are still bishops. That they rely on an increasing number of lay people to exercise their duties doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Indeed, I can see much good coming from it, too.

I can see people being bothered by the use of business terminology (like COO) within the Church. But I don’t think we need to be.

 

[Joe_5859]

Interesting idea. The bishop clearly has the authority to create such an ecclesiastical office (see cc. 145ff, c. 469-470). I have yet to see a description of the purpose of the office and how it compares/interacts with the office of moderator of the curia (c. 473.2), chancellor (c. 482), and financial administrator (c. 494). The notion of a “COO” seems most akin to moderator of the curia…

Dan

I think that’s accurate. Canon Law says that both a Moderator of the Curia and Vicar General must be priests. However, Canon Law says a Bishop must appoint a Vicar General, but only says that he may appoint a Moderator of the Curia. There’s nothing stopping a bishop from being his own “Moderator of the Curia” … and then hiring a layperson with a different job title to do basically the same thing.

 

[Havard]

I can see people being bothered by the use of business terminology (like COO) within the Church. But I don’t think we need to be.

Substance does matter more than form. No question. But form can lead to a confusion of substance. The more business terms and principles we apply, the more conscious we need to be of when and how we use them. I say this because there is a very real tendency to forget that the Church has significantly different goals than a secular venture. This can lead to over-emphasis of quantitative metrics, for example.

 

[Joe_5859]

Substance does matter more than form. No question. But form can lead to a confusion of substance. The more business terms and principles we apply, the more conscious we need to be of when and how we use them. I say this because there is a very real tendency to forget that the Church has significantly different goals than a secular venture. This can lead to over-emphasis of quantitative metrics, for example.

Fair enough.

 

[ProVobis]

I think we will continue to see more and more of this. I don’t think it need scandalize us. The Pope is still the Pope and the bishops are still bishops. That they rely on an increasing number of lay people to exercise their duties doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Indeed, I can see much good coming from it, too.

Except that a lot of these “duties” used to be performed on a pro-bono basis. It wasn’t unusual for electricians, lawyers, accountants, painters, programmers, teachers, etc. in times past to volunteer their services to their parishes, schools, and diocese. We don’t see this much any more it seems.

 

[Joe_5859]

Except that a lot of these “duties” used to be performed on a pro-bono basis. It wasn’t unusual for electricians, lawyers, accountants, painters, programmers, teachers, etc. in times past to volunteer their services to their parishes, schools, and diocese. We don’t see this much any more it seems.

I think that’s a much larger issue. That does seem to be the general trend, though I know it’s not universal. My parents are currently at a small rural parish and there is still plenty of that volunteer attitude. Truly, the parish would not survive if it weren’t for the fact that pretty much every single member of the parish helps out in some way.

But, yeah, I think there’s a lot less of that than there used to be. And there are a lot less priests and nuns staffing out Catholic enterprises with cheap labor. It certainly raises the costs overall. I don’t see that trend reversing anytime soon, though.

 

[ProVobis]

In all likelihood, it probably would not be a glamorous position. Most jobs aren’t.

I don’t know. Is she even a Catholic? The article doesn’t say. Would it make any difference, in your opinion?

 

[dans0622]

I don’t know. Is she even a Catholic? The article doesn’t say. Would it make any difference, in your opinion?

Hello,

This is, in some circles, passé, but the general law of the Church states: “To be promoted to an ecclesiastical office, a person must be in the communion of the Church… (Ut ad officum ecclesiasticum quis promoveatur, debet esse in Ecclesiae communione…)” (c. 149).

There is the possibility of the bishop dispensing this requirement but…it goes against common sense for an official of the Catholic Church to not be of the Catholic Church. At least, that’s common sense to me.

Dan

 

[ProVobis]

Hello,

This is, in some circles, passé, but the general law of the Church states: “To be promoted to an ecclesiastical office, a person must be in the communion of the Church… (Ut ad officum ecclesiasticum quis promoveatur, debet esse in Ecclesiae communione…)” (c. 149).

There is the possibility of the bishop dispensing this requirement but…it goes against common sense for an official of the Catholic Church to not be of the Catholic Church. At least, that’s common sense to me.

Dan

I understand.

But if one goes by the argument that a bishop should hire the best possible candidate for a business/secular/non-clerical (for lack of better term) position, why would that exclude non-Catholics? I’m sure there are a few non-Catholic lawyers, plumbers, electricians, accountants, etc. that serve the diocese well.

 

[dans0622]

I understand.

But if one goes by the argument that a bishop should hire the best possible candidate for a business/secular/non-clerical (for lack of better term) position, why would that exclude non-Catholics? I’m sure there are a few non-Catholic lawyers, plumbers, electricians, accountants, etc. that serve the diocese well.

There are “jobs” that have to be done on behalf of the Church that are not “ecclesiastical offices.” An ecclesiastical office is one that “is established in a stable manner to further a spiritual purpose” (c. 145). If the position has no connection to the furtherance of spiritual purposes, then the employee can be anybody.

In my opinion, the “COO” of a diocese necessarily furthers spiritual purposes…I don’t know how it couldn’t. But, again, I haven’t seen a description of the position so I could be wrong.

Dan

 

[ProVobis]

In my opinion, the “COO” of a diocese necessarily furthers spiritual purposes…I don’t know how it couldn’t. But, again, I haven’t seen a description of the position so I could be wrong.

Dan

It may very well further (or be intended to further) spiritual purposes. But having it all over the secular news doesn’t exactly make it a low-profile, non-political issue either.