A
ajpirc
Guest
What is the purpose of National Bishops’ Conferences?
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
For one thing, so you wouldn’t go to the next city which happens to belong to another diocese and find different norms. Well, that is the intention at least.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
In general: (1) to promote uniformity of practices across nations, and (2) to ease bureaucratic burdens on individual dioceses. So for instance as to (1), certain things (posture for receiving Holy Communion, special saints for the region added to the calendar, etc.) may be variable or optional, and by entrusting the decisions to national conferences rather than individual dioceses we can minimize variation while remaining sufficiently responsive to local concerns. Likewise as to (2), the Church has important functions such as lobbying national governments, drawing up child abuse guidelines to operate within the context of national law, and maintaining a forceful presence in major media. These could not be done effectively from Rome, and it would typically be very burdensome and inefficient for scores of individual local dioceses to run around all working on them separately. So these functions, too, can be exercised by the national bodies.
Those are the main two purposes.
L
laszlo
Guest
Until the 20th Century the bishop was entitled with all the rights to control the faithful, what were not restricted to the Apostolic See. This was necessary due to the slow communication, and also sufficient for that reason.
The XIX Ecumenical council understood that the word changed, the communication became instant w/o any geographical limits, and wanted in one centralize to the Apostolic See powers previously given to the bishops (especially to regulate the liturgy), and in other hand to establish the concept of the National Conferences of Bishops, to promote the unity inside a nation.
At this moment the case is boiling. My understanding is that there is a motion to regain at least part of the original power of the individual dioceses.
The XIX Ecumenical council understood that the word changed, the communication became instant w/o any geographical limits, and wanted in one centralize to the Apostolic See powers previously given to the bishops (especially to regulate the liturgy), and in other hand to establish the concept of the National Conferences of Bishops, to promote the unity inside a nation.
At this moment the case is boiling. My understanding is that there is a motion to regain at least part of the original power of the individual dioceses.
A
ajpirc
Guest
So, does the conference help rule over the dioceses with the local bishops?
W
Will_S
Guest
As far as I know the bishops conference has absolutely no authority over any local bishop and every diocesean bishop is completely free to ignore the bishops conference in any matter whatsoever.
There have been some recent cases of bishops acting contrary to the policies of the bishops conference and when some bureaucrat at the bishops conference complains, the bishop has pointed out that the bishops conference is consultative and has no authority.
There have been some recent cases of bishops acting contrary to the policies of the bishops conference and when some bureaucrat at the bishops conference complains, the bishop has pointed out that the bishops conference is consultative and has no authority.
A
ajpirc
Guest
So basically, there is no fundamental point to them, if the bishop is the one who rules over his diocese. Do they just sit back and regulate what the bishops can or can’t do in their dioceses? Could a bishop split from the conference?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
This is not exactly true. Canon law and other Vatican documents assign the national conferences the definite power to make certain decisions – for instance, approving translations of the Mass. Among a dozen or two mentions of bishops’ conferences, Liturgicam Authenticam provides, “It will be the responsibility of the Conference of Bishops to determine which of the prevailing languages are to be introduced into full or partial liturgical use in its territory.” So an individual bishop has no authority to “disagree” and approve some other language or other translation.
Mostly, as I stated, the “fundamental point” of the conferences is to improve the efficiency and reduce the burdens on individual dioceses. Your mindset (“But can they force people to do things?”) is not the way the bishops act at all on 99% of what they do. It’s a little like demanding to know what is the point of the Latin Mass Society, since they cannot force people to attend Latin Masses or force priests to offer them.
A
ajpirc
Guest
Thank you for your clarification Mark.
How much authority does the individual bishop have over a diocese compared with the episcopal coference of his country?
E
estesbob
Guest
The same can be said about the US Council of Catholic Bishops.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
A diocesan bishop “has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority” (c. 381 § 1). So it is important to note that the bishop is the top authority in his diocese and answers only to the Pope; in terms of the day-to-day operation of a diocese, the conference has no role at all.
The thing is, bishops generally want to collaborate with each other. The do not want to be forced to do everything on their own. Here are four examples:
- In Canada, the conference developed and approved a uniform national hymnal, which, as I understand it, isn’t mandatory, but is widely used and is the same from Newfoundland to the Yukon. Theoretically, each individual diocese could develop their own uniform hymnal for use within the diocese, but they do not want to burdened with this alone when they could share their resources with others.
- Similarly, in the United States, each diocese could come up with its own complete set of guidelines for dealing with the child abuse issue – and I think some have – but most bishops would prefer to have these developed by the experts at a national level. It is a very complicated legal topic which I’m sure requires consulting very expensive lawyers; why would the Diocese of Smalltown ever want to do it themselves? Besides which, having uniform guidelines prevents the media (and plaintiffs’ attorneys) from taking any one diocese to task for having “laxer” rules than the diocese next door.
- To give a more minor example, the USCCB has the entire NAB, GIRM, and all the Mass readings and psalms for every day online on its website. Individual dioceses could take on the burden of maintaining and updating these things on their own websites, but this way the effort is not duplicated needlessly and everyone in the country has a single place to look.
- At their recent meeting, the USCCB issued a statement condemning assisted suicide and explaining Church teaching and how Catholics in the U.S. should look at the matter. By being a national statement from the entire conference rather than a collection of pastoral letters from miscellaneous individual dioceses, this helps ensure that (a) national media will pay more attention to it, (b) people will not think, “That’s not from my bishop, so it doesn’t apply to me,” and (c) what is expressed represents the consensus of thought among our bishops.
A
ajpirc
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong here:
Also, all bishops should use their authority of the Ordinary Magisterium by condemning assisted suicide.
So it is the Ordinary Magisterium enforcing what the Extraordinary Magisterium had defined.
I don’t understand why they would want the national media paying more attention.
People shouldn’t think that because, as you said above, it is Church teaching and they should obey it. If there is a case where there are a lot of assisted suicides in many hospitals around Miami, Dallas, and Boston, why shouldn’t just their bishop take care of it as the shepherd of his flock instead of having all of the bishops try to fix something that is only a problem in a limited number of dioceses?
Also, all bishops should use their authority of the Ordinary Magisterium by condemning assisted suicide.
I don’t know why I would want to know how ALL of the bishops agreed on something. I only have one bishop and I only really care about his opinion. The decisions of the bishops on the other side of the country shouldn’t affect my diocese.
P
PJM
Guest
because of the enormous size of the CC, both numerically in membership and in geography; in order to “better serve” the various communities within the One True Church; matters unders the Bishops authority, are discussed and implemented for the sake of BOTH unity and conformity.
On Matters of Faith beliefs, ANYTHING touching the Mass and Morals; what ever is decided MUST still be submitted to Rome for approval before it is populated.
God Bless,
Pat
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I’m not sure these terms are helpful in this context.
It is a vehicle for communicating the message. It is a good thing for our bishops to have the Church’s teachings announced in the public sphere.
The statement is not, you know, a two-sentence order that says “Do not commit assisted suicide.” That would not influence anybody. I’m not sure where you get the notion that local bishops could simply “fix” the “problem” of assisted suicide in their dioceses, but that is not the way reality works. For one thing, we are not standing against assisted suicide just for Catholics (the “flock” you mention), but for anybody, Methodist, Jewish, atheist, or anything else. If a bishop wrote a pastoral letter to be read from the pulpits of every Catholic parish in his diocese that said, “You are strictly forbidden from committing assisted suicide, which is gravely sinful,” would that have any effect on public laws, the media, or anybody else? No.
The U.S. is not a theocracy, so to be effective the Church must proceed by persuasion, reasoning, teaching, and influence. What would it mean to you as a Catholic if you heard that a Muslim imam had issued a fatwa forbidding something as a crime against Allah? Would it influence you? No, I doubt it. For the same reason, Catholic bishops cannot simply coast along issuing our own edicts of Catholic morals and hope that other people notice. We are not just speaking to Catholics here; in fact the majority of Americans are not Catholic. If we flatly say “X is forbidden” without explaining why and persuading people to agree with us, that is not going to be very effective.
First, if a bishop wrote something persuasive, you would not care? If fact, ajpirc, I’d bet that if some bishop wrote a devastating piece showing why Communion in the hand is a terrible practice, you’d be the first one bringing it up. And if someone answered “Sorry, he isn’t my bishop, therefore I do not remotely care,” that would be a ridiculous response.
Second, the statement in question is not a “decision,” it is a set of teachings and explanations. Frankly, I think you are approaching this entire issue with an extremely legalistic mindset, where you suppose that the bishops and the USCCB just go around issuing “decisions” all the time, like court orders, and you do not care when they do not “affect” you. Believe it or not, the vast majority of things the Church does don’t consist of giving orders that must be followed. So if I find that St. Charles Borromeo wrote something persuasive on some topic – reverence in the Mass, let’s say – I don’t just instantly discount it because I do not live in Milan where he was the bishop. Likewise, if Cardinal George (my own bishop) wrote something urging greater reverence in the Mass, I would not ignore it just because it was not a “decision” with binding force.
This also explains why the bishops are likely to be more persuasive when speaking with a unified voice than when they all issue their own little individual statements. As a Chicagoan, which headline will I pay more attention to: “Louisiana congresswoman calls for sanctions against Libya,” or “U.S. House passes 435-0 resolution demanding sanctions against Libya”?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Has the Vatican approved this text?
No. The Holy See does not typically approve translations of Scripture unless they are intended for use in the liturgy. If, in the future, the U.S. bishops approve this text of the Old Testament for use in the liturgy, it will be submitted to the Holy See for approval.
(source)
W
Will_S
Guest
This is one of the examples I was thinking of. Some bureaucrat from the USCCB criticized the Diocese of Lincoln for not adhering to the USCCB guidelines on the prevention of sex abuse and Bishop Bruskewitz reminded the USCCB functionary that the USCCB has no authority in the Diocese of Lincoln and told the bureaucrat to shut it. (although he was – slightly – more polite than that
)
A
ajpirc
Guest
Dang, you can read me like a book.
(I know, horrible pun)
P
PJM
Guest
No,
I don’t believe the text was sent to Rome for approval.
God Bless,
Pat
A
ajpirc
Guest
Bishop Bruskewitz also has the highest “priest-to-Catholic ratio” in his diocese. He’s considered on of the most conservative bishops in the Church.This is one of the examples I was thinking of. Some bureaucrat from the USCCB criticized the Diocese of Lincoln for not adhering to the USCCB guidelines on the prevention of sex abuse and Bishop Bruskewitz reminded the USCCB functionary that the USCCB has no authority in the Diocese of Lincoln and told the bureaucrat to shut it. (although he was – slightly – more polite than that
He was the only bishop of the USCCB to not sign the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People which was why he didn’t agree with the bureaucrat. He’s has a lot of guts!!!
- Status