How does a Bishop govern his church?

[ajpirc]

Thank you for the correction, Brother.

Can he make it a law in his diocese that only single men can be ordained to the diaconate?Would he have to go through the Holy See?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you for the correction, Brother.

Can he make it a law in his diocese that only single men can be ordained to the diaconate?Would he have to go through the Holy See?

Brother JR answered this, he said;

If a bishop so wishes, he can choose to ordain only single men to the diaconate. Obviously, once ordained, they cannot marry, just as a married deacon or priest may not remarry when his wife dies. The law does not say that he must ordain married men. It says that he CAN do so.

So the answer is yes, a bishop could decide to ordain only single men to the diaconate and he would not have to seek permission from Rome.

I know of dioceses that will not consider a man with an annulment for the priesthood. There is nothing in Canon Law that would stop such a man from being ordained but the bishops of these dioceses have decided not to do so.

 

[ajpirc]

Brother JR answered this, he said;

So the answer is yes, a bishop could decide to ordain only single men to the diaconate and he would not have to seek permission from Rome.

I know of dioceses that will not consider a man with an annulment for the priesthood. There is nothing in Canon Law that would stop such a man from being ordained but the bishops of these dioceses have decided not to do so.

Ok, thank you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What are some ways that a Bishop can “rule” his diocese (besides the budget)? I’ve heard that the Church can discipline her flock (meat less Friday’s, etc.), so can a Bishop discipline the flock entrusted in his care without the rest of the Church.

Can he regulate the lives of his presbyterate, such as what they must wear, how they must live, or the way they do anything else?

A local Ordinary would have diocesan priests. He does not and cannot command them on how to live their daily lives. There is a limit to it pretty much to what they do when performing their church duties, the same way one’s company may mandate one to wear a shirt and tie to work. But other than that, no. The priests do not have a vow of obedience to the Bishop and therefore do not give their entire lives to the Bishop. Of course if they belong to a religious order, its a different case.

Also, can he decide where he wants a new church built and how he wants it built?

Yes. As long as he has the funds for it. So often the Bishop will have to depend on the laity who will be funding the Church. But if the diocese has enough funds and there is a need for a new parish, then the Bishop can fund it out of pocket. Or loan on the new parish.

My Bishop isn’t doing these things, I was just wondering how much power they have in their church.

 

[ajpirc]

The priests do not have a vow of obedience to the Bishop…

I don’t know about this. I had my diocese’s Director of Vocations over for dinner one night and he was telling me that all diocesan priests and deacons take a vow of obedience to the bishop of the diocese and all bishops after him.

I also found this:

At the time of their ordination as deacons (usually about a year before their ordination as priests) they promise respect and obedience to the diocesan bishop and his successors.

This was from www.stjohnsphilly.com.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know about this. I had my diocese’s Director of Vocations over for dinner one night and he was telling me that all diocesan priests and deacons take a vow of obedience to the bishop of the diocese and all bishops after him.

I also found this:

This was from www.stjohnsphilly.com.

The promise of obedience that diocesan deacons and priests make to the bishop is not the same as the vow of obedience that religious make. They promise to obey the bishop on all matters concerning their ministry. The bishop may command them on anything that affects their ministry. He cannot command their personal lives. I’ll give you some examples.

Religious Superior:

Decides who you can befriend and whom you cannot.

Bishop:

Cannot do this.

Religious Superior:

Decides the schedule for prayer, meals, recreation, work, study, rest

Bishop:

Cannot do this.

Religious Superior:

Decides when to allow you to express your opinion and when he does not want to hear it.

Bishop:

Decides that he does not want to hear your opinion, but he cannot stop you from sharing it with others.

Religious Superior:

Decides how much money you can have, when you can havit and how you use it.

Bishop:

Cannot control this.

Religious Superior:

Decides whether you can go for a walk withotu permission or whether you must ask him/her for permission everytime you leave the house.

Bishop:

Cannot control this.

Religious Superior:

Decides who can be ordained in his religious community and who remains a religious until death, but never ordained.

Bishop:

Has to ordain you or let you go and must do so before diaconate.

Religious Superior:

Grants permission to visit your family and friends.

Bishop:

Cannot stop you from visiting family and friends.

Religious Superior:

Decides how you’re to dress 24/7

Bishop:

Decides how he wants you to dress while working.

Religious Superior:

Governs your spiritaul life.

Bishop:

May not interfere in the spiritual life of his deacons, priests and auxiliary bishops.

Religious Superior:

Decides who can drive the community car.

Bishop:

Has no say over what car you drive.

These are just some differences between a vow of obedience to a superior and a promise of obedience to a bishop. Religious owe obedience to the bishop, if they work for him or if it is commanded by their rule. Other than that, he has no authority over the religious in his diocese.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I hate to disagree, but in fact a Bishop CAN forbid a religious community to function, or to have any presence in his diocese.

The single most famous case of this in the United States was with Francis Cardinal McIntyre, the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles. He banned the Immaculate Heart of Mary (IHM) Nuns from ANY function at all within the Archdiocese.

In fact, he quite effectively disbanded them with his powers to deny them the right to work anywhere, to bring in Novices, etc. They were forbidden to teach, to do any religious work, to wear their habits outside of their convent, to have anyone take vows of any kind, to speak publicly about anything concerning the church, to appeal for funds, to purchase any property, to sell any property, etc.

The Bishop has the absolute authority to require all Priests and Deacons in his diocese to dress in clerical garb (or not to). He can forbid any religious from doing any work within his diocese.

It is fact that a Bishop may choose ordain only single men as Deacons. In fact, they need not ordain any permanent deacons at all.

In my diocese (The Diocese of Owensboro in Kentucky), we will be ordaining our very first Permanent Deacons a year from this coming September. It was ONLY because of the extreme shortage of Priests in this diocese that our Bishop finally relented. He was adamantly opposed to Permanent Deacons, and was reluctant to even grant Deacons that transferred into this Diocese the right to function. We currently have 3 of them, all of them retired military men who retired to this area.

Unfortunately, our diocese lost a LOT of good potential men to other dioceses, because our former Bishop was so stiff necked. Men that wanted to become Deacons moved to adjoining Dioceses, so that they could follow their vocation. They could not come back home, because the Bishop refused to grant them faculties, if they originally came from his diocese.

A LARGE number of us had petitioned for a Diocesean Deaconate program, without success. Finally, when one was instituted,. most of us were excluded because we had already reached the age of 60. The training program meets one weekend a month, for 5 years, and so far the losses approach 65% of the accepted candidates. My parish started with four candidates (we are the largest parish in the Diocese), now we have one.

Yes, a Bishop has virtually total power over all religious and clergy in his diocese. While he can not forbid a monastery to be there, he CAN deny the religious of that monastery to have faculties in his diocese. That pretty much prevents them from functioning.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I hate to disagree, but in fact a Bishop CAN forbid a religious community to function, or to have any presence in his diocese.

The single most famous case of this in the United States was with Francis Cardinal McIntyre, the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles. He banned the Immaculate Heart of Mary (IHM) Nuns from ANY function at all within the Archdiocese.

I am not sure about other communities but a bishop has no say in where an exempt religious community sets up its houses. All he can do is disallow them to serve within his diocese publicly, they can have a house without his say.

A bishop also gets no say in who is assigned to a religious house and who has faculties within that house.

 

[JReducation]

I hate to disagree, but in fact a Bishop CAN forbid a religious community to function, or to have any presence in his diocese.

The single most famous case of this in the United States was with Francis Cardinal McIntyre, the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles. He banned the Immaculate Heart of Mary (IHM) Nuns from ANY function at all within the Archdiocese.

In fact, he quite effectively disbanded them with his powers to deny them the right to work anywhere, to bring in Novices, etc. They were forbidden to teach, to do any religious work, to wear their habits outside of their convent, to have anyone take vows of any kind, to speak publicly about anything concerning the church, to appeal for funds, to purchase any property, to sell any property, etc.

What he did was prohibit their participation in diocesan ministry and expansion in his diocese. That’s allowed. He did not suppress them. That’s not allowed. Most religious communities are exempt communities. That is, they are of pontifical right. A bishop must grant permission for them to enter his diocese. Once that permission is granted, he cannot suppress them. He can deny them permission to work in any diocesan ministry. He cannot deny them permission to run their own operations, if they are already up and running (ie. schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, etc). If they do not belong to the diocese, he cannot close them.

If the religious community has priests, the bishop grants them faculties in his diocese. The religious superior can grant them faculties in his houses. Bishops may not visit or enter the houses of exempt religious without the permission of the major superior. If the major superior is a priest, he is an Ordinary of equal rank as a bishop.

On Religious Life

**The superiors have always a power of private or domestic order, called dominative, which permits them to command their subjects, and to administer property according to the rules of the institute; and the first superior of the convent, by appealing to the vow or distinctly making known his intention, can command under pain of mortal sin. Moreover, if they be priests, the principal superiors of religious orders possess the double jurisdiction of the forum internum and the forum externum, which makes them the ordinary prelates of their subordinates. **

Religious orders are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and in spite of exceptions to this privilege, created by the Council of Trent and later, the exemption remains the rule and the exception must be proved. The exemption is above all personal, and also local: religious are not under the orders of the bishop, and their monasteries and churches, unless these be parochial, cannot be visited by him.

The Bishop has the absolute authority to require all Priests and Deacons in his diocese to dress in clerical garb (or not to). He can forbid any religious from doing any work within his diocese.

A bishop may establish a dress code, but it only applies while doing ministry. It does not apply outside of ministry.

Yes, a Bishop has virtually total power over all religious and clergy in his diocese. While he can not forbid a monastery to be there, he CAN deny the religious of that monastery to have faculties in his diocese. That pretty much prevents them from functioning.

He denies them faculties outside of their house, not within their house. The abbot grants those.

The bishop can ask a superior to remove a religious from his diocese. Look at the case of Notre Dame.

The bishop objected to the whole situation with President Obama. He was unable to do anything about it. He has the authority to strip the university of the Catholic name. He does not have the authority over the Holy Cross Brothers or to command them. Otherwise, he would have used that authority.

However, Notre Dame University is not a diocesan school. It is a private school administered by the Holy Cross Brothers. The bishop has no jurisdiction.

Another case was Franciscan University. A group of students and professors asked the friars for the EF. The Guardian denied the request. Instead, he offered to provide transportation to a nearby parish that had the EF. The group were not happy with that offer. They went to the local bishop. The bishop informed them that Franciscan University belongs to the Third Order Regular Franciscan Friars, not to the diocese and that the friars are exempt religious. Therefore, he could not intervene on their behalf.

The Vatican is very protective of exempt religious. Canon law explicitly says that bishops may not suppress religious in their dioceses. A bishop who tries to suppress either a religious order or a secular order is overstepping his authority. He grants permission to erect. He does not suppress.

**Can. 584 The suppression of an institute pertains only to the Apostolic See; a decision regarding the temporal goods of the institute is also reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 585 It belongs to the competent authority of an institute to suppress its parts.

Can. 586 §1. A just autonomy of life, especially of governance, is acknowledged for individual institutes, by which they possess their own discipline in the Church and are able to preserve their own patrimony intact, as mentioned in ⇒ can. 578.

§2. It is for local ordinaries to preserve and safeguard this autonomy.**

The answer is no, bishops do not have absolute authority over religious or secular clergy. Their authority is defined by canon law and by tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am not sure about other communities but a bishop has no say in where an exempt religious community sets up its houses. All he can do is disallow them to serve within his diocese publicly, they can have a house without his say.

A bishop also gets no say in who is assigned to a religious house and who has faculties within that house.

Brother is correct. Medic, I think you may be mistaken about the habit point. Unless the congregation is of diocesan right, a bishop may not prohibit the use of a habit in public. To do so, he would have to overrule the constitutions of the religious institute. Bishops don’t have that authority. The highest authority in religious life is not the bishop. It is the General Chapter.

The constitutions are written at the General Chapter. Then they are submitted to the Holy See for approval. Once approved, no one can overrule them, not even the General Superior of the order, much less a bishop. Even the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life cannot overrule the constitutions of an institute. Only the Holy Father can do that. If the habit is in the constitutions, then the sisters have the right to wear it.

I know of one case where something similar happened and the religious took the case to the Holy See. This was the opposite. The sisters did not wear a habit and the bishop demanded that they do so. The sisters won the case. Pope Paul VI had approved the constitutions as they were written. The constitutions did not call for a habit. They called for a cross and a ring.

The sisters left the diocese anyway to avoid future conflicts with the bishop. No one wants to remain in an antagonistic relationship. It’s like a marriage made in hell. It’s not good for the religious, the bishop or the people they serve.

I don’t know if the IHM sisters are of diocesan or pontifical right. If they are of diocesan right, then the local bishop is the highest authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Old_Medic]

In fact, Cardinal McIntyre did “supress” the IHM, who appealed to the Vatican. The Vatican not only upheld the decision by the Cardinal, but in effect ordered the IHM to “get out of Dodge”. They were dis-established, they were ordered to sell off all of their properties, and those few IHM that wished to remain Nuns were required to join other communities (most went into other religious communities, a few transferred into other IHM communities in other areas.)

The IHM quite literally ceased to exist in Southern California (NOTE: There were many different communities of IHM Nuns around the country, and ONLY the one in Southern California was affected by this.)

A small number of the really radical IHM chose to remain together in a non-recognized community, and to agitate for extremely radical changes to the church (including voting in Bishops and Priests by the Laity, allowing women to have an equal voice in all decisions made by the church, etc.) They slowly died out, because they were so radical that even other “radicals” gradually dismissed them as complete “kooks”.

I stated that the Bishop may order all Priests and Deacons wear clerical garb. In fact, he also has the right to require that RELIGIOUS must wear clothing or something that identifies them as religious during any work on behalf of the Diocese/Church that they perform while outside of their abbey, within his diocese. If the superior of that community refuses to require this, the Bishop has the absolute right to prohibit them from Parish ministry, teaching in schools, etc. within his diocese. He can NOT prevent them from performing work within their own abbey though.

The Bishop has many powers that the vast majority of them choose not to use, or to limit how they use them. But, if they choose to do so, they can e a virtual autocrat within their diocese, so long as they toe the line according to the rules of the Church.

He can also order that all secular Priests and Deacons must wear clerical garb while in public, identifying themselves as being Priest or Deacons. He could, theoretically, even require them to wear clerical garb while on vacation, while fishing, etc., but I doubt if any would. Remember, all secular Priests and Deacons do take a vow of obedience to their Bishop. It would be within the POWERS of a Bishop to order them to dress in a certain manner, but only a really troubled Bishop would actually do such a thing.

The Bishop of a Diocese is, in effect, the last of the absolute Monarchs, at least in theory.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In fact, Cardinal McIntyre did “supress” the IHM, who appealed to the Vatican. The Vatican not only upheld the decision by the Cardinal, but in effect ordered the IHM to “get out of Dodge”. They were dis-established, they were ordered to sell off all of their properties, and those few IHM that wished to remain Nuns were required to join other communities (most went into other religious communities, a few transferred into other IHM communities in other areas.)

I think the issue here is terminology. The Cardinal did not suppress the IHMs as they continue to exist and minister in other parts of the country. To suppress a religious institute is to stop it from functioning at all. The Cardinal forbade them from acting in a ministerial capacity within his diocese which is what a bishop has the power to do.

 

[JReducation]

In fact, Cardinal McIntyre did “supress” the IHM, who appealed to the Vatican. The Vatican not only upheld the decision by the Cardinal, but in effect ordered the IHM to “get out of Dodge”. They were dis-established, they were ordered to sell off all of their properties, and those few IHM that wished to remain Nuns were required to join other communities (most went into other religious communities, a few transferred into other IHM communities in other areas.)

The IHM quite literally ceased to exist in Southern California (NOTE: There were many different communities of IHM Nuns around the country, and ONLY the one in Southern California was affected by this.)

A small number of the really radical IHM chose to remain together in a non-recognized community, and to agitate for extremely radical changes to the church (including voting in Bishops and Priests by the Laity, allowing women to have an equal voice in all decisions made by the church, etc.) They slowly died out, because they were so radical that even other “radicals” gradually dismissed them as complete “kooks”.

I stated that the Bishop may order all Priests and Deacons wear clerical garb. In fact, he also has the right to require that RELIGIOUS must wear clothing or something that identifies them as religious during any work on behalf of the Diocese/Church that they perform while outside of their abbey, within his diocese. If the superior of that community refuses to require this, the Bishop has the absolute right to prohibit them from Parish ministry, teaching in schools, etc. within his diocese. He can NOT prevent them from performing work within their own abbey though.

The Bishop has many powers that the vast majority of them choose not to use, or to limit how they use them. But, if they choose to do so, they can e a virtual autocrat within their diocese, so long as they toe the line according to the rules of the Church.

He can also order that all secular Priests and Deacons must wear clerical garb while in public, identifying themselves as being Priest or Deacons. He could, theoretically, even require them to wear clerical garb while on vacation, while fishing, etc., but I doubt if any would. Remember, all secular Priests and Deacons do take a vow of obedience to their Bishop. It would be within the POWERS of a Bishop to order them to dress in a certain manner, but only a really troubled Bishop would actually do such a thing.

The Bishop of a Diocese is, in effect, the last of the absolute Monarchs, at least in theory.

I think that you’re confusing several things here. A bishop has authority over a religious community of diocesan right.

No bishop can order religious to wear a habit, if the constitutions of the religious community do not provide for a habit. He cannot trump the constitutions. He can ask that those who are priests wear a collar to function in diocesan ministries.

The bishop can deny anyone permission from functioning in any diocesan ministry: parish, school, hospital or other. If the ministry belongs to the order, he cannot deny them that. Remember Notre Dame. The bishop was upset, be he could not interfere, because Notre Dame is not a diocesan university. It belongs to the Congregation of the Holy Cross. The bishop can take away their right to call themselves Catholic. He cannot take away the superior’s right to assign his men there nor can he close it down.

A similar situation happened with Franciscan University. The Guardian denied permission for the EF. The bishop was asked to intervene. He said that he could not, because the university is not within his jurisdiction. It belongs to the Franciscans.

You may not be understanding the difference between a diocesan ministry and a ministry of the religiuos community. You seem to be unaware of the privilege of religious exemption granted by the Council of Trent, which prohibits bishops from interferring in the internal affairs of religious. He can intervene in that which has to do with his diocese, not outside of that.

In addition, you are not paying attention to the fact that if the major superior is a priest, he has the same ordinary authority as a bishop. The bishop cannot overrule him in matters pertaining to his men. I gave you all those citations from Trent and Canon Law in a previous post.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Chatter163]

In fact, Cardinal McIntyre did “supress” the IHM, who appealed to the Vatican. The Vatican not only upheld the decision by the Cardinal, but in effect ordered the IHM to “get out of Dodge”. They were dis-established, they were ordered to sell off all of their properties, and those few IHM that wished to remain Nuns were required to join other communities (most went into other religious communities, a few transferred into other IHM communities in other areas.)

As Brother JR has pointed out, you are very confused on this matter, including the details of the famous controversy between Cardinal McIntyre and the IHM Sisters. You are recalling the matter through the lens of secular news reporters, and not from a Catholic canonical perspective.

At the end of the crisis, the IHM Sisters left their archdiocesan assignments, which consisted of their teaching and adminstrative presence in 25 archdiocesan schools. This was, as Brother JR and others have repeatedly pointed out, something which the Cardinal was able to order, as Archbishop of Los Angeles, and the person canonically responsible for its institutions, including schools. (Whether this departure of the IHM Sisters was a direct command of the Cardinal, or a decision made by the IHM Sisters, or somewhere between the two, is a separate matter, and depends on whose version of events one accepts.) They vacated archdiocesan facilities, which included the convent buildings erected at parish schools by the archdiocese.

They did NOT, nor were they commanded to depart, Immaculate Heart College in Hollywood, Queen of the Valley Hospital in West Covina, or the Immaculate Heart Center for Spiritual Renewal in Santa Barbara, all of which were IHM properties within the LA archdiocese. These institutions were not affiliated with any function of the archdiocese, nor could the Cardinal could not make them leave, as the IHM was an institute of pontfical right, The IHM retreat house remains there to this day. The hospital is also still there, though in later years it became part of an area health partnership. The college was not sold off until the 1980s. Thus, the IHM Sisters were not “ordered to sell them off,” as you erroneously stated.

Rome appointed a commitee, headed by Archbishop James Casey of Denver, to investigate the matter. Its response was a typical Roman compromise, which allowed the IHM Sisters to determine their own apostolates, and the right of the Ordinary to disallow their functions as employees of the archdiocese. This matches exactly what Brother JR said.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The question has been answered.

CLOSED