Limits on the Authority of Bishops?

[twf]

Our Archbishop jus suspended public Mass again, at the request (well order really) of the public health authorities. He made it clear that he was not happy doing so…that he didn’t personally agree…but he said in his remarks that we are called to be beacons of light, and as people are very anxious about the rise in the number of cases, we need to do our part and comply with the health authority’s orders even if we don’t personally agree.

We were limited to 50 people per Mass since Pentecost (when the first lockdown ended). Some parishes had added more Masses to the schedule to accommodate more people. The cathedral went the extra mile - plexiglass shields were erected on the altar rail with little slots - so there’s no air flow between priest and communicant…one station to receive kneeling on the tongue (with the “slot” at the appropriate height / size) and another station for those receiving on the hand… His Grace also pointed out that there’s been no outbreaks in our parishes. BUT I suspect some other faiths haven’t been as careful…

Of course one advantage of live streaming is being able to “participate” in the archbishop’s Sunday Mass with ease…with the beautiful polyphonic Latin choir etc…

 

[sealabeag]

Hmm, ok, so there’s no clear cut answer? So going to one of these clandestine Masses, or performing one, wouldn’t necessarily be an act of disobedience unless the Bishop explicitly told the priest not to have public Masses? And even then maybe not?

 

[redcatholic]

So the bishop is making the decision under duress. And the actual decision to s not to cancel masses to the public but rather bow to the power of the state.

 

[redcatholic]

What’s the morality of the priests who are banned from Mass in China and established an underground Church?

 

[acanonlawyer]

Hmm, ok, so there’s no clear cut answer?

In my opinion, there isn’t. Other people are free to say there is a clear answer. Contrary to some popular or proverbial views, canon lawyers are not always hard-nosed, rigid legalists. I’m pretty open-minded, if I do say so myself.

Priests and bishops are grown men, with (I presume) well-formed consciences. I can accept that they would not always come to the same conclusions about these matters and could do so with a clear conscience.

Could there be disobedience? Yes. If that’s what the bishop thinks, then he should deal with it appropriately. I’m not going to say anything of the sort since there could be things going on behind the scenes that I, happily, know nothing about.

Dan

 

[Usagi]

What’s the morality of the priests who are banned from Mass in China and established an underground Church?

If the reason for forbidding public Mass is “the authorities don’t like Mass,” then yes, you have Mass in secret and prepare for the consequences should you be found out.

If the reason for forbidding public Mass is “the world is in a pandemic and we would like our people not to make each other sick,” that is rather a different case.

Now, maybe, if the way the rules are implemented is dumb (like “you can’t even have Mass drive-in theater style”) and you believe you can take the appropriate precautions and still worship, maybe you consider that a case 1 rather than a case 2 and worship in secret. But I would still think that would be a decision you undertake with your bishop in disobedience to the state, not in disobedience to your bishop.

Overall, the bishops are trying to do good. And obedience to them, if not always to the state, is generally virtuous even if they are mistaken. Heck, when Jesus or Mary have allegedly appeared to people and told them to spread certain messages, they have also praised the visionaries for not spreading the messages out of obedience to their bishop while he investigates the matter. So even God has been known to say “Yes, My will takes precedence, but if you’re holding off on carrying out My will in obedience to an authority I set up, we’re cool.”

 

[Rau]

He made it clear that he was not happy doing so…that he didn’t personally agree…

I’m guessing the bishop has no special skills in matters of public health. Perhaps his personal opinions are better kept to himself? Perhaps the better course is to show confidence in the health authorities and to comply with their orders.

but he said in his remarks that we are called to be beacons of light, and as people are very anxious about the rise in the number of cases, we need to do our part and comply with the health authority’s orders even if we don’t personally agree.

But he got that part right.

 

[otjm]

Some bishops are speaking out against a vaccine

Some bishops are speaking out against a vaccine,

I have heard of only one bishop who has come out against the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, on the basis they are made with the cell lines from aborted fetuses’ - and he is completely wrong on the matter. Neither company used that technique, although there are two European companies which have used that technique. Misinformation of that level makes the issue of bishops following state requirements pale in comparison.

 

[redcatholic]

Right it’s just “one” but the point is does he have authority to be wrong?

 

[otjm]

Right it’s just “one” but the point is does he have authority to be wrong?

Within the parameters of the GIRM, the Bishop is the Chief Liturgist in his diocese. The Loop (The Loop from CatholicVote theloop@catholicvote.org) Just had am article by Archbishop Corleone of San Francisco concerning the excessive rules applied to the Church (as well as other religious organizations). It would be well worth reading.

In some if not many circumstances, the State was applying law which appears to be within the limits of legal authority when faced with a pandemic. It is simply - or actually simplistic - to argue that the State(s) over-reacted in lockdowns. Memories are notoriously short; Europe, and in particularly Italy, was going into crisis mode in their hospitals before the US was as deeply engaged; it was a virus which both China and the WHO organization lied about on multiple levels, and it clearly had a higher death rate than the flu. Not only the US but almost every other country in the world has been trying to figure out how to reduce the casualty rate (and by that, I don’t mean to restrict it to just deaths - we are continuing to discover how damaging this virus is).

The bishop is not only responsible for the sacraments; he is ultimately responsible for his flocks, shepherded by his priests. And that from a purely common sense point includes not providing super-spreader situations when public health authorities indicate there is serious danger.

We are all mandated to attend Mass regularly, but that mandate is not and has not been an absolute. With the information that we had at the start of the lockdowns, it was simply common sense to take extreme precautions. As we have learned more of what the dangers are and how to alleviate them to a degree, then Mass and other sacraments can be made more available to more people.

If I were in the Archbishop’s shoes, knowing what I know (as in, having practiced law) I might have taken a more aggressive approach sooner, but he was well within reasonable grounds to try to balance between our rights to the sacraments and our need to follow health protocols.

So yes, he has the authority. He may have exercised it in a more conciliatory fashion (there is the issue of burning a bridge; you are not going to go back across it) than I might have; and from your comments it appears you would have been more aggressive than I.

But neither one of us is ordained, and while you may disagree with him - and with me, it really gets down to he is the one making the decisions. And he had the authority to do as he did, which was to comply for a time with an over-reaching by the mayor’s office while trying to get them to change their stance.

 

[Aulef]

I was just talking with a friend and we were sort of disagreeing about whether it was just/valid for Bishops to cancel Masses and public worship and command their priests to do so, etc.

Regardless of what my take on the whole situation is, I would love some clear answers on this from anyone versed in Canon Law. (Opinions are fine but less helpful to my understanding.)

My questions:

1. What are the limits on the authority of Bishops with regards the celebration of the Sacraments and the cancelling or limiting thereof? Is it absolute?
2. Can a Bishop validly command his priests not to hold public Masses? Obviously I’m speaking now in terms of the Covid situation, not in a case where a priest was being disciplined for some kind of bad behaviour, which would be different. The obvious argument in terms of Covid is about public health - but what does canon law have to say here?
3. If a priest’s Bishop forbids public worship, and a priest disobeys that order and celebrates public masses clandestinely, is that a sin for the priest and those who attend that Mass if a. that order is just and valid and b. that order is unjust and invalid, respectively.

Plus anything else that may be relevant here that I didn’t think to ask! Thanks.

1. Wide.
2. Yes, he can. The current Canon law states Bishops have legislative, executive and judicial powers and they have to govern for the benefit of the Church and its members. I think one of the beneficts includes temporal goods such as health (the previous Canon Law was clearer on this matter of temporal goods).
3. I can’t say whether it is a sin but it is illicit to disobey a valid and just order given by a Bishop.

 

[redcatholic]

Ok. 10 characters

 

[commenter]

I would still think that would be a decision you undertake with your bishop in disobedience to the state , not in disobedience to your bishop.

Overall, the bishops are trying to do good. And obedience to them , if not always to the state, is generally virtuous even if they are mistaken.

Who decides if a bishop is mistaken?
The Holy See, and his brother bishops; Not Church Militant, LSN, 1p5, Rorate, Remnant, Catholic Family News, Taylor Marshall, etc other fake “Catholic” media.

There’s a strong secular media/political movement to divide the Church, to get children to defy parent, laity to defy pastor, Laity to defy bishops. That’s the larger agenda, the Covid issue is a temporary means towards that end. In 2022 they will use something else. But they are planning seeds of division now.

 

[redcatholic]

Your own conscience should be in the decision. You are correct though it church militant not rorate but you personally can make that distinction.

Today I red a new statement from our bishop that was very well worded and took a decidedly different tone than the spring, not conceding authority to the state but making a case for safety measures appealing to logic and Christian charity. Much better!

 

[Rau]

Today I red a new statement from our bishop that was very well worded and took a decidedly different tone than the spring, not conceding authority to the state but making a case for safety measures appealing to logic and Christian charity. Much better!

Could u link to that statement, if it’s online?

 

[po18guy]

When one gets this technical, OBEDIENCE in all things but sin goes an awful long way.

 

[o_mlly]

Continuing the discussion from Limits on the Authority of Bishops?:

The Virus and the Bishops: Twisting Canon 223 to Further an Agenda

Q: We contacted our bishop in protest, because he is insisting we can only receive Communion in the hand. A canon lawyer replied on his behalf, claiming that Canon 223.2 gives the bishop power to…

canonlawmadeeasy.com

Did the Spanish Flu of 1918 Create a Precedent for Closing Churches and Cancelling Masses Today?

Q: A priest in residence at my parish is defending the bishop’s decision to lock all the churches indefinitely … claiming that there is canonical precedent for doing this. He says the same …

canonlawmadeeasy.com

https://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/news/2020/03/22/coronavirus-pandemic-has-similarities-to-1918-flu-epidemic

According to the Oct. 18, 1918 issue of The Catholic Universe, the diocesan weekly newspaper, Cleveland Bishop John Farrelly sent a letter to all priests asking them “to abide by every ruling of their respective boards of health and aid in every way to check the spread of Spanish influenza.” As a result, “churches and schools are closed until further notice,” the paper reported. […] One of the more distressing things to both the faithful and clergy was the ban on public funerals. Bishop Farrelly told priests that the dead could be blessed privately and funeral Masses could be celebrated when the ban on public gatherings was lifted.