Subordinate is not the correct word. A bishop is supposed to be in communion with the Pontiff, but he is not subordinate to the Pontiff. He is obedient to the Pontiff; it that’s what you mean.
I mean something like this:
The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in
dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 28:16) and Christ’s own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope
But as we saw with Archbishop Lefebvre, there is nothing to stop a bishop from exercising his episcopal powers without the permission of the Pontiff.
Nothing except the laws of the Church and the bonds of ecclesiastical union. If your point is that the Holy See should not enforce the laws of the Church for fear that people will break communion, then I’m afraid that I can’t agree with that. The fact is, the Holy See has decided to investigate religious orders because they have drifted from orthodoxy and obedience to Rome. If such things necessarily caused schisms (as you seem to imply) then the Pope certainly wouldn’t engage in that particular action.
The most that the Vatican can do to a bishop is excommunicate.
What more would you want the Vatican to do?
You cannot depose a bishop.
This is wildly incorrect, but I think your mistake is based on a misunderstanding of what the term “depose” means. Give the phrase “depose a bishop” a Google search and you’ll see. The Holy See has a long and well-documented history of deposing bishops.
In recent times, you might be interested in this:
Jacques Gaillot, deposed bishop of Evreux
THE Vatican’s summary dismissal of Jacques Gaillot, the outspoken bishop of Evreux, on January 12th, 1995 has shaken France’s Catholic church.
Here’s an excellent article about the deposition (removal from his duties) of Bishop Gaillot:
HOW A BISHOP IS DEPOSED: THE LATEST CASE
It all throws a blinding light on the state of the Church, on the
presence and power, not only in France, of totally fraudulent
bishops, perfectly transparent frauds,
on how much a fool or a crook
or a Marxist agent can get away with, if he lies or bribes his way
into a bishopric. It is hard to believe how much they get away with.
How many such lies, how many such comedies, are going on today,
centering around a crowd of men - 100? 300?-who knows?- whose names
appear in the , and the Vatican yearbook, the
, among the bishops in North American and
Western European countries?
Again, bishops certainly can be deposed and many have been. Bishops can be placed under interdict and silenced as well (as Bishop Gaillot was). This is a remedy that the Church can and does use.
But it cannot prudently use those against an entire conference.
If the entire conference falls into heresy it certainly can. In other words, we cannot claim that that we know what the most prudent thing to do will be in every case in the future. It’s enough to say that the Church has this power and can use it when necessary.
You can’t penalize several hundred bishops for the sins of a few.
I understand your point and yes, generally that’s true. But when the sins of the few are tolerated and supported by the majority, then the entire group needs to pay the price. This is what is happening with the women religious. There are probably some faithful sisters who are aligned with the LCWR. But they must be held under the suspicion that covers the group now that the entire organization is being investigated. If they are faithful nuns, they won’t fear or be upset about an investigation from Rome (but would welcome it) – even though they’ll deal with the penalty (if one is given to the entire group).
The bishops would be in the tribunal faster than you can think. That’s what the Rota is for, to hear these complaints. The Rota would not advise that the Holy Father take such drastic action that includes so many innocent men. That’s why the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and the Congregation on the Faith deal with these on a case by case manner.
I think you’re quite right here and I don’t say it’s a cynical view, but it’s realistic. If we took it to the next level, we’d say that if the Holy See decided to try to directly intervene with the American bishops and correct some significant problems (as I recommended), the scenario you outlined would probably occur. In other words, the bishops are so hardened in their rebellion and obstinancy that they would actually try to sue the Pope (which is absurd and illegal since no priest or bishop can file a canonical suit against the Pope – who is the supreme legislator and authority in the Church – ruling above all tribunals).
But aside from that – I do think you’re right. That’s how bad it is. What should take a mild correction would actually take an act of ecclesiastical warfare from Rome in order to try to get the U.S. bishops to simply carry out their duties as they are assigned.
That is because too much tolerance has been given, bad habits are ingrained, and the bishops think they can act almost totally independent of the guidance of the magisterium of the Church.
