Good point. It would seem that explains a lot about the LCWR affair. The secular bishops, after all, have no direct authority over them as superiors of women religious. So the calls I keep hearing for the bishops to “do something” about the sisters often completely miss the point. But people are not used to the concept of superiors having their own authority. Laypeople are used to the bishops having the authority to compel obedience, and they unconsciously transfer that concept to the relationship between bishops and religious.
There are two kinds of religious communities, diocesan and pontifical. A diocesan community is erected by the local bishop. He is the highest ranking authority, within the law.
A pontifical community bypasses the bishop and answers only to the pope. The bishop’s relationship with such a community is fraternal and apostolic, not authoritative. Once he gives a community permission to enter his diocese, the rest is out of his hands. He has no authority over the community, only over the organizations, institutions, schools, or parishes that they run for him. If they run their own, those are not under his jurisdiction either.
Let’s say that a pontifical community of sisters has its own girls high school. Tomorrow the superior decides that she is going to close the school at the end of the semester. She has to inform the bishop of her decision. The bishop does not have to approve it. She is not asking his permission. She is informing him.
Most religious communities are pontifical. The Council of Trent wanted to place religious under the jurisdiction of the pope for a number of very good reasons. The Council of Trent ruled that the individual religious has the Right of Exemption, if he or she belongs to a pontifical community. He or she is exempt from the governance of the bishops. I don’t know how many women religious there are associated with the LCWR who have the Right of Exemption, but I’m sure it’s in the thousands.
Situations that may arise between bishops and religious must be settled by the Holy See. The Holy See can establish committees or assign individuals to deal with the situation. The pope does not need to come to town. The person or persons whom the pope designates must be obeyed as if they were the pope himself.
I’ve been accused of “popolatry” and of putting too much emphasis on the pope and what have you. The truth is that those who are making such statements do not understand the relationship between religious and the pope.
There are parts to that relationship.
a. The pope is both the highest ranking superior and the protector of the individual religious.
b. The individual religious is submissive to the pope and has a moral obligation to protect the pope’s interests before the laity.
Trent set up this two way relationship. It’s a dyad. After the bishops, popes count on religious to protect the interests of the Church, spiritual and temporal. There was a time when popes also counted on the laity, because there monarchs were Catholic and they enforced laws protecting the Church. Catholic monarchies no longer exist. Democracy limits what the government can protect and enforce. So you fall back on the bishops and religious.
For all of this to happen in a well coordinated manner, everyone has to be on the same page.
One thing that many lay people don’t know is that many religious don’t understand bishops either. Unlike diocesan priests and laymen, we don’t have much to do with the local bishop. Our encounters are usually of a social nature. I guess those religious who are pastors would probably get a lot of emails and memos from the chancery, but not the rest of the religious. Those memos deal with parish issues.
Sometimes, you’ll have an individual religious who holds a diocesan post and he or she will also have a lot of contact with the chancery. But that’s not common.
The education is needed both ways. The bishops need to understand the charism of the religious and let them be. The religious need to separate the bishop’s role as teacher from his role as superior. He is not our superior, but he remains the highest ranking teacher in a diocese. If you live in his diocese, you need to pay attention, because he speaks with authority given to him by the Church. He is not to be ignored, unless you want to ignore the Church. Saints preserve us.
I think this is the most misunderstood part of religious life-the role/position of the superior.
In monastic communities it is a more apparent. The abbot wears a miter and looks “bishopy”. The same doesn’t occur in the mendicant orders (right?).
That’s because once upon a time, abbots were in charge of entire territories, not just the abbey. They assigned the secular priests, granted faculties, suspended, and supervised all financial matters. Even the abbess often carried a crosier and wore a pectoral cross. Some still do so. This was only true in the Benedictine tradition.
This is rather interesting. The most famous abbot in the west is St. Benedict. He was a brother, not a priest. He was a very powerful brother. He was so powerful that the monks tried to murder him on several occasions. He slept with his dagger under his pillow. Poor guy. :sad_yes:
)–the goblet broke after he blessed it (ie, said “Grace”). Benedict promptly left the monastery, and began Benedictine monasteries (ie, under the Rule) after that. None of the new Benedictines ever tried to kill him. History (well St Gregory the Great) does not record the fate of the murderous monks.
