Actually, they don’t have jurisdiction over anyone. Some cardinals are appointed to head certain departments and congregations in the curia, but this need not be the case. There are departments and conregations in the curia that are headed by Archbishops, bishops and even by Msgrs. Carindals are electors.
It cannot be assumed that cardinals have authority over others, because not all cardinals are bishops. For example: Cardinal Dulles and Bl. Cardinal John Newman were not bishops. The Jesuits have a tradition of not accpeting appointments to be bishops. It’s against their statutes. But many have been cardinals. Franciscans have been cardinals, but not bishops. There have even ben lay cardinals.
Archbishops are bishops of the primary see in a province. They have no authority inside the dioceses within their province. Their position is one of leadership, not authority.
The Holy Father just clarified this last week. A bishop is the highest ranking authority in a diocese and answers only to the pope. He does not answer to the local metropolitan or to the conference of bishops. The conference of bishops is for the pupose of helping the bishops, not governing them. No conference of bishops can overrule a bishop. The conference also serves as a means for bishops to work together on common issues in their region. The conference has nor authority unless it is given to it through a vote by the member bishops. Even then, those bishops who disagree can go their own way.
The local bishop only has authority over those priests who work for him. He has no authority over priests who belong to religious communities working in the ministries of their own community. For example, the whole Notre Dame issue. Fr. Jenkins is a religious. Notre Dame is administered by the Holy Cross Congregation, not by the diocese. Therefore, the bishop and the Provincial Superior of the Holy Cross maintain an on-going communication, but the Provincial Superior is the Ordinary, not the local bishop. The priets assigned to Notre Dame U. answer to their Provincial Superior. The same is true for all priests who belong to religious communities and work for their religious communities.
Under Canon Law, there are some rights reserved to the local bishop regarding religious men. He has to give them permission to enter his diocese. He has to give them permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in their chapels. He has to give them faculties to hear confessions, preach and witness marriages outside of their religious houses, not inside. Though marriages do not take place inside religious houses. They must take place in a parish. The local bishop may erect a religious community of diocesan right.
He may not interfere in the affairs of the religious community once it has been erected, even if it’s a community of priests. He may not supress the religious community. Only a pope can do that. He may not overrule the founder, the constitutions or the major superior. He may not require financial accountability to him. They have financial accountability to their superior. He may not decide who may be received. He can refuse to ordain a man who is presented to him by the major superior. However, the major superior is free to find any bishop to ordain his men. The religious who are ordained do not make a promise of obedience to the bishop during the ordination to the diaconate, which is the appropriate time to make such a promise. That part of the ritual is bypassed, because they have made a vow of obedience to their community. Nor may the ordaining bishop require a promise of celibacy at ordination. That part is also bypassed. The religious have made a vow of chastity prior to ordination.
Not all priests are under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. The local bishops has certain rights and the major superior has certain rights. Those regular priests who work in a diocesan ministry, such as a parish, must comply wiht diocesn policies and the requests of the bishop, as long as those requests are not in conflict with their rule and constitution.
I remember being in an elevator at a chancery. I was wearing my habit. A bishop got onto the elevator and asked me why I was not wearing my Roman collar. I told him that I do no like the Roman collar. He said that he liked it better than the habit. We smiled and went our way. I was working for him. But he cannot ask me to wear the Roman collar. The constitutions are very clear that the habit is the preferred form of dress and when not the habit, some other form of dress that is consistent with that of the poor man in the region.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
