What is the hierarchy in the Catholic Church?

[diggerdomer]

No, he was granted a dispensation from the canon. The Jesuits also have the same dispensation. They don’t have to accept the Order of Bishop to be cardinals. That’s how Cardinal Dulles was able to be elevated. He invoked the dispensation which goes way back to their foundation.

Even though current law says that cardinals must be bishops, there is also a point in law that if something has been in practice for an extended number of years, I don’t recall how many, the new law can be dispensed.

We invoke it in our own community everytime we appoint a superior who is not a priest. All of our superiors are called Rev. Father. That goes back to St. Francis of Assisi who was known as Holy Father Francis. and upon his death, his title was handed down to the next superior general. There have been many who did not accept the title, but many have used it. Bonaventure was one who did not use it. He was Brother Bonaventure, never Father, Bishop or Cardinal.

Our current Father General refuses to go by Father as well. He’s a priest. But he goes by Most Rev. Brother.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks, as with the prior post. I didn’t think it was a dispensation, though…I’m not aware of any canon law that requires a dispensation for this event. Still…very enlightening and informative to know that not all Cardinals are Bishops.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks, as with the prior post. I didn’t think it was a dispensation, though…I’m not aware of any canon law that requires a dispensation for this event. Still…very enlightening and informative to know that not all Cardinals are Bishops.

I’m not a canon lawyer and this is not important enough for me to make the time to go hunting through the books, but I do remember that in the revised code of 1983 it does say that cardinals must be bishops. However, the Jesuits are grandfathered in, because of their statutes. Even though they do not have a rule of life, Ignatius did write statutes for them. One of these is that they do not accept the Office of Bishop when it’s offered to them as a sign of humility. Their General Congregation has modified this slightly, but has not deleted it from their statutes.

If you have a law that says that you must be a bishop and you have an exempt order that says you may not accept the appointment to the Order of Bishop, then the only way to get around an elevation to the cardinalate would be for the pope to grant a dispensation from the law.

Dispensations from canon law are given to the exempt religious orders every day, because the rules, constitutions and statutes are in conflict with the law and the Church does not want to touch those rules, constitutions and statutes. My community has one every six-years. The code of 1917 said that religious orders that have priests must not elect non-priests to be superiors. There was a slight problem with that. The Rule of St. Francis said that all the brothers are equal and that all have equal rights. The Order has an 800-year history of non-priest superiors, even when we have had thousands of ordained men. The only way to be faithful to the rule is for the Holy Father to grant a dispensation from the canon every time we elect a non-ordained superior, which happens almost every six-years. The other way out would have been for the pope to authorize a rescript of the rule. But that posed a slight problem. Pope Honorius III put a Papal Bull on the rule that says it cannot be changed, except Motu Propio. Pope Leo XIII wrote a Motu Propio saying that the Rule of St Francis contains revealed truths and must never be touched. Pope Pius XII repeated what Pope Leo had said. Just a week ago, Pope Benedict XVI told the bishops of Italy that they should take their cue from the Rule of St. Francis on how to govern their diocese and on obedience. The idea that the Rule of St. Francis is ever going to be touched in the near future is very unlikely. The only thing to do is to keep granting dispensations known as indults.

The same thing happened after the Council of Trent with the Tridentine mass. The friars were very upset because of Gregorian Chant. Pius V finally told them that they could rest easy. They were not boiund to ever use Gregorian Chant, because it was clear that St. Francis forbade its use in the liturgy of the mass and the hours. He told them to do the best they could within their parameters allowed by the rule. These are dispensations, usually called indults.

That’s what happens with these non-episcopal cardinals. The law says one thing, but the pope has the authority to dispense from the law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

I’m not a canon lawyer and this is not important enough for me to make the time to go hunting through the books, but I do remember that in the revised code of 1983 it does say that cardinals must be bishops.

It’s Canon 351 §1:
The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
Obviously, the Holy Father can dispense with the requirement at his pleasure.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not a canon lawyer and this is not important enough for me to make the time to go hunting through the books, but I do remember that in the revised code of 1983 it does say that cardinals must be bishops.

A common perception, but not part of Canon Law.

 

[JReducation]

A common perception, but not part of Canon Law.

No it’s not a misperception. Mark just posted it above. I may not remember where I read it, but I do remember the things that I read. Give me a break Digger, I’m not that old, yet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

This is a tangent and I hope I don’t get into trouble for posting this. But I believe that people on CAF are often overly concerned about things that are not worth being concerned about. I also believe that people often think that quoting canon law makes them lawyers. Canon law is like civil law. The judge is the ultimate interpreter. The highest judge is always the pope. However, since he does not personally handle each case that comes us, we have to settle for the interpretation of the lower judges found in our tribunals.

Trust me, having been in both ministry and religious life for a long time, you can find as many interpretations to canon law as you can find canon lawyers, just like in civil law. The one that is binding is the interpretation of the highest authority to rule on it. That may be the local priest, the religious superor, the local bishop, or a tribunal. I deliberately left out the pope because he’s obvious for one and for seconds, the last pope that we had who reallly liked to dabble in canon law was Paul VI because he was a Doctor of both civil and Canon Law. Popes usually leave these things to tribunals and local authorities to interpret and apply.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

I regret to inform you gentlemen of another non-bishop cardinal: Urbano Cardinal Navarrete Cortés, S.J. He died yesterday at the age of 90.

 

[diggerdomer]

No it’s not a misperception. Mark just posted it above. I may not remember where I read it, but I do remember the things that I read. Give me a break Digger, I’m not that old, yet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks. Yes, as I read Canon Law, it seems clear that those appointed (whatever) as Cardinals “must” receive episcopal consecration…and yet I don’t recall any official dispensation that Avery Dulles received. If anyone has any further insights on this specific example I would appreciate a reference. I was not aware that Avery Dulles had to or did receive any specific dispensation. If he did…any reference? If he did not, then my understanding would seem to be correct, at least in practice?

So…seems a matter of how this canonical law is carried out in practice.

The points is, though, it seems…cardinals do not have to be Bishops. Right? That’s the constant tradition of the Church, and while unlikely due to current canonical legislation, still regular?

 

[MarkThompson]

Thanks. Yes, as I read Canon Law, it seems clear that those appointed (whatever) as Cardinals “must” receive episcopal consecration…and yet I don’t recall any official dispensation that Avery Dulles received. If anyone has any further insights on this specific example I would appreciate a reference. I was not aware that Avery Dulles had to or did receive any specific dispensation. If he did…any reference? If he did not, then my understanding would seem to be correct, at least in practice?

This Catholic News Agency article on his death says,
[George] Weigel recounted Father Dulles’ reaction to being named a cardinal, saying the Jesuit priest’s first action was to inquire whether he could be dispensed from canonical law requiring that a cardinal be ordained a bishop.

“I assured him that a dispensation would be readily given, as it had been for others like him. There was an audible sigh of relief at the other end of the phone. It was all another expression of the man’s humility.”
Here are a couple of other references: [1], [2].

 

[diggerdomer]

This Catholic News Agency article on his death says,
[George] Weigel recounted Father Dulles’ reaction to being named a cardinal, saying the Jesuit priest’s first action was to inquire whether he could be dispensed from canonical law requiring that a cardinal be ordained a bishop.

“I assured him that a dispensation would be readily given, as it had been for others like him. There was an audible sigh of relief at the other end of the phone. It was all another expression of the man’s humility.”
Here are a couple of other references: [1], [2].

Thanks. While none of the links you provided documented an actual dispensation given, they all pointed toward the need for such. I can only assume, then, that such a dispensation is pretty automatic. Thanks again for the links.

 

[MarkThompson]

Thanks. While none of the links you provided documented an actual dispensation given, they all pointed toward the need for such. I can only assume, then, that such a dispensation is pretty automatic. Thanks again for the links.

You’re welcome, but actually the book that I linked to does in fact state that “John Paul II gave such a dispensation” to Cardinal Dulles, and the article I quoted from states that dispensations had been given in previous cases. If you want a scanned copy of a dispensation I don’t think you’re going to get it, but I hope this is enough to satisfy your prior curiosity about “how this canonical law is carried out in practice.”

 

[JReducation]

Thanks. While none of the links you provided documented an actual dispensation given, they all pointed toward the need for such. I can only assume, then, that such a dispensation is pretty automatic. Thanks again for the links.

A dispensation can be verbal. It does not have to be in writing and it certainly need not be public. I go back to the example of the election of religious superiors in communities of brothers and communities of mixed life. Some of them have rules that say that a non-ordained member can be elected superior. However, Canon Law says that they cannot be. Everytime there is an election and a non ordained brother is elected to govern over priests, the notice is sent to the Holy Father, he looks at it ans says, “OK”. There are not documents, no formal decrees, nothing fancy. It’s just a dispensation from the law. It’s like when you’re mother tells you, “OK, but just this time.” She does not put it in writing. Sometimes she should, but that’s another story.

Believe it or not, when it comes to the hierarchy, the usual practice in the Church is to go with whatever works the fastest. There are some things that never cross the pope’s desk and he finds out about it later, but it carries his seal of approval. It’s called “delegation”. When you delegate to your hierarchy, you support what they do. That’s pretty standard in every large organization.

I read an interview of the Pope’s secretary. He said that part of his job was sorting through everything that arrives in the office. It is he who decides what the pope will deal with and what other people will deal with, not the pope. When asked if the pope ever finds out, he said, “No. He’s not interested. He’s too busy dealing with the things that I put in front of him…” The next question was about the authority of those who got the rest of the stuff. He explained, “They have the authority to act in the pope’s name.” Then they asked him how he decides what the pope wants to handle himself or what should be handed over to the hierarchy. He said that he goes on “Canon law, the competency of the different members of the hierarchy, the pope’s interests, the pope’s time, and whatever other hierarchs say they cannot deal with.” It was rather interesting. He also said that his job is stressful, because he prays that he does not make mistakes in going through this. It takes him several hours to go through these things. Hierarchy is complicated and yet very simple in other ways.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re welcome, but actually the book that I linked to does in fact state that “John Paul II gave such a dispensation” to Cardinal Dulles, and the article I quoted from states that dispensations had been given in previous cases. If you want a scanned copy of a dispensation I don’t think you’re going to get it, but I hope this is enough to satisfy your prior curiosity about “how this canonical law is carried out in practice.”

Yes, right, I was interested in the actual documentation of the dispensation, which as you note was not in any of the links. No problem.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, right, I was interested in the actual documentation of the dispensation, which as you note was not in any of the links. No problem.

As I posted above, about 90% of dispensations are either verbal or not in the public domain. They’re in memos, emails or just signatures in record keeping books.

Why do lay people think that dispensations are so formal? Where did that idea come from?

When a priest or religious is dispensed all he gets is a memo. It’s usually a one line statement that goes something like this:

“John Doe is hereby granted permission to leave [insert diocese or order].”

There is no signature or no fancy paper or even a stamp. It’s a memo produced on a computer with a computer generated letterhead. In fact, it’s not even allowed to be shown to the laity. A copy is saved in the archives in the Vatican, one copy is in the secret archives of the diocese or the religious community and the third copy, the one without the signature, is given to the indiviudual who is leaving. That’s it. That’s the notice that the dispensation has been granted. Not a big deal.

Everyoen involved understands that the Holy Father has better things to do. He is notified that someone needs a dispensation from the law and his just nods “yes” or “no” and someone else writes it up and makes sure that those who need to know get a copy.

In the case of a Jesuit elevated to cardinal, that’s the way it happens. The pope says, "I want to elevate Fr. John Smith, SJ to be cardinal. The word comes bakc, “Fr. Smith says that he’ll accept, if he does not have to become a bishop.” The pope says, “Oh yeah, Jesuits don’t usually accept positions as bishops. OK, make it so.” Then one of his staff members sends Fr. John Smith a note saying, “It’s OK, you don’t have to become a bishop.” A copy is sent to the Superior General of the Society of Jesus and another is saved in the Vatican Archives. It’s not make public, because it does not affect the public. It affects the college of cardinals. They now have a non-bishop voting for the next pope. Try finding a dispensation from vows or holy orders. You won’t find it. They’re not in the public domain.

I say this with all charity. Is it possible that we’re too American?

That’s hwo the system works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

I say this with all charity. Is it possible that we’re too American?

I’ll echo what I said in the traditionalist and the modernist thread. I believe that the problem with the modernists is that they think the Church is run like American society, that its democratic. The leaders (bishops, parish pastors) should follow what the people want, like what we expect from our representatives and governors and mayors.

And I guess your comments based on observation validates my observation, or at least we see the same thing so its not just me Many mistake the Church as a democratic organization where the laity has a say in how things are done and run. Well, maybe we do in some things, but not in all things. Because we give money to the Church the same way we pay taxes to the government, we think that the money we give entitles us to some sort of authority or influence. In the government, yes, at least in theory (many would argue they have no voice). In the Church, never.

I guess this is also evident with the sex abuse scandals. People think they are entitled to a step-by-step update on the investigations by the Church the same way we get CNN to update us of any issues that is going on in the government.

 

[diggerdomer]

As I posted above, about 90% of dispensations are either verbal or not in the public domain. They’re in memos, emails or just signatures in record keeping books.

Why do lay people think that dispensations are so formal? Where did that idea come from?

When a priest or religious is dispensed all he gets is a memo. It’s usually a one line statement that goes something like this:

“John Doe is hereby granted permission to leave [insert diocese or order].”

There is no signature or no fancy paper or even a stamp. It’s a memo produced on a computer with a computer generated letterhead. In fact, it’s not even allowed to be shown to the laity. A copy is saved in the archives in the Vatican, one copy is in the secret archives of the diocese or the religious community and the third copy, the one without the signature, is given to the indiviudual who is leaving. That’s it. That’s the notice that the dispensation has been granted. Not a big deal.

Everyoen involved understands that the Holy Father has better things to do. He is notified that someone needs a dispensation from the law and his just nods “yes” or “no” and someone else writes it up and makes sure that those who need to know get a copy.

In the case of a Jesuit elevated to cardinal, that’s the way it happens. The pope says, "I want to elevate Fr. John Smith, SJ to be cardinal. The word comes bakc, “Fr. Smith says that he’ll accept, if he does not have to become a bishop.” The pope says, “Oh yeah, Jesuits don’t usually accept positions as bishops. OK, make it so.” Then one of his staff members sends Fr. John Smith a note saying, “It’s OK, you don’t have to become a bishop.” A copy is sent to the Superior General of the Society of Jesus and another is saved in the Vatican Archives. It’s not make public, because it does not affect the public. It affects the college of cardinals. They now have a non-bishop voting for the next pope. Try finding a dispensation from vows or holy orders. You won’t find it. They’re not in the public domain.

I say this with all charity. Is it possible that we’re too American?

That’s hwo the system works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks. Appreciate it! No problem, appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I’m probably expecting a “paper trail” for official/institutional/juridical acts, which my American bias might expect.

I have no problem with the scenario as you describe, despite my personal preferences.

Thanks, again, for the insights.

 

[JReducation]

I’ll echo what I said in the traditionalist and the modernist thread. I believe that the problem with the modernists is that they think the Church is run like American society, that its democratic. The leaders (bishops, parish pastors) should follow what the people want, like what we expect from our representatives and governors and mayors.

And I guess your comments based on observation validates my observation, or at least we see the same thing so its not just me Many mistake the Church as a democratic organization where the laity has a say in how things are done and run. Well, maybe we do in some things, but not in all things. Because we give money to the Church the same way we pay taxes to the government, we think that the money we give entitles us to some sort of authority or influence. In the government, yes, at least in theory (many would argue they have no voice). In the Church, never.

I guess this is also evident with the sex abuse scandals. People think they are entitled to a step-by-step update on the investigations by the Church the same way we get CNN to update us of any issues that is going on in the government.

When I said “too American” was thinking in terms of requesting to see “decrees of dispensation” and such things. The Church is not the USA. It does not have all these laws that require the keeping of public records. Heck, even the USA does not make every record public. We all know this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Thanks. Appreciate it! No problem, appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I’m probably expecting a “paper trail” for official/institutional/juridical acts, which my American bias might expect.

I have no problem with the scenario as you describe, despite my personal preferences.

Thanks, again, for the insights.

I bet that if one is willing to do the leg-work, is able to get the permission, one will find some note, memo, book, register or something where these things are recorded. The Church is great at record keeping. We keep pages out of people’s journals. At the very least, one can find some journal entry that says, “Such and such a dispensation was granted to so and so, for the following reasons, by such and such authority.” A lot of this takes some research. Some things have to be documented, especially sacraments. But not everything else. Even finances are not well recorded. Some religious communities have no idea how much money they have. The Missionaries of Charity is one of them. They refuse to have accountants. “God provides.” That’s their faith. Don’t expect a paper trail of deposits and withdrawals. If you ask a Francsican, you’ll usually get, “I don’t know. The Procurator takes care of those things.” If you ask a Jesuit did so and so get a dispensation to be a cardinal and not a bishop, you may get an answer like, “I guess so. Ask the community historian. He may know.”

That’s why I say, there may be a note somewhere, but you have to find the right person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

When I said “too American” was thinking in terms of requesting to see “decrees of dispensation” and such things. The Church is not the USA. It does not have all these laws that require the keeping of public records. Heck, even the USA does not make every record public. We all know this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, isn’t that all part of what a democratic society is? Our leaders must be accountable and must show paper trails of what they do, so we as the voters and tax payers can approve or disapprove of them. I agree that governments doesn’t always keep records public, but if we insist (through the courts) then we can get records opened for a just cause. That can’t happen with the Church because obviously as you said, the Church isn’t that way.

 

[Aramis]

I say this with all charity. Is it possible that we’re too American?

That’s hwo the system works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

There are occasions where the bishop will announce a laicization or a dispensation from vows, so as to prevent scandal.

I’ve seen it twice: Friar A. B., OP, and Friar J. W., OP, both recieved dispensations from their vows, and in both cases, the bishop of the parish announced it, because they had served in the Cathedral Parish. It was made public by that forum, because both remained active in the Cathedral Parish after release from the Dominican Order, along with the women whom they left the Dominican order for.