How does the Roman Catholic Church determine the territory and boundaries of bishoprics and archbishoprics? Do they generally coincide with political and geographic boundaries? Or are they mostly demographic, the way that political ridings are? For example, if a particular bishopric experienced a sudden surge in its population of Catholics, would it be split into two bishoprics? How often are such boundaries reevaluated? Does the Church ever suffer from gerrymandering, where rival bishops vie to redraw their constituency boundaries in a manner that gives them more clout within the Church?
Diocesan boundaries within the Catholic Church are based on a number of factors:
- population distribution of Catholics;
- geographical features;
- civil state/provincial boundaries.
For instance, the diocesan boundaries in Australia almost always follow the state boundaries. This means that co-operation between religious institutions (schools, hospitals, charities) and governments can be co-ordinated more efficiently.
This could happen, yes. The Archdiocese of Sydney (my diocese) was split into three separate dioceses a few years ago. Or the diocese could remain as it is and several assistant bishops could be appointed to lighten the load.
I’m pretty sure that all final decisions on diocesan boundaries are made by Rome, not by the bishops themselves, although obviously there’s bound to be plenty of political lobbying. “Clout” usually comes by being appointed to one of the sees that carries a Cardinal’s hat. These are usually the older established sees within a country: Sydney and Melbourne in Australia; Westminster in the UK; New York, Baltimore and Los Angeles in the USA.
So how does the church determine that a particular see will carry a cardinal’s hat?
Sees don’t carry cardinals’ hats, though some sees are more likely to have a cardinal occupying them than others. Particular clergy (almost always bishops or archbishops) are appointed as cardinals.
That’s true, although in practice it would be unusual for the archbishop in Washington, DC, not to be a cardinal, given the high visibility of the post and proximity to the US’s national leadership.
In the same way, it would be unusual for the archbishop of Boston, or of Los Angeles, not to be named a cardinal in short order.
But as the post above hints, there’s really nothing set in stone.
By the way, although “bishopric” does, indeed, mean “diocese,” the Catholic practice is to refer to it as a diocese or see. I’ve only heard the word “bishopric” in relation to Mormon organization.
Yes, sorry, I realise that my earlier post wasn’t terribly clear. I meant to say that clout comes with being appointed to a see that *traditionally * carries a cardinal’s hat. For the major see(s) in any country there’s an expectation that the archbishop will be appointed a cardinal. It’s not automatic though.
I’ve heard the word applied to the territory or jurisdiction of a bishop, usually when referring to a Roman Catholic or Episcopal bishop. The Mormon practice is to use the word to refer to a ward’s bishop and his two counselors.
Here’s the entry on dictionary.com.
Currently there are 31 Roman and Eastern Rite archdioceses in the U.S. Only 7 are headed by cardinals. The Catholic population in the U.S. isn’t growing nearly as fast as in Latin America or Africa, so that’s where the new cardinals are coming from.