OK, I have a simpe question, and I want a deatailed, no bullshit answer. I go to a Catholic church. One guy’s a deacon, another is a priest, or a pastor, or whatever. I see a important guy - he is a Auxiliary Bishop. Wooo… And then there is the monsenoir, the vicar, the real bishop, the cardinal in there somewheres, and the Pope who is the big boss. Right? But where do all these other guys fit in? Who outranks who?
You’re right that the Pope is the big boss. Roman Catholic canon law provides that the Supreme Pontiff exercises immediate, universal power everywhere (in an ecclesiastical sense, of course; I’m not suggesting the Pope can leap over buildings, but rather that he has full governing power over the entire Church).
As to the other titles… In the days of old, the steps to the priesthood and the functions of its initiates traditionally were: porter (to protect the entrance to the church and turn away those not permitted to receive the sacraments; this has no real present-day significance), lector (to read scriptural passages and other prayers and messages of the liturgy; this functions is commonly performed today by lay people), exorcist (to perform expulsion of evil spirits; today reserved to a vanishingly small group of priests, acolyte (to assist in minor roles at liturgical worship; today performed by lay altar servers, typically youngsters), subdeacon (to serve in secondary but important aspects of the liturgy; today not used), deacon (to serve in the ministry of the word, of the liturgy, and of charity), and priesthood.
In the early 1970s, these were given a major overhaul. Porter, exorcist, and subdeacon were abolished. Lector and acolyte were opened up to lay people, who were installed rather than ordained to their posts. There are now two kinds of deacons: those who are ordained as a step towards full priesthood, and those who receive the order and remain in it permanantly (called, appropriately enough, Permanent Deacons.)
The sacrament of Holy Orders is one that ‘imprints a character’, or leaves an indelible mark on the soul. There are three orders today: the diaconate, the priesthood and the episcopate. One is ordained a deacon, a priest, and a bishop. Any other distinctions are based not on orders, but on the job the man does.
An associate pastor (also “parochial vicar”) assists the pastor. The pastor is the priest in charge of a parish. A parish is a geographical area defined by the bishop, and includes all Christ’s faithful within its boundries. Deacons assist the priests at Mass.
“Monsignor” is simply an honorary title given to recognize service to the Church, and carries with it no governing responsibilities. It is intended to symbolically represent the honoree as being part of the pontifical household. In days past, there were three ranks of Monsignor: Prothonotary Apostolic, Domestic Prelate, and Papal Chamberlain; the first two being addressed as “Right Reverend” and the latter as “Very Reverend.” Today, honorary prelates are Apostolic Prothonotaries, Honorary Prelates of His Holiness the Pope, and Chaplains of His Holiness the Pope. Their common title is, “Reverend Monsignor.”
So to answer the first part of your question: to the extent that there’s a “rank” system in place, the ranking order is deacon, parochial vicar (associate pastor), pastor. The latter two must be ordained at least to the priesthood. A pastor may be a monsignor, or not, without affecting his “rank.”
You ask about the difference between auxiliary and “regular” bishops. Any bishop is, simply, a man ordained to the episcopate. The Pope himself has no fuller power of orders than a newly-ordained auxiliary bishop in some anonymous mission territory. Again, the difference is in their jobs.
Bishops to whom the pastoral care of a diocese is entrusted are called diocesan bishops; other bishops are called titular bishops. An ‘auxiliary’ bishop is one kind of titular bishop, and is assigned to a diocese that, because of size or other pastoral needs, requires more than one bishop’s presence.
A bishop is the ordinary minister of the sacrament of Confirmation (even if a priest administers the sacrament, a bishop must consecrate the chrism used) and the only minister of Holy Orders, and a large territory can make it impossible for one man to be everywhere he’s needed. The diocesan bishop must appoint his auxiliary Vicar General. The Vicar General is responsible for exercising administrative and executive power in the diocese. All executive, legislative, and judicial power still rests in the hands of the diocesan bishop (called the ‘Ordinary’ of the diocese). If the diocese, or ‘see’, becomes vacant, however, the auxiliary bishop does not take over – a pre-determined group of priests, the “college of consultors,” elects a Diocesan Administrator, just as they would if there were no auxiliary bishop. That Diocesan Administrator has governing power in the diocese until the Pope appoints a new bishop. A see becomes vacant upon the death, resignation, or transfer of the diocesan bishop.
The bishop may also choose to appoint one or more “Episcopal Vicars.” Like the Vicar General, they exercise executive power in the diocese; unlike the broadly general powers of the General, they are appointed for a particular area, geographical or otherwise. For instance, a diocese with a large Hispanic population might have an Episcopal Vicar whose job was to concentrate on matters pertaining to the Spanish Apostolate.
So when you ask about “vicar,” I’m not sure in what context you mean. In the Roman Catholic Church, there’s no vanilla “Vicar” title, as there is in the Anglican church. But there’s no lack of “_______ Vicar” titles, and they mean many different things, from a pastor’s assistant to the bishop’s right-hand man.
By the way, another kind of titular bishop is a ‘coadjutor’ bishop, who functions in like manner to an auxiliary bishop. A key difference between these two, however, is if the see becomes vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the diocesan bishop.
Dioceses are associated together in ecclesiastical provinces, presided over by a ‘Metropolitan’ bishop, identified by his ‘pallium’, the distinctive white band with pendants in front and back worn over the chasuble. This bishop’s own see is known as an archdiocese, and he is known as an ‘Archbishop’.
For example, I am in the Diocese of Arlington, part of (a ‘suffragan see’ to) the Baltimore Province, and our Metropolitan is William Keeler, Archbishop of the Diocese of Baltimore. The other sees in the province are the Dioceses of Richmond, Wilmington, and Wheeling-Charleston. The archbishop can celebrate all sacred functions in all churches as if he were a Bishop in his own diocese. In certain special circumstances, he may exercise governing powers in the suffragan sees for which he is responsible. For example, in case of the failure of the college of consultors to elect an administrator when the see is vacant, he may appoint one.
Finally, the Cardinals of the Catholic Church are in essence a special College, who must elect a new Pope in accordance with canon law. Cardinals are created by decree of the Holy Father. Canon law does not require that a man must be a Bishop to be named a Cardinal, although if he is not already a bishop, however, he must immediately receive episcopal ordination. Archbishop Keeler was named a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in November of 1994, and is thus properly called William Cardinal Keeler, and his title is properly rendered as ‘Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore.’ A bishop named as a cardinal continues in his pastoral duties as bishop; the special honor generally confers no other special governing power.
Some of this reply text was cut and pasted from an article I wrote last month for my Knights of Columbus newsletter, the Fr. Malloy Assembly Navigator’s Log. So don’t feel as though you’ve asked an easy question - plenty of practicing Catholics are a bit hazy on some of this stuff!
- Rick
Damn, that is some deatail, allright.
OK, I have another one. Where exactly is it written down in the Bible or somewhere else that a woman can’t get this holy orders thing? Or is it just the tradition? Did women ever get it? Also, is it written down that priests can’t be married? Where?
Thanks.
As to the ordination of women, the Pope has repeatedly expressed his view that it is an inappropriate direction to take. The “Letter to Women of the World,” 29 June 1995, provided in pertinent part:
In essence, as I understand the reasoning, women are not ordained because none of the Apostles were women. Please note that this is not a pronouncement on faith or morals that would be considered infallible, but rather a policy decision, for lack of a better term, which a future Pontiff could change.
As to your question regarding marriage, Canon 1042(1) provides that an existing bond of marriage is an simple impediment to the reception of Holy Orders, excepting a man destined for the Permanent Diaconate.
It is possible, however, to receive dispensation from simple impediments. Canon 1047(2)(3) provides that the Pope alone may grant a dispensation for the impediment of marriage.
This has been done when a married minister of another faith (typically Lutheran or Anglican) converts to Catholicism. I also believe that certain Eastern Rite priests are permitted marriage.
Marriage is an absolute impediment to episcopal ordination. In other words, a man cannot be ordained a bishop under any circumstances if he’s married.
Hope this answers your questions.
- Rick
I always wondered about the whole “the apostles weren’t women” argument. I don’t think any of them were Polish, either. Oh well.
Requiring celibacy of priests dates only to the ninth century. As noted, several of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches allow married priests. If the number of vocations fell too low, the Roman church might very well recognize married priests, again.
I always find it ironic that Rome insists on celibacy–except when it accepts priests “fleeing” the Episcopal church’s decision to {gasp} ordain women.
Tom~
Welcome, Bricker! I don’t believe I’ve seen you around before.
I’m curious about your credentials – you are obviously well informed on the topic.
Regarding your comment:
Eastern Rite priests are allowed to marry, although IIRC they must marry before they take orders.
I find the Roman church’s position in this matter quite disturbing, and bordering on hypocritical. It may come as a surprise to many on this board that there are indeed married Roman Catholic priests fully functioning within the church. None of these men were originally Roman; they all come from other denominations which they left due to to some disagreement with their own church policy. Thus, for example, when the Anglicans began ordaining women, many Anglican married priests left their church, joined the Roman churches, and were welcomed, wives and all, into full communion and participation.
So – Rome accepts married priests – as long as they didn’t start out Roman. If a Roman priest wants to be married, he must leave (or be kicked out) of the church, to do so. Rome will accept married men as priests so long as they were not born and raised and ordained Roman, but will force its own out of the church if they wish to marry.
Bitter? Yup, a bit. My husband was a Jesuit priest – started in minor seminary at age 14 and left at age 34 to marry. In this Jubilee Year the Anglican Church will welcome him and his vocation with open arms.
-Melin
Why, thanks for the welcome! I’ve been around since 1963, but it’s a pretty large world, so it’s not surprising that…
Oh, you meant here on the board. 
Well, in that case, I’ve only been here a few days - less than a month, in any event. I have been a SD reader since perhaps the mid 1980s.
As to my credentials, I am forced to admit I have none, other than being a practicing Roman Catholic who likes to read. So I’ve read all the encyclicals that Pope John Paul II has issued, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law all the way through. I generally enjoy history, and I’m serving this year as the chief executive officer of my local Knights of Columbus assembly, to the extent that credentials may be inferred from either activity.
At first blush, it does seem rather strange.
I will be the first to admit I don’t understand the reasons that go into this policy. To my way of thinking, either there is a compelling reason for North American priests to be celibate, or there isn’t. (I say North American because I’m quite willing to accept the fact that a vastly different culture may create vastly different situations; I thus confine this commentary to the culture with which I am most familiar.)
If there is a compelling reason, then the allowance for married Anglican priests wanting to become Roman Catholic priests makes no sense to me. And if there is no compelling reason, then I do not understand why it is enforced.
BUT – every ship’s gotta have a captain. I’m not the captain, and while I may not understand or agree with every decision, I’m on the ship, so I’m dealing with it. This reasoning may apply equally to ordination of women, use of contraception, and (in my diocese) the inability of girls to be altar servers.
Melin, I’m glad your husband found a home for his vocation - and one that includes you!
Cheers,
Rick
I’m Catholic, and I’ll be the first to admit that the “No Women Priests” thing is based predominantly on sexism. However, it is millenia-old sexism, and tradition is important to the Church. As it should be. However, the current shortage of priests might very well make the next pope change the rules. I also think that the vow of celebecy should be optional. Realistically, this is more likely to go before the ban on female priests, because it is a very recent rule compared to the traditional gender roles that stretch back to pre-history. However, I can see how marriage (and children) might make it difficult to move priests around where needed, and I can certainly see why you’d want to make sure a bishop has no “distractions” from his job.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
You have to understand that the rule of priestly celibacy isn’t a religious rule. It is a pragmatic judgement that a man cannot be a good priest and a good husband and father at the same time. (And considering how many wives of protestant clergymen seem to be alcoholic, I can’t help but think there’s something in that. RC parishes also tend to be very badly funded; priests don’t generally earn much.)
On the other hand, the economic facts of the average suburban parish in the USA, the current severe shortage of priests in the USA, the fact that most wives in the USA have jobs, and the apparent danger that the priesthood may be, nowadays, becoming a little too attractive to homosexuals of a less than perfect integrity, would seem to argue in favor of regularizing a married priesthood, at least in the USA. (Perhaps the Eastern Orthodox route could be taken, in which a married man may be ordained, but a priest may not be married.)
Me, I’m an Anglican; I can see both sides.
The issue of women is also a tough one. Arguing that, “The Apostles weren’t Romans or Polish, either,” is shamefully disingenuous. Nothing like 50% of Jesus’s followers were Roman or Polish. There can be no question but that He intentionally chose to make His Apostles all male.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that it was not a temporary circumstance. The Apostles had a tough job to do (I am thinking more of the period of the Ministry, rather than after the Resurrection and Ascension), and it was not, on the whole, a job for a woman. However, that is not so much true, now – at least in the more pleasant parts of the industrialized world.
One must also admit that part of the objection is, provably, based on a notion that women are “unclean”. I really think this aspect needs to be brought out into the open and dealt with. (I fear that it is also part of the barrier to a more general approval of married men in the priesthood.)
On the other hand, paranoid notions that it’s all about some loyalty to a “male power base” don’t accomplish anything but to indicate to said power base that feminists Don’t Get It.
And yet again, there is some force in the argument that a priest ought to be a living icon of Christ – and it does not suffice as an argument to say, “But many priests are sinful, and we let them be icons of Christ,” because men and women are equally sinful; making a bad situation worse is not excused by the plea that it was already bad.
A better answer would be to point to the legitimate and approved (but little known) medieval devotion to “Our Mother Christ”. (Nowadays, though, I suppose you can’t bring that up in public without raising all kinds of Marian issues.) God is without sex. (And yet it does not do to argue simply, “Well, Jesus had to be one or the other;” He made Humanity in two sexes long before the Incarnation.)
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
I’ve known quite a few priests with a problem with alcohol (and other not so nice things) … and while it’s true they don’t earn much ($1,000 a month in our diocese), they have their room, board, health insurance & various expenses paid (they have to get their own car & insurance), they have a maid/cook in the rectory who does the laundry, cleans the rooms, cooks the meals, PLUS they get additional stipends for weekday masses and ALWAYS get tips from weddings & funeral ON TOP of the money they make. (No vow of poverty for diocesan priests.) They also get four weeks of vacation a year, plus they are allowed one week after Christmas and another after Easter. And that doesn’t count conferences and other perks.
As to Jesus not choosing women apostles, it’s true the first 12 were men. But if you look at the other people who followed him, there were lots of women. Who didn’t abandon him while he hung on the cross? The women. Who did he first appear to after the resurrection? The women. There is even some talk among scholars that there were indeed female disciples, and that when Jesus appeared on the Road to Emmaus, it might have been a husband & wife disciple team he broke bread with.
What it comes down to is that the RC Church is basically a “good old boy” network. The Pope allowed female altar servers only two years ago, so we are heading in the right direction.
In her second grade First Communion class, my daughter asked her teacher why boys got seven sacraments and girls could only have six.
I was so proud.
Tammy
“May your song always be sung.”
It’s easy to tell who outranks who. Just look at the sizes of their hats! Yup, that’s God, BIG ******* hat!
With thanks to Denis Leary.
Precocious child! Good for her!
Although it’s the rare boy that gets all seven, as discussed above… generally matrimony precludes Holy Orders and vice versa…
My diocese is one of only two in the country that still prohibits female altar servers.
sigh
- Rick
Several buckshot points:
- To argue that there should be married Roman Catholic priests, many people point to those married Protestant (ahem, I mean, Reformed’) priests who were allowed to convert to (umm, only Pagans convert, I mean, ‘are accepted to full communion with’) the RC Church. However, this fact is not needed to make an argument for married clergy, although it helps. There are two other more cogent arguments: There already was a married clergy for a significant period in the life of the Church; and the Eastern Rite Churches have always had married priests. These Eastern Rite priests are no less ‘Roman Catholic’ than the Latin Rite priests. So, The Roman Catholic Church does have, as a regular practice, married priests.
The problem is, as another poster pointed out, celibacy is enforced in the ‘West.’ And it is enforced inconsistently (i.e., the Reformed married priests becoming married Catholic priests).
- Arguments that married priests can not perform as well as celibate priests is plain old bullshit. First, that argument degrades the work of all married Eastern Rite Catholic priests and all married Reformed priests who do good and holy work in imitation of Christ. Yes, married priests can theoretically give more time to the ministry – but time does not equal quality. If wringing every extra second of time was important, you can take away vacation time, days off, etc…
However, the number one problem with RCC priests today is burnout. They already give too much time and energy into the ministry without caring for themselves. This attitude of making them give 100% to the ministry is one of the main causes of the depletion of the ranks.
And if marriage had any real kind of detrimental effect on ordained ministry, then why aren’t the Reformed, Protestant, Orthodox, and Eastern Rite Catholic communities demanding celibacy? The answer is because they are satisfied with the work their married clergy do.
- John W. Kennedy, shame on you. Other Christian denominations, who have a married clergy, also have a high proportion of gay ministers (compared to the general population) just like the RCC (yes, even the Episcopalians/Anglicans – maybe even especially the E/As, I know quite a few).
If celibacy is attracting a large number of gays to the RCC ranks now, then don’t you think that would have already been the case for the past 1200 years? It would be even more true in the closeted past than in the out-is-OK atmosphere of the present culture.
And salaciously intimating that gay RCC priests have sexual disorders (or are just plain non-celibate) is turning a blind eye to the sexual disorders of married clergy in other denominations – not to mention the problem and scandal of divorce among married Christian ministers (which the Latin Rite RCC has only managed to avoid through enforced celibacy).
- Re: Female priests in the RCC. The Vatican declares that the argument that Jesus didn’t pick any female apostles is a theological argument. This means, “this is the way God wants it.” Obviously, the current powers that be in Rome are not going to change their minds and are currently not brooking any discussion of the issue.
The argument for female priests makes a three pronged argument:
a) It is not a theological argument. It was just an enculturated practice to which we are not bound to.
b) It is a theological argument, but you Vatican guys got your bible knowledge all wrong. While ‘The Twelve’ were all men, not all Apostles were of ‘The Twelve.’ Paul was not one of the twelve, but he was an apostle. And in his letters, Paul addresses women as his co-workers, and one woman as deaconess (an ordained title). Additionally, traditional RCC theology teaches that the ordained ministry was instituted at the Last Supper. However, all acounts of the Last Supper show Jesus addressing his ‘disciples’ and giving the bread and wine to his ‘disciples’ – not the smaller group of all male ‘apostles’ or ‘the twelve.’ And we know that there were women disciples. And just how could Jesus celebrate the Passover, a family feast, in Jerusalem without his mother being there at the meal?
c) It is a theological argument, but you guys have your theology all wrong. Man and women were both created in God’s image, so, how can a woman not be an image of God? And when you guys say Jesus was a man, and so only men can be an image of Jesus, your theology is too earthbound. The pre-existent second person of the Trinity is without gender. And the risen Christ in his glorified body transcends gender as Paul says, “…in Christ there is… neither male nor female…”
- Brickner’s breakdown of the rankings is essentially correct. Although, he gives a little bit too much power to the archbishop to intervene in the affairs of the dioceses in his province. The archbishop only intervenes in very narrow and highly restricted circumstances, and then, usually only at the behest of the Pope.
Peace.
to use another Denis Leary quote
“Why did they kick St. Christopher out? was he smoking Crack in the Rectory?”
As a lapsed Irish Roman Catholic- (believe me, you dont get more catholic than over here) IMHO, the church seem to change the rules to suit themselves. The church in developed worlds is under quite a strain at the moment. Less priests, smaller attendances, smaller donations into the collection plate every Sunday, you get my drift, The church will have to do something to get a bit more popular. Dont be too surprised to see women priests and married priests when they come. The only problem is when.
No-one argues that there were no female disciples; but the record is pretty darn clear that the apostles were men; the Twelve certainly were.
As to homosexuality, dammit, I was trying to be delicate. Yes, there are gays in the ministry everywhere, some openly. But in this generation, in the USA, the RCC seems to be having a particularly rough time with (mildly) aggressive pedarasts. As a matter of perception only, there seems to be a notion gathering that the RC priesthood is somehow a “safe harbor” for child molestors, and something, somehow, is going to have to be done about it.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Moriah, you say:
And just for review, here’s what I said:
Let me turn to canon law to support my statement:
Can. 435 provides, “An ecclesiastical province is presided over by a Metropolitan, who is Archbishop in his own diocese.”
Can. 432 §1 provides that “The provincial council and the Metropolitan have authority over the ecclesiastical province, in
accordance with the law.”
What law, and what authority? Well, Can. 421 §2 provides in relevant part, “If, for any reason, the diocesan Administrator is not lawfully elected within the prescribed time, his appointment devolves upon the Metropolitan.”
Can. 425 §1 and §2 set forth the requirements for being deputed to the office of Diocesan Administrator. (Minimum age of thirty-five, not already elected in the same see, outstanding in doctrine and prudence, etc.) And then Can. 425 §3 provides, “If the conditions prescribed in §1 have not been observed, the Metropolitan or, if the metropolitan see itself is vacant, the suffragan senior by promotion, having verified the truth of the matter, is to appoint an Administrator for that occasion. The acts of a person elected contrary to the provisions of §1 are by virtue of the law itself invalid.”
Which is exactly what I said.
Finally, Can. 436 mentions that the Metropolitan is to ensure that faith and ecclesiastical discipline are observed, and to tell the Holy See if they’re not. In addition to the powers noted above, §3 then provides, “The Metropolitan has no other power of governance over suffragan dioceses. He can, however, celebrate sacred functions in all churches as if he were a Bishop in his own diocese, provided, if it is the cathedral church, the diocesan Bishop has been previously notified.”
I would humbly suggest that my original summary did not “…give a little bit too much power to the archbishop to intervene in the affairs of the dioceses in his province,” but rather accurately stated the powers granted to the archbishop by canon law.
Cheers,
Rick
John W. Kennedy: I appreciate you trying to be delicate, but your perception is a wee bit off. Studies I’ve read say they can find no evidence of a higher incidence of pedophilia in the RCC clergy than in the general population (sorry, I don’t have any citations handy, but I do read publications both pro and con to the current celibacy issue and neither side has been able to make the case of a higher pedophilia rate). The number one source of pedophilia remains the father of the child. Second is a close relative.
Have the powers that be been protective of pedophiles in their ranks? Definitely yes. That is a sin that cries out to heaven perhaps even more so than the actual molestation since the protector can not claim any sort of psychological compulsion.
The situation has changed, though. Bishops no longer protect priestly pedophiles, but the shame is that they have come to that policy only because of past lawsuits and threats of future lawsuits.
So, is the RCC priesthood a haven that pedophiles flock to? No, there is no higher rate of incidence. (Though, by simply listening to the media, your perception of this would be skewed since priestly pedophiles are high profile cases compared to other pedophiles.) Have priestly pedophiles been protected by a good-ol-boy network in the past? Yes. Do they enjoy that protection now? Absolutely not. No diocese in the U.S. can get insured without having a policy and procedure in place for properly dealing with pedophile priests.
Rick: I was simply clarifying that the limited powers of an archbishop are indeed very limited. The list you gave of what they can do is almost exhaustive.
Peace.
Moirah, you have to take into consideration that these are only the cases that are reported. Admittedly, this works just aswell
for fathers as it does for priests… but everyweek I hear about a new paedophile-church scandal here in Ireland. Its not that they have more paedophiles in the church, its that The Church shelters them ( At least they did over here on many occasions) when there crimes were discovered. They often persuaded the family not to report the crime, and move the priest somewhere else.
Thats where the “safe haven” attitude comes from. Its not that there are more in the priesthood, its that most were never brought to light.
Didn’t say it is. Said there was a perception that it is.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams