The Ecclesial Environment
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J. From Archbishop: Inside the Power Structure of the American Catholic Church (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989) Every local church, like every individual human personality, is very distinctive and
very different. A diocesan bishop ... possesses all the ordinary, proper and immediate power which
is required for the exercise of his pastoral office except for those cases...[reserved] to
the supreme authority of the church or to some other ecclesiastical authority. After an archbishop is installed, he is responsible for his archdiocese. Archbishops
are frequently thought to be absolute monarchs who can do whatever they want. In some
areas, the archbishop's power is nearly absolute, but in other areas his power is limited.
He is not exempt from moral, civil, or canon laws. His power is also limited by the
financial and personnel resources he has available and by the social and ecclesial
environment in which he operates./1 Finally, he is
limited by the traditions and expectations of the priests and people of his archdiocese.
This chapter will examine the normative, canonical, demographic, and historical
environment that an archbishop steps into when he takes over his archdiocese./2 While the hierarchical structure of the church gives the appearance of coercive power,
the pope can no longer send the Swiss Guard into a diocese to restore order. Nor do
bishops have this option, although they can call on the civil authority if civil laws are
broken through trespassing, breach of contract, theft, etc. Ultimately, church authority
rests on persuasion. "The ultimate expression of effective social control" in a
religious organization, as in most organizations, explains Joseph Fichter, S.J.,
"must necessarily be the self-control of the subject."\3 But as in any voluntary organization, individual Catholics have the ultimate freedom to
disobey, to withhold financial support, or simply to walk away. But while this freedom may
act as a deterrent to some abuses of power, few Catholics today want to leave the church
even when they disagree with its leadership. Likewise, while priests can and do leave the
ministry after conflicts with authority, a priest's professional identity is inexorably
tied to his continuing participation in the church.\4 Participation
requires some degree of conformity, since the bishop decides who can continue to minister
in his diocese. But ignoring regulations is also possible. For example, over half the
priests under 46 in 1969 had said Mass without proper vestments.\5 Most bishops are not going to kick a priest out
except in extreme instances. As a normative organization, the governance of the Catholic church is strongly
influenced by the beliefs, values, and opinions of its members and leadership about what
is the proper exercise of authority and power. Church theology functions in a way similar
to ideology in secular society. Where there is a consensus on goals, values, and norms,
they are more important in setting the boundaries to appropriate behavior than law or
coercion.\6 Where there is disagreement, clashes can
occur. Where there is uncertainty, there will be confusion. Although there are numerous theological disputes in the Catholic church, its members
share many beliefs, a common liturgy and sacramental system, and the same Scriptures. For
the current generation, the experience and documents of the Second Vatican Council are
also normative. Disagreements can occur in interpreting these documents, but they provide
the common text to which everyone appeals. The post-Vatican II emphasis on service,
collegiality, the principle of subsidiarity, and the pastoral role of bishops has
influenced episcopal behavior and the expectations of church members. For example,
collegiality, which strictly speaking refers to bishops working together with the pope,
has been stretched to included collegial cooperation between bishops, priests, and people
working together. The principle of subsidiarity states that activities should take place
at the lowest level possible in society or the church. Both collegiality and the principle
of subsidiarity would argue against authoritarian and overly centralizing behavior. Even a
single book, like Models of the Church\7, can
have an impact on ecclesiological views and behavior. In fact, the generally positive attitude of Catholics toward the church and its leaders
makes the work of bishops easier. Two out of three Catholics express either "a great
deal" or "a lot" of confidence in the church, a higher percentage than for
any other institution.\8 And they believe, by 61 to
36 percent, that "leadership in the church should be restricted to bishops, priests
and deacons."\9 Interestingly, only 28 percent
of the diocesan priests agreed with this highly clerical notion. This would seem to
indicate the ability of theology to counter self-interest. In diocesan governance, the bishop must especially deal with the views of priests, the
cadre working most closely with him. While public opinion is not normative in the church,
presbyteral attitudes toward the bishop's role can affect what he can and cannot do. In
fact, Catholic priests are very supportive of episcopal government. In 1969, Rev. Andrew
Greeley found 61 percent of the priests considered themselves members of the
"bishop's team" and felt they were doing priestly work when "doing a job
that has the local bishop's approval."\10 Nine
out of ten priests thought that the bishop should have a very great or a great deal of
influence in determining policies and actions in the diocese.\11 "Even the younger priests cast a majority vote
for a strong bishop," reports Father Greeley.\12
Such views reflect a acceptance by priests and laity of episcopal government authority on
the part of .\13 Father Greeley notes, however, that for 29 percent of clergy, the way church authority
is exercised is a great problem for them. And 35 percent believed that the way church
authority is exercised is a great problem to most priests.\14 They wanted a decentralization of power and
decision-making influence. They supported greater power for priests' senates, auxiliary
bishops, pastors, and the laity. "One must conclude that priests view ecclesiastical
power as expandable rather than a fixed pie--giving someone a larger piece does not mean
that others get smaller pieces."\15 These views have had an impact on diocesan governance and how bishops exercise their
power. The creation and use of consultative bodies has been in response to the desires of
priests for more participation. By 1985, the percent of priests saying the way church
authority is exercised is a great problem for them, decreased to 22 percent. And only 9
percent of the diocesan priests said their relationship with their bishop is a problem for
them.\16 There are undoubtedly many reasons for the decline in dissatisfaction among priests.
The most dissatisfied priests have left the ministry, and young priests today appear more
satisfied. The change from an authoritarian to a more pastoral episcopal style by most
bishops has also helped. Consultative structures have also diffused dissatisfaction. But
whatever the causes, the desire for strong bishops means that bishops can exercise
leadership especially if they have a consultative style that respects the priests' council
or senate. On the other hand, if priests and laity become alienated, for example by the
appointment of an authoritarian bishop, the bishop will find it difficult to lead his
people. Canon law provides the legal environment within which an archbishop must work. It both
gives and limits his power. Every seminarian studies canon law. About a third of the
archbishops have also done graduate work in canon law. Experience as a diocesan bishop (or
as a chancery official prior to his appointment as bishop) also gives an archbishop some
knowledge of the canon law. In addition, he would normally have a priest on his staff with
a degree in canon law. On the positive side, the code of canon law describes the bishops\18 as "teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred
worship and ministers of governance."\19 The
bishops are "the successors of the apostles by divine institution," and the
vicars of Christ, not merely vicars or agents of the pope. But they must exercise
"the functions of teaching and ruling...only when they are in hierarchical communion
with the head of the college [of bishops] and its members."\20 In short, A diocesan bishop in the diocese committed to him possesses all the ordinary, proper
and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral office except for
those cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme
authority of the church or to some other ecclesiastical authority.\21 In order to understand the limits of episcopal power, it is necessary to examine some
of "those cases" that are reserved to higher authority. In fact, many cases are
reserved to the pope because of Vatican concern for unity. A bishop cannot do many things
even if he wants to. He cannot rewrite liturgical texts or ceremonies, ordain women or
married men, or consecrate a bishop without Vatican approval. Where the code is most
detailed, it articulates the limits of episcopal power. Many important decisions over
doctrinal, moral, and liturgical issues are reserved to higher authority: to the pope or
to the national conference of bishops. Commentators note an ongoing tension in the constitutional life of the church: the bishop is to enjoy
increased decisional discretion in the daily exercise of his office; yet, he is still
situated within a hierarchical structure, which stretches both above him and below him.
The Pope's prerogatives must be safeguarded if he is to exercise properly his role of
fostering the unity of all the churches.\22 In governing his diocese, however, the bishop has a great deal of discretion. There is,
in fact, no true separation of powers as is common in civil society.\23 The diocesan bishop is the chief legislator,
executive, and judge in his diocese. The restrictions on his local authority are primarily
procedural checks on possible fiscal or pastoral abuses. On the legislative side, he is the legislative authority for the people in his
archdiocese, but he may not issue legislation contrary to laws passed by a higher
authority, namely the pope or the national conference of bishops. He is instructed to have
a priests' council (about half of whom are to be elected members),\24 and he can have a pastoral council including
members of the laity if he wants one.\25 He does not
have to follow the recommendations of these councils, but he must consult the priests'
council on the modification of parishes (their erection, division, or suppression), on the
calling of a diocesan synod, and on the imposition of a tax to meet diocesan needs. More
will be said about these bodies in chapter 3. The bishop must also have a college of consultors (6 to twelve priests from the
priests' council with five-year terms)\26 and a
finance council (five-year terms, and must include at least three persons "skilled in
financial affairs as well as in civil law").\27 The
college of consultors and the finance council must give their consent for the alienation
of church property and "acts of extraordinary administration."\28 This will be explained more fully in chapter 5. As chief executive, the bishop has wide powers over policy, personnel, and finances in
the diocese. He establishes policies, creates programs, and opens offices. He appoints and
can fire all diocesan administrative officials. He "must see to it that all matters
which concern the administration of the entire diocese are duly coordinated and
arranged...."\29 He must appoint a priest or an auxiliary bishop as vicar general who can have wide
powers as his alter ego in pastoral and administrative affairs.\30 But the bishop can limit the vicar's authority by
reserving as many matters as he wants to himself.\31 In
Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles (under Manning), and New York, the vicars general were very
powerful, but in some smaller archdioceses, they function hardly at all. The bishop can
also appoint episcopal vicars with geographic or functional responsibilities.\32 Here again they only have as much power as he gives
them. In large archdioceses, the geographical vicars are often auxiliary bishops. The use
of functional vicars for administration is declining because lay people cannot be vicars.
As a result, it is more common for these administrators to be called delegates,
secretaries, or directors who have power delegated to them by the bishop. The bishop must appoint a chancellor, who no longer has to be a priest.\33 The role of chancellor varies greatly among the
archdioceses. According to canon law, the chancellor is responsible for taking care of the
archives and for preparing certain canonical documents. In New York and Atlanta, he has
traditionally been the chief financial officer. In Philadelphia and Los Angeles, he has
been in charge of priest personnel. In some archdioceses, he is the canonical adviser to
the archbishop. In many places the chancellor acted as the chief of staff. The 1983 code of canon law,
however, created a new, optional diocesan officer, the moderator of the curia, who must be
a priest and is normally also the vicar general. The moderator, under the bishop, is to
"coordinate the exercise of administrative responsibilities and to see to it that the
other members of the curia duly fulfill the office entrusted to them."\34 As a result, if other persons are the vicar
general, moderator of the curia, priests' personnel director, and finance officer, the
chancellor's role is quite limited unless the bishop gives him or her special
responsibilities. Another official required under the new code of canon law is the finance officer.\35 He is the only administrator who cannot be removed
by the bishop during his five-year term except for serious reason and after consulting
with his college of consultors and finance council. More will be said about the financial
administration of archdioceses in chapter 5. As chief executive, the bishop appoints not only chancery officials but also pastors.
Archdiocesan procedures dealing with the appointment and removal of pastors will be dealt
with in detail in chapter 6. Finally, there is the role of the bishop as judge. The diocesan tribunal exercises
judicial functions under the bishop, but this court mostly deals with the annulment of
marriages. This is a complex canonical area that the bishop usually leaves to the tribunal
and its canon lawyers. The bishop's main impact in this area is making sure that
sufficient numbers of canon lawyers are trained to handle the tribunal's case load. In
addition, adequate office equipment and secretaries are necessary. The archdioceses of
Atlanta and Detroit, for example, have developed sophisticated computerized systems that
have made their tribunals more productive. Many bishops have also set up due process or grievance panels that review the decisions
of church officials in a quasi-judicial fashion. A bishop is very powerful in his diocese, but there are limits to his power. He has
wide latitude in organizing his diocesan administration and in exercising his
responsibilities. He has almost complete discretion to appoint various officials and
officers and to delegate to them as little or as much authority as he pleases. Even
auxiliary bishops have practically no authority other than what he gives them. While the
bishop is required to have certain consultative bodies, he does not usually have to listen
to them. Since he determines the membership of those bodies whose consent is required for
certain actions (finance committee and consultors), he can control them by appointing
people who will say yes to him. Most archbishops made little reference to canon law when I interviewed them. Canon law
does not loom large in their lives, rather it is taken for granted as part of the
ecclesial environment. When asked how canon law affects their lives, most began talking
about their tribunal. Once appointed, the American archbishops do not spend their time
studying canon law, they spend it studying their archdioceses. Sometimes a new archbishop is familiar with the archdiocese because of past service
there as a priest or an auxiliary bishop. Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb recalls when he was
appointed archbishop of Mobile. I came into my own home town. I pretty well knew what was going on. Even more
importantly, I told them at my ordination, "I know what is not going on." [I
know] what can happen, where all the bodies are buried, and maybe where a few ought to be
buried. But usually, 84 percent of the time, the archbishop comes from outside the archdiocese./36 The new archbishop will have to spend time getting
to know his archdiocese. Archbishop John F. Whealon, who came to Erie and to Hartford from
other dioceses, says that at first he was "slow in making judgments" because he
did not know the diocese. If all archdioceses were identical in makeup, the new archbishop would find few
surprises when he arrived on the scene. The contrary, however, is the case. Archdioceses
are very different from one another. "Every local church, like every individual human
personality, is very distinctive and very different," explains John R. Quinn, who has
been archbishop of both Oklahoma City and San Francisco. "Each has its own
identity." Archdioceses vary in geographical size, in density of population, in percentage of
Catholics, and in many other ways./37 This external
political, social, and economic environment of an archdiocese has an impact on
archdiocesan government and on how the archbishop operates. Often what an archbishop does
is in response to what he perceives to be the needs of his archdiocese. Diocesan boundaries for the most part follow political boundaries. A diocese may
contain a number of cities and counties, but rarely is a political jurisdiction split
between two dioceses. The overlapping of civic and ecclesial boundaries makes
church-government relations simpler. Experience has taught the church the value of
presenting to government officials a united front, which is easier to achieve when only
one bishop is in a jurisdiction. The danger of having two bishops in one civil
jurisdiction was seen in the city of New York where two dioceses antedate the unification
of Brooklyn and New York cities in the nineteenth century. When New York City added to its
contracts a clause dealing with homosexual rights, the church was embarrassingly divided
with the bishop of Brooklyn signing the contracts while the archbishop of New York
refused. Following political boundaries does have a negative side effect. Many metropolitan
areas, such as Kansas City, New York, and St. Louis, are split between two dioceses
because of state and local boundaries. The church experiences the same problems governing
such metropolitan areas as do secular governments. Inconsistent policies between the two
dioceses cause confusion, and the duplication of programs causes inefficiency. In
addition, parishioners might live in one diocese and work in another, with their
psychological identity split between the two. If the public media is centered in one
diocese, that will also tend to orient people away from their own diocese toward the media
center. Archbishop Edward T. O'Meara of Indianapolis notes, "It is very difficult for
people [in southern Indiana] who live with their whole lives oriented to Louisville to
feel that their particular church is a church that includes Terre Haute, Bloomington,
Richmond, and Indianapolis." A geographically large archdiocese will obviously be more difficult to govern than a
smaller one. Geographic size increases the costs of transportation and communication in
any organization./38 The size of an average American
archdiocese is 17,700 sq. mi., more than twice the size of the state of Massachusetts.
Archdioceses vary in size from Anchorage (which, with 138,985 sq. mi., covers a fourth of
Alaska) to Newark, with only 513 sq. mi. Simply visiting and getting to know the various
parishes in a large archdiocese can be very difficult. Archbishop O'Meara of Indianapolis
estimates that he puts 40,000 to 45,000 miles on his car every year visiting parishes in
his 13,500 sq. mi. archdiocese. Large size also hinders participation in diocesan pastoral
councils. In fact, geographic size is the most common reason given for their demise./39 On the other hand, the same factors that make the
operation of consultative groups difficult also reduce the number of protests in rural
dioceses./40 In a small archdiocese, such as Newark, San Francisco, or Chicago (all under 1,500 sq.
mi.), the archbishop can drive to the most distant parish under his jurisdiction in an
hour or so, depending on traffic. In large archdioceses, such as Anchorage, Santa Fe,
Oklahoma City, and Denver (all over 39,000 sq. mi.), it could take all day to drive to the
most distant parish. The archbishop of Anchorage, Francis T. Hurley, flies his own plane
around his archdiocese. But the other archbishops travel by car. Some have chauffeurs so
that the archbishop can work while traveling. The geographically large archdioceses would be impossible to govern if they also had
large Catholic populations. In fact, the five archdioceses with the largest areas all have
Catholic populations of under 340,000, which is about half the Catholic population of an
average archdiocese. They are thus large in size but small in numbers. The greater the number of Catholics, the more difficult it is for the archbishop to
minister directly to his people. Through his surveys, Joseph Fichter, S.J., found that
"the bishop in the smaller diocese has a more immediate concern about his parish
priests and tends also to meet more frequently with the parishioners."/41 "More than half (57%) of the parishioners in
the small dioceses, as compared to less than one fourth (23%) of the others, say that they
have personally met their bishop or are on friendly terms with him."/42 Priests in small dioceses were also much more
likely to say that the bishop took a personal interest in them. As a result, it is not
surprising that smaller dioceses have fewer instances of protests by priests./43 On the other hand, large dioceses have certain advantages over small dioceses. Bigness
has been shown to have many benefits in other organizations, including "easier, less
expensive financing; more numerous, highly trained intellects to attack trouble spots;
sustained research; and more accurately tailored and adaptable marketing systems."/44 Likewise, large dioceses usually have a larger pool
of talented personnel and bigger bank books than smaller dioceses. Larger dioceses tend to
have better organized and more competent chanceries. In Fichter's survey, priests in small
dioceses were less likely than priests in large dioceses to rate their diocesan chanceries
as efficient. The average archdiocese has just over 695,000 Catholics, but here again there is a wide
diversity. The largest is Los Angeles with 2.7 million Catholics, while the smallest is
Anchorage with only 22,928. The problem of governing dioceses with large numbers of Catholics has led to splitting
them into smaller ones. Every archdiocese with over 1 million Catholics (Boston, Chicago,
Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark, New York, and Philadelphia) is less than half the area of an
average U.S. archdiocese. The largest in this group, Los Angeles, with 8,762 sq. mi.,
might someday have Santa Barbara and Ventura counties split off as a separate diocese.
This would leave Los Angeles County for the archdiocese of Los Angeles. Working against
such a split is the fact that the archdiocesan seminary is in Ventura County. Few
archbishops want to lose their seminary if their diocese is split. In addition, an
archbishop would be reluctant to split off a rich suburban county if it left him with only
a poor inner-city area that was not financially viable. Splitting a diocese makes it more manageable for the bishop. Thus, Archbishop Quinn of
San Francisco reduced his administrative burden by pushing for the creation of a new
diocese in San Jose even though San Jose was not demanding independence. The archdiocese
of Los Angeles also spun off San Bernardino and Orange counties under Cardinal Timothy
Manning. If a large diocese cannot be split, the bishop will often divide it into regional
areas in order to aid governance. Most archdioceses fall into one of three categories depending on the density of their
Catholic population. First, the most highly concentrated archdioceses (Boston, Chicago,
Detroit, Hartford, Los Angeles, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco) have
300 or more Catholics per square mile. They usually contain a very large metropolitan area
consisting of a central city and suburbs. Where an archdiocese is densely populated and
centered on one city, it often has a large, centralized chancery. Most also have auxiliary
bishops acting as regional vicars. In the early 1970s, John Seidler found that the more
urban a diocese, the more progressive the bishop regarding changes in the church. On the
other hand, urban dioceses were also more likely to have priests protesting actions of
their bishop./45 Some of these large archdioceses, like Hartford, have more than one urban center.
Possibilities then arise for decentralizing the chancery staff, for example by having
local offices of education and Catholic Charities. Los Angeles is attempting this under
Archbishop Roger Mahony. But most archbishops fear such a strategy endangers the unity of
the archdiocese. A second category contains archdioceses with medium density, 90 to 190 Catholics per
square mile. These (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, New Orleans, St. Louis, St. Paul, and
Washington) usually have a large metropolitan area, suburbs, and a rural area. These
archdioceses also frequently have strong centralized chanceries and auxiliaries acting as
regional vicars. A third category contains archdioceses with low population density, 20 or fewer
Catholics per square mile. They (Anchorage, Atlanta, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City,
Louisville, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Portland, and San Antonio) usually have a metropolitan
center and a large rural area with small towns. Here the chanceries tend to be smaller.
Often there is no auxiliary, or only one. If there is an auxiliary, using him as vicar for
the rural areas can cause the rural parishes to feel abandoned by the archbishop. Visiting
rural parishes can means tens of thousands of miles of traveling each year by the
archbishop. Providing clergy for these small towns can also be difficult, and in these
dioceses lay administrators of parishes are more common. Creating a representative
pastoral council can also be difficult in these largely rural archdioceses. In the
archdiocese of Omaha, for example, two-thirds of the Catholics live in the metropolitan
area of the city of Omaha, but two-thirds of the parishes are outside this area./46 Some archdioceses (Cincinnati, Dubuque, Mobile, Santa Fe, and Seattle) have more than
one metropolitan center within a mostly rural area. This encourages the decentralization
of some chancery offices, such as Catholic Charities and the school office. If these
centers were more populous, they would be made separate dioceses. Maintaining a sense of
unity in such an archdiocese can sometimes be difficult. On the other hand, in an
archdiocese like Mobile, with a small number of Catholics (66,548) concentrated in two
cities, the archbishop can adopt a nonbureaucratic, pastoral style. Archbishop Lipscomb
even goes to the Catholic high school football games whenever he is in Mobile. In a more
populous archdiocese this would be impossible. Not only the size, but the makeup of the population can affect the governance of an
archdiocese. As part of the environment, the population can be characterized as hostile or
benign,/47 homogeneous or heterogeneous, stable or
rapidly shifting, unified or segmented./48 A united,
homogeneous Catholic population in a stable community is quite different from a divided,
heterogeneous population with a Catholic minority in a rapidly changing community. The activities of an archdiocese will be affected, for example, by whether it is
growing or declining in population. The Catholic population of Miami skyrocketed
practically overnight as a result of Cuban and Haitian refugees. More typically, there has
been population growth in the South and Southwest, while parts of the Northeast have
declined. Atlanta Archbishop Thomas A. Donnellan reported, We are a growing diocese, so it has been necessary to establish about 3 new parishes
every two years. That means a good deal of planning, a good deal of consultation with
priests in various areas, and it means an active recruitment of vocations. Those would be
primarily the things with which I occupy myself. But while Atlanta is building new churches, other archdioceses (Baltimore, Chicago, and
Detroit) have been consolidating and closing churches, especially inner-city ethnic
parishes from which Catholics have moved to the suburbs. In areas with large numbers of Catholics (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and San
Antonio), the archbishop can play an important role in civic affairs. But in non-Catholic
areas (like Atlanta, Mobile, and Oklahoma City), the archbishop's involvement may not be
welcomed unless he works closely with leaders of other denominations. Seidler even argues
that the religious makeup of the diocese can influence the behavior of the bishop: the
higher the percentage of Catholics in the population of the diocesan area, the less
humanitarian and egalitarian his style of leadership./49 The various Catholic groups within an archdiocese provide both opportunities and
challenges for the archbishop. The more heterogeneous the population, the more
archdiocesan organizations will be created to deal with the various groups./50 These groups must be ministered to, but they are
also the groups from which come leaders in the church, both lay and clerical. The ethnic character of an archdiocese, for example, solicits an archdiocesan response
with programs and offices. Historically, the church has responded to waves of immigrants
(Irish, Italian, German, Polish) with special programs and ethnic parishes. These old
ethnics are now loyal, mostly middle-class, Catholics. Today, archdioceses with large
Hispanic populations, such as Miami and those in the Northeast and the Southwest,
frequently have vicars or offices for the Hispanic apostolate. Sometimes this vicar is an
auxiliary bishop who is Hispanic. In San Antonio and Santa Fe the archbishops themselves
are Hispanic. Besides large numbers of Hispanics, Los Angeles and San Francisco also have numerous
Asian and Pacific immigrants who require a pastoral response to their language and
culture. Anchorage must be sensitive to Native Americans. Inner-city archdioceses are also
compelled to respond to black needs, both financial and spiritual. Offices or commissions
for other ethnic groups are common in multi-ethnic archdioceses. How to deal with these groups and still maintain one community of faith is a concern of
archbishops. Archbishop Quinn describes his strategy in San Francisco. We respond to that in two ways: first by trying to respect and encourage the
distinctiveness of each culture and language group, but second by trying to foster unity
among the different groups. When I came here and was asked to appoint a vicar for the Spanish-speaking, I did not
do so. While the Spanish speaking had certain unique claims, I felt it would be probably
offensive to the many other groups, like the Filipinos and others, if the Spanish-speaking
were singled out. There is a secretary for ethnic affairs and a coordinator for the different individual
groups, like the Filipinos, the Chinese, the blacks, the Spanish speaking, and so on. Archdioceses also have programs and offices responding to major occupation groups.
Farmers are a special concern in rural archdioceses like Dubuque, Denver, Kansas City,
Oklahoma City, and Omaha. The elderly and retired in Miami and the diplomatic communities
of Washington and New York require special attention. An archdiocese with a large
population of university students, hospital patients, or prisoners must find chaplains to
serve them. Recently the church has responded to the AIDS crisis, especially in cities
with large homosexual populations such as New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco. If large numbers of people in the diocese are poor or unemployed, they will not be able
to contribute a lot of money to the church. Archbishop Peter Gerety notes, "The
problems of the city of Newark brought on problems for the archdiocese." In addition,
poor people will often turn to the church for help. Here programs like Catholic Charities
become very important. The economic decline of Newark was matched by a growth in Catholic
social services. The political climate can also affect the archdiocese. In St. Paul, Archbishop John
Roach explains: In Minnesota we are politically a liberal group and a very political group. The church
is a product of this society in that we tend to be very political. When I say liberal, I
am not sure what it means, but we move. Really early under Archbishop Leo Byrne, we
developed an urban affairs commission here which was way ahead of its time in addressing
the really hot social issues. Chicago has the most politicized clergy and church. "When you have grown up in
Chicago, politics seeps into your blood," explains the executive secretary of the
personnel board in Chicago. The church of Mobile is much quieter. "We have never been
picketed," reports Archbishop Lipscomb. "If pickets showed up, we would probably
invite them in to lunch to hear what they had to say." When the archbishop arrives in his new archdiocese, he does not start from scratch.
Many programs and institutions are already in place with numerous employees, including the
priests and religious. Most of the churches, for example, including his cathedral, are
already built, although some may need extensive renovations or replacement. These people
and structures are both resources and obligations for the new archbishop. In comparing Oklahoma City and San Francisco, Archbishop Quinn noted that in his first
archdiocese there were only two Catholic high schools and a junior college, while in the
San Francisco Bay area he found a wealth of Catholic educational institutions. Few
Catholic colleges are run by archdioceses; most are run by religious orders. The faculties
of these schools can be tapped by an archdiocese as a resource in the continuing education
of both priests and laity. They can also be a source of conflict if the archbishop is at
odds with their theologians. An archdiocese without these institutions will need to fly in
teachers and speakers for workshops and institutes. Some archdioceses (Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia) have so many
primary and secondary schools that they are bigger than most public school systems in the
country. Each will need a sophisticated department of education on the archdiocesan level,
and the archbishop will be responsible for their financial viability and their Catholic
character. He will have to deal with numerous parents, students, and teachers. Mobile, on
the other hand, has only one Catholic high school, and Anchorage has none. More will be
said about Catholic schools in chapter 7. Some archdioceses have large medical facilities. Catholic hospitals in Chicago,
Cincinnati, Los Angeles, New York, and Detroit, for example, treat over 1 million patients
a year. New Orleans, on the other hand, has only two Catholic hospitals treating 76,000
patients. Concerns about Medicare and Medicaid cuts, medical ethics, malpractice
insurance, and hospital finances eventually reach the archbishop if the archdiocese has a
number of hospitals. Other archdioceses may have extensive social service programs in place, such as
orphanages, food kitchens, housing for the elderly, nursing homes, counseling services,
etc. More will be said about Catholic social services in chapter 7. All these institutional commitments take work to continue, and they can also be
politically difficult to close down. They are both a resource and a liability to the
archbishop. He can use them for carrying out his ideas and plans, but he must also work to
guarantee their continued existence and effectiveness. His concern would most often be
expressed through separate agencies or boards of directors, but ultimately if they are
archdiocesan institutions, he must worry about their financial and spiritual welfare. This institutional variety is matched by a variety in personnel. The larger the number
of schools, hospitals, and social service agencies, the larger the number of lay and
religious employees in an archdiocese. Their talent and dedication is the life blood of
the local church. At the same time, someone has to deal with their problems and pay their
salaries. A large number of employees calls for a professional personnel office. The lay
workers might also have a union that the archbishop must deal with. Some archdioceses have large numbers of religious women. While many religious
communities were founded to do one particular ministry (education or health care), most
now have sisters in various ministries. Besides teaching in schools and working in
hospitals, many are involved in other parish and archdiocesan ministries. In the past, the
archbishops could expect unquestioning service from these women; now they must pay
attention to their views and aspirations. Declining numbers of sisters have placed an
added financial burden on archdiocesan institutions that in the past depended on the
sisters' hard work at low pay. The religious communities themselves are facing financial
difficulties because the percentage of elderly and retired sisters is increasing. Finally there are the diocesan priests upon whom the archbishop depends to minister in
the parishes. Most of the priests who will serve during his reign are already ordained and
in the parishes when he arrives. More will be said about these priests and their relations
with their archbishop in chapter 5, but, obviously, without them there is no archdiocese.
Without their cooperation, the archbishop can accomplish little. In a large archdiocese, the new archbishop will also find one or more auxiliary bishops
already present when he arrives. One of the first things the new archbishop has to figure
out is what to do with these auxiliaries. What they do besides confirm is up to the
archbishop, although there has been pressure from the pro-nuncio to make them regional or
administrative vicars. As a regional vicar, an auxiliary would be responsible for a
geographical part of the archdiocese, while as an administrative vicar, he would head a
major agency in the chancery. But some older auxiliaries have declined such positions,
preferring to be pastors of parishes. An auxiliary, since he is normally from the archdiocese, can be very helpful to a new
archbishop who is from outside the archdiocese. The auxiliary knows the background and
history of archdiocesan institutions and personnel. But if the two do not work well
together, it can be a very uncomfortable relationship for both of them. Besides institutions and personnel, traditions and history make archdioceses different.
Some sees have had episcopal giants (such as cardinals Francis Spellman of New York,
Richard Cushing of Boston, John Dearden of Detroit, and Lawrence Shehan of Baltimore) in
whose shadow their successors must operate. Every archbishop is compared to his immediate
predecessor. The style of his predecessor creates expectations on the part of people in
his archdiocese. If they are used to seeing the archbishop at "every dog and cat
fight in town," they will be disappointed if the new archbishop does not attend their
organizations' dinners, graduations, or award ceremonies. An archbishop like Cardinal
Cushing, who was well-loved by his people and priests, is a hard act to follow as Cardinal
Humberto Medeiros found in Boston. On the other hand, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was
greeted with a sigh of relief by his clergy and people after their experiences with
Cardinal John Cody. Cardinal Medeiros was also handicapped by finding a large debt (estimated at $50
million) when he arrived in Boston. Inheriting a $25 million debt from your predecessor,
as did Archbishop Gerety in Newark, forces an archbishop to give a lot of attention to
finances. On the other hand, finding a financially secure archdiocese, as did Cardinal
John O'Connor in New York, Archbishop Mahony in Los Angeles and Archbishop Bevilacqua in
Philadelphia, can provide the new archbishop with a great deal of flexibility. Living in the shadow of one's predecessor is even more difficult if he is still alive.
With bishops retiring now at seventy-five, a retired archbishop may be living in the
archdiocese with the new archbishop. But during my interviews, I never heard of a retired
archbishop interfering with the activities of his successor. Much to the surprise of the
local priests, strong personalities like Archbishops James Byrne of Dubuque, William
Cousins of Milwaukee, John Dearden of Detroit, James McIntyre of Los Angeles, Lawrence
Shehan of Baltimore, and Thomas Toolen of Mobile either supported the new archbishop or
kept quiet. In Mobile, the archbishop is even supposed to take care of the weather, a tradition
that started in 1927 when Bishop Thomas J. Toolen began a campaign of prayer after two
hurricanes had devastated the city. For the next forty-two years while he was bishop,
Mobile was not touched. To this day during hurricane warnings, people call the chancery to
ask if the archbishop is praying. Toolen's successor, John L. May, made it through nine
years until a hurricane hit Mobile. As he left Mobile for St. Louis the following year, he
told his successor Archbishop Lipscomb, "Pray hard, you only get one hurricane." Canon law tells a bishop in detail what he cannot do but tells him little about what he
is supposed to do, except in the most general way. The specifics are mostly to protect
against abuse of office and disunity in the church. But the variety of dioceses in the
United States, to say nothing about the rest of the world, means that canon law was never
meant to provide detailed prescription for episcopal action. Nor is size alone the
controlling variable in archdiocesan governance. Organizations adapt their structures to
handle constraints and contingencies./51 In the
pre-Vatican II church with a stable environment with accepted ministries
("technologies"), organizational structure was simple in spite of the size. A
changing social and theological environment and new ministries have required more complex
organization. Archbishops react to their environments, and this makes sense both
theologically and sociologically. The institutions, the personnel, traditions, and needs of an archdiocese provide the
archbishop with the starting point of his ministry. These provide him with opportunities,
but they also are restraints on his actions. He can attempt to guide the institutions and
personnel in new directions to achieve his goals. To do this he must organize his
archdiocesan administration in a way that fits his personality and style of operating. 1. For a discussion of the impact of environment on
organizations, see James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967), 25-38. 2. "There is an abundance of organizational forms in
European dioceses, responding to various sociological and pastoral conditions. The
diocesan curia in European dioceses is also affected by the Church-State relations in
individual nations, particularly on the level of trusteeship which is governed by specific
legislation in the different countries." Roland-Bernhard Trauffer, O.P.,
"Diocesan Governance in European Dioceses Following the 1983 Code: An Initial
Inquiry," in The Ministry of Governance, ed. James K. Mallet (Washington, DC:
Canon Law Society of America, 1986), 195. 3. Joseph H. Fichter, S.J., Religion as an Occupation: A
Study in the Sociology of Professions (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame,
1961), 268. 4. Robert F. Szafran, "The Distribution of Influence in
Religious Organizations," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 15
(1976): 348. See also Thomas Ference, Fred Goldner, and R. Ritti, "Priests and
Church: The Professionalization of an Organization," American Behavioral Scientist
14: 507-22. 5. Andrew M. Greeley, The Catholic Priest in the United
States: Sociological Investigations (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1972),
143. 6. For a discussion of domain consensus, see Thompson, Organizations
in Action, 29. 7. Avery Dulles, S.J., Models of the Church (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1974). This book was spontaneously mentioned by more interviewees
than any other book. 8. George Gallup, Jr., and Jim Castelli, The American
Catholic People (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 43. 9. Gallup and Castelli, American Catholic People, 56.
See also Dean R. Hoge, Joseph J. Shields, and Mary Jeanne Verdieck, "Attitudes of
Priests, Adults and College Students on Catholic Parish Life and Leadership," Study
of Future Church Leadership, Report No. 3 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America,
January 1986, Mimeographed), table 5. 10. Greeley, Catholic Priest, 86. 13. Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New
York: Free Press, 1957). 14. Greeley, Catholic Priest, 206. 16. Dean R. Hoge, Joseph J. Shields, and Mary Jeanne Verdieck,
"Attitudes of American Priests in 1970 and 1985 on the Church and Priesthood,"
Study of Future Church Leadership, Report No. 4 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America, March 1986, Mimeographed), table 9, p. 1. 17. For a summary of the canon laws affecting bishops, see
Thomas J. Green, A Manual for Bishops: Rights and Responsibilities of Diocesan Bishops
in the Revised Code of Canon Law (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1983). See
also Sacred Congregation for Bishops, Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops
(Ottawa: Canadian Catholic Conference, 1974); Thomas J. Green, "The Diocesan Bishop
in the Revised Code: Some Introductory Reflection," Jurist 42 (1982): 320-347;
Thomas J. Green, "Rights and Duties of Diocesan Bishops," CLSA [Canon Law
Society of America] Proceedings 45 (1983): 18-36; James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green
and Donald E. Heintschel, eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (New
York: Paulist Press, 1985); Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B., "Local
Implementation--Ecclesial Life Under the 1983 Code," CLSA Proceedings 46
(1984): 12-23; Michael A. Fahey, S.J., "Diocesan Governance in Modern Catholic
Theology and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law," and James H. Provost, "Canonical
Reflection on Selected Issues in Diocesan Governance," in The Ministry of
Governance, ed. James K. Mallet (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1986),
121-139, 209-51. For the historical view, see John E. Lynch, C.S.P., "The Changing
Role of the Bishop: A Historical Survey," Jurist 39 (1979): 289-312. 18. Since canon law makes few distinctions between the
authority of a diocesan bishop and an archbishop in his diocese, I will refer to bishops
in general in this section except where archbishops are specifically meant. 19. Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition
(Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983), Canon 375 §1. 21. Canon 381 §1. Some canonists argue that it is not the
bishop's power that is restricted but only his discretion to exercise it. As a result, he
could validly but not licitly exercise his power in areas where its exercise is
restricted. See Provost, "Canonical Reflection," 218-19. 22. Thomas J. Green, "Title I: Particular Churches and
the Authority Established in Them," in The Code of Canon Law: A Text and
Commentary, ed. by Coriden, Green, and Heintschel, 325. 35. Canon 494. See John J. Myers, "The Diocesan Fiscal
Officer and the Diocesan Finance Council," CLSA Proceedings 44 (1982): 181-88. 36. Statistics updated from Thomas J. Reese, S.J., "A Survey of the American Bishops," America
149 (November 12, 1983): 287. 37. For statistics on U.S. dioceses, see "General
Summary," The Official Catholic Directory 1988 (Wilmette, IL: J. P. Kenedy
& Sons, 1988). 38. Thompson, Organizations in Action, 68. 39. Mary P. Burke and Eugene F. Hemrick, Building the Local
Church: Shared Responsibility in Diocesan Pastoral Councils (Washington, DC: U.S.
Catholic Conference, 1984), 18. 40. John Seidler, "Priest-Protest in the Human Catholic
Church," National Catholic Reporter, May 3, 1974, 14. 41. Joseph H. Fichter, S.J., Priest and People (New
York: Sheed & Ward, 1965), 177. 43. Seidler, "Priest-Protest," 14. 44. Thompson, Organizations in Action, 45. 45. Seidler, "Priest-Protest," 14. 46. Burke and Hemrick, Building the Local Church, 12. 47. On the effect of a hostile environment on the diocesan
structures in early American history, see Thomas Curry, "The Emergence and
Development of a Style of American Diocesan Governance in Response to External
Factors," in The Ministry of Governance, ed. Mallet, 1-20. 48. Thompson, Organizations in Action, 68-70. 49. Seidler, "Priest-Protest," 14. 50. Thompson, Organizations in Action, 70-71.
Copyright © 1989 by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
All rights reserved
For the previous chapter and table of contents, see Chapter 1
and Contents.
Archbishop John R. Quinn
(Canon 381)Voluntary Membership
Ecclesiological Beliefs
Canon Law\17
The Archdiocese
Boundaries
Geographical Size
Population
Religious, Ethnic, and Social Character
Institutional Commitments
Personnel
Tradition and Inheritance
Conclusion
Footnotes
See also: