www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West National bishops' conferences vs. sui iuris churches

I posted this question in another topic, but didn't get much of a response (except from Mor Ephrem, thank you--it seems as if you may be as curious about this as I am). I'll try again:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is composed of bishops of the Latin Catholic Church, and eparchs of various Eastern Catholic churches. They developed a policy to address a problem (i.e., sexual abuse by Church officials) affecting Catholics (presumably, both Latin and Eastern) in the United States. That policy was then sent to Rome for scrutiny.

I can understand how the U.S. Latin bishops would transmit the policy directly to Rome, but wouldn't the Eastern eparchs at least first have to "run the policy by" their respective patriarchs, major archbishops, and metropolitans? (In the case of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, this would not be a problem, because Metropolitan Basil is already here!)

Or, is this an example of the proper exercise of the Holy Father's role as Universal Pastor (through the offices of the Vatican)?

Also, the discussion of this policy mentions "Canon Law," but which Canon Law: that which applies to the Latin Church, the Eastern Churches, or the Universal Church?

Is this a case of Rome overstepping its bounds, or is it, rather, proper for Rome to become directly involved in an issue involving one particular nation and its multi-ecclesial bishop's conference, rather than to work through the various sui iuris churches?

(Someone up for tackling this one?)

We have no one in the BC Church with more authority that Archbishop Basil. Perhaps we should send it to Kviv? I don't know.

Dan Lauffer

I don't think that Eparchs of Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome should be simply members of the "National Episcopal Conference". The Latins bishops are truly a National Episcopal Conference of the Latin Church. This is clearly NOT the case with the Eastern autonomous Churches. And it is ESPECIALLY not the case with the BCC since the Metropolia is in itself an Ecclesia Sui Iuris!

At least with some of the other Churches, e.g. the Ukrainian, they are sections of a broader church. And with them there is the strange Canonical ..."concept" of Traditional Territory, so that Uk Eparchies outside of the "Traditional Territory" (a.k.a. "their Reserves" as Fr. Andrij [Chirovsky]) calls it, are "supposed" to be under the Latin Patriarch and his dicasteries. Indeed the Uk Eparchs are not even supposed to attend the Holy Synod but only the local national episcopal conferences! A matter of no small controversy, in some sectors.

But the BCC is not in anyway outside it's Traditional Territory. The U.S. is it's Territory! (Indeed, as between the BCC and Latin Church, if anybody it outside their "Traditional Territory", it's the ...) So it seems weird to me how the entire Holy Synod of an Autonomous Church could be part of another Church's national episcopal conference.

Of course, practically, the Conference is a good forum to meet other Bishops with whom one is in Communion, share stories, coordinate stuff, etc. etc., but there is a big price to be paid for not "making waves" at this level - "among the first..." still thinking of ourselves as a ethnic subset, rather than a Church entire - an ecclesia sui iuris.

herb

ps: I am not those who want to extend Kyivan ecclesial jurisdiction over those who don't want it. And we need not have to be members of one Church to be united. We can still caucus and meet and have common fora etc. without having to subsume one Church under another. But we do need to have a LOT MORE Eastern Catholic solidarity and not just individually relate to the Latin Church in an isolated way.

So, I guess my question is: What is the role/purpose of the USCCB as regards United States' eastern church eparchs? Is the USCCB (and other national conferences of Catholic bishops) primarily a vehicle for Latin-Church prelates in the nation, or is it meant to include bishops of all Catholic churches?

And when a national bishops' conference develops a policy (like the sexual abuse policy), is it proper for that conference to consult directly with Rome, to the exclusion of the other churches' hierachies? Doesn't this risk reinforcing the attitude of "Byzantine (or Maronite or Syrian or Ukrainian or Melkite, etc.) Rite of the Roman Catholic Church?"

Is it true that the Ukrainian eparchs in America are not part of the Synod in the mother country?

I'm not sure I'm formulating/conceptualizing/expressing this question correctly.

Martin

Oh--I now see that Herb said the U.K. Ukrainians fall under the jurisdiction of the Latin hierarchy (not U.S. Ukrainians). My bad--I guess I should read the posts!

Martin

Dan--

I can see how it would be less of a problem for eparchs of the Pittsburgh Metropolia (than those of other Eastern Catholic churches) to be part of the USCCB, because this sui iuris church truly is an "American" Catholic church, and can work with the American Latin bishops in developing policy that will eventually go to Rome. After all, Metropolitan Basil only answers to the Big Guy himself (at least theoretically).

Martin

Martin,

First, one must remmebr the USCCB, is just that, a conference,not a synod or council. It does not have any direct canonical power. Things it wishes to inact must be approved by Rome and be in accord with Canon Law, as recently witnessed byt he recent legislation on cases of molestation. And obviously as regards the Eastern Catholic Churches, the USCCB's actions have an even more limited impact as many of the USCCB's action are primarily concerned with the Latin Church. That said, the Eastern hierarchs are members, have a vote, and make contributions to the USCCB. The USCCB is necessary for coordinating the immense structure of the US Latin Church and handling relations betwee the various Churches, Latin and Eastern.

If anyone had the chance to watch the recent USCCB meeting, Bishop John Michael of the Romanian Eparchy of Canton asked how Eastern Catholic hierachs were to treat this legislation. The response was Rome made the approved policy binding on all Churches, particular law not withstanding, although the juridic process was to follow the norms of each Church's law. I took this to mean the same process was to be followed by each Church but each would handle the cases according to the approved norms and Canon Law (Latin or Eastern).

Given the gravity of the matter and need for uniformity in adressing it, I would say this is a prime example of the proper use of the Holy father's office as Supreme Pontiff.

In Christ,
Lance

Herb,

The Eastern Code clearly states that while eparchies outside of the "traditional territory" are directly under Rome's supervision they remain a part of the Church sui iuirs and their eparchs are voting members of the Synod. And as far as I know, all Ukrainian eparchs do attend and vote at the Synod in Lviv. If you check out the UGCC website they list all the members of the Synod.

In Christ,
Lance

Thank you. I stand corrected on the point of the rights of Eparchial Bishop "constituted outside territory of the Patriarchal Church" [sic] - I see that Canon law has apparently changed on this point, because I remember a while ago, I was informed that properly Eastern Catholic Eparchs outside their territory belonged to the national bishops' conference rather than their Holy Synod [which our Bishops ignored and attended the Synod anyways]. Clearly this no longer obtains [yet another step in the right direction].

herb

Nevertheless and nothwithstanding, it still seems to me that the national conference of bishops is a Latin body wherein the Orthodox Churches are at best an after thought or a ritually variant subsection. But that is part of the much larger and historic problem within the Catholic Communion - the de facto invisibility or marginalization of the Eastern Churches qua Churches and not just rites. It would not be in the least surprising that most Latin bishops would not [as yet] realize that we were autonomous Churches rather than variant Catholic rites.

With respect to the Catholic Communion's response to the present situation in the US, Yes I agree coordination is important. I would rather have seen that the respective authorities of the Autonomous Churches adopt the policy and promulgate it to their own Churches and His All-holiness' role would be one of communicating and coordinating that response to the various Patriarchs and Metropolitans - rather than by direct fiat as seems to have been the case here. Perhaps His Grace John Michael might have asked his Metropolitan the question. And hopefully the Metropolitan would have been in contact with the Pope and heads of the various Autonomous Churches with Eparchies in the US on this issue.

Thanks, Lance! I think I got my answer. I did not realize that Bishop John had addressed this issue. Rome's direction in a matter like this as regards the particular churches and their corresponding canon law makes sense to me. To me, this is an example of an advantage of having your church be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, no?

Martin