What it means to be an episcopal vicar

We had an interesting presentation this morning on various elements of canon law, and in particular what it means for a priest (or auxiliary bishop) to be named as an episcpal vicar. There are several episcopal vicars in the diocese of Montreal, each with a particular area of action he is responsible for. Yours truly is “Episcopal Vicar to the English-speaking faithful”. But what does that title mean?

First of all, we need to understand the role of the diocesan bishop. A bishop has three main duties: he is the chief catechist of the diocese, and so he must teach; he is the chief priest of the diocese, and so he must sanctify the people; and he is the vicar of Christ for his people, so he must govern the spiritual community. These three duties (teach, sanctify, govern) extend well beyond bishops to include priests and even lay people in their relationship with the world, but the diocesan bishop is meant to exercise these roles with a certain fullness for the sake of the people committed to his care.

There are three particular kinds of authority that flow from the task of governing. The first is legislative authority: the bishop has the right to enact laws and policies that the people of God are expected, in conscience, to follow, for the sake of the common good. The second authority is judicial: the bishop ensures that decisions are made based on facts whose veracity has been arrived at with moral certainty. The final authority is executive: the laws and judicial decisions mentioned above have to be enacted somehow, with people entrusted with that responsibility.

I should immediately point out that this three-fold structure of governance exists also in secular society. In Canada, the Governor-General (note the word “governor”), acting on behalf of the Queen, possesses (in theory) all three kinds of authority. That being said, the Constitution, along with parliamentary tradition, defines what institutions exist to assist the Governor-General in the exercise of this authority. The Governor-General is most certainly the final legislative authority, as his signature is necessary for a bill to become a law, but no bills get to his desk unless they have first passed through Parliament. Judicial authority is actually exercised by the specialists known as judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court. Finally, the Governor-General appoints a Prime Minister and Cabinet (set of ministers) who head the various departments of the government, implementing the various laws.

As it turns out, the Church also adds specifics as to how a bishop is to exercise his three-fold responsibility of governance.

Legislative authority always rests with the diocesan bishop alone. That being said, the diocesan bishop will often consult his Presbyteral Council on matters of policy, as its role is to advise him in the governance of the diocese (it has often been described as a “senate of priests”). The diocesan bishop can also call for a diocesan synod, a special gathering of clerics and lay people within the diocese to discuss matters of concern. Again, the synod has only a consultative vote — the final authority and responsibility rests with the diocesan bishop — but most synods do propose some elements of diocesan legislation and policy.

Judicial authority is usually exercised through the appointment of a “judicial vicar” and a set of judges, who together constitute the diocesan tribunal. This tribunal has very strict procedures and rules of evidence, so as to be as objective and fair as possible.

Finally, executive authority is exercised in a special way through a diocesan “government” called the diocesan curia. The chief executive authority, apart from the diocesan bishop himself, is the “vicar general”, who acts like a “prime minister” for the bishop. Other officials called “episcopal vicars” can also be appointed. Each also possesses executive authority, but in a defined area. For example, in Montreal we have episcopal vicars for territorial regions, for economic matters, for canon law matters, for pastoral personnel, for cultural communities, and for the English-speaking faithful (i.e. me). Together with the diocesan bishop and the vicar general, these senior executives constitute a kind of “cabinet” for the bishop called the episcopal council. However, each possesses the authority to set executive policies within his area of competence, in order to help make the general decrees of the bishop a reality. We saw this happen in Montreal a few years ago, when the diocesan bishop decided that general catechetical preparation of children (and not just sacramental preparation) would now be the direct responsibility of the local parish. That was a general decree from the diocesan bishop, but for its practical implementation the actual choice of program for the English sector came under the authority of the episcopal vicar.

In my particular case, however, there is an additional wrinkle, in that I am an auxiliary bishop. Auxiliary bishops are (almost) always appointed as a vicar general (or at least an episcopal vicar), because bishops (as I mentioned above) share in the leadership of the Church as successors of the apostles. If I am to do my job faithfully, I must teach, I must sanctify, and I must also govern… which means that the diocesan bishop shares with me some aspect of his governance. This is true to such an extent that, even if the diocesan bishop were to die or have his resignation accepted, Bishop Christian Lépine and I would stay on as episcopal vicars, while those who are not bishops have their mandates automatically end. But what this also means is that the *way* an auxiliary bishop exercises governance is precisely in a mode united to teaching and sanctification. It isn’t just being a manager of “Church Inc.”. It is about being a leader as an apostle would be, in brotherhood with the priests, and in service to all the people of God.