The Structural Components of the Diocesan Curia – Part 2

– Prof. Augustine Mendonca

Part II

3 – Bishop’s Vicars

The vicar general and Episcopal vicar are the direct collaborators of the diocesan bishop in the pastoral governance of the diocese. They are his “alter ego.”¹ The figure of the vicar general has a long history, and there is evidence of its beginnings in the 13th century. Whereas, the figure of the Episcopal vicar has post-Vatican II origin.

3.1 – Vicar General

There are at least three mainline theories on the historical origin of the juridical figure of vicar general. The first theory maintains that the office of vicar general was instituted in order to counter-balance the excessive power of the Archdeacon in disciplinary and administrative affairs of the diocese. The second theory proposes that the vicar general’s office was instituted primarily to offset the negligence of the Archdeacon in the fulfillment of his obligations in the diocese. The third theory rejects both opinions and contends that the vicar general was not the successor of the Archdeacon in consequence of the latter’s neglect or because of his conflict with the bishop. Rather, according to this theory, the office emerged from the need of the bishop to have someone take his place in his absence as well as to represent him in the diocese. In other words, the office of vicar general was first established in order that the diocese may be properly cared for in the bishop’s absence.²

It seems, by the end of the thirteenth century, the position of the vicar general was clearly established. The available documents delineated the full extent of his jurisdiction whenever his office had to be employed in order that the diocese might function properly and the care of souls be provided adequately in the absence of the bishop. Other functionaries of the diocese were subordinate to his jurisdiction.³

—————————————————-
¹. See Communicationes, 5 (1973), p. 226.
². For these and other historical details concerning the office of vicar general, see L. MATHIAS, The Diocesan Curia: Its Organization According to History and Canon Law, Madras, The Good Shepherd Press, 1947, pp. 16-17; T.D. DOUGHERTY, The Vicar General of the Episcopal Ordinary, Canon Law Studies, No. 447, Washington, DC, The Catholic overview of the America Press, 1966, pp. 1-2. In presenting his historical overview of the institute of vicar general, Dougherty depends largely on E. FOURNIER, L’Origine du vicare général et des autres members de la curia diocésaine, Paris, Séminaire des Missions Épiscopal Vicar,” in Philippiniana sacra, 20 (1985). Pp. 192-193.
³. For further historical information on the development of the office of vicar general, see DOUGHERTY, The Vicar General, pp. 11-27.

When the 1917 Code was being formulated, there was already recognition of the existence of the institute of the vicar general. In the Code, the unique position of the vicar general as the alter ego of the bishop was preserved; the scope of his jurisdiction was clearly defined; the prerogatives of the bishop in regard to his appointment and jurisdiction were clarified, the problem of multiple vicars general and the needs of a small diocese were envisaged; and the cessation of the office was concisely expressed. From a historical perspective, therefore, the following observations may be stated: This important institute grew out of the need of the bishop to be properly represented when he was absent from the diocese. Its importance was realized even when the bishop was present, in view of the gradual increase of the duties and obligations of the bishop. The officials represented the bishop in judicial matters. Special cases which by their nature the bishop usually had to deal with personally were removed from the vicar’s jurisdiction. The increase in the volume of work for the vicar general necessitated certain limitations. The institute’s development and evolution up to the beginning of the twentieth century were succinctly summarized in canons 366-371 of the 1917 Code.

The 1983 Code retains the principal elements of the figure of vicar general. Canon 475 explains the concept and institution of the vicar general. It reads:

§1. In each diocese the diocesan bishop must appoint [constituendus est] a vicar general who is provided with ordinary power according to the norm of the following canons and who is to assist him in the governance of the whole diocese.

§2. As a general rule, one vicar general is to be appointed unless the size of the diocese, the number of inhabitants, or other pastoral reasons suggest otherwise.⁴

This canon reaffirms the traditional role of the vicar general. He is a priest who, endowed with ordinary power of governance, assists the diocesan bishop in a stable manner in his pastoral governance of the entire diocese.

—————————————————-
⁴. Codex iuris canonici, auctoritate loannis Pauli PP. II promulgates, Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1983; English translation: Code of Canon Law. Latin-English Edition, New English Translation, Prepared under the auspices of the CANON LAW SOCIETY OF AMERICA, Washington, DC, canon law Society of America, 1999. This source will be used for the translations of canons of the 1983 Code.
The CCEO c. 245 does not have the second paragraph of canon 474 of the Latin Code. CCEO c. 245 is substantially the same. It reads: “In each eparchy a protosycellus is to be appointed [constituendus est] who, endowed with ordinary vicarious power in accord with the norms of common law, assists the eparchial bishop in governing the whole eparchy.” Codex canonum Ecclesiarum orientalium, auctoritate loannis Pauli PP. II promulgates, fontium annotatione auctus, Lebreria editrce Vaticana, 1995; English translation: Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Latin-English Edition, New English translation, Prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, DC, Canon Law Society of America, 2001. This source will be used for the ranslation of canons of the Eastern Code.

While the 1917 Code made the office of vicar general optional by stating in canon 366, §1 that “when the right governance of the diocese requires it” (Quoties rectum diocesis regimen id exigat”) a vicar general “is to be appointed” (“constituendus est”). As per this norm, the appointment of a person to the office of vicar general was not mandatory. But canon 475, §1 of the new Code makes this appointment an “unqualified” requirement in the diocese. According to this norm, whether it is a small or a large diocese, a vicar general must be appointed. This is clearly the mind of the legislator.⁵ The present norm responds directly to the organization of the diocesan curia foreseen in no. 27 of the decree Christus Dominus. The Code Commission stated in this regard: “The right governance of the diocese always requires, especially in view of the principle of division of functions in the exercise of power sanctioned by the Synod of Bishops, appointment of a vicar general whose principal task is to preside over activities of an administrative nature.”⁶

The executive power exercised by the vicar general, therefore, is ordinary because it is attached to his office by law itself (can. 131, §1). Since he exercises this power not in his own name but in the name of the diocesan bishop, it is ordinary vicarious power (not proper power) (can. 131, §2). Those faculties, which the bishop or another authority may grant to the vicar general, are delegated, and these could be habitual or ad actum.

The extent of the ordinary power of the vicar general is determined in canon 479. In canon 475, the function of the vicar general in assisting the diocesan bishop is extended to “the entire diocese.” In principle, therefore, the power of governance (executive power) of the vicar general is the same as that of the bishop. But the legislator foresees its limitations subordinate to the power of the diocesan bishop.

Canon 366, §3 of the 1917 Code stipulated that there is to be only one vicar general in each diocese “unless the diversity of rites and the size of the diocese required otherwise.” Canon 475, §2 of the new Code reiterates the general principle that “as a general rule, one vicar general is to be appointed unless the size of the diocese, the number of inhabitants, or other pastoral reasons suggest otherwise.” The expression “as a general rule” allows the diocesan bishop to appoint more than one vicar general in the diocese. As seen above, the 1917 Code had expressed only two reasons for constituting more than one vicar general in a diocese. The new canon. Adds the notion of the large number of inhabitants and “other pastoral reasons.” In view of this provision, it may be pastorally helpful to the diocesan bishop to appoint more than one vicar general, particularly if the diocesan bishop has an auxiliary bishop who assist him in the overall office of pastoral care as vicar general (cfr. can. 406). The notion of unity of governance as well as the possibility of having episcopal vicar would certainly minimize the need to multiply vicars general. As Alesandro points out, pastoral effectiveness may very well suffer and ecclesial unity may be jeopardized if too many persons were to exercise executive power of governance over the entire diocese. In such cases, the office meant to unify diocesan administration may end up with the very opposite effect.⁷

—————————————————-
⁵. See Communicationes, 13 (1981), p. 118, canon 288.
⁶. “Rectum regimen diocesis simper exigit, attento principio divisionis functionum in exercitio potestatis a Synodo Episcoporum sancito, ut habeatur Vicarius generalis cuius praesertim est activitati characteris administrative praeesse” (Communicationes, 19 [1987], p. 124, canon 1). Also see L. CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico: Commento giuridico-pastorale, vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. and updated, Roma, Edizioni Dehoniane, 1996, p. 600, footnote (1).
⁷. See ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” commentary on cc. 469-494, in Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, ed. by James A. CORIDEN, Thomas J. GREEN, Donald E. HEINTCHEL, New York/Mahwah, Paulist Press, 1985, p. 387. Also see R. PAGÉ, Les églises particulières, tome 1, Leurs Structure de gouvernement selon le Code de droit canonique de 1983, Montréal, Éditions Paulines & Mediaspaul, 1985, p. 79.

If we look carefully at the prescript of canon 366, §3 of the 1917 Code, it seems the expression “the diversity of rites” (“rituum diversitas”) included the possibility of having “specialized vicars general,” who in the present Code are “episcopal vicars.”In other words, as Pagé observes, the idea of a “specialized vicar general,” the present equivalent of “episxopal vicar,” was already contained in the preceding Code.⁸

In case of multiple vicars general, they shall have the same power in solidum within the entire diocese even if it is exercised within determined zones or sectors corresponding to the orderly distribution of common tasks. Such a distribution, Chiappetta suggests, is appropriate in order to avoid confusing and conflicting situations.⁹

3.2 – Episcopal Vicar

As noted above, the figure of Episcopal vicar is of conciliar origin. The Council felt the need to create new figures and institutes to assist the diocesan bishop in the effective pastoral care of his diocese. This was explicitly stated in no. 27 of the decree Christus Dominis where we read: “In the diocesan curia the office of vicar general is preeminent. When, however, the good government of the diocese requires it, the bishop may appoint one or more Episcopal vicars who by the very fact of their appointment will enjoy in specified parts of the diocese, or in specific types of affairs, or in regard to the faithful of particular rites, that authority which is conferred by the general law on the vicar general.”¹⁰

The conciliar statement affirms some important principles. First, the vicar general still holds a preeminent place within the curia. Second, should the bishop consider it necessary he is given the option of constituting episcopal vicars. Third, these Episcopal vicars can be designated for a particular territorial portion of the diocese, for particular affairs, or for particular group(s) of people, such as members of a Church sui iuris. Thus, a diocese can have an episcopal vicar for each deanery, one for temporal affairs, one for religious, one for taking care of members of Eastern Catholic Churches who do not have a pastor or hierarch of their own, etc. Fourth, the jurisdiction of an episcopal vicar is the same as that of the vicar general but only within the limits defined by the office and by the bishop.

—————————————————-
⁸. See PAGÉ, Les églises, pp. 78-79.
⁹. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 600.
¹⁰. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church. Christus Dominus, 28October 1965, in A. FLANNERY (gen. ed.) Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (=FLANNERY I), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1875, p. 579.

The motu proprio, Ecclesiae sanctae 1, promulgated on 6 August 1966 by Pope Paul VI, through which he implemented the provisions of Christus Dominus, Presbyterorum ordinis and Perfectae caritatis, explained and further defined the nature and power of the office of episcopal vicar.¹¹ The bishop, in order to ensure good pastoral care in his diocese, was free to appoint one or more episcopal vicars in accord with the needs of the place.

In article 202 of the Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Ecclesiae imago, the same principles contained in Christus Dominus (27) and Ecclesiae sanctae 1(14) were summarily reiterated.¹² Article 54 of the directives Mutuae relations 23 April 1978, from the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, expressed the advisability of having as Episcopal vicar for religious in the diocese.¹³ These documents in effect became the source of canon 476 of the 1983 Code which reads:

Whenever the correct governance of a diocese requires it, the diocesan bishop can also appoint one or more Episcopal vicars, namely, those who in a specific part of the diocese or in a certain type of affairs or over the faithful of a specific rite or over certain groups of persons possess the same ordinary power which a vicar general has by universal law, according to the norm of the following canons.¹⁴

Several juridic principles are expressed in this canon. The Episcopal vicar has the same function and the same ordinary power of the vicar general. But it is different in two principal aspects:

(a) Its institution is optional; it is left to the discretion of the diocesan bishop who does not have any juridic obligation but only moral obligation to establish it. Whenever the good governance of the diocese requires it, the bishop can appoint Episcopal vicars.

(b) These Episcopal vicars – one or more – carry out their activity:

– either in a determined area of the diocese – these will be territorial vicars;

– or in a determined pastoral sector, e.g., for Catholic schools, charitable works, lay apostolate, and these will be sectoral vicars;

– or relative to determined category or groups of people, e.g. faithful of a particular rite, language, nationality, certain class of workers, employees, professionals, etc., and these will be personal vicars.¹⁵

—————————————————-
¹¹. See ibid., pp. 599-600.
¹². see Directory, p. 103.
¹³. See A. FLANNERY (gen ed.), Vatican Council II: More Postconciliar Documents (= FLANNERY II) Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing co., 1982, p. 239.
¹⁴. CCEo c. 246 reads: “As often as the good governance of the eparchy requires it, onr or several syncekki can be appointed, who have by virtue of the law itself the same authority as that which is attributed by common law to the protosyncellus but limited t a given section of the eparchy, or to certain kinds of affairs or for the Christian faithful ascribed to another Church sui iuris or for a certain group of persons.”
¹⁵. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 600.

In regard to the power to be exercised by the Episcopal vicar, the Directory, in no. 202, had stated: “In appointing an episcopal vicar, the bishop will be concerned to define accurately the area of his authority lest the jurisdiction of several persons should overlap or become doubtful. The diocesan bishop is free to reserve the cases he wishes to himself or to the vicar general, and likewise to confer upon the Episcopal vicar the special mandate which common law requires in certain matters.”¹⁶ In other words, in order to maintain the unity of the particular Church and for its effective governance, the bishop must clearly delineate, in the decree of appointment and in the mandate, the area of competence – namely specify the area (territory, sector or persons); special mandate and reservations.

It should be noted that the episcopal vicar is an assistant to the diocesan bishop and not to the vicar general. He is not a specialized vicar general, but a new juridic figure in the diocesan life even if both have the same power to be exercised within specified confines. Episcopal vicar is responsible to the bishop and not to the vicar general.

3.2.1 – Appointment of Vicars

In the appointment of his vicars, the bishop is not obliged to seek anyone’s consent or counsel. This is stated in canon 477, §1:

The diocesan bishop freely appoints a vicar general and an episcopal vicar and can freely remove them, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 406. An episcopal vicar who is not an auxiliary bishop is to be appointed only for a time to be determined in the act of appointment.¹⁷

This norm gives a free hand to the bishop in the appointments of his vicars. Likewise the law affirms his the right to terminate these appointments at will. It should be pointed out, however, that there are two officers of the curia – judicial vicar (also adjutant judicial vicar) and finance officer – who are somewhat protected in that they can be removed only for “a legitimate and serious cause” (cfr. can. 1422).

The norm under discussion contains the following principles:

1° The appointment of vicar general and Episcopal vicar is the sole prerogative of the diocesan bishop. He is under no obligation to seek consent or counsel of any person or body – such as the college of consultors and presbyteral council. During the revision process, a proposal was made to subject the appointment of vicar general and Episcopal vicar to the counsel of presbyteral council (“audito consilio presbyterali”); but this proposal was unanimously rejected by the coetus saying among other things: “This matter concerns the vicar of the bishop, and not the vicar of the presbyterium.”¹⁸

—————————————————-
¹⁶. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 600.
¹⁷. CCEO c. 247, §1: “The protosyncellus and the syncelli are freely appointed by the eparchial bishop and can freely be removed by him, without prejudice to can. 215, §§1 and 2.” This canon deals with the obligation to make the coadjutor bishop and auxiliary bishop the protosyncellus or syncelli.
¹⁸. “Agitur de Episcopi Vicario, non de Vicario presbyterii” (Communicationes, 19[1987], pp. 125-126, can. 3) Also see CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 601, footnote (2).

The tenor of the norm also implies that in removing his vicars from office the bishop is not required to follow any canonical procedure, but without prejudice to the principles of equity and of justice.¹⁹ In regard to coadjutor or auxiliary bishops who have been appointed to these offices, the prescript of canon 406 is to be followed: “§1. The diocesan bishop is to appoint a coadjutor bishop and the auxiliary bishop […] as vicar general. Moreover, the diocesan bishop is to entrust to him before others those things which by law require a special mandate. §2. Unless apostolic letter has provided otherwise and without prejudice to the provision of § 1, a diocesan bishop is to appoint his auxiliary or auxiliaries as vicars general or at least as episcopal vicars, dependent only on his authority or that of the coadjutor bishop or auxiliary bishop mentioned in can. 403, §2.”²⁰ By this exception to the general rule concerning the limited tenure of vicar general and Episcopal vicar, the legislator restricts the diocesan bishop’s power in regard to the terminal appointment and ad mutum removal of coadjutor and auxiliary bishops from their office of vicar general or Episcopal vicar. By law the coadjutor bishop and all auxiliaries with special faculties must be appointed as vicars general and all other auxiliaries as Episcopal vicars.

2° Even though the removal of vicars general and episcopal vicars is ad nutum of the diocesan bishop, such an action is not beyond legitimate recourse. Chiappetta rightly maintains that should a vicar, who has been removed from office, feels that the bishop’s decision is without justification or it has damaged his good name and honour, he can place recourse before the competent authority according to the norms of canons 1732-1739.²¹

3° Can an administrator of the diocese appoint a vicar general or Episcopal vicar? According to Chiappetta: “The vicar general can be constituted also by the diocesan administrator, because there is no provision in the present legislation which prohibits him from doing it. Nevertheless, it is preferable to appoint a ‘delegate’.”²² From the point of view of legal interpretation, Chiappetta’s view seems quite probable. Canon 427, §1 states that the diocesan administrator is bound by the obligations and enjoys the power of the diocesan bishop, excluding those things which are excepted by their nature or by law itself. Considered by itself, this norm certainly does not contradict Chiappetta’s view. However, this norm must be understood in light of canon 428 as well. According to this canon, when the see is vacant there are to be no innovations; and those who temporarily govern the diocese are prohibited from doing anything which would in any way be prejudicial to the diocese or episcopal rights. Would this prohibition against any innovation sede vacante preclude the possibility of a diocesan administrator appointing his own vicars? Although both canons cited above do not categorically deny such a possibility, those appointed cannot be technically called Episcopal vicars, rather they will be the administrator’s vicars or delegates. They would then have the same powers which the administrator himself possesses in virtue of the law itself. Moreover, if vicars are appointed by the administrator, their appointment should be for a determined period of time, that is, until another diocesan bishop takes power in the diocese.

—————————————————-
¹⁹. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 601.
²⁰. Cfr. CCEO c. 215, §§1 and 2.
²¹. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 601: “Nel caso che un Vicario, rimosso dal suo ufficio, ritenga che il provvedimento non sia giustificato o leda il suo onore e la sua fama, può far ricorso all’autorità competente à norma del can. 1732ss.”
²². “II Vicario generale può essere costituito anche dall” Amministratore diocessano: nell’attuale ordinamento, non esiste alcuna disposizione che lo vieti. É preferibile tuttavia che sia nominato un ‘delegato’” (ibid.).

4° According to the norm of canon 477, §1, Episcopal vicars are to be appointed for a determined period of time, and this should be clearly stated in the decree of appointment. But there is no prohibition against repeated renewal of their term. A vicar general can be appointed to an indefinite or definite term. In view of canon 406, an auxiliary bishop and coadjutor bishop are to be appointed vicars general or episcopal vicars to an indefinite term. In all cases, the act of conferral of the office should state whether the office is assigned indefinitely or for a specified period of time and whether the term is renewable. The appointment must be made in writing, signed by the diocesan bishop and duly notarized (cfr. cann. 156, 474).²³

5° Those appointed vicars general and episcopal vicars are obliged to make the profession of faith personally in accord with the formula approved by the Apostolic See in the presence of the diocesan bishop or his delegate (cfr. can. 833, 5°).

6° In case of necessity, the diocesan bishop can appoint substitutes vicars. And this is provided in the norm of canon 477, §2 which reads: “When a vicar general is absent or legitimately impeded, a diocesan bishop can appoint another to take his place; the same norm applied to an Episcopal vicar.”²⁴ This norm is self-explanatory. In case of absence or legitimate impediment of the vicar general or of the Episcopal vicar, the diocesan bishop can appoint a vicar substitute, commonly known as pro-vicar. Such an appointment may be stable, that is, for every absence or impediment, which must be verified, or for each case. In either case, the power of the substitute (pro-vicar) is also ordinary (vicarious.)²⁵

In order to supplement the absence of an impeded vicar, the diocesan bishop has the faculty to appoint, either stably or for the occasion, also a simple “delegate.” In this case, obviously, the power is not “ordinary” but “delegated.”²⁶

These substitute appointments are usually made if the absence or impediment of the vicar general or episcopal vicar is such that the good governance of the diocese would be jeopardized without such a provision.²⁷

As Alesandro rightly observes, the norm of canon 477, §2 in a sense is superfluous in view of the complete discretion given to the diocesan bishop about both vicars general and episcopal vicars in canons 475-477.²⁸ It is important to note, however, that even if such a substitution is of a temporary nature, the conditions and formalities of the universal law governing these offices must be observed (e.g., be a priest, minimum age, pastoral qualifications, appointment in writing).²⁹ The norm itself does not go into the limit of duration of absence (even if it is for a few days!) nor its cause, nor the factors constituting the legitimacy of impediment. All these elements are to be determined by the bishop by taking into consideration the circumstances of each case.

—————————————————-
²³. See ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 388.
²⁴. This provision is not in CCEO.
²⁵. CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 601: “La nomina può esser fatta sia stabilmente per ogni assenza o impedimento che dovesse verificarsi, sia caso per caso. Nell’una e nell’altra ipotesi, la potestà del Pro-Vicario è anch’essa ordinaria.”
²⁶. Ibid.: “Per la supplenaza di uj Vicario assente o impedito, è in facoltà del Vescovo diocesano nominare, stablimente or occasionalmente, anche un semplice Delegato. In questo caso, ovviamente, la potestà, per definizone, non è ‘ordinaria’.”
²⁷. See M. MORGANTE, La chiesa particolare nel Codice di diritto canonico: comment giuridico-pastorlae, Milano, Edizioni Paoline, 187, p. 220.
²⁸. See ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 388; also see PAGÉ, Les églises particulières, p. 83.
²⁹. Ibid.

3.2.2 – Requisite Qualities

According to the norm of canon 149, §1, any person who is promoted to an ecclesiastical office, must be in the communion of the Church as well as suitable, “that is, endowed with those qualities which are required for that office by the universal or particular law or by the law of the foundation.” The prescript of §2 of the same canon stipulates that the “provision of an ecclesiastical office made to one who lacks the requisite qualities is invalid only if the qualities are expressly required for the validity of the provision by universal or particular law or by the law of the foundation. Otherwise it is valid but can be rescinded by decree of competent authority or by sentence of an administration tribunal.”³⁰

The office of vicar general and episcopal vicar are ecclesiastical offices and, therefore, the law requires of persons certain qualities to be promoted to them. It is important that the juridic nature and importance of these qualities is clearly indentified. Canon 478, §1 identifies certain qualities those to be promoted to these offices:

A vicar general and an episcopal vicar are to be priests not less than thirty years old, doctors or licenced in canon law or in theology or at least truly expert in these disciplines, and recommended by sound doctrine, integrity, prudence, and experience in handling matters.³¹

According to the present canon, the qualifications for both vicar general and Episcopal vicar are identical.

1° The most fundamental requirement and the one which has caused the most controversy and discussion is that of priesthood. Chiappetta says, “priesthood is a requirement for validity according to the norm of c. 150.”³² According to Alesandro, “for the validity of the appointment the candidate must be a validly ordained priest or bishop. The condition is necessary because of the vicar’s responsibility to exercise complete power of executive governance, including those acts for which the priestly character is required (cfr. cann. 129, §1; 150).”³³ This conclusion is based on the simple principle that the “juridic figure” of the vicar general and episcopal vicar theologically corresponds to the diocesan bishop as his “alter ego” in his pastoral and administrative functions. The basic theological principle which underlines the relationship between the bishop and priests has been clearly stated in no. 28 of Lumen gebtium where we read: “Thus, the divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even form ancient times have been called bishops, priests and deacons. Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and not withstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that associated with them by reason of their sacerdotal dignity, and in virtue of the sacramental Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest. […], they are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament.”³⁴ Canon 1008, whose theological source is the above article of Lumen gentium, reiterates: “[…] accordingly they are consecrated and deputed to shepherd the people of God, each in accord with his own grade of orders, by fulfilling in the person of Christ the Head the functions of teaching, sanctifying and governing.” This in essence is the basis for applying c. 150 to the requirement of priesthood for the office of vicar general and Episcopal vicar, that is, these offices entail the full care of souls and, therefore, cannot be “validly” conferred upon someone who has not yet received priestly ordination.³⁵

—————————————————-
³⁰. Cfr. CCEO c. 940.
³¹. CCEO c. 247, §2: “The protosyncellus and syncelli are to be celibate presbyters, unless the particular law of their Church sui iuris has established otherwise; if possible, they should be from the clerics ascribed to the eparchy; they are to be not less than thirty years of age, have a doctorate, licentiate or expertise in some sacred science; be commendable for sound doctrine, uprightness, prudence and practical experience.”
³². “II presbyterato è richiesto ad validitatem, a norma del can. 150” (CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 602).
³³. ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 389.
³⁴. FLANNERY I, p. 384.
³⁵. Cfr. PAGÉ, Les églises particulières, p. 85.

Therefore, who are eligible to the offices of vicar general and episcopal vicar? They are the coadjutor bishop, the auxiliary bishop, a diocesan priest from within or outside the diocese and a religious priest.³⁶ Among those who are not eligible to hold the juridic office are a deacon, a male lay religious brother, a woman religious, a layman or a laywoman. In regard to women vicars, A. E. Verbrugghe says: “On the subject of women vicars for religious, it should be said that women vicars have rendered a tremendous service to the Church in many parts of the world, and it is hoped that they will continue their work in assisting the bishop in dealing with religious. However, properly speaking, these sisters do not and cannot hold the juridical office of EVR[Episcopal Vicar for Religious]. In the United States there is a large and flourishing organization called the National Conference of Vicar for Religious consisting of several hundred members, of whom the majority are women religious. This organization, furthermore, has received the warmest support from the then prefect of SCRIS, Eduardo Cardinal PIRONIO, as well as from the Holy Father, Pope JOHN PAUL II. However, no author has yet been able to establish the eligibility of women for the juridical office.”³⁷ A. Gutiérrez Poza concluded his study on the issue saying that it is possible to have women appointed to this office only with dispensations from the highest authority. His conclusion was based on what he considered to be the fundamental problem, namely: How can the bishop confer “general mandate” upon a member of the laity who does not have the power of orders to serve as the alter ego of bishop with vicarious power over the rest of the clergy?³⁸ It should be noted that, as it is already happening in many parts of the world, the bishop can make other effective arrangements to coordinate the relationships and ministry of religious in his diocese by constituting new office(s) specifically for this purpose. The decree constituting such an office would define the right and obligations inherent to it. One appointed to such an office does not necessarily have to bear the title vicar for religious.

2° Contrary to the prescript of canon 367 of the 1917 Code, which, in §1, stipulated that “the vicar general must be a priest from among the secular clergy,” and in §2 that “if the diocese has been entrusted to a religious community, the vicar general can be chosen among the priests of that community,” the present canon 478, §1 implicitly allows diocesan bishop to appoint any priest (diocesan or religious) or bishop to the office even though, in view of the significance of the presbyterate of the diocese, the candidate selected from the clergy already serving the diocese, whether diocesan or religious, is preferable.³⁹After the Council, a view was gaining support within the Congregation for Religious that a religious priest is to be preferred to the office of episcopal vicar for religious; but in view of its very nature, it was felt that a diocesan priest would be preferable for the office even though a religious priest would not be prohibited from being appointed to the position.⁴⁰

—————————————————-
³⁶. See A. E. VERBRUGGHE, “The Figure of the Episcopal Vicar for Religious in the New Code of Canon Law,” in M. THÉRIAULT and J. THORN (eds). The Code of Canon Law, Proceeding of the 5th International Congress of Canon Law, organized by Saint Paul University and held at the University of Ottawa, August 19-25, 1984, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, Faculty of Canon Law, 1986, p. 722.
³⁷. Ibid., pp. 723-724.
³⁸. See A. GUTIÉRREZ POZA, “An mulieres possint esse ‘vicarii episcopales’,” in Commentarium pro religiosis, 60 (1979), pp. [201]-210.
³⁹. ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 389.
⁴⁰. See VERBUGGHE, “The Figure of the Episcopal Vicar,” p. 722.

3° The vicar general and Episcopal vicar “are to be not less than thirty years old (non minus triginta).”⁴¹ This norm may appear clear cut, but authors seem to dispute the meaning of “not less than 30 years of age” some maintaining that it means “30 years complete” while others arguing that it means “30th year beginning.”⁴²

4° Vicar general and episcopal vicars must have a licentiate (i.e., a Master’s degree) or a doctorate in canon law or in theology, or be equivalently competent.⁴³ The purpose of this provision is to make sure that the person(s) assuming the office is truly competent from the point of view of wholesome formation – both pastoral and academic. Article 201 of the Directory in fact stated: “Besides the other virtues and abilities called for by law, the vicar general should possess the appropriate pastoral experience and skill.”⁴⁴ The requirement of expertise in canon law and theology is not set in an order of priority, that is to say, canon law over theology. As Morgante points out, every priest beginning from the bishop must have sufficient theological knowledge as well as canonical formation. Both aspects of priestly formation are indispensable to effective governance of the diocese and pastoral care of the people. Therefore, secure and profound knowledge of canon law and theology is necessary for the vicars of the bishop to fulfill their functions effectively; but such academic skills alone are not adequate if they are not animated by sound doctrine, probity of life, prudence and experience, as well as the esteem and trust of the diocesan community, in particular of the clergy and religious.⁴⁵ Chiappetta adds that the person to be appointed as the bishop’s vicar must have adequate knowledge of canon law and pastoral preparation. One who lacks either one or the other is not to be entrusted with an office which is of such great importance to the life of the particular church.⁴⁶

Verbrugghe points out that the expression “or at least being truly expert in these disciplines” is neither to be interpreted merely as an “escape clause” nor as an open ended requirement that would include knowledge in other sciences, such as sociology, health-care, education, etc.⁴⁷

The norm of canon 478, §1 in regard to the academic requirement for the appointment of bishop’s vicars is similar to the norm on the bishop (can. 378, §1, 5°), but unlike the stricter qualifications of the judicial vicar (can. 1420, §4) and the seminary professor (can. 253, §1).

5° Canon 478, §2 declares two disqualifications on the part of a candidate being considered for the office of vicar general or episcopal vicar.⁴⁸ This norm reads: “The function of vicar general and Episcopal vicar can neither be coupled with the function of canon penitentiary nor be entrusted to blood relatives of the bishop up to the fourth degree.”⁴⁹

—————————————————-
⁴¹. Canon 367, §1 of the 1917 Code had the identical requirement (“non minus triginta annos”). The Council of Trent had required the vicar general to be 25 years of age.
⁴². See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 602.
⁴³. Whereas canon 367, §1 of the 1917 Code required in the vicar general “a doctorate or licentiate in theology and Canon Law, or at least highly skilled in these subjects” (vel saltem earum disciplinarum vere peritus”).
⁴⁴. Directory, p. 103.
⁴⁵. See MORGANTE, La chiesa particolare, p. 221.
⁴⁶. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 602.
⁴⁷. See VERBRUGGHE, “The Figure of the Episcopal Vicar,” p. 726.
⁴⁸. Canon 367, §3 of the 1917 Code stated that the office of vicar general must not be conferred upon the Canon Penitentiary, or on a blood-relation of the bishop, especially one in the first or in the second degree mixed with the first, or, excepting the case of necessity, on a parish priest or others having the care of souls. Moreover, the bishop was not forbidden to take the vicar from his own dioceses. The last provision needs immediate explanation for the sake of clarification. Writing prior to the promulgation of the 1917 Code many authors maintained that the vicar general should not be chosen from among the priests of the diocese, but should be an outsider. Their opinion was bsed on declarations of the Sacred Congregations, especially those of the Bishops and Regulars, which had been given to individual dioceses and for reason of special circumstances. The norm of canon 367, §3 of the 1917 Code has been substantially modified in canon 478, §2 of the 1983 Code. See S. WOYWOD, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by C. SMITH, New York City, Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1963, vol. 1, pp. 165-166.
⁴⁹. CCEO c. 247, §2 reads: “The office of protosyncellus or syncellus is not to be conferred on the blood relatives of the eparchial bishop up to the fourth degree inclusively [inclusive].” In this canon there is no mention of Canon Penitentiary because this figure does not seem to exist in Eastern tradition.

The first prohibition concerns the Canon Penitentiary who has, according to canon 508, §1, the ordinary faculty of absolving in the sacramental forum from undeclared larae sententiae censures not reserved to the Apostolic See. This means that the power of the Canon Penitentiary is exercised only in the internal sacramental forum. And in view of canon 152, the office of Canon Penitentiary and that of vicar general (or Episcopal vicar) are incompatible because the former deals exclusively with the internal forum and the latter with the external forum. The law seems to foresee insoluble conflicts if one person is appointed to both offices. The canon’s declaration of incompatibility between these offices has the scope of safeguarding the clear distinction between those matters which pertain to the internal forum and those which are dealt with only in the external forum.

The second disqualification concerns blood relatives of the bishop. The canon prohibits the bishop from appointing his blood relatives to the office of his vicars “up to the fourth degree” (“usque ad quartum gradum”).⁵⁰ The Eastern Code, in canon 247, §3, adds “inclusive” to the clause, thus making it clear that the prohibition refers to the “fourth degree inclusively,” and this seems to be the implication of the Latin canon. This prohibition is intended to safeguard the bishop’s own freedom in making decisions as well as to maintain objectivity and integrity in assessing and deciding on matters which concern the good of his diocese. Thus, using the Roman method of computation (can. 108), the Code prohibits the bishop’s relatives “up to the fourth degree,” which would include first cousins or granduncle-grandnephew, from being appointed to offices of vicar general or episcopal vicar. However, by omitting the word “especially” (“praesertim”) found in canon 367, §3 of the 1917 Code, which had implied that no blood relatives were to be appointed as bishop’s vicars without a special reason even if they were not within the degrees specified by law, the present norm does not disqualify anyone related to the diocesan bishop beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity.⁵¹

Canon 367, §§1-2 of the 1917 Code had prescribed that the vicar general should be of the secular clergy, unless the diocese had been entrusted to a religious community in which case the vicar general could be chosen from among the priests of the same religious community. This restriction has been abrogated in the new Code. In an earlier schema the prohibition against a religious being named bishop’s vicar(s) was retained. But the decision of the Code Commission was “to leave the bishop free to choose as his vicar general the one who he thinks is more suitable whether he be from among the secular or religious clergy.”⁵²

Furthermore, canon 367, §3 of the 1917 Code had another prohibition which has been omitted in the present Code. According to this canon, a pastor or anyone else exercising an office with care of souls was prohibited from the new Code implicitly recognizes the compatibility between the offices of pastor and of vicars although in practice the diocesan bishop must decide whether the responsibilities of the one office may seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the other. As Alesandro wisely points out, while a pastor might be able to serve effectively as the episcopal vicar of a particular region or sector without neglecting his parish duties, it seems unlikely – except in smaller dioceses – that he could function well as both a full-time pastor and a vicar general.⁵³

—————————————————-
⁵⁰. The 1917 Code, in canon 367, §3, restricted the prohibition to those related to the diocesan bishop in the first degree (brother) or second degree touching the first (uncle and nephew).
⁵¹. A;ESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 389.
⁵². Communicationes, 13 (1981), p. c. 291: “per lasciar libero il Vescovo di scegliersi come Vicario generale chi crede piu idoneo, sia esso del clero secolare che del clero regolare.” Also see Chiappetta, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 602.
⁵³. ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 389; also Directory, no. 200, p. 102.

3.2.3 – Power of Bishop’s Vicars

One of the most important canons in the Code which concern the vicars of the bishop is canon 479. This canon deals with the content and extent of the power of the bishop’s vicars. According to this canon, by virtue of office (a) “the vicar general has the executive power over the whole diocese which belongs to the diocesan bishop by law, namely, the power to place all administrative acts excepts those, however, which the bishop has reserved to himself or which require a special mandate of the bishop by law”; and (b) “the Episcopal vicar has the same power mentioned in §1 but only over the specific past of the territory or the type of affairs or the faithful of a specific rite or group for which he was appointed, except those cases which the bishop has reserved to himself or to a vicar general or which require a special mandate of the bishop by law.” Following principles may be derived from these prescripts:

1° In virtue of canons 475, §1 and 476, the power of the vicar general and episcopal vicar is ordinary insofar as it is attached to the office and, therefore, conferred on them by law itself at the time when the appointment becomes effective, and not by the bishop through “delegation.” By definition, this power is vicarious, that is, exercised not in one’s personal name, but in the name of the diocesan bishop (cfr. can. 131, §2).

The power possessed by the bishop’s vicars is true power of governance (cfr. can. 129, §1), but taxatively limited to the administrative or executive function. Therefore, it excludes legislative function which is proper to the bishop, and judicial function which is entrusted to the judicial vicar and judges (cfr. can. 391, §2); and similarly, the power to inflict penalty.⁵⁴

2° As a principle, therefore, the vicar general has, by virtue of his office, the same executive power “over the whole diocese” which belongs to the diocesan bishop by law itself, that is, to place all administrative acts with the exception of (a) those which require a special mandate according to the norm of law (cfr. can. 134, §3).

The Episcopal vicar has the same power as the vicar general but restricted either to territory, sector or persons. Article 14 (2) of Ecclesiae sanctae I⁵⁵ is the fundamental source of canon 479, §2.

3° The executive power of the vicar general differs from that of the Episcopal vicar in two aspects: first, vicar general’s power extends to the entire diocese while that of Episcopal vicar is restricted to a certain portion of the territory, or to a certain sector of the population or to a certain group of people.⁵⁶ Second, the power of the episcopal vicar can be restricted by the bishop by reserving certain matters to himself or to his vicar general while those pertaining to the vicar general cannot be reserved to the episcopal vicar.⁵⁷ This is the norm of law.

4° The vicar general and episcopal vicar are Ordinaries of the particular church (cfr. can. 134) and, therefore, they can validly exercise their executive power over their subjects even when they themselves or their subjects are outside their territory, unless the contrary is certain from the nature of the case or from the prescript of the law; they can also exercise their power over travellers actually present in their territory, provided it is a matter of granting favours or of enforcing either universal laws or particular laws of the territory in which they find themselves and which provide for public order to determine the formalities of acts, or concern immovable property in the territory (cfr. can. 136).⁵⁸

—————————————————-
⁵⁴. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 603.
⁵⁵. See FLANNERY I, p. 599.
⁵⁶. ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 390.
⁵⁷. A problem can arise here concerning the extent of the power of vicar general and Episcopal vicar in some matters. Is the competence of the vicar general cumulative with that of the Episcopal vicar in matters for which they have been established? One commentary says: “From the point of view of good administrative, it would appear that this is not advisable, in order to avoid duplication of procedures. It makes more sense to have the Episcopal vicar bear sole responsibility in matters of his competence, under the direct authority of the diocesan bishop. If there is cumulative competence, however, the figure of the vicar general established in the CIC/83 would be in danger of losing its content and significance. In any case, the interpretation of the canon is not completely clear and leaves the way open for different points of view. Precisely for this reason, it is essential that, for coordination purposes, the faculties of the different vicars should be carefully defined by particular law (cfr. Dir Ecclesiae imago 202), if only in their respective letters of appointment”(J.I. ARRIETA, “De curia dioecesana,” in E. CAPARROS, M. THÉRIAULT, J. THORN, Code of Canon Law Annotated, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, 1993, p. 355).
⁵⁸. See MORGANTE, La chiesa particolare, pp. 223-224.

5° The following acts are excluded from the executive power of the vicar general and episcopal vicar:

– those expressly excluded by the universal law or by the Apostolic See;

– those connected with the Episcopal character;

– those which require a special mandate;

– those requiring the exercise of judicial power and the exclusion of rescripts for which the Apostolic See has chosen the specific competence of the person of the bishop;

– those reserved by the bishop to himself (cfr. cann. 479, §2 and 391, §2).⁵⁹

6° Can the bishop reserve all or greater portion of the power of the vicars granted to them by law itself? At least such a possibility is not foreseen in law, and if the bishop should do so he would be acting at least against the spirit of the law, and would be changing the very nature of the office. As Morgante rightly points out: “The acts which the bishop reserves to himself should not be so many and such that it renders useless the function of the vicar general or Episcopal vicar, who are constituted precisely to offer assistance to the diocesan bishop with the scope of promoting and supporting the good of the particular church.”⁶⁰

7° The vicar general and Episcopal vicar enjoys ordinary executive power and, therefore, they can delegate it both for a single act and for all cases, unless the law expressly provides otherwise (cfr. can. 137, §1).

Ordinary executive power as well as power delegated for all cases is to be broadly interpreted; however, a person who has received delegated power is understood to have also been granted whatever is necessary to exercise that power (cfr. can. 138).

In order to safeguard the principle of unity of governance of the diocese and of dependence of all its members on the authority of the diocesan bishop, the Code determines that a favour denied by one vicar general or Episcopal vicar cannot be validly granted by another vicar of the same bishop even if the reasons for the denial have been obtained from the vicar who denied by a vicar general or by an episcopal vicar and later procured from the diocesan bishop without mentioning this denial is invalid. But a favour which has been denied by the diocesan bishop cannot be procured validly from his vicar general or Episcopal vicar without the consent of the bishop, even if mention of the denial has been made (cfr. can. 65, §3). In order to grant a favour denied by the vicar general or episcopal vicar, the diocesan bishop must, under pain of nullity, know the reasons for the denial; but for the liceity of the concession he should, moreover, have just reasons for acting contrary t the act of his vicar.

—————————————————-
⁵⁹. Ibid., p. 224.
⁶⁰. Ibid. Also see PAGÉ, Les églises particuliéres, pp. 88-89; CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 604.

The principle governing dispensations are also applicable to the power of the vicar general and episcopal vicar. Thus, when it is difficult to have recourse the Holy See and at the same time there is danger of serious harm, any Ordinary, including vicar general and episcopal vicar, can validly dispense the faithful, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual goods, from universal and particular disciplinary laws, even if the dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, but not from constitutive laws and from procedural and penal laws (cfr. cann. 86 and 87), with due regard for the dispensation from priestly celibacy (cfr. can. 291). Obviously, the faculty to dispense is within the realm of competence of the vicar general and episcopal vicar.

8° According to the norm of canon 391, §2, the vicar general and episcopal vicar do not have the competence in judicial function which is exercised by the bishop either personally or through the judicial vicar and judges. However, canon 1420, §1 stipulates that each diocesan bishop must appoint a judicial vicar or officialis with ordinary power to judge, distinct from the vicar general unless the smallness of the diocese or the small number of cases suggests otherwise. In other words, the two functions, that of vicar general (or episcopal vicar) and of judicial vicar are not intrinsically incompatible. Therefore, in a small diocese, the bishop may in fact entrust both functions to the vicar general or episcopal vicar.

9° Canon 479, §§1-2 speaks of a “special mandate.” The administrative acts which require a special mandate are all those which the law formally reserves to the competence of the diocesan bishop (cfr. can. 134, §3). Can. This “special mandate” be given in a general formula, e.g., “The vicar general has the faculty to perform all and individual acts which are attributed to the diocesan bishop by ‘name’ according to the terms of c. 134, §3,” or is it necessary to have a special mandate in each individual instance? According to Chiappetta, the prevalent doctrine holds that a special mandate given in a general formula, even if it may not be prudent, is sufficient since there is no norm in the Code prohibiting it.⁶¹

10° Is the faculty received by the vicar through a special mandate ordinary or delegated? Chiappetta answers this question as follows: “If the faculty is general, there is no doubt that it is ordinary, because with it there is an intention to extend the competence of the office of the vicar. Also the faculty granted each time is to be considered ordinary unless the bishop had wished to grant it to the vicar as a personal concession: intuit personae, and not by reason of office.”⁶²

11° Those matters which are reserved to the Apostolic See can be delegated to the diocesan bishop either “for all cases” or for “individual act(s).” Apostolic See wants to grant rescripts to persons either directly or through an executor. Since the vicar of bishop have the same executive power in the entire diocese or within designated sphere, what is their competence in regard to the habitual faculties and execution of rescripts granted by the Apostolic See? Canon 479, §3 provides for these matters:

Within the limit of their competence, the habitual faculties granted by the Apostolic See to the bishop and the executive of rescripts also pertain to a vicar general and an Episcopal vicar, unless it has been expressly provided otherwise or the personal qualifications of the diocesan bishop were chosen.⁶³

—————————————————-
⁶¹. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 604.
⁶². Se la facoltà è di carattere generale, non c’è dubbio che si tratti di potestà ordinaria, poiché con essa si è inteso estendere la competenza dell’uffico di Vicario. É da ritenersi potestà ordinaria anche la facoltà concessa volta per volta, tranne che il Vescovo abbia volute conferirla al Vicario a titolo personale: intuit personae, non ratione officii (ibid.). Also see PAGÉ, Les églises particulières, pp. 90-91.
⁶³. CCEO c. 248, §2: “Within the scope of their competence the protosyncellus and the syncelli have also those habitual faculties that the Apostolic See has granted to the eparchial bishop and can also execute the rescripts of the Apostolic See or of the patriarch, unless it has been expressly provided otherwise or unless the execution was entrusted to the bishop because of personal considerations.”

Two important principles are stated in this norm. Within the limits of their competence, the vicar general and episcopal vicar also have:

(a) The habitual faculties granted to the diocesan bishop by the Holy See, unless there is express provision to the contrary or the faculties are granted to the bishop because of personal qualifications. In case of doubt, the presumption is that the faculty is granted “ratione officii.”⁶⁴

(b) The same principle is applicable to the execution of rescripts, inless there is express provision to the contrary or the task has been designated as personal work of the bishop.

Alesandro makes an important observation on this point. He says that canon 134 applies only to the Code of Canon Law and does not affect subsequent documents granting such habitual faculties. If habitual faculties are conceded to the “diocesan bishop,” they are, in virtue of canon 479, §3, received by the vicars as well. If the Holy See wishes to restrict a particular faculty to diocesan bishops alone, it must be explicitly stated in the document of concession (e.g., by a phrase such as “excluding vicars general and Episcopal vicars”); otherwise the norm of canon 479, §3 supersedes and, consequently, no special mandate will be needed for the vicars to exercise the faculty,⁶⁵ nor can the diocesan bishop restrict that faculty without the Holy See’s permission.

According to canon 59, §1, “[a] rescript is an administrative act issued in writing by competent executive authority; of its very nature, a rescript grants a privilege, dispensation, or other favor at someone’s request.” Not all rescripts require execution for their efficacy. But when a rescript require execution and its text mentions the diocesan bishop without explicitly excluding the vicar general or Episcopal vicar or the bishop has not been chosen for his personal qualifications (“industria personae”), its execution can be done by the vicar general or Episcopal vicar each one within the sphere of his competence.⁶⁶

3.2.4 – Unity in Action

The vicar general and Episcopal vicar are the “alter ego” of the bishop and both are constituted precisely for the efficacious governance of the diocese. Therefore, it is important that these juridic figures act in union with the diocesan bishop. Canon 480 expresses the need for such unity in pastoral action:

A vicar general and an episcopal vicar must report to the diocesan bishop concerning the more important affairs which are to be handled or have been handled, and they are never to act contrary to the intention and mind of the diocesan bishop.⁶⁷

—————————————————-
⁶⁴. See CHIAPPERRA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 604.
⁶⁵. ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” pp. 390-391.
⁶⁶. See PAGÉ, Les églises particulières, p. 93.
⁶⁷. CCEO c. 249 is identically the same as the Latin canon.

Two important principles are stated in this norm. Within the limits of their competence, the vicar general and episcopal vicar also have:

(b) The same principle is applicable to the execution of rescripts, inless there is express provision to the contrary or the task has been designated as personal work of the bishop.

3.2.4 – Unity in Action

The substance of this norm is taken directly from article 14(3) of Ecclesiae sanctae I which reads: “As cooperators in the episcopal office the episcopal vicar should refer all that he has done or is going to do to the bishop of the diocese and he should never act against his mind and will. Furthermore, he should not omit to have frequent exchange of views with the other episcopal vicars-and particularly with the vicar general in ways to be determined by the bishop of the diocese – in order that unity of discipline among clergy and people should result for the diocese.”⁶⁸ This statement, which is the source of canon 480, expresses several important principles which are applicable not only to the Episcopal vicar but also to the vicar general and to all who work with the bishop for the good of the particular church.

The power of the vicar general and Episcopal vicar is ordinary, but it is not proper. It remains subordinated to the power of the diocesan bishop. Both have a serious theological obligation toward the bishop in virtue of “ecclesial communion” and a juridic duty in virtue of the prescript of law, to act in agreement with the bishop, the person principally responsible for the governance of the diocese, and not to act contrary to his will and intention.⁶⁹ For the pastoral good of the diocesan community, the canonical prescript recalls also the obligation on the part of vicars to refer to the bishop activities already completed and those which are yet to be treated. This way the bishop will be fully informed of the pastoral activities directed toward the good of the people of God entrusted to this care.

It should be noted, however, that the episcopal vicar is to report his activities to the diocesan bishop and not to the vicar general. However, both are required never to act contrary not only to the will but also to the intention of the bishop. This prescript certainly underscores the necessity of having an Episcopal council in large dioceses in order to coordinate the overall activities of the bishop’s vicars.

This interrelationship between the vicars and the bishop has been concretely demonstrated in c. 65, §§2-3. Canon 65, §2 reads: “A favor denied by a vicar general or by an episcopal vicar cannot be granted validly by another vicar of the same bishop even if the reason for the denial have been obtained from the vicar who denied it.” This prescript implies that within the realm of their competence both vicar general and episcopal vicar are equal. There is no recourse from episcopal vicar to the vicar general. A favour refused by one vicar cannot be granted validly by another vicar.⁷⁰

Paragraph 3 of the same canon illustrates the relationship between the vicars and the diocesan bishop. It stipulates: “A favor denied by a vicar general or by an episcopal vicar and afterwords obtained from the diocesan bishop without any mention made of this denial is invalid.” As Page rightly points out, this prescript acknowledges the possibility of recourse to the diocesan bishop against the decisions of his vicars. It should be noted further that the condition for validity of the bishop’s decision is “any mention of the refusal” and not its motivating reasons. It is understood that the bishop would presuppose his vicars to act in accord with his mind and will. Nevertheless, the bishop is competent to grant the favour validly without ascertaining the reasons for refusal by the vicar so long as he has been informed of the refusal.⁷¹

—————————————————-
⁶⁸. FLANNERY I, pp. 599-600.
⁶⁹. See CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 604.
⁷⁰. See PAGÉ, Les églises particulières, p. 94.
⁷¹. Ibid.

In the second part of paragraph 3 there is an inverse situation: “A favor denied by the diocesan bishop, however, even if mention is made of the denial, cannot be obtained validly form his vicar general or Episcopal vicar without the consent of the bishop.” A fortiori without mention of the denial. Here is the directive substantiating the prescript “they are never to act contrary to the intention and mind of the diocesan bishop.” In essence, if the bishop denies a favor it must be considered equivalent to reservation of that act which cannot be placed by any of his vicars.⁷²

All these principles emphasize the unity of action within the diocese. It is an obligation incumbent upon the vicars of the bishop to be in consent touch with him concerning their pastoral activities pertaining to their competence so that the bishop is not left in the dark and uniformed of the situation, and also the vicars themselves need to be certain of their activities being in conformity with the will and intention and mind of the bishop.

3.2.5 – Cessation and Suspension of Vicars from Office

The cessation of the power of vicar general and of Episcopal vicar follows the basic principles which govern the cessation of any ecclesiastical office. Nevertheless, because of the special nature of the vicars’ power, there are certain conditions which are peculiar to its cessation. Canon 481 determines the modes of cessation or suspension of the power of the bishop’s vicars. In conformity with the norms of canon 184, §1 on loss of ecclesiastical office, canon 481, §1 stipulates:

The power of a vicar general and of an Episcopal vicar ceases at the expiration of the time of the mandate, by resignation, by removal made to them by the diocesan bishop, without prejudice to cann. 406 and 409, and at the vacancy of the episcopal see.⁷³

1° Expiration of the mandate: The mandate implied here refers not only to the appointment of the office itself but also to any special faculties attached to the office during the determined term. According to canon 477, §1, “[a]n Episcopal vicar who is not an auxiliary bishop is to be appointed only for a time to be determined in the act of appointment.” The Code does not determine such a terminal appointment in regard to vicar general. However, that does not preclude the possibility of a vicar general being given a term appointment . In any case, when the mandate is terminal, the power of vicars ceases at the expiry of the time period for which the mandate was give. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, according to the norm of canon 186, such a cessation is not automatic, because this canon says that the loss of office by lapse of time takes effect “only from the moment when the competent authority communicates it in writing.” It is important to keep this in mind because at times the bishop may be either unable or forgetful to communicate in writing the expiry of the mandate. This provision enables the vicar to place juridic acts validly until the notification of termination is received.

—————————————————-
⁷². Ibid., p. 95.
⁷³. CCEO c. 251: “§1. The protosyncellus and the syncelli cease from office with the expiration of the determined period, by resignation accepted by the eparchial bishop, or by removal.
“§2. During the vacancy of the eparchial see, can. 224 is to be observed concerning the protocyncellus and the syncelli.”

2° Resignation from office: The office of vicar general and Episcopal vicar cease with their resignation from office. The norms of canons 187-188 are to be kept in mind in this situation. According to these canons, the act of resignation must be a deliberate and free act. Furthermore, the resignation does not take effect until it is accepted by the bishop,⁷⁴ as explicitly stated in CCEO c. 251, §1. In this case also, the acts placed by the vicars until informed of the acceptance by the bishop are to be considered as valid. According to Alesandro: “The vicar should have a just reason for resigning and, for validity, must inform the diocesan bishop about the resignation in writing or before two witnesses. The resignation does not take effect until the diocesan bishop is duly informed (cann. 187 and 189). The resignation does not require acceptance by the diocesan bishop.”⁷⁵ As indicated above, acceptance is necessary for the efficacy of the resignation. Contrary to Alesandro’s view, Verbrugghe maintains: “Since no formalities are stated in the Code, the resignation may therefore given in any form; orally or in writing, with or without justifying reasons, since these elements do not affect the validity or liceity of resignation.”⁷⁶ It seems obvious that Verbrugghe does not consider the application of canons 187 and 189 to this situation, because in canon 189 it is clearly stated: “this [resignation] must be done in writing, or orally in the presence of two witnesses.” Whether this requirement is for the validity or only for liceity can be disputed.

3° Removal from office: The third mode of cessation of the vicar’s power is their removal from office. As Chiappetta says, while treating of the vicar general one who is a coadjutor bishop or auxiliary bishop endowed with a special faculty (cfr. can. 406, §1), or of a vicar general or episcopal vicar who is at the same time an auxiliary (cfr. can. 406, §2), removal is per se prohibited.⁷⁷ According to Morgante, “the removal of a vicar general and episcopal vicar is reserved to the Apostolic See if the vicar is a coadjutor bishop or an auxiliary bishop assigned to the diocesan bishop in special grave circumstances and vested with special faculties (cfr. cann. 406; 403, §1; 409).”⁷⁸

The removal of a vicar general or Episcopal vicar “during office” requires, according to each case, a grave cause (cfr. can. 193, §§1-2) or a just cause (cfr. can. 193, §3), even if there is no need to have a formal juridic procedure.⁷⁹ Morgante rightly syas: “removal intimated by the diocesan bishop according to the norms of law (cfr. can. 187-189). The fact that the bishop can ‘freely’ remove the vicar general and episcopal vicar (cfr. can. 477, §1), does not mean that he can remove them without a reasonable, just and grave cause (cfr. can. 193). The removal of vicar general and episcopal vicar is of considerable importance and it can seriously prejudice the food name of the interested party so that it must be safeguarded by more appropriate means at least out of prudence and charity.”⁸⁰ Verbrugghe suggests that in case the removal is done without a just reason and harm to one’s good name has been occasioned by it, recourse to the Congregation for Bishops could be considered.⁸¹

—————————————————-
⁷⁴. CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, P. 605: “Che I’eventuale rinunzia dev’essere accettata […]. L’accettazione è necessaria anche nel caso che il Vicario generale o episcopale siano di altra diocese.” Also see PAGÉ, Less églises particulières, p. 96; MORGANTE, La chiesa particolare, p. 227.
⁷⁵. ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 391.
⁷⁶. VERBRUGGHE, “The Figure of the Episcopal Vicar,” p. 740.
⁷⁷. CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 605.
⁷⁸. MORGANTE, La chiesa particolare, p. 228.
⁷⁹. CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 606
⁸⁰. MORGANTE, La chiesa particolare, pp. 227-228. Also see ALESANDRO, “Diocesan Curia,” p. 391; 1981 Reletio, p. 45.
⁸¹. VERBRUGGHE, “The Figure of the Episcopal Vicar,” p. 741.

4° Vacancy of the see: The Episcopal see becomes vacant in several different ways: by the death of the diocesan bishop, by his resignation accepted by the Holy See, by transfer, or by deprivation of office made known to the bishop (can. 416). In this case, if the vicar general or Episcopal vicar are priests, their power ceases when they receive notification that the see is vacant (cfr. cann. 417 and 418). Until this notification is received by the vicars, all juridic acts placed by them are valid (cfr. can. 417). If the vicars have Episcopal dignity, they retain their power which they enjoyed “sede plena” until the new bishop takes canonical possession of the diocese, unless it has been determined differently by competent authority.⁸²

During the drafting of canon 481, one of the consultors drew attention of the coetus members that there was a suggestion in Ecclesiae sanctae I (no. 14 [5]) which read as following: “Episcopal vicars, who are not auxiliary bishops, shall be nominated for a limited period of time to be determined in the letter of appointment; they may, however, be removed from office at the wish (ad nutum) of the bishop. Their office ceases when the see falls vacant, unless they be auxiliary bishops. It is proper, however, that the vicar capitular should engage them as his delegates, lest the good of the diocese should suffer as a result.”⁸³ The response of the Commission was that “it is better to leave the decision to the prudence of the diocesan administrator.”⁸⁴

5° Besides cessation of the power through the modes explained above, it may also be suspended. Therefore, canon 481, §2 says: “When the function of the diocesan bishop is suspended, the power of a vicar general and an episcopal vicar is suspended also unless they are bishops.”⁸⁵

The principal reason underlying this norm is the intrinsic relationship between the bishop and his vicars. The power possessed by the vicars is “vicarious.” They exercise it in their bishop’s name. Therefore, unless they are endowed with Episcopal dignity, their power is suspended when the bishop is suspended from office. The office of the diocesan bishop can be suspended through canonical penalties-excommunication, suspension and interdict (cfr. cann. 1333-1335), or through some provision of the Holy See. Vicars themselves can be suspended from office in the same way.⁸⁶ If they place juridic acts may be considered valid but illicit.⁸⁷

—————————————————-
⁸². CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 606.
⁸³. See FLANNERY I, p. 600.
⁸⁴. See Communicationes, 14 (1982), pp. 213-314, canon 401 (emphasis added). Also see CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 606.
⁸⁵. CCEO c. 251, §3 is substantially the same.
⁸⁶. MORGANTE, La chiesa particolare, pp. 228-229.
⁸⁷. Cfr. CHIAPPETTA, II Codice di diritto canonico, p. 226.

Conclusion

The more recent development of the two juridic figures we have considered in this section took place primarily in view of providing assistance to the bishop in the governance of his diocese. Because the legislative power is the sole prerogative of the diocesan bishop, and his judicial power is exercised by the judicial vicar, the scope of competence of the vicar general and Episcopal vicar is limited to the realm of executive power. However, the law seems quite clear that, unless there is express restriction of this power, a vicar general and Episcopal vicar enjoy, within the sphere of their competence, the same executive power and the faculties the bishop has within the confines of his diocese. The bishop can certainly restrict their power but not to the extent that they end up being only jewels on his miter! Their talents, gifts, energies, wisdom and their generosity should be put to the best use by the bishop by ceding to their competence the tasks they can fulfill with ease and efficacy. The law provides norms for their appointment, the requisite qualities, the area of their competence, their relationship with the bishop and their cessation from office. Once appointed, the vicar inherit certain rights and obligations proper to their office. And the bishop must respect those rights and obligations in dealing with them. Because they are regarded as the “alter ego” of the bishop, the ministry they offer would be mist helpful to the bishop in carrying out his shepherding function for the good of the people of God entrusted to his care.