Last week, in a post at another blog I asked the question of why it was necessary for the head of a religious order to be ordained, or receive the sacrament of holy orders. (I believe this is true of abbots as well? I really need to learn the terminology for different associations of religious.)

It is true that bishops, as the successors to the Apostles, have been given the care of our souls; that is to say they have authority with respect to that supernatural good to which we have been called.

There are some distinctions that need to be remembered: Our objective beatitude is God Himself. Our subjective beatitude is our attainment of that God, our (supernatural) union with Him. Similarly, the extrinsic common good of the universe is God, while the intrinsic common good is the order of the universe which reflects His goodness and wisdom.

The bishops have the authority to teach us God's laws, and provide additional laws for our spiritual welfare. Laws are a means to attaining some common good; in this case the common good is God Himself. If the good of an religious order or monastery is not different from the supernatural good of Christians, taken individually or as a whole people, but is a participation in that good (or a certain manifestation of it), then it makes sense that the superior of an order should have some sort of participation in holy orders and Apostolic succession. It is not necessary for the superior of an order to be a bishop, but he must have holy orders.

(Who is the superior in a third order?)

But: How is this rationale reconciled with the lack of a direct, ordained superior for women's orders and congregations?

Code of Canon Law

Started on 8/25.