The Charlotte dubia test the limits of a bishop’s authority

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Jan 08, 2026

Was it a coincidence that the dubia submitted by 31 priests of the Charlotte diocese were made public in the same week that the world’s cardinal gathered in Rome for a consistory? Although I am not privy to their plans, I would like to think that the Charlotte priests were canny enough to realize that with the attentions of the Catholic world centered on Rome, questions about the liturgy, and about the power of diocesan bishops, would be ripe for discussion in Rome.

Technically the priests’ dubia have nothing to do with the cardinals’ consistory. The dubia—questioning whether Bishop Michael Martin has the authority to ban liturgical practices that are allowed by Church law—were submitted to the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, the Vatican body charged with the interpretation of canon law. And as it happened the consistory chose not to discuss the hot-button issue of liturgy, opting instead for continue their seemingly endless dialogue about synodality.

Nevertheless it was and is true that whenever Church leaders gather in Rome, the general conversation—among ordinary Catholics, if not cardinals—turns to the liturgy, which after all is the central expression of Catholic spirituality, and the usual experience of an active Catholic’s involvement with the Church. So as they read the news this week, and saw stories about the Charlotte dubia alongside reports about the consistory, American Catholics—unschooled about the operations of canon law—might well have asked, “Why aren’t they talking about the controversy in Charlotte?”

They might also have been interested in the closely related question about the limits of a bishop’s authority. In a normal, healthy parish, lay Catholics do not spend much time talking about church governance. But when that subject does arise, it usually centers on the particular affairs of their parish and/or the policies set by their diocesan bishop. So even those Catholics with no particular affinity for traditional liturgical practices might be interested to know whether the Vatican will approve a particular bishop’s crusade to stamp those practices out.

They will have to wait for an answer, unfortunately. And it could be a long wait—long enough so that public attention could flag—before the Dicastery for Legislative Texts issues a response. But the case bears watching, because this is a crucial test of how the Vatican balances the rights of the faithful against the prerogatives of prelates.

The Charlotte case carries a sense of urgency, too. The consternation among the faithful in the North Carolina diocese is intense enough so that roughly one-fourth of the priests in Charlotte, and roughly one-third of the pastors, have risked their clerical futures by questioning a bishop who has shown no tolerance for opposition. The challenge to Bishop Maritn’s policies is coming not from a radical fringe group but from the solid ranks of the clergy and from the most faithful members of the laity.

In their dubia the priests ask whether a bishop can:

• Require parishes to remove altar rails, overriding the wishes of the parishioners who paid to install them;
• Prohibit priests from arrangements that make it more comfortable for the faithful to receive Communion while kneeling—as is their right under Church law; and
• Ban vestments, prayers, practices, and a liturgical language (Latin) that are treated with approval in Church liturgical guidelines.

The fundamental question, then, is whether a bishop’s authority trumps the provisions of universal Church law—or to put it differently, using the formulation more familiar in political circles, whether the governance of the Church is a governance of law or a governance of men.