Do We Need the Right Kind of Bishops More Than We Need the Right Kind of Pope?
“An army of deer led by a lion will defeat an army of lions led by a deer.” — Old Italian Saying
As you might guess from its layout, the following story was originally to be used as a “Straw in the Wind;” but it seems more fitting to use it as an introduction to the lead article.
From the Buffalo News, June 2, 2005:
Canisius College Forum on Gay Issues Sparks Controversy
By Jay Tokasz
News Staff Reporter
A student conference at Canisius College on gay and lesbian issues has prompted letters to the Catholic school and to the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo demanding that the event be canceled. College officials and Bishop Edward U. Kmiec said the conference, scheduled for June 9-12, was in line with church teaching and would go on as plan ned.
In January, Kmiec reluctantly allowed pro-choice Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to speak at Canisius on health care, despite objections from several pro-life Catholics. Kmiec also was asked to prohibit the Buffalo Gay Men’s Chorus from performing at Blessed Trinity Church on Leroy Avenue. Kmiec declined, stating the event was not aimed at advancing a political agenda. On Wednesday, Kmiec issued a brief statement saying that he was aware of the conference and its purpose and did not object to it. “I have been assured by Canisius College that it is being conducted in accordance with official church teaching on the subject, and that the conference represents the appropriate pastoral care endorsed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,” he said. Diocesan spokesman Kevin A. Keenan said the diocese has received two or three letters asking that the bishop cancel the conference.
Canisius’ dean of students, Cary Anderson, said 75 to 100 students from 28 Jesuit colleges and universities around the country were scheduled to attend. The conference will include sessions with Jewish Cantor Mark Horowitz; the Rev. Thomas Brennan, a Jesuit priest and assistant professor of English at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia; Maureen Cullen, an educational consultant on diversity issues; and the Rev. James Schexnayder, resource director and co-founder of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, based in Berkeley, Calif. Not all of the students attending are gay or lesbian, he said.
A review of the conference brochure [http://www.canisius.edu/ifa/] contains references to respect for the human rights of homosexual persons, which surely is a part of Church teaching, but I could find no mention at all of the immorality of homosexual acts and the responsibility of Church authorities to provide proper pastoral care to those tempted to indulge in such acts. At the very least, Bishop Kmiec has passed up an opportunity to exercise episcopal leadership by calling upon Catholic institutions in his diocese to support morally healthy behavior. In reference to the above Italian saying, would you judge the bishop to be a “lion” or a “deer?” CMW]
The Pope
For better or worse, the general public now sees the Pope as just another celebrity rather than as the Successor of St. Peter. I would not be surprised to learn that most Catholics see him that way as well. Since we see and hear so much about the Pope, we tend to forget the fact that the day-to-day spiritual welfare of the members of the faithful depends much more on their diocesan bishop than it does on whomever occupies the See of Peter. As we know, this has been the case since the earliest days of the Church.
According to canon 331, the Pope is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth; yet the fact remains that dioceses are not mere subdivisions or administrative districts of the Archdiocese of Rome. According to canon 368, they are defined as, “Particular Churches, in which and from which, the one and only Catholic Church exists.” Although most of these particular Churches exist as dioceses, some may take other forms such as territorial prefectures or apostolic vicariates. The Pope not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings” (Canon 333, §1). However, as the canon goes on to say, This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care. Thus, in the course of exercising his power the Pope cannot disregard the existence of the episcopate, which is also of divine law, and must take into account the good of the Church and the faithful. (See Code of Canon Law Annotated, Wilson & Lafluer, Montreal, 2004, p.277. Hereafter cited as CCLA.)
Even if the power of the Pope was without objective limits, attempting to govern directly all particular Churches would be physically impossible. Today there are slightly more than a billion Catholics residing in approximately 5,100 dioceses throughout the world. To assist him in exercising his ministry of governance, the Holy Father relies upon the Roman Curia. This body consists of various offices called dicasteries. These dicasteries include the Secretariat of State, 9 Congregations, 3 Tribunals, 11 Pontifical Councils, 6 Pontifical Commissions and several other Curial Offices. This array of dicasteries appears formidable; but most of them are staffed by fewer than 40 people, not including clerks and support personnel. One of them, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has a staff of 3! Simply put, the Pope does not have anywhere near the personnel and physical resources sufficient to direct the affairs of every diocese in the world. The leader who is a lion still needs an army of deer, not just a corporal’s guard.
Diocesan Bishops
Wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, the Catholic Church is present whole and undivided. The bishop of the most insignificant market town is in this respect, as St. Jerome observes, the equal of the bishop of Rome.—Henri Cardinal de Lubac, S.J., “Petrine Office and Particular Churches” (http://praiseofglory.com/collegiality.htm)
The diocesan bishop is not only equal to the bishop of Rome in celebrating the Eucharist, in governing his own diocese he enjoys many of the same prerogatives. Like the Pope, he has all the “ordinary, proper and immediate power” necessary for the exercise of his office. The only exception is those matters, which by law or pontifical decree, are reserved to the Pope or some other ecclesiastical authority (c. 381). That exception notwithstanding, “he must not be considered a vicar of the Roman Pontiff.” (CCLA, p. 326.)
The diocesan bishop exercises his office in a number of ways. Upon his shoulders, rests the historic functions of teaching (c. 386), sanctifying (c. 387) and governing (c. 391). Among his specific obligations, every five years he must re port to the Pope on the state of his diocese (c. 399) and, unless lawfully impeded, he must go to Rome. Also, he is requested to submit his resignation upon the completion of his seventy fifth year (c. 401, §1), or sooner if he becomes unsuited for the fulfillment of his office because of illness or some other grave reason (c.401, §2).
In pursuing their salvation, the members of the faithful have the right to be assisted from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments (c. 213). If they do not receive adequate pastoral care from their parish priests, they have a right to approach their bishops (c. 212, §2). If the bishops do not respond, the faithful may appeal to the Holy See. However, given the limited resources of the Roman Curia as described above, relief may be a long time coming if indeed it comes at all. That is why it is so essential that the diocesan bishop be willing and able to fulfill his pastoral office. In other words, if he doesn’t do the job it won’t get done.
The Pope and the Bishops
The Pope and the College of Bishops should be one, as indeed they are. However, our Lord entrusted the care of His Church not to angels but to men, imperfect and sinful as we are. Thus, as might be expected, over the last two thousand years some individual bishops or groups of bishops have strayed from the authentic teachings and discipline of the Church. Others, while professing orthodoxy themselves, failed to see to it that those who assisted them in transmitting the faith adhered to it themselves. Still others, including some Popes, showed themselves to suffer human weaknesses to such a degree that their own faith as well as their effectiveness as shepherds was called into question. Sadly but not surprisingly, we have seen some of these difficulties continue in our own age. While they will not be eliminated, the question remains: Can they be alleviated? In my mind, this depends upon two things. The first is insuring in so far as possible that those called to the episcopate possess the qualifications required by law. The second is finding more effective ways to support, guide and correct diocesan bishops in the exercise of their offices; or, if all else fails, to intervene by the application of canonical penalties, not excluding deprivation of office.
Choosing Bishops
Over time the method of selecting bishops has varied. According to the law now in force, definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be promoted pertains to the Apostolic See (c. 378, §2). The standards by which this judgment is made are succinctly and clearly set forth in the first paragraph of the same canon. He must be outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question. It takes little more than a glance around us to see bishops who could be seen as lacking one or more of the requisite qualities. One that is not mentioned explicitly, although it is presumably included among the “other qualities,” is leadership. It is so woefully and pervasively lacking that our national episcopal conference has often looked more like an army of deer led by a deer. Indeed there have been a few lions among its members; but they are often marginalized and generally excluded from the circles of influence.
The lay faithful no longer participate in the process of choosing bishops and I do not believe that the Church would benefit if we did. This does not prevent us from redoubling our prayers and sacrifices so that better candidates will be found and elevated to the episcopacy.
Corrective Action
All of us are well aware of and accept the fact that diocesan bishops are not accountable to their flocks in the same way that public officials are accountable to the electorate. Even in the days when bishops were chosen by the clergy and laity of the diocese and then confirmed in office by neighboring bishops, they received their power from God, not from the people. Nonetheless, even in a hierarchic system one who exercises authority has to be accountable to somebody on this earth. Otherwise he would be a law unto himself, restrained only by nature and by Providence. In such a case, what are the faithful supposed to do when a bishop violates their rights or manifestly fails in some other duty? Although it may often seem to us that there are no limits on what a diocesan bishop can do, in fact some restraints do exist. Remedial actions can be instigated from within the Church by subordinates as well as superiors. But how effective the former are and whether the latter are used often enough is another matter.
Correction From Below
Remedies from below are the Saint Joseph Foundation’s stock in trade, so to speak. Since 1984 we have handled a total just over 2,600 cases, all but about 150 of which were related, directly or indirectly, to the abusive exercise of ecclesiastical authority. Whatever approach is taken, the aggrieved parties eventually run into the same basic problem, i.e., they wind up seeking justice before the same person who is responsible for the very injustice from which they are petitioning for relief. It goes without saying that the prospects of obtaining justice in a court where the judge and the defendant are one and the same are not very bright. Even under these circumstances, we have managed on occasion to achieve some positive results.
Correction From Above
It does not take the proverbial rocket scientist to figure out that remedies from above are more effective than those from below. When the diocesan bishop is the one on the spot, the remedy necessarily has to be intervention by the Holy See. However, many faithful Catholics have expressed the opinion that such interventions have not been sufficiently public, frequent or vigorous. And I believe the evidence supports this assessment; at least as far as frequency and vigor are concerned. If Rome intervened more often and more robustly, it would not bother me if it was done quietly—just so long as it gets done. My view is that, by and large, it has not been getting done and I am not terribly hopeful that it will get done in the near future, even with Benedict XVI as Pope.
As we have seen, because of the special relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches, diocesan bishops are not simply the heads of branch offices. They are not “employees at will” of the Pope and cannot be summarily dismissed by the Holy See. Canons 1740-1752 provide the norms for the removal of pastors of parishes; but there are no equivalent canons that apply to diocesan bishops. Strictly speaking, a bishop could be deprived of office by a judicial penal process; although it seems that Rome has relied instead on canon 401, §2, which states: A diocesan bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfillment of office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office. I know of only one case since the 1983 Code has been in force where a bishop refused to resign after having been requested to do so. That was the case of Bishop Jacques Gaillot of the diocese of Evreux in France, whose see was “declared vacant” in 1995, but only after the French episcopal conference had requested the intervention of the Holy See. He was appointed by Pope John Paul II in 1982 and his tenure was marked by his vocal and recurring dissent from any number of Church teachings on faith and morals. Bishop Gaillot was assigned to the titular see of Partenia, which he has made into a “diocese without borders” with its own web site (www.partenia.org). He remains a bishop and has been well received by other bishops when he visits their dioceses on speaking engagements and has participated in conferences conducted by Call To Action and other like-minded organizations in North America and elsewhere. If there are any other cases where a diocesan bishop has been actually removed from a see where he wished to remain, I do not know of them.
Any rebuke or correction of a bishop, whether diocesan or otherwise, is usually done with the utmost discretion without the faithful being aware of it. There have been a few exceptions, however, two of which I will describe briefly. Last year Bishop Kurt Krenn of the diocese of Sankt Pölten in Austria resigned following graphic accounts of sexual misbehavior involving students and faculty at the diocesan seminary. At first, Bishop Krenn pooh-poohed the accounts and then vehemently denied that he had been requested or intended to resign. After an Apostolic Visitor arrived on the scene and made his report to the Holy See, Bishop Krenn abruptly “resigned” without further comment.
Some twenty-five years before the Sankt Pölten affair, many complaints about Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle were being sent to Rome. The complaints alleged that the institutions of the archdiocese were rife with teaching and practices that were in obvious conflict with the doctrine and discipline of the Church. An Apostolic Visitation was then commenced with then-Archbishop James A. Hickey of Washington, DC serving as Visitor. One September 30, 1985 then-Cardinal Ratzinger informed Archbishop Hunthausen of the Congregation’s observations. The letter was couched in gracious and supportive terminology; though in substance it confirmed the allegations. The letter is available on the Internet at http://www.seattlecatholic.com/misc_20040105.html. In November 1985, Bishop Donald Wuerl was sent to Seattle as auxiliary bishop with special faculties to insure that the changes requested by the Holy See were completed. In May, 1987 Bishop Wuerl resigned and returned to his hometown of Pittsburgh, where he was appointed diocesan bishop on February 11, 1988. Archbishop Hunthausen remained in office until 1991, when he retired at the age of 70 for reasons not given at the time. He is still living in retirement today.
The two cases cited here are exceptions to the rule. Ordinarily, an atmosphere of secrecy surrounds communications between diocesan bishops and the Holy See. I can understand some of the reasons for it, although we are still left in the dark about what—if anything—is done to uphold the rights of the faithful when a bishop fails to live up to the obligations of his office. It appears that the only time we know that anything is amiss is when a premature retirement is announced for “reasons of health,” something is revealed by the secular media, a civil lawsuit is filed or the District Attorney comes a-calling. The intervention of civil authorities in the affairs of the Church is not something that we ought to welcome. Nevertheless, such interventions sometimes have salutary effects.
It is apparent that the highest authorities in the Church have decided that publicly correcting, rebuking or removing a bishop who displays serious defects or failures in the exercise of his office accomplishes more harm than good to the Church. That you and I may think that this notion is not a very good one will not change it. Even bishops who are caught up in personal misbehavior will likely be allowed to resign as quietly as the circumstances will permit and disappear from public view. If the damage caused by the ineffective or unscrupulous is not addressed and remedied, it becomes a matter of the gravest urgency that only those who meet or exceed the standards of canon 378. §1 can be appointed as diocesan bishops.
More sacraments are administered, more spiritual care is delivered, more families are strengthened and, in the last analysis, more souls are saved at the parish level than anywhere else. Day in and day out, it is the pastors who are responsible for providing the spiritual riches of the Church to the faithful. But the key figure in fostering vocations, overseeing priestly formation and providing guidance and leadership to the clergy and to the faithful is the diocesan bishop. If he is found wanting, who will provide? And when the time comes for him to depart, what will replace him; a lion or a deer?
Our Part
I am only one but I am one. I cannot do everything but I can do something. And that which I can do with the help of God I will do. — Edward Everett Hale
We are all well aware that prayer, fasting and other sacrifices can move mountains. We also know that by persistent application of these means, we can indeed do something to influence the selection of bishops and to address shortcomings of episcopal governance. The last thing that I want to do is simply to write about problems that you already know about and then propose that you do nothing more to solve them than what you are already doing. So I would like to close by pointing out some additional things that you can do and some things that the Foundation, with your support, can do as well.
Concerning the selection of bishops, exerting any influence over the outcome of a process that is hidden from us, and in which we could not participate in any case, is not going to be easy. While it is only bishops who have a right to propose the names of priests who they believe are worthy and suitable to be ordained as bishops, there is no rule that prohibits lay members of the faithful from suggesting certain good priests that might be considered. Canon 377, §3 even provides for the papal Legate to seek the opinions of “lay persons of outstanding wisdom.” For a more detailed discussion of how bishops are chosen, see “Choosing Our Shepherds” in CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol. 22, No. 2, May 1, 2004. You can view the article on our web site or, if you do not have access to the Internet, just let me know on your Reply Form and I will be glad to send you a copy. If you know a priest who, in addition to meeting the standards of c. 378, §1, is at least thirty-five years of age and holds a doctoral degree in theology, Scripture or canon law and who you would like to recommend, let us know and we will give you some suggestions on how to proceed.
As we have discussed, obtaining relief from the effects of episcopal inefficiency or misdeeds is usually a very frustrating— but not hopeless experience. What makes it even more frustrating is to wait for the situation to deteriorate further before taking action. Our experience is that the earlier a problem is addressed, the better the chances are for a faster and simpler solution. Therefore, if you are considering asking the Foundation for assistance, please get in touch with us sooner rather than later.
For our part, we continue to improve our skills in using the means now available, including denunciation and hierarchic recourse, to assist the faithful in obtaining relief from abusive episcopal governance. We are also spending a good deal of time and effort in developing additional tactics. For example, we are considering various “creative” approaches to the law so as to provide some ways by which besieged Catholics might obtain spiritual care or access to the sacraments.
Without being presumptive, we can trust in God to provide us the grace to persevere and to insure that there will be no shortage of lions.
I find absolutely no grounds for optimism, and I have every reason for hope. — Wilfred Sheed
© Christifidelis, St. Joseph Foundation
This item 6569 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
