The making of a bishop: that is the problem!

It seems ages ago; however, only four decades have passed. It was a time when the Catholic Church was experiencing a new Pentecost. Those were the years when many Catholics from all strata of the Church structure were reflecting on the theological and pastoral significance of the doctrine of co-responsibility in the Church, and on the need to make this doctrine the cornerstone of the much needed reform in the Church's structural organisation.

New structures were being born: the Bishops' Synod, the Regional and National Bishops' Conferences, the Diocesan Pastoral Councils, the Diocesan Priests' Senates, Parish Presbyteria, Parish Councils and perhaps others I do not recall. They were intended to help put the doctrines of co-responsibility and subsidiarity in practice. They were accompanied by a newly found dynamism in the Church.

However, to the great disappointment of many of us, after a few years, this dynamism generally dwindled or died. We have reached a situation where even certain bishops tend to countenance their Synod in Rome with less than enthusiasm! Down the line, this attitude recurs more frequently. The spirit was willing but the law of inertia and legalism are killing it.

It is unfortunate that in the last 25 years, the mindset of the Roman Curia has changed drastically. Gone are the Lercaros, the Suenenses, the Koenigs, the Rahners, the Congars, and, most importantly, the spirit of the giant Paul VI!

Co-responsibility and subsidiarity are essentially a problem of Church governance, with which only a relatively small number of the Church's hierarchy - Bishops, priests and deacons - have come to terms with. The strongest resistance came from the Roman Curia and its long arms (not that they should be so!), the diocesan Curias.

As Bernard Hoose, lecturer in Ethics at Heythrop College, London, has recently written, "the degree to which lay people (theologians included) are consulted is left to the whim of the ruling caste".

I must add that, as far as consultation is concerned, priests have not fared much better than the laity. Instead of an ever more transparent and participatory Church based on the doctrines of co-responsibility and subsidiarity, we are being faced with an ever increasing secrecy and centralisation, both at the local level and the universal Church. In this process pride of rank is taken by the tandem made up of the Vatican Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The application of the principles of co-responsibility and subsidiarity is most glaringly at a minimum in the selection of bishops. As Karl Rahner has stated, it is undeniable that "there is really no 'divine' law on the exact form in which someone must be selected in practice and appointed to office in the Church".

As a matter of history, at the time of the Council of Trent (1545-63), there were three different methods of selecting bishops: nomination by the king, election by the cathedral chapter, and papal appointment. It is clear that the choice of office-holders in the Church (including the selection of Bishops) has taken var-ious forms depending on sociological, concrete human and social situation at a particular point in time and space.

Thus, for example, from Trent to the end of the 19th century, only a few bishops outside the Papal States were directly appointed by the Pope. A small number of bishops were appointed by cathedral chapters; but most bishops were appointed by secular rulers, even if there was the proviso requiring Papal confirmation.

Writing before the promulgation of the present Code of Canon Law and, hence, referring to the procedures of the appointment of bishops as found in the 1917 Code, Karl Rahner maintained that "there can however be no doubt that the forms of election used... are now at least partially out of date and particularly in Central Europe". In my view, these words are equally applicable to procedures found in the present Code.

Bishops are nowadays chosen after a process involving the nuncio, the bishops and the congregation of Bishops at the Vatican. Technically, according to Canon 346, it is the Nuncio's responsibility to send or propose names of candidates for the bishopric. However, the 1972 norms for the selection of candidates for the office of bishop issued by the Vatican Secretariat of State called for some measure of consultation at the local level with the clergy, the religious and the laity. This is all done under strict papal secrecy.

The nuncio prepares a list of three candidates (often referred to as terna), which is then submitted to the Congregation of Bishops. The Congregation's staff vets these nominations and passes them on with its comments to the Congregation's members. These, in turn, submit the list to the Pope... obviously indicating their preferences, to choose one of them or even any another priest who was not shortlisted in the terna. How often the Pope has resort to the choice of priests not proposed by the Congregation remains, in most cases, secret!

Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that the whole process is dominated by the diocesan bishop, and those whom he and/or the nuncio trust, together with those who have ready access to the corridors of the Roman Curia.

Just take an example: it is practically impossible for the Nuncio in Washington or in Rome to have a direct personal knowledge of the clergy (diocesan and religious) in any one of the geographically distant dioceses of the United States or Italy. Logistics force him to rely on trusted informants. And trust is a very subjective quantity!

In practice, then, the whole process is dominated by the input of the bishops and those whom they trust or whom the nuncio trusts. No wonder that aspirants to this office are very keen to stay mum in all diocesan debates! Or if they spoke their mind, they, sometimes, found themselves al confine. Even the conservative biographer of John Paul II, George Veigel, felt the need to comment that "the process of consultation is heavily tilted towards those parts of the clerical bureaucracy that have a vested interest in the status quo".

Hence, the candidates are proposed and commended by an ecclesiastical aristocracy - taken in its etymological connotation. What in the end gives one the possibility to be among those who are consulted rests only and simply on how much one is trusted: not by the people of God, but by the ecclesiastical aristocracy!

This gives rise to a clear and present danger of sociological cloning. Moreover, one cannot help comparing this process to the way fiefdoms and vassalage were bestowed during the feudal period. That was a historical era when absolute loyalty to the lord was considered to be the chief requirement for upward mobility in the realm of politics - a requirement which is still a condition for "promotion" in contemporary political, industrial and commercial structures. Loyalty is still considered by many to be the cement of social structures. The problem is that the evaluation of one's loyalty remains, very often, arbitrary and subjective.

The gap between this aristocratic elite and God's people is often wide. To the extent that the latter are not only not consulted on the nomination and suitability of candidates for episcopal office; they are not even asked to pray for God's help in their churches. This contrasts sharply when one considers that in the weeks leading up to a general election we are enjoined to pray so that the citizens will choose the most suitable candidates.

This does not take place during the process of episcopal selection and nomination. The impression is thus given that while the ordinary citizen, who is about to democratically elect the government for five years, needs God's help to make a wise choice, when the ecclesiastical aristocratic elite is about to choose a bishop it is immune from the possibility or danger of human error.

It is also strange that while the local Curias are required to publish the banns when the faithful are about to receive the sacraments of matrimony, deaconate and priesthood, no such or similar requirement exists when someone is about to be ordained bishop!

Secrecy seems to be more important than knowledge about the suitability of candidates. Why wonder! Archbishop John Quinn claims that Cardinal Koenig was not consulted about the appointment of his successor, nor were the religious superiors of the appointee consulted. In this aura of secrecy, one tends to get the impression that there latently, even if unwittingly, is something similar to ragion di stato - save the institution! Whether this is consonant with the doctrines of collegiality, co-responsibility and subsidiarity is a different matter!

The Emeritus Archbishop of San Francisco, and former president of the US National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Quinn, in 1999 wrote that there is a time-honoured ecclesiology, dating back to the Fathers of the Church, that would support the position that bishops should normally be chosen through a process that gives a major role to the local Church.

He even quotes an ancient canonical principle that "what concerns all should be discussed and approved by all". He also maintains that the French theologian Yves Congar (later Cardinal) "shows how participation of the whole Church in the election of its priests and bishops is an apostolic tradition".

Karl Rahner has expressed quite similar views. He maintains that there is a moral-theological principle that someone as suitable as possible should be chosen as bishop. "It is however obviously a part of his suitability that an 'acceptance' as positive and as universal as possible on the part of those for whom the office in question is exercised (italics mine) should exist and be foreseeable" (1972: 120).

I am not writing this to point an accusing finger at anyone involved in this process. I sincerely believe that they act in good conscience and with love for God's People. The problem, however, is that in the Church there are many people in high places who have been socialised in a clerical-institutional culture that tends to blinker their purview (something which is common to bureaucrats in other organisations!).

My purpose in writing the above is to indicate how important it is that the People of God start making their voice heard with all means available to them. Pius XII taught that public opinion has its place in the life of the Church. However much these voices will be heard is a moot point... experience does not point to much optimism.

This notwithstanding, I believe that as Christians we should hope against hope. It is also possible that Archbishop Mercieca's resignation on reaching the age of 75 in November will not be accepted by the Holy Father; a possibility which one will be wrong to dismiss lightly! This brings us to square one: there is no indication that the People of God will be consulted on the appropriateness of acceptance or non-acceptance of a bishop's resignation.

With this reality in mind, I would like to indicate some of the qualities I would like find in a bishop of the Maltese Church. I will not list holiness as a required quality not because I ignore it but because I consider it a sine qua non.

We need a bishop whose vision is as wide as our faith, not as our laws; who strongly believes that the Church must move out of the temple;

¤ a person who genuinely and strongly believes that the Episcopal sacramental identity is that of a Vicar of Christ in our midst, and not the vicar of the Pope, much less the vicar of the Roman Curia;

¤ a person who believes that he is responsible for the whole Church cum and not only sub Petro; that he has an authoritative personal contribution to make to the Maltese Church;

¤ a person who will behave not as a manager of the local branch of a multinational organisation nor a senior executive in the corporate structure of a mega-corporation but as a witness of the Risen Lord;

¤ a person who is trained and capable of discerning the both the sensus ecclesiae and the sensus fidelium; who believes that God speaks to His people through scripture and history: hence, a person who is attentive to read the signs of the times;

¤ a person who is a teacher and a pastor according to the call of the gospel and the needs of his flock; hence a person who is not in search of a niche market, but open to all humanity. This requires him to be a real theologian (not a textbook) and a good communicator;

¤ a prophet who is constantly and closely restoring, encouraging and supporting all the members of the Maltese Church.

Finally, whatever follows after Archbishop Mercieca's resignation, we will all have to fall back on our faith and prayers.

Rev. Dr Inguanez is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Malta and executive director of DISCERN.