On choosing our own bishops

As happens in so many different dioceses in the world, when the rather extraordinary occasion of having a new bishop arises, in Malta (and in Gozo) many are asking why people do not have much of a say in choosing their own bishop.

It is beyond any doubt that in the early days of the Church, people did participate in the choice of their own bishop or bishops (there is good reason to believe that originally local churches were governed by a college of bishops or presbyters rather than a single bishop).

In the Didache, probably a composite work written in the late first or early second century, the community is asked to appoint its own bishops and deacons. The letter sent by the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, commonly known as First Clement, speaks of the consent of the whole Church among the marks distinguishing a rightful bearer of the episcopal office.

Early in the third century, St Hippolytus gives witness to the fact that a new bishop was "chosen by all the people" and had to be "pleasing to all". Later, Cyprian of Carthage also attests to the role of the people in the choice of their ecclesiastical leaders. He declares it is by divine ordinance that the priest "should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony."

According to Cyprian, the people even have the authority to depose unworthy bishops. He further explains that the participation of the people in the choice of their bishop is important because they are the ones "who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct".

The question remains as to how did the people actually participate in the election of their bishop. Cyprian's indication in this regard is that, at least in some cases, they participated actively by voting. Even if there were also cases where the role of the people may have been restricted to acclaiming the bishop-elect, it seems that in the first centuries congregational franchise was usually an essential feature in the appointment of bishops.

Although the fourth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325) makes no mention of public participation in the election of bishops and instead assigns the right to choose a bishop to the other bishops of the province and the final confirmation of the choice to the metropolitan, in practice the people continued to have a say in the choice of their bishops well into the Post-Constantinian era. In fact, in about 446, we find Pope Leo the Great writing that "the election of a bishop must proceed by the wishes of the clergy and people," and this according to the principle pertaining to the rules of the Fathers that "he who is to govern all, should be chosen by all."

The gradual abandonment of public participation in the election of bishops was mainly the result of the growing number of malpractices and political intrigues involved in the process as the episcopal office grew in prestige and political importance.

Opposing factions sometimes resorted to extremely unChristian measures: in 366, for instance, the election of Damasus as bishop of Rome (and thereby Pope) was marred by violence and bloodshed. In 426, Augustine of Hippo, apprehensive of the disturbances that might be caused in his Church by ambitious groups after his own demise, sought to prevent problems by nominating his successor. He, however, still strongly believed that his proposal required the approval of the people.

With time, as episcopal appointments became ever more closely linked to the hierarchy, only nominal vestiges of popular participation were left. Eventually, in the Middle Ages, the widespread interference of secular rulers in the choice of bishops and other ecclesiastical office bearers led to a frontal attack by the papacy against any lay interference in spiritual matters. Although secular leaders never claimed to choose bishops in the name of the people, the abuses and corruption associated with such appointments definitely undermined the cause of lay participation in the election of bishops.

Clement IV (1265-1268) reserved for the papacy the right of appointment to all the benefices whose incumbents died while they were in Rome and as this prerogative was steadily extended, the papacy gradually became responsible for the appointment of huge numbers of clergy, including many bishops.

From the Renaissance onwards, the tide turned as the Popes were forced by the emerging nation states to concede more and more episcopal appointments to the secular rulers. By 1829, 555 of the 646 diocesan bishops of the Catholic Church were appointed by the state. The Pope appointed 70 bishops as ruler of the Papal States, and only another 24 outside his temporal sovereignty.

Nonetheless, as Europe became more secularised, its rulers, anxious to distance themselves from the Church, ceased to want to appoint bishops, and consequently more and more episcopal appointments fell into papal hands. So much so that in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, full discretion in the nomination of bishops was attributed to the Roman pontiff, and if a chapter or any moral person retained the right of election this was only by virtue of a concession.

The new Code of 1983 confirms that it is the Pope who "freely appoints bishops or confirms those who have been legitimately elected." Legitimate election of bishops by bodies other than the Holy See is today limited mainly to the Eastern churches united with Rome which have maintained the right to elect their bishops through their synod of bishops and patriarchs and to some four central European (Swiss and Czech) dioceses.

In all the other cases the choice is made by the Pope acting on the suggestions made by the Congregation of bishops which itself acts on the proposed names forwarded periodically by incumbent bishops and more importantly on the three names (or ternus) proposed by the pontifical legate (in the case of Malta the Apostolic nuncio). The nuncio is bound to consult high-ranking clergy and "if he judges it expedient, he shall also obtain, individually and in secret, the opinion of other members of the secular and religious clergy as well as of the laity who are outstanding for their wisdom."

Although widespread consultation about the choice of a bishop is not required from the Apostolic nuncio, the Code of Canon Law does give the freedom to the Christian faithful "to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church." It even states that at times it may be "the duty" of the faithful "to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church..."

Those of us who want to make known to the Apostolic Nunciature their ideas about the kind of bishop they wish for and/or put forward particular names are by all means free, maybe even in their conscience obliged, to do so. In the absence of formal widespread participative structures, participation is still possible. Let those who are equipped to give out a hand in the choice of our future bishop do so without any hesitation!