In this presentation, Margaret Mary Moore, MSW, Columbia U; MA, St. Louis U; STB & STL, Louvain, and further study at the Gregorian, addresses the current system for the appointment of the 5340 bishops worldwide confidentially done through the Apostolic Nuncios and then sent onto the Dicastery of Bishops. Dr. Luca Badini Confalonieri, with the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, offers an alternative to this process by suggesting as one possibility a return to the Ancient Practice of Electing Church Leaders as was done in the early Church. Patrick Carolan, executive directive of St. Francis Action Network, author and longtime activist, shares how this process has been done successfully in the Anglican/Episcopal Church.
The right to choose our own bishops could well be an outcome of the 2024 Synod. There is so much more information in the presentation than could be included in a brief report.
All are encouraged to listen to this presentation: click here to hear it now.
History of how Church Leadership
is handled currently in the Church
Margaret Mary Moore:
Using the process in the United States as an example, there are 33 Metropolitan Sees. When there is a vacancy, the metropolitan archbishop invites his brother bishops to submit the names of potential candidates. The president and VP of the national episcopal conference are also contacted. The resulting names are sent to the Apostolic Nuncio who is the “gatekeeper” and who also does confidential research and consultation with people that he selects. The choices are reduced to three, a “terna”, and the names are sent to the Dicastery for Bishops. Cardinal Robert Prevost, OSA, the Prefect, then has his 35 bishops who study these names. They meet twice a month. Results go to the Pope. It can take 6 -8 months.
Why it isn’t working: We have many fine cardinals, bishops, priests for whom we are grateful – especially those supporting this Synod. But there are numerous challenges to this system.
All of these men come from one of the 6,974 seminaries around the world which many Synod delegates agree are in need of reforming. Sometimes their motives are questionable. Major financial, academic and pastoral resources are focused on this small cadre of single men to the exclusion of potential lay women and men who God has also called into service. Their call is often not recognized. If all the baptized are equal and have a vocation, their call must also be recognized. They too must be given opportunities for formation and leadership.
- The sexual abuse scandal has diminished the credibility and moral authority of our cardinals, bishops and priests worldwide. It has severely damaged many people’s lives (depression, suicide, addiction, family breakdown), caused millions to leave the church, led to bankruptcies and a grotesque loss of revenue which could have been better spent! In the USA, $4 billion+ was spent on this scandal. Zero tolerance hasn’t worked the way it was envisioned. Abuse continues. It is spiritual malpractice. This is neither good shepherding nor good stewardship.
- Many bishops had to step down in the past decades even under Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis. All these bishops were accused of covering up the abuse or who were abusers themselves. It is still continuing, ie. just recently, Pakistan; 25 years ago, Timor Leste but the memories remain.
- Questionable investigations by bishops occurred: the 2013 Vatican investigation in the US of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR); the investigation of Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru, Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, eminent American Catholic theologian; the investigation of Tissa Balasuriya, OMI, of Sri Lanka who was excommunicated and then reinstated,1998. The investigations of Fr. Charlie Curran, moral theologian; Jacques Dupuis, SJ, professor of world religions; Bernard Haring, Redemptorist, moral theologian; even Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of Chicago – to name a few.
Conclusions and recommendations:
1) Reevaluate how our leaders are selected and appointed;
2) Develop a healthy sexuality;
3) The seminary system we have is unhealthy and needs reform.
4) Have co-ed Centers for Theology and Ministry;
5) More bishops must promote the synodal path of Pope Francis;
6) Bishops should not direct their parishioners how to vote;
7) Vatican must speak out when some cardinals like Pell and bishops like Vigano and Strickland publicly criticize Pope Francis;
8) More bishops need to support the People of God having a voice.
9). Major improvement in adult education in Scripture, theology, and ecclesiology is needed.
10) Talk of a priest shortage and a Eucharistic Famine can seem to place the blame on God. But He is faithful and this is a man-made problem that needs to be urgently examined beginning with how the leadership in our Church is functioning and making decisions.
As the People of God, we are ready, willing and able to be partners in ministry with our bishops. We don’t want to be stepdaughters and stepsons. We want to be treated co-equally and be welcomed to be co-responsible members of our Church.
An alternative approach:
Return to the Ancient Practice of Electing Church Leaders
Dr. Luca Badini Confalonieri:
At the very start, what we’re talking about today is not a doctrine that requires changing. It is a practice that requires changing. The democratic election of bishops has impeccable biblical and historical credentials. In addition to the main passages explicitly describing the community choosing church officials (Acts 1:21-26, 6:1-6, see below), also relevant is Matthew 18:15–18 where Jesus explicitly envisaged the entire community as the highest and final authority for adjudicating disputes about “sin” (so on moral and doctrinal issues too).
Reading the New Testament, it is not difficult to notice that the earliest disciples of Jesus took the advice of their teacher seriously. And so we see that all the crucial early ecclesial decisions – whether to do with discipline, doctrine, or the selection of leaders – are taken democratically. At least in one case a disciplinary decision was taken by majority voting by the assembly of Christians in Corinth, and Paul agreed with it (see 2 Cor. 2:6). Two passages witness to the fact that the community selected key church officials and leaders: specifically, one of the Twelve in Acts 1:15–26, to replace Judas Iscariot; and the Seven as leaders of the Greek-speaking followers of Jesus in Acts 6:1–6. In both cases the community selected those they wanted as leaders even though the Eleven/Twelve were right there.
History shows that church leaders, and bishops specifically, have long been democratically elected by the local church: two of the most well-known examples of this are the election by acclamation of Ambrose as bishop of Milan, when he was not even baptized yet, and the election of Augustine as bishop of Hippo. Democratic elections of bishops were often regarded as necessary for the legitimacy of the appointment, and a sign of God’s will. Around 380, Ambrose of Milan echoed Cyprian some decades before, “rightly it is believed that he whom all have asked for [as bishop] is chosen by the judgment of God.” In 428, Pope Celestine created a phrase which was to resonate for centuries throughout Latin Christianity: “No bishop is to be given to those who do not want him: the agreement and wish of the clergy, people and local council (ordo) are necessary.” Less than twenty years later, in 445, Pope Leo the Great went on to coin a principle which goes even further than Celestine’s: “who is to preside over all, must be elected by all.”
The current highly centralized and secretive method of appointing bishops, whereby the Roman Curia and ultimately the Pope appoint almost every bishop in the world, is a relatively recent development of the last century or so, and the same applies to the enormous restriction of the pool of eligible candidates to ordained priests only. The question, then, is not “Can we do it?”, or “Does the bible or church history allow us to do it?” The question we should be asking instead is “Why have we abandoned the original practice of democratic elections of church leaders by the community?
There are two main objections to the reintroduction of episcopal elections. The first is that they would reintroduce factionalism and lobbying. The second is that most people would not generally know any priest apart from their parish priest. The very real danger is that the candidates most likely to win are likely to be the parish priests of big parishes, whose “electoral base” is significantly larger than that of pastors of smaller congregations.
The answer to both objections lies in ensuring that an electoral procedure has the necessary resources for maximizing the dissemination of information concerning candidates’ background. The more secretive the system, the greater the probability that factionalism, politicking and lobbying by competing cliques of insiders mar the selection process. A public and transparent electoral process minimizes the dangers of those actions much more than the current system. Leverage all ecclesial resources to facilitate the crucial stage of information exchange and open debate needed for the electorate to be able to make an informed decision. Ideally, you’d want to cast your nets wide and allow all people including laity with a wealth of expertise to put themselves forward for the vacancy.
What would a possible concrete procedure look like? The concrete proposal for reintroducing episcopal elections linked here has been coordinated by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research and is inspired by the one advanced in 1848 by priest, philosopher and theologian Antonio Rosmini, who is now officially Blessed on his way to sainthood, as well as by the procedure for democratic episcopal elections of the current constitution of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus.
The reasons for reintroducing episcopal elections: The first is moral: the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regard the right to elect one’s leaders as one of the fundamental and inalienable human rights. The same is true for the Church: Each baptized person has a God-given responsibility to work together as a church to spread God’s kingdom – that’s universally accepted. How can Catholics do so, if they have no voice in the selection of the most crucial decision-maker in their local churches, which currently is the monarchical bishop? Secondly, the reintroduction of episcopal elections can help explain the relationship between two beliefs held in tension by current Catholic ecclesiology: namely, that both the consent of the whole church on the one hand, and the consent of bishops among themselves on the other hand, are the norm for the determination of doctrinal and moral issues. Of these, it is only the first – the whole church – to have a biblical basis. But what if the consent among bishops differs from the consent of the church at large? The only way to reconcile the two is to understand the magisterium as merely the spokesperson, the representative, of the faith of the church: an understanding of the magisterium as the mouth, rather than the head, of the church.
In the past it was generally understood that bishops who went to councils were not supposed to express their own private theological opinions. Instead, they were expected to be witnesses to the faith of their local church. The best way to ensure this is by having bishops who are democratically elected by the local churches, and so can represent how the Good News has been incarnated into, and so influenced, their experiences, insights, values, and goals. Otherwise, we will continue to run the risk of having yes-men selected more for their loyalty to, and representativeness of, the peculiar theological opinion and beliefs of the Roman Curia and this or that Pope. Needless to say, this is also one of the best ways to advance synodality. Without reintroducing episcopal elections, synodality will continue to be a half-baked idea with very little meaningful implementation.
How the Episcopal Church
has successfully selected their bishops
Patrick Carolan:
When there is a vacancy for a bishop, priests and others, anyone may submit their names. There is a nominating committee to whom each applies. That committee narrows the candidates down to five nominees. Both the individual and their spouse is researched, which takes a few weeks. An election occurs and the candidate is selected. His/her name is submitted to the national board to ensure they meet all the qualifications. Once approved, that person is certified as bishop. Bishops are chosen regardless of their sex or sexual orientation.
Your donations are most appreciated
YOUR GIFT – IN ANY AMOUNT – IS PRICELESS
When you make a donation to support our cause, you join with others who are investing in restoring our Church to what Jesus intended. The dollars we receive are used to run our programs and to reach a broad spectrum of the People of God. We are focused on reaching out to the Faithful, reform activists, young adults as well as those who feel abandoned by the Church, to mention just a few. Your personal contributions in offering your suggestions and your donations are most appreciated.
We have begun to genuinely join our voices together behaving as a synodal Church. Let us now stay abreast of what is happening with each stage of the Synod from now through 2024 and beyond. The real work of becoming a synodal Church is still ahead of us. We must stay involved in the process. We will keep you informed and continue to gather online as a community.
On behalf of the CCRI steering committee,
Rene Reid, CCRI director