Choosing a bishop

Over the past few weeks, the question of the selection of bishops has become the subject of debate in our letters pages.

The crux of this discourse may be reduced to the issue of whether the appointment of bishops ought to be the sole prerogative of Rome, or whether local clergy, deacons and even laity should be involved in the process.

It is unfortunate that this debate should centre on the appointment of Archbishop Buti Tlhagale to the diocese of Johannesburg. In transferring Archbishop Tlhagale from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg (his home diocese), the Vatican has made an excellent decision in favour of South Africa’s most populous diocese. At the same time, Bloemfontein’s loss is immense.

While Archbishop Tlhagale’s episcopal credentials are impeccable, the debate has highlighted growing disquiet at the way bishops in general are chosen.

The process is elaborate, involving several steps. In the nomination stages, the diocesan clergy is only marginally and informally involved, if at all, while the laity is entirely excluded. The pick of the final three nominees is entirely at the discretion of the Holy Father.

There is much wisdom in this discreet and exclusive method. An all-inclusive process could well be tainted by lobbying, politicking and bickering and in totalitarian states subjected to temporal pressures. Inevitably, the effect would be divisive.

Yet, there are deficiencies in the method, too. As the Johannesburg debate shows, the current secretive and exclusive approach can be equally divisive because it lacks transparency and accountability qualities which Catholics today increasingly expect from their leaders.

Indeed, calls for a more inclusive process in the appointment of bishops are understandable. A poorly chosen bishop who lacks the confidence of his clergy and flock cannot be expected to exercise his functions well.

There is no reason why the Church should be unable to seek ways of improving the process. The present method has no scriptural basis the quarrels that accompanied Matthias’ appointment to the college of apostles show that Jesus left no “ecclesiastical blueprint”, in the words of the Scripture scholar Fr Raymond Brown.

Nor is the process part of tradition. For almost half of the Church’s history, bishops were elected by their local Christian community, clergy and laity. Gradually the selection of bishops became subject to political influences and papal whims, until in the early 19th century the papacy assumed the sole prerogative of episcopal appointments.

What may have worked well for 200 years may not work so well now. Many Catholics increasingly regard the secrecy involving the selection process as harmful to the body of Christ, and ask for transparency and even a voice in the appointment of their bishops.

Of course, one cannot, and should not, entertain the notion of a popular vote involving all Catholics in a diocese. There are, however, other ways in which those presently excluded can be included.

Jesuit Father Tom Reese, editor of America magazine and an expert on the episcopacy, suggests that prior to the nomination of candidate bishops, the diocesan laity and clergy councils identify the needs of the diocese as they see it, and what sort of qualities they are looking for in a new bishop. In theory, the three names then presented to the pope for selection would be qualified to address these concerns.

Fr Reese’s suggestion is one of many reasonable approaches to reforming what may well be an outdated procedure. The question now surely is not whether there is a need for reform in this matter, but what form it might take.