Laity must help pick bishops

by Letters Editor · March 20, 2014

From Dr L Mzimba, Port Elizabeth

I have to wonder how the fine words in Lumen Apostolicam Actuositatem correspond to the hierarchy about the obligation of the clergy to take the laity seriously and the obligation of the laity to speak out for the good of the Church.

“The office of a bishop not owned and answerable to the laity is eventually a ticket to irrelevance.” (CNS photo/Donna Ryckaert)

It is my opinion that whenever the laity assert themselves into the selection of bishops for their dioceses, it is a step in the right direction. Certainly, in future the hierarchy will have to open up the process. The hierarchy should get used to consulting the laity.

At present it is evident that the hierarchy doesn�t want to do anything to create an expectation that the the laity have a voice in the selection of bishops. Put some light on the feudal Roman process of selecting autocratic bishops!

The next question to ask is why is there no formal meeting between the nuncio and the diocesan pastoral council? Here we have a body that exists by canon law, with no actual authority but only a consultative role. Still, even this extremely modest, non-threatening, advisory body is unworthy of a meeting with the nuncio to follow an agenda set by him to talk about the pastoral needs of the diocese as part of the process of selecting a bishop. What are we afraid of?

Are the laity even excited about the appointment of the new bishop elect for the diocese of Port Elizabeth? As a faithful member of the diocese of Port Elizabeth for many years, my observation is, not at all. A cloud of apathy hangs over our diocese. We call for new ownership of the process of selecting our shepherds.

Evidently the powers-that-be are persuaded that the arcane and secretive practice currently employed could not be improved on by allowing a little open discussion and consultation. Or could it be that the idea of actually consulting with the laity regarding who is their shepherd is simply not an idea worth pursuing? Why should it be that this self-selected, self-centred, clericalist autocracy has managed to perpetuate itself since kings and other secular rulers were finally disinvited from having a say?

As long as the Church appoints �safe bishops� the system will remain. The SACBC consists of the vast majority who were closely associated with Rome, studied, administered in Rome or were pontifical seminary lecturers and rectors locally. The new bishop elect for the Port Elizabeth diocese is no exception.

Why are our well-loved, trusted and competent local priests ignored for the office of bishop? In my opinion, it is because they are victims of the system, and they love the local Church and people without strategically setting themselves up for promotion. They are our true leaders, shepherds, heroes and �bishops�.

Let me suggest that the most important reform concerning bishops has to do with re-thinking what it means to say that they are �successors of the Apostles�. I agree that bishops are the only successors we have or can have, but being selected and appointed by Rome neither makes them good nor wise successors. To claim that the successors we get are always good and wise flies in the face of history.

So long as one takes a canon law approach to who exercises episcopal power, namely one appointed by the pope, we will not have any way to hold those appointed to account for what they do.

To demand anything less is, in the end, to trivialise the role of the bishop. The office of a bishop not owned and answerable to the laity is eventually a ticket to irrelevance.

The present system is too bureaucratic to be taken seriously and was unfortunately so cemented by Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. We think, and hope, Pope Francis will change it.