Selecting New Bishops

by Editor · July 1, 2015

In June, two news stories highlighted the method by which the pope selects bishops.

Servers hold a tray of palliums as Pope Francis celebrates a Mass marking the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

The process of selecting bishops in the Latin-rite Church usually follows this procedure: when a vacancy arises, the papal nuncio is tasked with identifying three nominees, after an unstipulated amount of consultation with stakeholders, including other bishops. This shortlist, called a terna, is then sent to the Vatican. The names may not be made public.

The Vatican�s Congregation for Bishops then reviews the names, in some cases by consulting with other offices, for example the Secretariat of State, if the appointment of a new bishop is politically sensitive. The bishops� congregation may reject one or even all the names on the terna, ask for alternative nominees or add new names for consideration.

The congregation then advises the pope of its recommendation. In the case of very important dioceses, the pope might already have his own ideas. The final decision on the appointment is his alone.

For a long time in the early Church bishops were elected by the clergy and laity (to this day, the Church speaks of bishops being �elected�, when clearly they aren�t), though by the fourth century the process was already subject to the growing influence and veto of the metropolitan bishop.

In time, secular interests began to interfere in appointments. To diminish direct interference, the Church in the 12th century reformed the rules to the effect that the selection process excluded the laity. The plan did not work everywhere, with some political powers maintaining veto rights well into the last century.

These historical intricacies came to mind with the recent elevation of Archbishop Heiner Koch as the head of the Berlin archdiocese. It entailed a non-public and secret election process involving some clergy and laity, and even a veto option for local political powers.

While the veto right is a protocol formality that won�t be invoked, some Catholics in other countries voiced support for the idea of the laity�s direct involvement in electing new bishops.

A popular election of bishops would be a bad idea. Such a process could be tainted by lobbying, politicking and bickering � and in totalitarian states be subjected to temporal pressures. Inevitably, the effect would be divisive.

Still, the opaque and unaccountable method by which bishops are presently selected does not always yield good fruits.

In recent years several bishops � in the United States and Ireland especially � have been pressured to resign because of their mishandling of abuse cases. In June, US Archbishop John Nienstedt and his auxiliary bishop both resigned their positions as a result of the Vatican�s new rules governing episcopal failures in handling abuse cases.

Clearly, beside the many fine servants in the Catholic episcopate, there are some men who should never have become bishops. The problem is particularly glaring in regions where bishops were appointed not on merit, but because of the ideological positions they occupied and through patronage.

Moreover, the recent public protests against the archbishop of San Francisco show that the wrong bishop in the wrong place can divide the Church.

A bishop who is not accepted by most of the clergy and laity of his diocese cannot perform his ministry, especially where the faithful are forthright in their criticism. The selection of a new bishop, therefore, should be contingent on how his appointment will be accepted in the diocese.

Does the current process account sufficiently for this imperative? Is the lack of transparency in fact an obstacle to finding the right candidates?

While any process must take into account the circumstances of local churches, it might be governed by more standardised guidelines than currently, especially in the scope of consultation with local laity and clergy.

The faithful also have a right to a bishop. The reality of dioceses being vacant for long periods, sometimes years, is undesirable.

There is no reason why there should not be a successor in place when a bishop retires after having reached the age of 75, nor should a diocese need to be vacant for long when its bishop is being transferred to another diocese.

Much good would be accomplished by a judicious reform of the procedure by which bishops are nominated.