Commonweal Promotes Electing of Bishops

In the Commonweal article, The Case for Electing Bishops, by Adam A. J. DeVille, it is claimed that "the system is totally unreliable." Which system? That system, in which the country's papal nuncio produces a terna - a list of three candidates for the episcopacy - which is sent to Rome for review by the Holy Father and from which he may make a decision.

Why is it asserted that "the system is totally unreliable?" DeVille points to the recent debacle in Poland as a prime example:

The whole affair undermines trust in the Roman system, which obviously failed to scrutinize Wielgus closely enough, and then, when exposed, still tried to force him on the local church of Warsaw. If the Roman curia knew about his past and did not care, it is guilty of malfeasance; if it did not know of his past, it is guilty of incompetence. In either case it shows that the system is totally unreliable.

While some very valid points are made by DeVille, it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that the system is "totally unreliable". In fact, one might equally claim that the system is good but there are too many "totally unreliable" people who are involved - and that is the reason for the failures.

DeVille proceeds to enlighten his readers with a short history lesson on how the current method of appointing bishops came to pass, never failing, however, to steer his readers in a particular direction:

Papal appointment of bishops has never been defined as a matter of dogma. Neither theologians nor bishops and popes in council have even bothered to come up with a theological justification for it. Such a system of appointment is both theologically unsupported and ecumenically intolerable.

"Theologically unsupported and ecumenically intolerable"? Strong words - used, it seems, to persuade others to question the authority or the decisions of the Holy Father and to generate dissatisfaction with the current methodology and to press for a more "democratic" system more appealing to groups of spoiled children.

DeVille admits that:

There are of course no panaceas: no system is perfect. But just about any system would be better than the current one, at least for mature local churches in stable sociopolitical contexts.

It must be noted that these "mature local churches in stable sociopolitical contexts" exclude those in China and Cuba...Some might claim that they also include those in the Americas as well - as anyone who has watched a televised USCCB meeting can attest. One need only look at who is elected to head the Liturgy committee, for example, when other, more worthy candidates were available.

Popular election, of course, does not guarantee that every bishop will be a saint. And popular elections can be abused to produce infelicitous results. Observers of current Anglican troubles will tell you that popular election can and does result in bishops who are so far apart from other bishops on major issues as to be in de facto schism. That, clearly, is not a path Catholics should take.

And even with papal oversight, this would generate all sorts of problems, particularly if the Holy Father refuses to accept the "bishop-elect". God knows we do not need to follow the PCUSA down its path.

DeVille tells us of a system which:

...would quietly prevent the election of a popular but heterodox local figure, which could precipitate a division between the local and universal church. Such a system would also help ensure that Rome never again appoints severely flawed bishops to a local church...

With heterdox or ill-informed Catholics overwhelmingly outnumbering faithful Catholics, it is difficult to see how such a system could work.

Lastly, readers are advised that the Code of Canon Law contains provisions for the faithful to elect their leaders:

For its part, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, pertaining to the Latin Church, also contains provisions for diocesan synods (see canons 460-68), which, though rarely convoked in the Western church, have a venerable history and solid precedent and could certainly be brought back to life again as electoral assemblies. There is one other canon in this Code that is especially relevant but often overlooked: canon 377 notes that "the Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those lawfully elected"...

It is claimed that, given more of a voice in the selection process of a local bishop, the people, can have "leadership worthy of their trust and obedience."

While there are bishops who, based on their own actions and statements, do not "deserve" our trust, nonetheless, they do deserve our obedience, at least to the extent that their demands and directives are lawful and congruent with the teachings and disciplines of the Church.

Personally, I have more trust in good bishops and faithful Catholics keeping the Holy Father and curial officials updated so that wise decisions can be made rather than engaging in a "democratic" voting exercise for bishop...What's failed in the past, among other things, is that questionable nuncios (Jadot) were not recalled before extensive damaged was inflicted upon the Church and that others were using the system to push through proteges who not the best of candidates for leading the faithful toward heaven.

I think what we need is much more prayer and the daily offering of our sufferings to our Lord.

A specila tip of the hat to J.J., who provided the article...