Many years ago, I attended a university lecture by the then young and newly appointed Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Australia. I asked him to clarify his words about Latin ecclesiology being wrong because Latin Trinitarian theology was wrong. His face lit up, and he drew on the blackboard a vertical line: Father→ Son→Holy Spirit. He then drew a triangle showing Father at the top, a downward left arrow to the Son, and a downward right arrow to the Holy Spirit, with a horizontal arrow between the Son and the Spirit.
He then explained that in the “economy of salvation” the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, while in the “theology of the godhead” the monarchy of the Father is upheld in the distinct begetting of the Son and the distinct procession of the Holy Spirit. He asserted that Orthodox ecclesiology maintains this “triangular” Trinitarian modality, while Latin ecclesiology has a top-down structure. This, of course, is a simplification, but simplifications are necessary for certain insights. And this simplification certainly applies with the Latin manner of choosing bishops: it is top-down from the Pope, and in some perspectives simply top-down. This is poor ecclesiology.
What is a better way of choosing bishops? I cannot pretend with great clarity to know “the answer”. But I think that the Orthodox archbishop’s “triangle” figure gives a strong lead. Every Trinity Sunday I preach on the “sociality” of the godhead – that the Holy Trinity is not a “monad”, as in Islam. The essential nature of the godhead is a communion of love. This essential nature is true also of humanity. We are each distinct (“never to be confused”) but are created for communion (“never to be divided”). What is true of the human race is especially true of the Church (“the head cannot say to the foot, ‘I have no need of you’, nor the foot to the head, ‘I have no need of you’”). The hierarchical ordering of the Church is analogous to the monarchy of the Father in Trinitarian theology. But “monarchy”, or “hierarchy”, should not be understood in ways that compromise the fundamental idea of communion.
In practical terms, this means that ecclesial life is “conversational”: we live and act together. Sadly, it is that “vertical line” and top-down mentality that is too prevalent in the Church. The first “answer” towards a better way of choosing bishops is therefore conversation. In saying this, I do not mean chatter, but structured, respectful, rational and purposeful conversation.
Let’s now consider these terms.
Structured conversations are not haphazard or ad hoc. At a national level, the hierarchical is the Petrine voice of the nuncio, and the way that he begins and sustains the conversational process needs to be structured. The practice of the nunciature sending a spate of letters when a see becomes vacant must stop. Instead, a public document from the nunciature should profile anticipated episcopal vacancies on a five-year time horizon and appear in diocesan media, with an invitation for clergy and laity to engage in conversation about the selection criteria for prospective candidates. They could do this, perhaps, as formal groups, but preferably in personal terms.
At present, letters sent from nunciatures ask that recipients not even reveal the criteria that they are asked to address in their responses. Contrary to this, selection criteria should be clearly and publicly articulated, and should include the opportunity for respondents to add or subtract criteria. This is particularly so in respect of the variety of diocesan profiles.
Pope Francis is not keen on intellectual bishops, but I think he means prelates who have what he calls a “deskbound” theology. A national episcopacy that lacks high intellectual capacity among its members will be weak, as an episcopacy that lacks pastoral connectedness will also be weak. There should be structured conversations that identify “what we are looking for” in different episcopal appointments. The selection criteria should be the focus of first-round conversations.
Respectful conversations are not necessarily bland. Second-round conversations will need more to deal with people – prospective “candidates” – and it may be necessary to say some hard things (such as: “Such and such is bad-tempered and likes his own way”). The test of whether conversation is respectful is if it portrays behaviour that can be objectively assessed – not “likes and dislikes”.
Rational conversations are not necessarily highly cognitive, but they may be recognised by the way the interlocutor addresses the selection criteria – whether the address is reasonable, balanced and evidence-based. A person or a group who offers calm reasoning in terms of selection criteria as to why one person is suited or another person is not suited is engaging rationally. Irrational people like to declare, not to reason. Calm, evidence-based reasoning is a strong indicator of rational engagement.
Purposeful conversations are always forward-looking. The present practice of ad hoc conversation as prompted by an episcopal vacancy may have sound elements. But the practice does not adequately address the need for structure and rationality. Significantly, it does not address the need for strategic and forward-looking purposefulness. People and groups who act purposefully continuously scan the horizon in order to plan for what is ahead. They have a clear forward-looking appreciation of the “mission” that is integral in choosing bishops. The moderator in such conversations needs a keen ear and a responsiveness to take forward conversations that are purposeful to the mission of Christ in his Church, and to deflect conversations that weakly carry forward the apostolic mandate of the Church.
Group conversations should follow the groundwork I’ve outlined, where the nuncio meets representatives of parish pastoral councils across a diocese with a prospective vacancy and amplifies what is gleaned in the first and second stages of the process.
Similarly, the nuncio should meet provincial and national bishops (in larger nations, selected national bishops) to amplify and further refine what is gleaned in the earlier stages.
The present system of episcopal voting – in terms of “Know the man and favour”; “Know the man and do not favour”; “Do not know the man” – seems unecclesial. A bishop, of course, can make his mind known privately to the nuncio, but as a province or a conference, the “conversation” should be open, structured, respectful, rational and purposeful. It is best if the nuncio approaches these conversations accompanied by “assessors”, whose presence enhances the balanced way in which the nuncio then represents the process to Roman authorities.
As an aspect of what I refer to as a “trinitarian modality”, at least two assessors should be appointed by the Congregation for Bishops – at least one a widely informed theologian and at least one a broadly educated psychologist. This would allow “tripartite” conversations moderated by the nuncio to formulate and assess selection criteria and potential candidates, with the theologian particularly contributing to the “word” assessment and the psychologist particularly contributing to the “psyche” assessment.
The canonical requirements for episcopal appointments, of course, specify soundness in Catholic doctrine. But properly judging this involves psychological assessment of character.
I do not propose the kind of psychological assessment to which seminarians nowadays are wrongly subjected. Astute people with adequate psychological education and experience are able to interpret evidence that allows a character profile to be drawn. They will ask questions such as: “Does this man have an exclusive mind that can think only in a given frame, or an inclusive mind?”; “Does this man display an adherence to principles of natural justice or a prejudicial ‘backing the buddy’ mind?”; “Do we see evidence of balanced and firm convictions, or of ‘group think’ and vacillation?”
I do not recommend direct interviewing of prospective candidates. This would set up a system of “successful applicants” and “unsuccessful applicants”, or “winners” and “losers”. This would only heighten tendencies toward “party politics” and factional lobbying unbefitting ecclesial selection processes.
By introducing public selection criteria and an open invitation for submissions that address the criteria, the breadth of the consultation will be considerably widened. Along with a “trinitarian modality” in the assessment process, this should assist in more searching and more balanced formulation and documentation of the recommendations forwarded to Rome.
The Congregation for Bishops should actively engage the nuncio in portraying expectations for wider and more open consultation, and should follow up where documentation fails to show robust implementation of guidelines. Within the Congregation, there should be a similar “trinitarian modality” in reviewing portfolios submitted from nunciatures – with both theological and psychological consultant assessors contributing to the ordering of the documentation and the interpretative recommendations to be presented to the Holy Father.
The long pontificate of St John Paul II was characterised by a distance between the Pope and the Curia that was a corollary of his high public and peripatetic papal style. Right up to his death, papal appointments of bishops were announced – showing that the Pope’s involvement was mostly formal, rather than practical.
This changed with the election of Benedict XVI, and there was a significant lag before episcopal appointments again began to flow – indicating revised papal expectations in the process, as well as closer and more personal and more consistent papal engagement in the processes leading to episcopal election.
Notices in daily bulletin of the Vatican display a pattern that is continued under the present pontificate of regular Saturday meetings between the Holy Father and the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. As I see it, this reflects a linear and top-down style.
Far better that the Pope should, say at monthly intervals, visit in person the Congregation for Bishops, engaging staff and consultors in conversation about episcopal appointments. This perspective could then be carried into the regular Saturday meetings. It would be better that these vital meetings also follow a “trinitarian” modality, with the Prefect being accompanied by at least two consultant assessors to enhance the roundedness of papal briefings.
The clarifications and perspectives offered to the Holy Father should not just be those of the Prefect, so that the Pope will know that his decision is the culmination of a searching consultative manner that observes due process.
With this new approach, one may be more assured of an outcome that echoes the apostolic sentiments: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to elect this man as pastor for this particular Church.”
Fr Paul Anthony McGavin is a priest of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn, Australia
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.