Choosing Bishops...should the Pope continue picking bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David_B

Guest
I know at different points in time in the Church’s history clergy might’ve voted for a particular bishop, or probably more commonly civil leaders would’ve had a great influence on who became a bishop (which probably has included the Bishop of Rome at times as well).

Should the Pope take a step back and allow local laypeople or clergy pick their bishops like the Episcopal Church does?

I tend to think that perhaps the local clergy and lay people could potentially nominate candidates to be included on a list of bishops to the Holy Father, but I think the Holy Father should have the last word.
 
I picked other, because I would think it would need to depend on the time one found oneself in. Today? I shudder to think who American Catholics would begin to select as bishops! Until orthodoxy holds greater sway, best to leave it to the Holy Father.

Sometimes, I think that it should be done by sacred lot, as was done when the Apostles had to replace Judas. Of course, there were two nominees, so nominating was part of the process.
 
My concern with local priests and lay people nominating a bishop is that it makes the church begin to look like a democracy, which it isn’t. It also takes away from the universality of the Church. Local people will choose a bishop based on local customs and/or values, which may differ from Church customs and/or values. By leaving it in the hands of the Pope, the whole Church will be united under common customs and/or values.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I shudder to think who American Catholics would begin to select as bishops! Until orthodoxy holds greater sway, best to leave it to the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. This makes me think of what recently occurred in my home parish. We are currently in between assigned pastors. A few weeks ago the Bishop sent out 2 members of the Priest Personnel Committee to understand what the parishoners want to see in a new Pastor.

JUST SEND THE PERSON WE NEED!

Overall I’m very happy with Bishop Foys but I think this was a bad idea. This is not the local evangelical church where the the congregation can hire and fire the pastor based on whether they agree or disagree with him.
 
I didn’t vote because your poll doesn’t reflect the way in which bishops are selected today.

In the Latin Church each bishop must submit a list of three men in his diocese that he thinks are potential bishops. This list goes to the papal nuncio who, in turn, submits it to Rome. When a choice is to be made, the pope generally chooses from this list with (name removed by moderator)ut from the papal nucio (who has supplied additional background material on the man) and, usually, (name removed by moderator)ut from the other bishops in the area. So, in reality, the pope does not choose in isolation but has (name removed by moderator)ut from the clergy (in very rare cases the laity may also have had (name removed by moderator)ut to the list submitted by the local ordinaries).

This process is also used for those Eastern Catholic Churches that are considered “Metropolitan Churches” or lower in terms of their administrative structure. Churches with Patriarchs generally select their own bishops but, if the bishop is to serve outside the traditional territory of the Patriarch then the pope has final approval.

Deacon Ed
 
I believe one of the better principles which came out of Vat II is the principle of subsidiarity - basically ordinarily things are best handled on the local level (ordinarily being the operative word). This is why I think it is wise that there should be consultation from the local Church when it comes to choosing a Bishop for that Church. However, I’m also sure it is part of Canon Law that final responsibility is our Holy Father’s and my faith in the nature of the Petrine Ministry leads me to believe there really is no other way. And, I believe this principle and practice is and should be used by the Bishop in choosing a pastor for a parish in his dioceese.
 
Deacon Ed:
I didn’t vote because your poll doesn’t reflect the way in which bishops are selected today.
Click to expand...
Spot on! Our archdiocese sends letters to senior pastors as well and when those “ternas” are returned the whittling down process begins. When the diocese is finished, usually five are sent onto the nuncio who adds his notes and forwarded onto Rome.

One of the problems in the past have been with nuncios who didn’t do their “homework” (Villot) comes immediately to mind. Once appointed certain other things showed that the choices were not always the best. One can hardly expect the Holy Father to have met, personally interviewed and assessed one candidate over the other.
 
I picked other since I knew the process was as Deacon Ed said.

It should not go any lower than the Bishops when creating a list of potential candidates for Bishops and leave the selection (with advice) up to the Pope (at least for the Latin Rite).

Keep the inmates (the lay people), out of the process. I know I would not want me having say in the next Bishop of the Arch-Diocese.:whistle:

PF
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
I picked other since I knew the process was as Deacon Ed said.

It should not go any lower than the Bishops when creating a list of potential candidates for Bishops and leave the selection (with advice) up to the Pope (at least for the Latin Rite).

Keep the inmates (the lay people), out of the process. I know I would not want me having say in the next Bishop of the Arch-Diocese.:whistle:

PF
Click to expand...
I’m with you!
Detroit would have a whole different look when I have a vote.
 
It might be time to do something different, in the choosing of bishops.

The previous pope, John Paul II, had a real record of choosing mediocrities for the office. Some good choices, but so many subpar ones.

Bringing the selection process to a lower level where the new bishops are actually known could help. Or perhaps you think the new pope and his successors will just be a lot better at discerning good candidates than JP II was?
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
It might be time to do something different, in the choosing of bishops.

The previous pope, John Paul II, had a real record of choosing mediocrities for the office. Some good choices, but so many subpar ones.

Bringing the selection process to a lower level where the new bishops are actually known could help. Or perhaps you think the new pope and his successors will just be a lot better at discerning good candidates than JP II was?
Click to expand...
He followed the procedures outlined by the deacon above. Popes don’t micromanage the Church and they have to work with what’s there, ie, the men available. He has to take the word of the bishops who send the names to the nuncio, then he has to depend on the nuncio to do his job. The system may need to be overhauled, but I sense here a backhanded slap at John Paul the Great. It isn’t like there’s a practice or custom of him interviewing the candidates and if the popes DID do that, you can hardly expect them, during the course of the interview, to say, “Oh, by the way, HF, I’m all about Liberation Theology,” or “Look, old stick, you really need to get off your high horse when it comes to gays in the priesthood and gay marriage,” or “What do you think about my idea for tortilla chips and Margaritas as the NEW Species for the Eucharist?” The old Holy Father managed to “discern” a good candidate for the Holy Office in Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as other curial offices. Why? Closer to home, closer to scrutinty.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
He followed the procedures outlined by the deacon above. Popes don’t micromanage the Church and they have to work with what’s there, ie, the men available. He has to take the word of the bishops who send the names to the nuncio, then he has to depend on the nuncio to do his job. The system may need to be overhauled, but I sense here a backhanded slap at John Paul the Great. It isn’t like there’s a practice or custom of him interviewing the candidates and if the popes DID do that, you can hardly expect them, during the course of the interview, to say, “Oh, by the way, HF, I’m all about Liberation Theology,” or “Look, old stick, you really need to get off your high horse when it comes to gays in the priesthood and gay marriage,” or “What do you think about my idea for tortilla chips and Margaritas as the NEW Species for the Eucharist?” The old Holy Father managed to “discern” a good candidate for the Holy Office in Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as other curial offices. Why? Closer to home, closer to scrutinty.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, please issue a liquid warning the next time you follow along this line. Some of my keys are no longer orking!😃
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Excuse me, please issue a liquid warning the next time you follow along this line. Some of my keys are no longer orking!😃
Click to expand...
Sorry, NMM, they should make a postie for that!
 
I guess in reading the poll I should have read what was there and not project what I think should have been there. I see now the word which inspired my vote was “consult”, however, that wasn’t the word used - nominate was the word. I apologize to all for my misreading what the poll actually said. Still, I what I wrote earlier is my opinion with that fundelment change - there should be consultation (advise, opinions etc.) that come from the local level. I see that in another response someone wanted to keep the laity out completely. Consider this, the laity could serve as valuable consultants - if we really want a certain person to be Bishop then that could be reason enough to reject him?
 
I chose other because I’d rather focus on the end rather than the means, the end being the appointment of faithful, obedient, orthodox bishops. Given my take on the state of the Church in America (and Austria as well) the laity here taken as a whole can’t currently be trusted to have those three qualifications in mind.
 
40.png
NKY_Catholic:
I couldn’t agree more. This makes me think of what recently occurred in my home parish. We are currently in between assigned pastors. A few weeks ago the Bishop sent out 2 members of the Priest Personnel Committee to understand what the parishoners want to see in a new Pastor.

JUST SEND THE PERSON WE NEED!

Overall I’m very happy with Bishop Foys but I think this was a bad idea. This is not the local evangelical church where the the congregation can hire and fire the pastor based on whether they agree or disagree with him.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not a local evngelical church, but do you think that having any (name removed by moderator)ut into the process is invalid?

Even within the term “orthodox” there is room for different personalities and styles.

If a parish is made up in large part with more wealthy individuals, cout that make a difference as to whom the bishop sends? Or a large segment of elderly, or a parish with a school…

Presuming that somebody is going to make suggestions, are you willing to cede that totally to whomever in the chancery is involved with personnel issues among the priests? Most bishops have very little time to spend in a parish getting a feel for it; how else is he going to learn of any special needs or circumstances?
 
Maybe it is just my archdiocese, but I’m inclined to think, from what I read of other dioceses, that most herein are missing a major point, to wit: the bishops who are chosen generally (unless they are an “assistant” bishop) are assigned to another diocese, not the one they originated from. So even if the laity are involved in the selection process, there is a difference between being involved in the selection of bishops and the assigning of them to a particular diocese.

The current process has had a major fault that has not been widely acknowledged, Because the source of other bishops is an existing bishop, and since the bishops are drawing from their priests, and since the statistics have been thrown around that somewhere between maybe a low of 10% and a high of 80% of the priests are gay, and there is no reason to assume that the statistics within the priesthood are not mimiced in the office of bishop, there is a greater possiblity that we will continue to perpetuate the status quo.

Who is going to do the vetting? Right now that is the papal nuncio, and that is just one taks among many he has; he can fly into a diocese and try to do some background check, but what can he manage in the face of the entrenched issue? Who is going to lay out why so and so should not be elevated to the office of bishop?

Someone on the bishop’s staff?
 
40.png
otm:
Who is going to do the vetting? Right now that is the papal nuncio, and that is just one taks among many he has; he can fly into a diocese and try to do some background check, but what can he manage in the face of the entrenched issue? Who is going to lay out why so and so should not be elevated to the office of bishop?

Someone on the bishop’s staff?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the gay or straight thing, but I read in the kernel of your post that bishops pick men like them or men that support them? That, I think, is true and it is more than likely the heart of the problem.
 
I voted other.

The Metropolitan provinces can be their own synods for filling positions within their province. I think the national bishops conferences could act as a synod in picking the Metropolitans.

The Pope can be notified of the selections by letter and meet them during the next Ad Limina visit.

I don’t see any compelling reason to involve the priests in the selection, but a bishop has a right to poll his priests on any subject.
 
Anybody have any idea how many bishops there are, world wide?

And how many diocese?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top