Papal appointment of bishops

[twf]

Today, the vast majority of bishops in the Catholic Church are appointed by the Pope. There are some exceptions - Eastern Catholic Churches of patriarchal or major archepiscopal status elect their own bishops internally within their traditional territories, and some ancient European Latin sees still have the right of a local election by the Cathedral Chapter (eg. Cologne), though there is still papal involvement. This situation, however, is a relative novelty in the life of the Church. If I’m not mistaken, the last 150 years or so is the first and only time in the history of the Church that the majority of bishops have been papal apointees. If this process is such a relative novelty, why do most Traditional Catholics seem feel threatened by any suggestions of changes to the process? I can understand fears that more liberal factions would hyjack the episcopal selection process, but this doesn’t have to be the case as the Eastern Churches testify.

 

[ivan94]

It’s a bit more complicated procedure than pope just electing someone, and it includes a number of people, including the current bishop, bishop’s conference, apostolic nuncio and the Congregation for bishops. With all due respect to the pope, I don’t think he could simply know each and every priest best suited for being a bishop, and simply elect him, he needs advices.

 

[twf]

It’s a bit more complicated procedure than pope just electing someone, and it includes a number of people, including the current bishop, bishop’s conference, apostolic nuncio and the Congregation for bishops. With all due respect to the pope, I don’t think he could simply know each and every priest best suited for being a bishop, and simply elect him, he needs advices.

I realize that there is a complicated process involving many people in the election of bishops, but the formal appointment is still made by the pope.

 

[ivan94]

Yes, pope has the final word.

 

[commenter]

In our time, the media has become super powerful, highly centralized, almost an established church in our culture, and much of Western Civilization. Whoever they designate as a “star”, becomes a “star”, in entertainment, politics, or almost any endeavor.
They don’t try to report what or who is important - whatever or whoever they report, becomes “important”. Whoever they choose to ignore, doesn’t get promoted to anything.

This is true in many denominations. Whichever clergy promote what the daily newspaper or TV wants, become identified as “brilliant”, or “pastoral”. Whichever clergy don’t obey the media, like those who affirm prolife, or doctrine, either get ignored or labeled as “rigid”, or “dogmatic”. Would you really want the NY Times to, in effect, choose the next Archbishop of NY?

The current process allows for local and national (name removed by moderator)ut, though confidential, not by any media-dominated popularity contest. The pope can, on unusual circumstances, choose someone outside that process. This sometimes happens under most popes. Sometimes the kind of bishop or pastor the people need is not the one the media tells them they “want”. Think of the American South in 1950. Would most dioceses (people, or clergy) have chosen a civil rights oriented bishop? Or think of the last few decades, would JP II or Benedict been able to appoint so many strong doctrinal bishops if priests got promoted to prominence through the same media process that promotes the Kardashians?

 

[Chatter163]

In our time, the media has become super powerful, highly centralized, almost an established church in our culture, and much of Western Civilization. Whoever they designate as a “star”, becomes a “star”, in entertainment, politics, or almost any endeavor.
They don’t try to report what or who is important - whatever or whoever they report, becomes “important”. Whoever they choose to ignore, doesn’t get promoted to anything.

This is true in many denominations. Whichever clergy promote what the daily newspaper or TV wants, become identified as “brilliant”, or “pastoral”. Whichever clergy don’t obey the media, like those who affirm prolife, or doctrine, either get ignored or labeled as “rigid”, or “dogmatic”. Would you really want the NY Times to, in effect, choose the next Archbishop of NY?

The current process allows for local and national (name removed by moderator)ut, though confidential, not by any media-dominated popularity contest. The pope can, on unusual circumstances, choose someone outside that process. This sometimes happens under most popes. Sometimes the kind of bishop or pastor the people need is not the one the media tells them they “want”. Think of the American South in 1950. Would most dioceses (people, or clergy) have chosen a civil rights oriented bishop? Or think of the last few decades, would JP II or Benedict been able to appoint so many strong doctrinal bishops if priests got promoted to prominence through the same media process that promotes the Kardashians?

An absolutely well-thought and expertly expressed post. Thank you!

Some people asked me last year why the papal conclave is so secret. I explained that, historically speaking, it developed this way in an attempt to prevent secular governments from attempting to influence the outcome. Someone asked me if I really thought that was still something that needed to be protected against. I said absolutely yes, and even more so, were attempts that corporations, including the mass media, would surely undertake, because of the perceived influence that the papacy has on so many Catholics and others. The fact that there were attempts by reporters to infiltrate the Sistine Chapel last year, disguised as service personnel, is an indication of this.