Should laypeople have a role in choosing their bishops?

An argument in favor.

United States: 

Pope Francis says that he wants a special kind of bishop for our church—he wants “shepherds who smell of their sheep.” Let us take ourHoly Father at his word: Who knows how the sheep smell better than the sheep themselves? No one. So then why not let the sheep make a modest proposal and ask that we laypeople have a significant say in the choice of our bishops.

This proposal is not as radical as it may seem. Once the office of bishop was clearly established in the early church, that office was filled by the choice of the local people and priests, and ratified by the neighboring bishops as a sign of the unity of the church.

Even unbaptized persons were eligible to be chosen for bishop, as we know from the story of St. Ambrose, who was acclaimed by the clergy and people as bishop of Milan while he was still a catechumen. And the very first bishop in the United States, John Carroll, was elected by the priests of Maryland and confirmed by the pope.

Today we are so used to the pope choosing our bishops for us without any input from those whom the bishop will serve that we forget it was not always that way. In fact the right of the pope to choose bishops was only finally settled by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which clearly allocated that power to the holder of the papal office.

The way bishops are chosen today arguably does have some limited lay input. When a priest is being considered for appointment as bishop, the apostolic nuncio, the pope’s representative to the United States, sends out what are called apostolic letters. These letters go to select laypeople from the diocese, asking their knowledge of the candidate’s position on some very specific issues, such as birth control, abortion, married priests, female priests, the remarriage ofdivorced Catholics, and same-sex marriage.

These questions reveal the slant of the Vatican that has given us so many culture warrior bishops, although perhaps the questions will change under Pope Francis. Maybe the apostolic letters will begin to ask new questions: Does this man have a concern for the poor? Does he dress in the best clothes, drive a fancy car, and enjoy fine food and drink? Does he spend more time with rich people than with poor people?

Even better, the letters might possibly go to different people. Right now, the only folks who get those letters tend to be wealthy donors; the poor people of a diocese never get apostolic letters from the papal nuncio. Besides the limited input of such apostolic letters, however, there really is no lay participation regarding which men are chosen to be our bishops.

So then how do bishops come to be chosen today? Dioceses in the United States are divided into what are known as “ecclesiastical provinces,” e.g. every diocese in the state of Illinois is in the province of Chicago, every diocese in the state of Pennsylvania is in the province of Philadelphia , etc. Each of these provinces has a list of potential candidates for bishop, compiled from suggestions of priests favored by the bishops of that province, which they update every so often. No laypeople are given the chance to contribute any names to that list.

Supposedly, when there is a need for a diocesan bishop in the province, the papal nuncio begins the hunt by looking at the candidates on that list. And even more importantly, the papal nuncio is not bound by the list; it is only a starting point. He may place other priests’ names from around the country on the list of candidates that he prepares.

The nuncio narrows the candidates down to a final list of three names (called a “terna”) which is sent to the Congregation for Bishops in Rome. The list is vetted, perhaps rewritten with different names, and then sent on to the pope. The pope can pick any name from the list of three that the Congregation for Bishops gives him, or he can go off-list and pick someone completely different. John Paul II, who was well-traveled both before and after becoming pope, supposedly went off-list a number of times to name as diocesan bishops men whom he knew personally.

This current system can result in bishops being parachuted into dioceses by headquarters in Rome, without any knowledge of the diocese, its priests, or its people. Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn’t. Some bishops from outside are quick studies, and genuinely get to know their priests and people before they begin making major decisions. Others arrive thinking that they already know all they need to know and proceed from one disastrous decision to another. Usually this system gives us bishops whose only loyalty is upward—to their patrons in Rome or to the national hierarchy who campaigned for them—and not to their own priests and people.

I think that this one fact alone—the way they were chosen as bishops to begin with—helps to explain a lot about the way the American bishops mishandled the clergy child sexual abuse crisis. Recall that the national bishops conference dithered for years, looking for a solution from Rome. Being afraid to act without one, they did nothing while the situation deteriorated in the United States. Bishops who were more accountable to their people would not have acted that way.

What would it look like if laypeople had a real role in the choice of our bishops? In the normal course of events, before a diocese is about to fall vacant—and this is not a surprise date, since bishops must retire when they turn 75, which is right after the year they turn 74—the papal nuncio or someone from his staff should actually travel to the diocese and talk to the laypeople directly. In any given year, there are less than a dozen dioceses that become open, so this will not require a lot of travel.

The nuncio’s staff should visit parishes and ask people to stay after Mass to talk about potential bishop candidates; that way you will get those Catholics who actually participate in the life of the church (anywhere from 27 to 35 percent in most dioceses) to give their opinion.

The nuncio or his staff should then hold a convocation in the diocese where folks chosen by the people of each parish, not by the pastor, would be asked to attend and discuss suitable candidates. The people know who the good priests are. They are the men who Pope Francis described in his recent talk to the episcopal conferences of Latin America (CELAM), as “pastors, close to people, fathers and brothers, and gentle, patient and merciful.”

They must be simple men, devoted to poverty, and not driven by ambition. They must be “men who do not think and behave like princes,” Francis said, but “men capable of watching over the flock entrusted to them and protecting everything that keeps it together: guarding their people out of concern for the dangers which could threaten them, but above all instilling hope: so that light will shine in people’s hearts. Men capable of supporting with love and patience God’s dealings with his people.”

Source: U.S.Catholic

US ,Laypeople ,Choosing Their Bishops ,US Catholics ,Religious Men


  1. walter murzello said,

    January 17, 2014 at 10:04 pm

    This is one of the reasons MGP is advocating an EI bishop for EI Mobai…. Pope Francis is so much rightly down to earth right. Hopefully our Cardinal will read this post.

    Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:40:32 +0000 To:


  2. January 18, 2014 at 7:36 am

    Goodness Gracious me !!!! now elevation to the bishopric will become like the Municipal Council elections in Lonavla, where it is alleged/common knowledge that money changes hands for votes. But then it is better than some ” chamchas ” getting elevated, and becoming ” YES MEN “


  3. Isaac Gomes said,

    January 21, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    With reference to the article in Silent Voice on whether the Laity should choose their Bishops, the answer is certainly yes. After all Laity would be exercising its right as “Co-partners”, a right it has blissfully surrendered to the Clergy in spite of comprising 80% of the Church.

    The Laity should also exercise its right to select parish priests. The present practice of selection based on the views of a few priests is full of gaping holes especially in light of Pope’s November 2013 comment on model priests. A number of parish priests are predators in the guise of protectors (shepherds) who feed their ambition and line their pockets – in the absence of transparently elected Parish Pastoral Committee and Parish Finance Committee. In this act they are supported by their provincials and bishops / archbishops. It is like political parties joining hands to be out of the ambit of RTI though the act as per Rahul Gandhi’s holier-than-thou sermon is meant to weed out corruption! To do justice to Pope Francis’ desire to select “shepherds who smell of their sheep”, parishioners’ express views must be sought before finalization of parish priests. This can be done first by calling an open meeting of parishioners and then by contacting parishioners for their views through random selection from parish database. It would be seen that most parishes in India including West Bengal do not have a well-structured database so that they can play with the system and mainly donors.

    For the Church to be strong, its foundation has to be strong made of good parish priests who are simple men, devoted to poverty, and not driven by ambition.

    In an interview on the BBC’s Today programme last Tuesday, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Justin Welby suggested where a good parish priest is present, churches grow. He further said: “Of course there are churches that are doing better and churches that are struggling more, depending on area and on leadership. But the reality is that where you have a good vicar you will find growing churches.”

    The selection of Parish Priests and Bishops by the Laity is all the more pertinent in view of Pope Francis’ comment on priests when he said men studying for the Roman Catholic priesthood should be properly trained or the Church could risk “creating little monsters” more concerned with their careers than serving people. In comments made in November but only published on Friday, Francis also said priests should leave their comfort zone and get out among people on the margins of society, otherwise they may turn into “abstract ideologists”. This is very pertinent in light of BBC News yesterday (18 January 2014) which revealed that the Pope Emeritus Benedict had DEFROCKED around four hundred priests during the last two years of his pontificate on proven charges of child abuse. Financial abuse (lining one’s pockets with funds donated for the Laity) is a bigger corruption to take note of while selecting Parish Priests.

    Compared to Bangladesh which abounds with local talent, West Bengal its predecessor is a clear case where there is a drought vocation due to local talent not being nurtured and local priests/ bishops not being at the helm of affairs. Some dioceses are even without Bishops. Bagdogra Diocese has been without a bishop for more than two years since its bishop was elevated to Archbishop of Calcutta. To cater to vacant Bagdogra the Archbishop has to visit it frequently. Calcutta Archdiocese itself being large and widespread needs two Auxiliary Bishops (like Mumbai) to render due pastoral care. In July, Raiganj diocese will have another vacant see due to Bishop Alphonse D’Souza’s retirement. The local laity’s views must be transparently considered before selection of Bishops for these places.

    In keeping with the prevalent practice of the church hierarchy in Kerala, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Orissa, Jharkhand, North-east and Darjeeling, preference should be given to sons of the soil, though ideally the best man should be chosen. Very surprisingly, there is hardly any Bengali face in the top hierarchy in West Bengal including the training centres. This has resulted in West Bengal’s indigenous rich culture being systematically stymied by the powers that be.

    Isaac Gomes Kolkata


%d bloggers like this: