Like many older Catholics George Ripon has found himself increasingly frustrated watching the steady exit out of the pews as the episcopal leadership turns increasingly inward and only interested in responding to the needs of those who seek simple answers and certitudes. In today's commentary he not only asks why can't the ordinary pew-sitters have a say in the election of bishops and priests, he also poses questions worth reflecting on as to whether we even need bishops today or, if we do, what is their role?

Why can't we have a say in the election of our bishops and priests?

In March 2006 an article of mine was published on this subject in OnlineCatholics and later published in ARCvoice (June 2006 – pdf version). However sad to say the Church has not responded so I feel the need to have another go, me the eternal optimist! Since then however, the situation has if anything got worse. See the recent attempt by Rome to promote Fr Gerhard Wagner as Auxiliary Bishop of Linz. The names submitted by the usual mysterious process were ignored in favour of a personal friend of Benedict XVI. The outcry from all over Austria led Wagner to withdraw. Worse still, the lifting of excommunication against four SSPX bishops bodes ill for the future. Why is there such appeasement of the ultra-right? If Rome gets away with this will we see these bishops rewarded with plum diocesean appointments, watch this space!!. There is a saying about "bad things happening when good people don't speak out". So is it time to speak out? I think it is. [Luke 19, 39]

"Perfect Match" Cartoon courtesy of Graham English

Before returning to my pet theme on the "Election of Bishops" I asked myself two questions, the first being, do we need bishops at all? Three major local churches, the uniting, Baptists and the Churches of Christ survive well without bishops. However we and others still have them, for the moment! So we will proceed accordingly. My second question and a more difficult one is what is the role of a bishop in the third millenium? What should we, the people, expect of them? Is it good enough to go round confirming, with occasional parish visitations and relaying Vatican inspired pronouncements? In all honesty I think we deserve better. For a start, as a side issue I would get rid of the Mitre, the big stick, Crozier and the Cappa Magna (The great Cloak). I see no place for these ancient symbols of triumphalism in this day and age. Many of our bishops have settled into routines with up-market accommodation (but no longer palaces as in times past). A bishop needs to be a man of the people, moving among them and hearing their concerns first hand.

Time for the "silence of the lambs" to come to an end...

One of the weaknesses in our present system lies in the appointment of bishops. While we have many good bishops many others are weak and conscious of their direct appointment by Rome and afraid to rock the boat. We deserve better and an open process giving the faithful a say could achieve this. Peter was given the job of feeding the sheep and the lambs, I think its time for the "silence of the lambs" to come to an end. After all the church is founded on the people of God in the pews whose financial contributions fund the "Ad Limina" visits of our bishops to Rome. So we deserve a voice in appointing them. Imagine a Pastoral letter from the local bishop saying, in three months time I will be going to Rome, between now and then I will be visiting every parish in the Diocese to hear from the people and the parish clergy on your problems and hopes. These I will take to Rome on your behalf.

So how could we be involved in the process it would not be easy but anything would be better than the present mysterious system. We could work on a regional basis. In Melbourne (the largest Australian Archdiocese) we have three regional bishops for our the 312 parishes listed on the Archdiocesan website. In the event of a vacancy all the parishioners in the region would be entitled to vote subject to an age limit. We would need to set up a catholic electoral roll with privacy protection. A selection group with adequate lay and local working clergy would take soundings of priests willing to serve and prepare a short list of candidates. Profiles would be published and voting would be postal and supervised by a reputable accounting firm. Rome would be advised of the result but neither it nor the local hierarchy would have any right of frustration. The process would need work and fine-tuning but the principle is important that the long sidelined People of God should have input into the selection of our bishops. I cannot but wonder how many of our present bishops would have succeeded in an election. For an Archbishop all the registered voters in the Archdiocese would be eligible to vote and existing bishops could apply.

As for prospective candidates I would like to see priests active in parish ministry with grass-roots experience come forward. Local, would I think be an advantage but others could apply. The initial selection panel should have at least 50% lay people male and female and good parish clergy representation. For the benefit of aspirants we need a broader picture of the role of the future bishop. As an elected representative of the people he would be encouraged to speak out more so than at present. There are important matters bubbling under the surface where an independent episcopal voice would be advantageous.

A potpourri of concerns…

"No Girls" Cartoon courtesy of Graham English

One of these is the new English translation of the liturgy. Having appointed a scholarly group on the International Committee for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) the Vatican later changed course in favour of going back to the past, pre-Vatican II language. The clear favouritism now being given to the Society of Pius X is already a cause for concern. The return to the Tridentine Mass in a language unknown to perhaps 98% of people seems odd. The primacy of conscience must be honoured and Humanae Vitae was clearly subject to "Non-Reception" by the faithful and will need attention. Another area in need of change is the appointment of parish clergy. I think we are the only church where the local parishioners are denied any say in the appointment of a parish priest. With the failure of the church to deal with the shortage, this for the present must remain a pipe dream. The more I think of the possibilities for "people elected" bishops the more optimistic I feel for our church.

In spite of its concern about democratic process I believe that Rome would come to accept the reality of elected bishops coming to speak on behalf of the faithful. We need priestly ministry. Its been clear for the last thirty years that vocations are diminishing at an alarming rate. Yet Rome sits on its hands doing nothing. Why not at least an open discussion on married male priests, accepting that the ordination of women is off the agenda, for the moment? Do we need Bachelors of Theology, Philosophy, Canon Law and Liturgy in our presbyteries? Does a priest need seven years academic training? Elected bishops regularly confronted with the unpleasant task of ringing a priest to impose a second parish on him would be in a stronger position to seek and expect a meaningful response from Rome.

In being critical of the process under which they are appointed I am not without a lot of sympathy for our bishops. They are put in pastoral charge of priests and people who had no say in their appointments. On the other hand once appointed, Rome expects unquestioning acceptance of all church teaching and regular reports that the faithful are continuing to "Pay, Pray and Obey". Bishops are almost the meat in the sandwich. Where is the "Collegiality" promised by Vatican II?

Here I got out the Documents of the Council specifically "Lumen Gentium" (Nov 1964) on the Constitution of the Church.

I found the headings as follows significant:

Paul, Bishop
Servant of the Servants of God
Together with the Fathers of the Sacred Council For Everlasting Memory

Chapter three deals with:

The Hierarchical Structure of the Church With Special Reference to the Episcopate

It is a lengthy chapter not easy to follow but Section 22 begins as follows:

"Just as by the Lord's will Peter and the other apostles constituted one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter and the bishops as the successors of the apostles are joined together. The collegial nature and meaning of the episcopal order found expression in the very ancient practice by which bishops appointed the world over were linked with one another and with the Bishop of Rome by the bonds of unity, charity and peace."

This reminds me of Robert Menzies' Primus inter Pares — first among equals, or as above "The Servant of the Servants of God". So how about collegiality, positively proclaimed by Vatican II, with the Pope surrounded by a Council of elected bishops.

Also on the Council, recent reports of a call by European theologians for full implementation of Vatican II is significant at a time when the opponents of the many great reforms. the SSPX are being encouraged to return to communion with Rome. Experience shows that putting the clock back rarely achieves anything. Yes we do need reform in our church but going back to the past won't achieve it. More than ever we need the initiatives and programmes of Vatican II, the brainchild of John XXIII not to be lost, so lets re-open the Vatican windows starting with a new breed of elected bishops.

I have proclaimed my optimism but admit that it is hard at times to maintain it in a system so reluctant to consider change. However in spite of our love and concern for our church, even in support of it we must continue the push for much needed reform. So lets take a good look at a new breed of elected bishops.

IMAGE CREDITS:
The background image used for the headline has been sourced from www.jamd.com, a service provided by Getty Images. The cartoons are by Graham English.

George Ripon, now in retirement is a parishioner at St. Patrick's Church, Murrumbeena in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. He is a member of the local Deanery group and a supporter of Church reform, Vatican II, Ecumenism and Christian Meditation