The Synod's final document must be accepted since it constitutes church teaching, says Francis.

"The Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter and thus I ask that it be accepted as such" he wrote to bishops when he was handing them the document, using the church's term for its teaching authority.

Many of its reforms will be a matter of implementing existing canon law, not rewriting it, he clarifies. When necessary, local churches can "creatively enact new ministries and missionary roles" and present their experiences to the Vatican.

Bishops responsibility

Francis said the document offers instruction on enacting the Synod's final report proposals which is now up to local churches to accept and implement.

Reporting will coincide with bishops' "ad limina" meetings with the pope and Vatican officials every five years.

Francis is firm about the reporting schedule, stressing that "each bishop will make sure to report which choices were made at his local church regarding what is contained in the final document, what challenges they faced and what were the fruits".

The Pope also says help with implementation will be provided.

He says the General Secretariat of the Synod, along with other Vatican departments, will ensure "individual national churches join the [ongoing] synodal journey".

What will bishops reports contain?

Particular issues the Pope will be seeking from the bishops' reports will reflect the key priorities the final Synod document highlights.

The way these are implemented will vary, he says. That's because the bishops of each country or region are being encouraged to seek "more encultured solutions" to issues involving local traditions and challenges.

Local churches are given freedom to implement these within their "different ecclesial, cultural and local contexts".

Key priorities (that are now part of Church doctrine) aim to promote a more horizontal Church structure. There must be greater transparency and more accountability for bishops and church leaders, increased lay involvement through new ministries and adjusted governing structures, and a guarantee there is space for previously marginalised groups.

Source

• Our Sunday Visitor
• Religion News Service

The Pope took this and a number of issues off the agenda because he wanted the synod to focus on synodality and not be distracted by controversial and complicated issues.

Discussions about bishops

The Synod on Synodality is meeting in Rome during October, with bishops and lay people discussing how to make the Church more transparent and accountable and less clerical.

They are looking for ways to encourage respectful listening in the Church so Catholics can discern together where the Spirit is leading the Church.

The delegates, however, understand that synodality will not happen unless it is supported by bishops in their dioceses.

Too many bishops see synodality as a threat to their authority or simply a waste of their time. The transparency, listening and accountability required of synodality are time-consuming and don't allow bishops to do whatever they want.

A debated issue

The selection of bishops has been a debated issue since apostolic times. There is no perfect way to select bishops. Every procedure has its plusses and minuses.

In earliest times, the process was very democratic. When a bishop died, the faithful would gather in the cathedral, look around and ask, "Who will be our leader?"

In ideal circumstances, the people reached consensus in their choice of leader. But if there was no consensus, factions formed to support different candidates. That is an inevitable result of democracy.

Too often, in the early days of the Church, divisions in the community led to disagreements that became violent. In 217, pagan soldiers had to break up public brawls among the Christians in Rome fighting over who would be their bishop.

The soldiers arrested both candidates (Callixtus and Hippolytus) and sent them to the tin mines of Sardinia.

Eventually, to avoid the laity fighting over who would be bishop, the electorate was limited to the clergy or part of the clergy, for example, the cathedral chapter.

Pope Leo I (440-461) said that to have a legitimate bishop, he had to be elected by the clergy, accepted by the people and consecrated by the bishops of the region.

The clergy would meet in the cathedral and elect someone. They would bring him out to the people and if they cheered, the clergy could present him to the regional bishops.

If the people booed, the clergy would have to try again. If the bishops of the region refused to ordain him a bishop, the clergy would need to find a new candidate.

This was a checks-and-balances system that would have been loved by the writers of the Federalist Papers.

As the Church got richer, interference in the selection of bishops by kings and nobles became common. They would use the threat of violence to force clergy to elect their candidate, who could be a relative or political supporter.

The papacy also gave kings the right to appoint bishops in exchange for political or financial support. In a few instances, the kings used their power to reform the Church, but the usual result was a very corrupt episcopacy, which prepared the Church for the Reformation.

The great reform of the 19th century was to take the appointment of bishops away from political leaders and give it to the pope, who would be more concerned about the welfare of the Church than government officials. This was possible because Napoleon had destroyed most of the Catholic monarchies.

Leaving the selection of bishops to the total discretion of the Pope led to its own problems when the Vatican placed its interests over the needs of the local church.

After the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI looked for pastoral candidates in the United States, especially ones who got along with their clergy. They contrasted with earlier bishops who were more like bankers and builders.

John Paul II, on the other hand, was shocked by the rejection of "Humanae Vitae," the 1968 encyclical forbidding artificial contraception, by many theologians and even some bishops.

As a result, he looked for candidates who as bishops would enforce his positions on Church issues. Benedict XVI continued John Paul's policies. Loyalty took precedence over pastoral qualities.

Francis is once again looking for pastoral bishops, especially ones who are close to the poor. He is more comfortable with discussion and debate in the Church.

The current selection process is highly dependent on the nuncio, the pope's representative to the local church and government of a country.

He presents three candidates for an open diocese to the Dicastery for Bishops along with a report on the diocese and a dossier on each candidate. He ranks them first, second and third choice.

The nuncio can consult with whomever he wants about the candidates, including bishops, clergy and lay people. He uses a confidential questionnaire to gather information on the candidates.

The Dicastery for Bishops makes a recommendation, which the prefect, or head of the dicastery, takes to the pope. The pope can choose one of the three candidates or tell the prefect to come back with a new list.

No public discussion of candidates is allowed under this system, which makes it difficult to have much lay involvement in the selection process.

The hierarchy fears that public disclosure of the names of the candidates would lead to lobbying efforts and divisive campaigns, but keeping the laity out of the process is an example of clericalism and contrary to synodality.

The people of the diocese can be publicly consulted on what type of person they want, but they are forbidden to mention names publicly. This consultation is rarely done today, although it was more common in the time of Paul VI.

The description of the ideal bishop by the laity in most dioceses was often unrealistic. As one observer noted, "They wanted Jesus Christ with an MBA from Harvard."

Synodality

Synodality demands there be more transparency and consultation with the laity about the appointment of bishops. The Catholic Church could also learn by studying how leaders are chosen in other denominations. If other Churches can successfully choose leaders in a more public process, why can't the Catholic Church?

Although in many parts of the world (like China), lay and clergy involvement would be exploited for political ends, there are places where the church is free to experiment with new methods.

For example, the nuncio could ask the diocesan priests' council to submit three names to him as candidates for bishop. Or he could share the names of his three candidates with the priests' council and get their response. The same could be done with the diocesan pastoral council to involve laity in the process.

Involving more people in the selection process could be divisive. Those who think more democracy is needed in the Church need to recognize democracy does not always work that well in the political realm, even in America.

But including more people in the selection would result in bishops who are embraced by their clergy and people. There are risks in opening up the process, but they are worth taking.

Since no system is perfect, we need to find something with checks and balances like the system proposed by Pope Leo I that involved clergy, laity and the college of bishops under the leadership of the pope. Whether we have the spiritual maturity to pull it off remains to be seen.

Synodality has shown that if we respectfully listen to one another in a prayerful setting, we are more likely to see where the Spirit is leading the Church. It can also help us see who should be the best synodal leaders as bishops.

• First published by RNS
• The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at RNS.

However, there has been little discussion about the shape of the church hierarchy, particularly with respect to accountability for performance.

We often think of the accountability of the parish priest to the diocesan bishop or local ordinary.

But for better and worse, the hierarchical structure stops there.

Yes, each diocesan bishop reports to the pope.

However there are over 3,000 diocesan jurisdictions in the Roman Catholic Church.

Among the leaders of these local jurisdictions are "ordinaries" with the titles of bishop, archbishop and cardinal.

While the variety of these titles gives the impression of a hierarchical structure, there really is none. At the level of diocesan leadership, the hierarchy flattens out.

Most countries have a national conference of bishops that, among other functions, makes statements about public policy, but it has no real jurisdiction over its members.

There are also ecclesiastical provinces, such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Los Angeles and San Francisco in California, in which an archbishop, called a metropolitan, presides at meetings of the ordinaries, but the bishops are not officially accountable to their metropolitan.

Finally, there are Vatican diplomats, called apostolic nuncios, assigned to particular countries, but they have no jurisdiction over the ordinaries in their countries, and their role is only advisory to the Dicastery for Bishops in Rome.

In legal terms, each diocese is a "corporation sole," under one person, with no corporate board of trustees.

So we have more than 3,000 ordinaries reporting directly to the Bishop of Rome, who is aided in the governance of bishops by the Dicastery for Bishops with a cardinal as its prefect.

This is akin to 3,000 professors reporting directly to a university president, with department chairs and deans having only ceremonial authority.

What happens when an ordinary is not performing well? I am not referring here to episcopal negligence or misconduct related to finances or the abuse of minors. I mean normal performance evaluation.

Of course, the ordination of a bishop includes a prayer for the charism of good governance.

Bishops are carefully vetted by the nuncios and by the Dicastery for Bishops before they are assigned by the pope to their respective dioceses.

But these appointments are made with less-than-perfect information.

Some bishops are able to hit the ground running when they assume governance of their diocese, but others may need more guidance. Regular performance reviews, as found in most career fields, could help both them and the people under their pastoral care.

As a professor, I have benefited from feedback from students, peer reviewers at academic journals and regular merit reviews.

Similarly, medical doctors must pass regular exams to maintain board certification.

Again, I am not referring to disciplinary matters. (Universities follow special procedures for plagiarism and other violations of codes of conduct.)

I am speaking about effective performance.

One important distinction is that bishops are not doing their jobs with an eye toward salary increases or promotion (at least we hope not).

We can take it on faith that they want to be more effective in their apostolic mission.

So the metrics for performance review should entail more than statistics about sacramental participation.

Reviews should include intangible factors such as the morale of the local clergy, the participation of the laity in the governance of local churches, transparency in decision making, the ability of the bishop and pastors to communicate with one another and with their lay colleagues and confidence in the pastoral care and formation of young people in matters of faith. Continue reading

• Paul D. McNelis, S.J., is America's contributing editor for economics and professor emeritus of finance at the Gabelli School of Business at Fordham University, in New York City.

Dozens of bishops, several in historically significant archdioceses, will be required by canon law to submit resignation letters upon turning 75.

At least 13 archdioceses and 21 dioceses could have new episcopal appointments by February 2025.

In addition, two dioceses — Fairbanks, Alaska, and Houma-Thibodaux, Louisiana — operate without bishops.

The number of episcopal openings could increase because of deaths or resignations.

If he names new bishops to all those local churches, Francis will have appointed 64 percent of the U.S. episcopate since becoming pope in March 2013.

Forty-six percent of current U.S. bishops are Francis appointees, said Catherine Hoegeman, a Missouri State University sociology professor who tracks U.S. episcopal appointments.

"Over the next two years, it looks like Francis is going from [having appointed] a little less than half of active bishops to a little less than two-thirds. I think that's a notable shift," said Hoegeman.

Since 1969, she said, popes have made an average of 15 episcopal appointments every year in the United States.

She also told NCR that the likely openings in the next two years represent an unusually high potential turnover among archbishops.

"Out of 34 total retirements in the next couple of years, a third of them are going to be in the archdioceses. That seems to be a little skewed with a higher percentage of archdiocesan retirements," Hoegeman said.

By February 2025, the archbishops of New York, Hartford, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Omaha, Houston, Mobile and New Orleans will have turned 75.

Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington turned 75 in December 2022.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston turns 79, four years beyond the traditional retirement age, in June.

Meanwhile, seven sitting bishops have already turned 75 and another 14 will hit the retirement age over the next two years in dioceses across the country — from Honolulu and Kalamazoo, Michigan, to Palm Beach, Florida and Portland, Maine.

Although Catholic bishops must send resignation letters to the pope upon reaching age 75, Francis can decide to let a bishop remain in position up to age 80.

Whether all the potential new bishop appointments translate into a U.S. Catholic hierarchy that more closely reflects Francis' priorities is unknown.

Church historians and other scholars told NCR that the "talent pool" of potential bishops was primarily formed in the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both of whom inspired conservative-leaning men to enter seminaries with visions of fighting "the culture of death" and the "dictatorship of relativism."

"To have great bishops, you need great seminaries.

"You need vibrant engagement with the intellectual life of the church, and I just don't see that happening," said Natalia Imperatori-Lee, chair of religious studies at Manhattan College in the Bronx, New York.

Imperatori-Lee told NCR that she believes the pope will have a difficult time finding enough "Francis-type bishops" in the United States to change the church's path from an institution engaged in the culture wars to one that more faithfully models Francis' "culture of encounter."

"I am hopeful the men who Francis appoints will be in the style that he has done, men who are pastors first, and bureaucrats second, who are not careerist climbers," she said.

"But I don't know that the pool of potential bishops and cardinals is of the caliber where we would really get revolutionary change in the U.S. hierarchy."

No 'perfect' bishop candidates

In an interview with NCR, retired Cardinal Justin Rigali, who as a former member of the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops helped advise the pope on which priests to select as bishops, described the process by which those candidates are identified and chosen.

In the United States, Rigali said that every few years bishops in different regions of the country meet to discuss potential bishop candidates, and send their names to the Vatican's nunciature, or embassy, in the U.S.

From there, the ambassador, known as an apostolic nuncio, seeks information from priests, deacons and lay people who know the candidates.

He said when he served at the Congregation for Bishops — now the Dicastery for Bishops — the office would present the pope with a list of three names for a diocese, sometimes with the congregation's recommendation for a particular candidate.

Rigali, a former archbishop of St Louis and Philadelphia, said no candidates are "perfect in every category," but that they reflect the sitting pope's priorities for a bishop.

"There's definitely a common thread; the life of the church in a particular time, and what is deemed appropriate and necessary in the choice of a pastor," Rigali said.

"Like anything else, there are going to be some differences of opinion, but we go by what the church teaches and what the Second Vatican Council says about bishops."

Continue reading

It seems like they are almost always the main focus or at least a significant part of whatever we write or talk about.

And why not? Bishops are considered "successors of the apostles by divine institution".

They are "teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship and ministers of government". These are the men who have been entrusted by God (what else is divine institution?) with the "function of ruling" the Church (cf. Code of Canon Law, no. 375).

The bishops are the "high priests" of Catholicism, marked out as the "principal dispensers of the mysteries of God" (can. 853). Wow! Talk about powerful and important people!

The bishops possess almost all the authority in the Church, as well.

They often delegate this to others, but there is nothing in the law that obliges them to do so.

In fact, no significant changes can take place in our life of worship, and no important personnel moves can be made without their consent.

Certainly, in the case of diocesan ordinaries, the bishops have the final say in all the consequential matters pertaining to the local faith community.

Like an absolute monarch

And then there's our obsession with the "super-bishop", the Bishop of Rome. Commonly called by his non-juridical title "the pope" (or referenced devotionally as the Holy Father), he is canonically designated as the Roman or Supreme Pontiff.

He "enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise" (can. 331).

In fact, "there is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff" (can. 333§3).

The pope is at the pinnacle of a power structure that exists only in absolute monarchies (of which there are few remaining today) or dictatorships.

Theologically, of course, the Bishop of Rome is not a super-bishop. But in the early centuries of Christianity, various popes steadily expanded their juridical authority over other local Churches and, soon enough, the imperial (monarchical) papacy was fully established.

If the people and clergy of the local Christian communities once elected the bishops — that is, when temporal rulers weren't the ones choosing them -, today, it's the pope who "freely appoints bishops or confirms those who have been legitimately elected" (can. 377§1).

Supreme administrator and supreme judge

What about the so-called "temporal goods" of the Church? "By virtue of his primacy in governance, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods" (can. 1273).

If a local bishop wants to sell church properties, depending on their monetary or cultural value and provenance (e.g. if they were bequeathed these properties), he needs the approval of the Apostolic See. Also called the Holy See, this is really just another name for the Roman papacy.

And when it comes to judicial matters, if "the diocesan bishop is the judge in the first instance in each diocese and for all cases not expressly excepted by law" (can. 1419§1), it's the pope who is "the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world". He can try or adjudicate cases personally or through the tribunals of the Apostolic See (cf. canon 1442).

You've probably noticed that the Code of Canon Law likes to use that word "supreme" when referring to the pope and his authority.

So, yes, he and his fellow bishops are a pretty big deal in the Catholic Church.

And it should be no surprise that they get a lot of press.

But for a long time now, it's usually not been very flattering for many of these "successors of the apostles".

A broken model

The problem is that almost all these men come from societies that are more or less considered democracies.

But they are trying to "shepherd" the people of their dioceses within a structure that is juridically top-down and quasi-monarchical.

This is an uncomfortable fit for most of them and their people.

I imagine most bishops do not want to act like a dictator, but they are working under intense pressure in a system where the buck really does stop with them.

Those who appear to be the most effective bishops are the ones who are not afraid to delegate their authority generously and empower others.

But how many do this?

Since all responsibility for whatever happens ultimately rests with them, there seem to be too many bishops who are careful about how they share their power.

It doesn't matter whether that is out of a noble sense of duty or out of fear of losing control; it's often a recipe for disaster.

There are those bishops who believe they must constantly "correct" those in their charge who deviate even slightly from the most insignificant Church law or teaching.

Their zeal to always be in charge leads them to do things that end up having a demoralising effect on their people and their priests.

The recent "Catholic Project" survey, which showed that most priests in the United States have serious trust issues with their bishops, is proof of this.

And the situation is probably not much different among priests in a lot of other countries.

On the other hand, the US bishops — at least as a national episcopal conference — may not accurately represent the Catholic hierarchy around the world.

During their conference assembly last week, they elected new leaders who are either in opposition to the pastoral priorities Pope Francis has set forth, such as dialoguing with all in society and accompanying people on the margins, or who have given those priorities a lukewarm reception.

That goes for the pope's efforts to implement synodality at all levels of the Church.

Is synodality the answer to the problem?

On the whole, the bishops in the United States are among those — and there are probably many of their peers in other parts of the world, too — who have shown little interest in the wide-ranging consultations with all the baptised members of the Church that are a key part of the synodal process.

The response of the US bishops to those consultations, which were held very unevenly throughout their country, was seen by many who are not exactly in the bishops' cheering section as surprisingly honest and reflective of the general mood of US Catholics.

The synodal process has really only just begun. It is in its fledgling stages, and there is still a lot of ambivalence, scepticism and even hostility towards it.

But if it does actually begin to take root in the Church and the hierarchy finds itself having to be in ongoing dialogue — even debate — with the People of God, it will be near impossible to simply ignore or easily reject the calls for change and reform it is surfacing.

Obviously, the very idea of synodality can find no home in a top-down, monarchical system where only a tiny group of celibate men ultimately make all the decisions.

But if it does become constitutive of the Church, as Pope Francis says it must, then the Church's current structure will have to be changed. Because otherwise, synodality will end up being nothing but an empty slogan, even a farse, if — for example — the Catholic faithful continue to be denied a say in how their bishops are selected.

And that includes the Supreme Pontiff himself, the Bishop of Rome.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

That will likely have a dramatic impact on how Catholicism may influence and interact with American social and political values.

The situation arises from the precipitous drop in vocations.

We still have bishops, priests, and deacons, of course, but there's no way to imagine a Church in which there's a priest for every parish—except by importing clergy from other countries.

Meanwhile, a recent study from the Catholic University of America shows a notable drop in the levels of trust and confidence that priests have in their bishops.

This "organisational" schism would be cause for concern in any organization, but especially in a religious one.

Almost two years ago, Pope Francis opened the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte to women, but that has failed to capture the attention of most women who already serve in the Church or would like to.

Among bishops, it has sparked even less enthusiasm.

The same could be said for the creation of the instituted ministry of catechist by Francis in May 2021.

In an evangelizing Church that wants to be all-ministerial, the very idea of ministry is still identified with ordination.

The predicament is even more pronounced for the ministry of bishops.

The post-conciliar crisis of the priesthood and religious orders is not surprising, given the perfunctory treatment Vatican II and its final documents gave to those ministries and their role in the Church.

But the bishop situation is surprising.

Vatican II was not just a council made by the bishops but also in some sense for the bishops: it offered them episcopal collegiality, a new language for local pastoral ministry, more control over diocesan clergy and, especially, over religious orders in their dioceses.

The very celebration of Vatican II was evidence that from thereon, the episcopacy would not only exist but matter.

The new USCCB leadership will be at the helm through the 2024 U.S. presidential election, when we may learn how much American Catholic support there is for American democracy.

Signs of an episcopal crisis are obvious:

• the high number of priests who are chosen to become bishops but who decline the appointment;
• the number of bishops resigning because of burnout;
• the cases of bishops quietly removed (and without any transparency, especially for the victims) by the Vatican over accusations or for being found guilty of abuse or cover-up.

This also all has significant impact on ecclesiology and Church governance—especially in the United States, as I've noted before, where the bishop's position has become more managerial and bureaucratic.

Functioning increasingly like the administrator of a mid- or large-sized firm, or even as a CEO overseeing legal, financial, and PR operations, the modern bishop is more and more at odds with the Patristic and Tridentine model that Vatican II had in mind when writing and approving the decree Christus dominus, as well as the constitution Lumen gentium.

Inspiring figures like St Charles Borromeo, bishop of Milan in the early stages of the application of the Council of Trent, commanded a degree of respect in the Church and in the public square that the Catholic episcopate cannot even imagine today.

In some cases, the job of bishop is interpreted to be more like an influencer selling products than a servant of Church unity as Vatican II imagined.

It further translates into a crisis of mission, something that's become clearer in the course of Francis's pontificate. Continue reading

The role of the dicastery is to help the pope in the appointment of Catholic bishops for Latin-rite dioceses outside what the Vatican considers the mission territories, for example, Australia.

Bishop appointments to mission territories such as New Zealand and Oceania are handled by the Dicastery for Evangelisation.

The three women, the first ever to be appointed to the dicastery, are:

• Sr Raffaella Petrini FSE, Secretary General of the Governorate of the Vatican City State (Left
• Sr Yvonne Reungoat FMA, former Superior General of the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians (Centre)
• Dr Maria Lia Zervino, President of the World Union of Catholic Women's Organisations (Right).

The appointments come after Pope Francis told the Reuters news agency in a recent interview that he plans to make women members of the Vatican office. Continue reading

After the recent resignations of Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon and Archbishop Michel Aupetit of Paris, and then the controversial legacies left by Archbishop Jean-Pierre Cattenoz in Avignon and Bishop Emmanuel Lafont in Cayenne (French Guyana), as well as the severe sanction that forced the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon to postpone the presbyteral ordinations planned for the end of the month, one wonders who's next...

Certainly, these cases cover different situations. But they all show how difficult it is to be a bishop in France today.

No wonder it is becoming increasingly difficult to find candidates who are qualified or even willing to accept an episcopal appointment.

This is a cause for concern, given the pastoral role of the bishop as the foundation of the institution and guarantor of the Catholic unity.

This is not just a Church crisis, but it's more generally a lack of confidence in institutions.

Politicians are not spared either! Those who accept public responsibilities find themselves on the front line of criticism.

In an increasingly "archipelagic" society, where social media is a formidable accelerator of division, it is clearly no easier today to "make society" than to "make Church"...

It is also true that bishops have been extremely weakened by the CIASE report on sexual abuse in the Church, which was published last October.

The liberation of victims' voices greatly destabilized priests. But the abuse report also directly affected the bishops.

Indeed, there should be no doubt about this: for some, it was a cause for deep soul searching; for others, it was something impossible to hear.

In speaking of a "systemic crisis" of abuse, the authors of the CIASE report clearly blamed the institutional Church for concealing the truth. And thus, those at the head - the bishops - were also blamed.

The 20th Century made the bishop the strong man of the Church. Everything rests on him, which was not the case in the past, when princes, lords and other canons were involved in governing — and controlling — religion.

Today, the bishop alone embodies the institution, for better or for worse.

Vatican II took note of this evolution, without providing for more collective forms of governance.

The result is an excessive centralization of power that isolates them and makes them vulnerable, all the more so in a period of crisis. We have passed from a generation of builder bishops at the beginning of the 20th Century to a generation of exhausted prelates who manage a crumbling patrimony.

In the eyes of public opinion, they are quickly becoming the first to be held accountable for a situation of which they are not guilty.

How can this be remedied?

Through synodality, answers Pope Francis. A synodality that consists in putting all Catholics in a position of responsibility. The goal is to move from a Church of people obeying a leader, to a Church where everyone is a witness to the Gospel.

It would still be necessary for Catholics to agree to take their part... And for bishops to be capable of allowing a form of creativity and initiative to be expressed outside themselves, while ensuring the coherence of the whole.

Basically, this is not surprising.

We feel the same need to find new forms of citizen participation in politics. And the business world is also well aware that management is no longer the same as it was in the past, but that creating a network requires skill.

The same is true for the Church.

It is necessary to rethink the training of managers, to diversify their profiles, to foresee procedures for collegiality, to have places where all believers can speak, and to have bodies for regulation, evaluation and control.

Plain and simple, Church governance has to be brought into the 21st Century.

• Isabelle de Gaulmyn is a senior editor at La Croix and a former Vatican correspondent.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

They '"let rip" at the Germans.

The Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland Church leaders' letter is an excellent example of one group of bishops seeing the synodal process as another country's "problem."

The Synodal Path "must be seen against the backdrop of the concrete situation in Germany", the Scandinavian bishops argue, because it gives the reason for the "felt demand/need for change".

How else could this be?

Should the German bishops reply to their episcopal confreres about the problems in the Nordic countries?

The Scandinavian bishops want to put themselves on the map and distance themselves from the "German problem".

Their letter begins in a condescending manner that continues throughout as if they bring a depth of learning and insight that is lacking in the German Church.

At the outset, they acknowledge their historical reliance on Germany from the Post-Reformation period, neatly forgetting their much earlier reliance on Germanic Christians.

They also acknowledge their financial dependence on the German Church, which they continue to enjoy.

An attempt to avoid the real challenges and issues

The "immense challenges" facing the Church, according to the Scandinavian bishops, are global and "overpowering" — challenges they wish to "negotiate" or "approach" in faithfulness to Christ.

"Avoid" might have been a more accurate sentiment. The implication of negotiating rather than confronting or addressing is clear, and it sets the overall tone of the bishops' letter.

Although they see the "felt demand for change" in Germany as the hub of the German problem, the issues raised by the Synodal Path are not "purely" or exclusively German.

The Scandinavians acknowledge that the issues raised by the Germans are "overpowering, global challenges for the Church", but as the bishops of the Nordic countries, they take issue with them. They only acknowledge ecclesial sexual abuse as a matter of justice and a Christian imperative.

The implication is that the other issues of priestly life-forms, such as celibacy and formation, the place of women in the Church (ordination and governance), and a broader understanding of sexuality are not matters of justice or Christian imperative for them.

The Scandinavians address sexual abuse with the now hackneyed episcopal condemnations.

They address this issue from the point of justice and Christian imperative because it is the "safe" issue. Safe, because everyone agrees that something should be done, and every bishop wants to be seen to be doing something.

The primary reason for their condemnation is not the ecclesial sin committed against believers but their concern for the continuing believability of the Church.

"Dangerous topics"

Again, they put the institution and the structures that created the sin first. But later in their letter, they seem to want to protect the same structures.

The other issues such as clerical life and formation, women in the Church and teaching on sexuality are treated differently, probably because they demand proactive change rather than reactive apologies.

The problem with these issues — for the Scandinavians — is they touch on the immutability of teaching and, at the same time, reflect the Zeitgeist or spirit of the age. They are "dangerous topics" that should be avoided.

Consequently, the search for answers to these issues needs to be pulled aside and reviewed by the unchangeable elements.

Clearly, the Nordic bishops have not found a dogmatic or Zeitgeist objection to ecclesial sexual abuse.

Given this context, they conclude that the "direction, methodology and content" of the Synodal Path are worrisome.

They accuse the Germans of being driven by "process thinking" and the desire for structural Church change without clearly outlining Prozessdenken and why structural change is problematic.

As a result, both process thinking and structural change are presented negatively because they reduce reform in the Church to a project.

Implicit is the notion that reform is neither structural nor human by design when applied to the Church.

The argument is that Church does change differently from every other human institution. Where the Church becomes an object of human change, it is no longer the subject of God's salvific will.

"Process thinking" and a richer theological debate

Process-thinking is an end-to-end process, that is non-hierarchical in its structure.

According to the Nordic bishops, non-hierarchical thinking threatens the non-changeable sources of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, and must therefore be eliminated.

The danger of process-thinking is that it can break down sacred theological silos and open discrete theological categories to investigation and scrutiny.

But on the positive side, process-thinking can enable a richer theological debate, better theology and Church structures, thus optimizing Church life.

Concretely, this means having laypeople sitting beside bishops making decisions in a fundamental "equality of equals."

Some would argue that this is a model of the early Church, while others would disagree.

By contrast, the Scandinavian bishops appear to want to disempower the image or metaphor of the People of God. They write that this is "only one of the images with which the living Tradition describes the Church".

That's true, but it is a crucial image or metaphor of the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.

A Church with passive members

The Scandinavian bishops suggest three other images should be used to describe the Church

• Corpus mysterium
• Bride of Christ and
• Mediatrix of graces.

These are more passive and receptive than they are active and dynamic.

The curious metaphor of the Church as the "mediatrix of graces" is a reference I have not found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

They might be meaning that the Church "is like a sacrament" (CCC 775) and "as a sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument" (CCC 776). If so, their theology is unclear and needs greater precision.

Having not paid sufficient attention to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the bishops have missed other vital images of the Church that Pope Francis has used explicitly and implicitly.

These include the Church as sheepfold and Christ as the shepherd; the Church as God's farm or field and God the heavenly farmer; the Church as building; the Church as Pilgrim People; and the Church as Body, for whom the "one mediator is Christ" (Lumen Gentium 6-8).

I believe the Scandinavians are correct to say that the Church "cannot be merely defined by the visible community".

But neither can it be defined without it.

For some, addressing the day's issues might be a capitulation to the current Zeitgeist. Still, for others, this is "reading the signs of the times".

The type of Catholic the Scandinavian bishops appeal to—and want the German bishops to hear—are those who sit quietly in their parishes with a strong sense of sacramental mystery.

These people "carry and set" the life of parishes and communities. They are not people who engage in questionnaires and debates, the bishops say, to defend them.

There is a "quietest" element to this type of person and a sense that the person who keeps his or her head firmly in the snow is the true type of Catholic.

Radical conversion and a radical image of God

But are these the people with whom Pope Francis wants us to communicate? His message is more outward-focused, asking us to engage with the sheep who have left the farm.

Consequently, the reference to Lumen Gentium 9 is double-edged.

How does the Church, in Christ's name, "approach the world and be its sure hope and source of salvation" if it does not also engage with the questions and push-back of the people of this age? Is it sufficient to live the ad intra life of the Church in peace and serenity by ignoring the ad extra "mess" we call human society?

The Scandinavian bishops then return to the "German problem" and the crisis of the German Church and its potential for renewal.

Condescendingly, they remember the dead saints, the past German theologians, and the humble and obscure German missionaries as examples of the life-giving patrimony of rich blessing for the Church in Germany.

Although they write of the need for radical conversion, they seem to want to avoid radical conversion that isn't spiritualised.

They misunderstand that the image of the People of God is a radical image of God, not of the people!

In this image, God is not the property of the people, but the people are the chosen of God.

Regarding the mission of the Church, the Scandinavians have forgotten that the Church — the People of God — are called to be salt and light for the world through living immersed in the world.

People sitting safely at home not participating in the life of the Church cannot be the synodal image of Scandinavian Catholicism the bishops wish to promote, can they?

The Scandinavian bishops should send another letter apologizing to the German Church.

They could explain why they are so frightened of facing the world's reality and why they want to hide from key contemporary questions.

Joe Grayland is a theologian and a priest of the Diocese of Palmerston North. His latest book is: Liturgical Lockdown. Covid and the Absence of the Laity. (Te Hepara Pai, 2021).

For those who are used to the generally compliant tones that have characterized the Catholic faithful's relationship to the hierarchy up till now, it must be said that this is changing.

Bishops in France are now being directly and harshly criticized by "ordinary Catholics" following the publication of the Sauvé Report, which brought to light serious failures in the way Church leaders in the country have handled sex abuse cases.

Increasingly, Catholics are openly challenging the legitimacy of their bishops. The lay faithful no longer tolerate the excesses of solitary power.

They also want to have a say and, in particular, they want to be a part of the process that decides who becomes a bishop.

Because the entire paradox is there. In the Church, the bishop is all-powerful.

It's ludicrous to think the pope can appoint all the world's bishops

No matter how brutal it is to call this into question, it is merely a backlash against a system of governance where power is concentrated in the hands of one man who holds all the keys to a diocese.

If a bishop makes a mistake or if he is not up to the task, it is the entire Catholic community that has to pay the consequences.

And the local Church is permanently penalized.

In view of the importance of the position, choosing the wrong man can end up being disastrous.

The appointment of bishops is undoubtedly one of the Church's most archaic procedures. It's ludicrous to think that the pope can individually appoint them all.

If we take into account that there are more than 5,000 bishops in the world, we can see that even a pope who never sleeps could never accomplish this task.

A process protected by the "pontifical secret"

Bishops are actually chosen by the papal nuncio — the pope's ambassador in a country — or by influential cardinals or bishops in Rome. Or by a combination of the above.

The process of selecting the candidates remains confidential, even ultra-confidential since it is protected by the famous "pontifical secret".

This means that those who are consulted for these appointments must not tell anyone that they have been contacted. They are not to disclose the criteria by which the candidate is vetted, nor what questions they have been asked.

One must obey the pontifical secret on pain of ex-communication, the Catholic Church's most serious penalty.

So, in the end, it's mostly bishops and priests who are consulted.

The questionnaire they are given aims to ensure that the candidate for bishop has no notable faults.

He must be totally orthodox in doctrine, never have spoken in favour of ordaining married men (let alone women), be "emotionally balanced", have an authentic prayer life and so on.

In short, the aim is more about avoiding problematic cases than making a choice based on positive criteria that reveal a real capacity to exercise future responsibilities.

Those most affected have no say

The system for choosing bishops was never revised after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). It remains clerical and lacks transparency.

Of course, the first among them - the Bishop of Rome - is actually elected.

Admittedly this election process takes place in the secrecy of the conclave. But it involves real debates and discussions in a collegial process that can give rise to several rounds of voting.

However, when it comes to choosing diocesan bishops, the Catholic faithful - those most affected by the choice - have absolutely no say.

We are not asking the Church to organize elections in every diocese! But between an open democratic process and a monolithic centralized appointment policy, a happy medium should be possible.

At the very least, the Church could come up with a guide of good practices.

The religious peculiarity of the institution does not justify the anachronistic way it appoints its spiritual leaders.

• Isabelle de Gaulmyn is editor-in-chief of La Croix L'Hebdo weekly magazine and is a former Vatican correspondent.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Originally written by the archbishop of Naples for his homily when ordaining three bishops last month, the eight "beatitudes of the bishop" loosely correspond with those spoken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

They provide encouragement and pastoral guidance relevant not just to the Italian conference but to the world's 5,000 Catholic bishops.

The beatitudes offer a portrait of how a pastor should be in the 21st century, in a world where there is so much poverty, injustice, conflict, suffering and human fragility.

They are a call to serve, TO work for justice, peace and reconciliation, to find goodness and to work to build fraternity.

They also highlight temptations bishops face.

The Bishop's Beatitudes

• Blessed is the Bishop who participates in poverty and the sharing of his lifestyle, because by his testimony he is constructing the kingdom of heaven.
• Blessed is the Bishop who is not afraid to mark his face with tears until they reflect the sorrows of his people and the difficulties of his priests, finding in embrace with those who suffer the consolation of God.
• Blessed is the Bishop who considers his ministry a service and not a power, making meekness his strength, and giving everyone the right of citizenship in his heart to inhabit the land promised to the meek.
• Blessed is the Bishop who does not close himself in government buildings, who does not become a bureaucrat more attentive to statistics than to faces, to procedure than to stories, who tries to fight at the side of men for the dream of the justice of God, so that the Lord, met in the silence of daily prayer, will be his nourishment.
• Blessed is the Bishop who has a heart for the misery of the world, who is not afraid to get his hands dirty in the mud of the human soul to find the gold of God, who is not scandalized by others' sin and fragility, because he is aware of his own misery, so that the gaze of the Risen Lord will be for him the seal of infinite pardon.
• Blessed is the Bishop who drives away duplicity of the heart, who avoids any ambiguous dynamic, who dreams of good even in the midst of evil, so that he will be able to rejoice in the face of God, finding its reflection in every puddle of the city of men.
• Blessed is the Bishop who works for peace, who accompanies the paths of reconciliation, who sows the seed of communion in the heart of the presbytery, who accompanies a divided society on the path of reconciliation, who takes every man and every woman of goodwill by the hand to build fraternity: God will recognize him as his son.
• Blessed is the Bishop who is not afraid to go against the tide for the Gospel, making his face "resolute" like that of Christ on his way to Jerusalem, without letting himself be held back by misunderstandings and obstacles because he knows that the Kingdom of God advances in the contradiction of the world.

Source

• America Magazine
• Catholic News Agency
• Image: Catholic Outlook

"I think my knees were knocking," now-Archbishop Wester of Santa Fe, N.M., told America's "Inside the Vatican" podcast.

The Catholic bishop said his parishioners told him, "‘You don't look very good, Father!'

"Well, I don't feel very good right now!' Wester replied.

It was kind of a shockeroo."

Archbishop Wester's story is not unusual.

Most bishops are appointed without ever knowing they were being considered for the job and are caught by surprise when chosen.

The selection process for appointing Catholic bishops is perhaps the most secretive hiring process in the world, shielded from both the candidate and the priests and people he will serve.

Those who are consulted about possible candidates are required to return the list of questions they've been sent, because even the questions, which reveal no particulars about a candidate, are protected under the Vatican's top confidentiality classification: the "pontifical secret."

There is a joke among the hierarchy that "a pontifical secret is a secret you don't tell the pope," but the secrecy around this process has been chipped away in recent years.

On this episode of "Inside the Vatican," working from a copy of the revised survey that he obtained, America's Vatican correspondent Gerard O'Connell summarizes some of the questions that the Vatican is now asking about possible bishops.

This isn't the first time details of the secret questionnaire have been revealed: In 1984, Thomas J. Reese, S.J., then the editor of America magazine, obtained the survey that the nuncio sends out to gather information on candidates. (1984 Article and survey is different to today's version.)

He published it, in full, in America.

The biggest blow to the secrecy around how Catholic bishops are appointed, though, came from the Vatican itself.

Last fall, it took the unprecedented step of revealing how former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was removed from the college of cardinals and from the priesthood for abusing minors, managed to rise through the ranks despite rumours circling about his sexual misconduct. Continue reading

Sources

• Inside the Vatican - Gerard O'Connell
• Image: Cardinal Marc Oullet Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops

Gmür says the Church's history shows that over time there have been different election procedures for bishops.

"It was only with the publication of the ecclesiastical code of law (CIC) in 1917 that the right to elect bishops was expressly granted to the Pope."

It is simply not true that while the 1917 Code tried to create the impression that the papal right of appointment was ancient and other models were based purely on an act of grace by the pope.

"So the development is only a hundred years old," Gmür writes in an article for Forum.

Since the earliest days of the Church, the broadest possible participation of lay people and other Church bodies were considered necessary in episcopal appointments.

"He who is to preside over all must be elected by all," writes Gmür, quoting fifth-century pope Leo the Great.

Gmür went through an uncommon election process to become Bishop of Basel.

Appointed bishop on the basis of a vote of the cathedral chapter that was subsequently confirmed by the Pope, a privilege that dates back to the Vienna Concordat of 1448, a similar procedure also applies in the St Gallen diocese.

However, Gmür wants a new process that goes past the models used in these dioceses.

He says that while these processes are wider than a papal appointment, the processes also suffer from shortcomings including a veto on priests not incardinated into those dioceses and the informal understanding - not institutionalised - that the cathedral chapters will take into account the perspectives of diocesan priests and laity in their voting.

"Mechanisms need to be found, according to the respective cultural sensitivities, to ensure that the whole diocesan people of God is adequately represented" in the appointment of its shepherds, Gmür underlined.

The Swiss bishop also warned of other possible pitfalls.

Gmür is of the view the procedure for selecting candidates and electing the bishop must not "under any circumstances" be organised as a democratic election campaign.

It must be designed as "a process of spiritual discernment leading to a decision that is as unanimous as possible" he insists.

"Here the Church can learn from those religious orders which have been practising this for a long time."

"Models for the election of bishops, supported locally by the faithful and at the same time supported by the universal Church, should not be the exception, but the rule." he reiterated.

Sources

• Novena News
• Forum

Recently French theologian, Anne Soupa, gained worldwide attention by applying for the position of Archbishop of Lyon. She has since been followed by other French women making themselves available for senior leadership roles in the Church.

Also, in Switzerland Marianne Pohl-Henzen, a mother and grandmother has been appointed as the Bishop's Delegate and Pope Francis has appointed six laywomen to the committee to oversee Vatican Finances.

As a group committed to working for justice and equity for all the Baptised, especially women in the global and local Catholic Church, we are encouraged by this stirring of the Spirit of change.

We happily added our signatures to the global petition in support of Anne Soupa and we wrote to her pledging our support.

Through her symbolic action, Anne Soupa hopes to "ignite the imagination of Catholics to imagine the church of the future", and she challenges us to ask the question, "How can we in Aotearoa New Zealand work towards greater equality and justice in leadership and ministry, to bring about a more inclusive model of Catholic Church?"

The vacant See of Palmerston North

We are all aware that, like Lyon, the See of Palmerston North is currently vacant.

While such a vacancy exists, it is a prompt for us all to discuss what kind of leadership is needed in our Church today.

What alternative models of leadership are there to fulfil the role of a Bishop of Aotearoa-New Zealand in 2020?

First of all what does the Church see as necessary for candidates?

The Code of Canon Law Can. 378 §1. currently requires that Bishops:

• Be outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues.
• Are of good reputation, are at least thirty-five years old and have been ordained as priests for at least five years.
• They also need to hold advanced qualifications or hold true expertise in scripture or theology or canon law.

We also add, that they have had real pastoral experience, show an ability to work collegially and have skill in administration.

After a short phone survey of friends and colleagues, we were able to make a list of ten lay people who have all these qualifications with of course the exception of ordination.

We are pretty sure that most Catholics will be able to make their own lists! But ten is a good start.

We did not include in this list members of religious orders, many of whom qualify, to really make the point that there are among all the Baptised, ample numbers of people capable of leadership in the Church.

Models of diocesan leadership

Our own answer to the question ‘What alternative models of diocesan leadership can we imagine?' we offer for your discussion and discernment.

Option 1

A fully inclusive shared leadership model - say four people one of whom is ordained - representing the diversity of the baptised:

• Tangata Whenua
• Women
• Men
• Different age groups
• Other key ethnicities/cultures

Option 2

Separating the management and sacramental roles of the Bishop.

This would enable the former to be filled by one of the Baptised - woman or man - not requiring ordination - but carrying authority in that area. This mirrors Anne Soupa's application.

In a country where the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Justice and the Queen's Representative are all currently women, it is not hard to imagine a woman as a diocesan leader.

Option 3

Following the traditional model, a male ordained priest as Bishop, working closely with an inclusive, diverse team, that reflects gender balance, ethnic diversity and generational demographics. A group committed to shared leadership and without the Bishop having a veto.

Option 4

To offer support and encouragement for women who put their names forward for the position of Bishop of the Palmerston North Diocese

In all these models, the team would also work in a way that reflects the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In closing

We will continue our discussion and research and invite interested women and men to join with us. Other ideas are:

• Start your own local group and keep the Apostolic Nuncio and your local diocesan leaders informed of your findings and opinions
  Join our group by contacting us on bethechange.aotearoa@gmail.com, and
• Take part in our inclusive prayer gatherings and ongoing ministry of working for equality in the Church
• Keep in touch with what we are doing through our email updates and looking at our website on www.bethechangecatholicchurchaotearoa.wordpress.com/

We offer support and resources to any groups on the journey of discerning new models of leadership in our Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Nga manaakitanga

• Ana Maria de Vos Sanchez, Christina Reymer, Jo Ayers, Louise Shanly - Coordinating Group for Be The Change, Catholic Church, Aotearoa
• The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of CathNews.

And the panel would be comprised of, wait for it…bishops.

"Would we have some sort of a panel, a board, of bishops … where we would take it upon ourselves, or a number of bishops would be deputed, to ask about those rumors?" he suggested.

"It seems to me that's one possibility, that there would be some way for the bishops, and that would mean working through our conference … to be able to address the question of sustained rumors," said the Washington cardinal.

To that I would respond, "Well, your Eminence, yes and no."

Yes, there should be a panel- there should be panels in every diocese and every deanery, ready to look into serious allegations made against any representative of the Church.

But with all due respect, sir, no, there ought not be a bishop residing on a single one of them.

There is an old Roman saying, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards?)

In a sense that needs to be asked, now.

The suggestion that the laity and the priests who trusted the bishops to do the right thing before — and have been amply burned for it — should just trust the bishops to do the right thing again would be farcical if it were not so insulting.

Wuerl's remarks suggest that he really has no idea how catastrophic the revelations about Theodore McCarrick's long-standing abuses (about which too many Cardinals and Bishops profess themselves "Shocked, shocked" as they slouch toward Eternity via Casablanca) have been to the trust of the laity.

Let me spell it out: That trust has been shattered. It no longer exists.

The McCarrick story, joined to other tales now emerging about mistreatment of seminarians and lay folk, have effectively worn us out.

We look at stories coming out of the United States, out of Chile, Honduras, and Australia, and we are finally — as perhaps never before — understanding the worldwide nature of the corruption that has taken hold within the depths of the Church, and we're saying no more.

Your Eminence, Esteemed Bishops, please listen: Don't give us another paper; don't give us another bloodless statement about policies and procedures that somehow manages never to admit to failing, never offers a mea culpa, never uses the words "sin" or "Gospel" or brings forth the name of Christ Jesus.

Forgive me, but it feels very much like our bishops and "princes" have lost the plot. Continue reading

• Elizabeth Scalia (pictured) is a Benedictine Oblate who blogs at The Anchoress and is the award-winning author of Strange Gods, Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life and Little Sins Mean a Lot: Kicking Our Bad Habits Before They Kick You.
• Image: Word on Fire

The Polish Bishops' Conference describes anti-Jewish rhetoric in Poland as being "contradictory to the principles of Christian love of one's neighbour."

A group of Polish rabbis responded, saying they "deeply appreciate" their condemnation of anti-Semitism.

They have vowed to "continue to speak out against analogous attitudes among Jews".

They were referring to anti-Polish sentiment voiced by Israelis and American Jews recently.

Bad feelings erupted in late January over a new Polish law criminalising anyone who blames Poland for the Nazi Holocaust.

Anyone who "publicly and against the facts attributes to the Polish nation or Polish state responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes," or "flagrantly reduces in any way the responsibility of the real perpetrators" may go to jail for up to three years.

Archbishop Wojciech Polak, Poland's Catholic primate, says anti-Semitism is "a moral evil and a sin".

He says attempts to divide people or pit them against each other "in a nationalistic context should be totally censured".

Another Polish archbishop, Stanislaw Gadecki, says hostility belongs "neither to Christian nature nor to the nature of Judaism."

He urged prayers to ensure "the great good achieved by common efforts of Poles and Jews" was not squandered.

"We need a spirit of peace to mitigate these extreme positions and show there's more uniting than dividing us," he said.

The Polish bishops also said St John Paul II had urged Christian nations to "uproot from their mentality all unjust prejudices about Jews and other symptoms of anti-Semitism."

Poland's new law has been condemned as "baseless" by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Jerusalem-based Yad Vashem Memorial Institute.

The Institute says the law will impede Holocaust research and debate.

Source

• Business Insider
• Crux Now
• Image: Catholic Herald

In June at least 69 of 167 diocesan priests together with some lay groups, called on Leteng to resign.

But, in recent weeks, some priests on Flores Island have been coming to the defence of the bishop.

Father John Mustaram, from St. Gregory Parish in Borong, defended Leteng in a statement at a wedding mass that has since gone viral on social media.

He called accusations of misappropriation - and of him having an affair - slander and warned other priests and lay Catholics not to speak against the bishop.

Another priest reportedly backed the bishop by accusing local media of playing up the row.

On a local news website, Floresa.co, a priest calling himself Father Rustam Effendy said the publicity was a plot by non-Catholics to destroy the church.

Representatives of the priests, accompanied by a bishops' conference official met Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Antonio Guido Filipazzi on June 16, seeking his help for a complete overhaul and transparency from Leteng regarding how things are run in the diocese.

A bishops' conference source told ucanews.com previously that the Vatican would make a decision on the matter after the nuncio met Leteng on July 7.

However, the source said on July 19, that the Vatican has yet to make a decision and that the complaint against the bishop had to go through proper channels.

Leteng has not responded to several requests for comment.

Source

• UCANEWS.COM
• Vatican Radio
• Image: matakotolik

Even a limited nuclear exchange would have devastating consequences for people and the planet, they say.

Their pleas for banning nuclear weapons come days after after North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach Alaska.

"Tragically, human error or miscalculation could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe," they say in a declaration.

"We call upon the United States and European nations to work with other nations to map out a credible, verifiable and enforceable strategy for the total elimination of nuclear weapons."

Entitled "Nuclear Disarmament: Seeking Human Security," the bishops issued the declaration to coincide with the conclusion of a meeting hosted this week by the United Nations (UN).

The meeting's aim is "to negotiate a legally binding treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination."

The bishops' declaration warns the UN that although the "horror of a potential nuclear war" calmed down following the end of the Cold War, "recent geopolitical developments" have reignited the fears.

They also point out that spending resources on building nuclear weapons was a waste of money, when it should be used for sustainable development projects.

"Our world has become increasingly multipolar," they say.

In this respect, they note the world is currently faced with a variety of threats, including terrorism, asymmetrical conflicts, cybersecurity, environmental degradation and poverty.

"These raise doubts about the adequacy of nuclear deterrence as an effective response to these challenges," they say.

Pope Francis has made the same points on a number of occasions.

Source

• International Business Times
• Catholic News Agency
• Image: ProPublica

Pope Francis really believes there is a serious lack of quality among priests and bishops in the Catholic church. Otherwise, he would not talk so often about the negative traits of certain men in ordained ministry, as he's done again several times in recent days.

"The world is tired of lying charmers and — allow me say — of 'fashionable' priests or 'fashionable' bishops," to a group of 94 bishops consecrated in the last two years for dioceses in mission territories.

"The people 'scent' — the People of God have God's 'scent' — the people can 'scent' and they withdraw when they recognize narcissists, manipulators, defenders of personal causes and standard bearers of worthless crusades," the pope warned the so-called "baby bishops," who were in Rome for a training seminar.

He also cautioned them about too easily accepting seminarians or incardinating already ordained priests into their dioceses.

Explore Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation on the family with our free study guide.
"Don't allow yourselves to be tempted by numbers and quantity of vocations, but rather look for the quality of discipleship. … And be careful when a seminarian seeks refuge in rigidity — because underneath this there's always something bad," he said.

The pope also warned the bishops to beware of a certain "sickness of our times," which he said was incardinating "clergy who are wandering or in transit from one place to another." He told them to act with "prudence and responsibility" in this area.

Why does Francis feel the need to say all this? Because he obviously sees it as a common problem throughout the Catholic world.

"It's a horrible thing for the church when its pastors act like princes," he said just two days earlier at his Wednesday general audience.

He was not being hypothetical.

He was denouncing something he believes is far too prevalent — that there are Catholic bishops who, in contrast to the people they've been appointed to serve, live more like royalty or wealthy CEOs.

He made that observation already in the first weeks after becoming pope at a meeting with papal nuncios (or Vatican ambassadors), men who play a key role in the selection of bishops. Continue reading

• Robert Mickens is editor-in-chief of Global Pulse.

The Pope is a Jesuit, and in the Jesuit tradition it is normal for superiors to pronounce regular ‘exhortations' directed at their underlings to try and knock them into shape.

In recent times words have been followed up by deeds, and several bishops have been sacked, usually for one of two reasons: financial mismanagement or sexual misconduct (sometimes, no doubt, for both).

The sacking of bishops does not really solve the problem, as it is an acknowledgement that the bishops in question should never have been appointed in the first place. What one really needs is a better way of finding good bishops.

The present system essentially relies on what Italians call ‘raccomandazione', or what we call the old boys network or cronyism. Men get made bishops because bishops recommend them for promotion; it is not what you know, but who you know.

This used to be the way of appointing civil servants to public office in Britain until Gladstone's great reforming ministry introduced competitive examinations. Competitive examinations are, at least in theory, impartial, and an impartial system of appointments would overcome the widely perceived favouritism that disfigures the current system.

There is something of the Ancien Regime about the way the Vatican works, despite the way the Pope has railed in recent years about the leprosy of courts.

Incidentally, the people who work in the Vatican, lay and clerical - how are they appointed? Are they appointed after the same sort of scrutiny used for civil servants in Whitehall and elsewhere? Continue reading

• Alexander Lucie-Smith is a Catholic priest, doctor of moral theology and consulting editor of The Catholic Herald.