From the time Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas as one of the
Twelve, the process by which bishops are selected has been an important
and often controversial issue in the church. As the American bishops take
on a larger and more visible role in the debate over public policy, this
selection process becomes of interest not only to Catholics but also to
other American citizens.
Yet even Catholics know little about the process by which their bishops
are selected. Church documents describe the process in skeletal outline,
but the appointments are shrouded in secrecy with the participants bound
by a vow of silence (papal secret) about the names under consideration.
Although no one is willing to reveal the names and backgrounds of episcopal
candidates, key participants were willing to describe in detail to me
the process itself. Some interviews were given with the understanding
that although the information could be published, the sources could not
be revealed. Others, such as Archbishop Jean Jadot, former Apostolic Delegate
to the United States, were willing to be quoted for the record.
In the appointment of bishops, it is important to distinguish between
the first appointment of a priest as a bishop and his later promotion
to a higher position, for example, from auxiliary to ordinary (called
diocesan bishop under the new code of canon law).
Every bishop in a province has the right to put forward the names of
priests he believes would be good bishops. These names are collected by
the archbishop and distributed together with curricula vitae to all of
the bishops prior to their meeting. At the meeting, the bishops share
their information and observations on each candidate. They are supposed
to indicate whether their information is derived from first-hand knowledge
or from what they have heard from others.
The "Norms for the Selection of Candidates for the Episcopacy in the
Latin Church" (March 25, 1972) is very explicit about the qualities the
bishops should look for in a candidate who must be "a good pastor of souls
and teacher of the Faith: Whether they enjoy a good reputation; whether
they are of irreproachable morality; whether they are endowed with right
judgment and prudence; whether they are even-tempered and of stable character;
whether they firmly hold the orthodox Faith; whether they are devoted
to the Apostolic See and faithful to the magisterium of the church; whether
they have a thorough knowledge of dogmatic and moral theology and canon
law; whether they are outstanding for their piety, their spirit of sacrifice
and their pastoral zeal; whether they have an aptitude for governing."
Consideration must also be given to "intellectual qualities, studies completed,
social sense, spirit of dialogue and cooperation, openness to the signs
of the times, praise-worthy impartiality, family background, health, age
and inherited characteristics."
The diocesan bishops are instructed to "take care to obtain all the information
needed for carrying out this important and difficult duty." They are encouraged
to consult, "although not collectively, priests of the cathedral chapter
or diocesan consultors, or members of the council of priests, or other
members of the clergy, diocesan or regular, or members of the laity."
Vatican officials are very adamant in their opposition to collective
or group consultations because they fear they can be divisive and lead
to politicking and pressure group activity. When groups ignore canon law
and lobby anyway, it is usually against a particular candidate and not
for one. According to a survey by the Canon Law Society of America's Committee
on the Selection of Bishops, bishops who are consulting about potential
candidates usually do this by letter. They ask priests and sometimes others
in the diocese to submit names of priests they think ought to be considered.
The Rev. James H. Provost reports, however, that the "returns to such
mailed requests are reported to be low." One official involved in the
process said, "Priests do not appreciate the importance of letters from
bishops asking for names. If only 10 percent respond and they are old
pastors who want someone who will not threaten them, then that is what
they will get."
The candidates put forward by a bishop are usually from his own diocese.
One of the difficulties bishops have is getting information on priests
outside their dioceses. The priests who become known to bishops outside
their dioceses tend to be priests who hold diocesan or national offices.
This reinforces the natural tendency of a bishop to nominate priests from
his chancery staff. It is not surprising that chancellors and secretaries
to bishops have a better chance of getting nominated at province meetings
than pastors of rural parishes.
If a diocese has recently split off from another diocese, or if they
share seminary facilities, the bishop will know some priests in a neighboring
diocese. Bishops would also know priests in other dioceses who went with
them to school at the Catholic University of America or the North American
College. Thus factors that were found to be relevant to the appointment
of bishops in "Survey of the American Bishops"
(AM., 1 1/ 12/83)--chancery positions and attendance at C.U.A. or Roman
schools--are important at the very first step in the process.
Normally all of the priests nominated at a province meeting are from
the province. The exceptions usually occur when the bishops want a black
or Hispanic candidate and they cannot find a suitable candidate within
the province. Most candidates are diocesan priests, but the bishops can
nominate religious priests.
After the bishops have discussed the candidates, they vote on them by
secret ballot in order to preserve the complete freedom of each one voting.
The vote can be "white" (yes) or "black" (no) or neutral. Often a bishop
will abstain from voting (neutral) because he does not know the candidate.
These bishops are encouraged to learn about the candidate before the next
province meeting, since the candidates will be voted on again the following
year when names can be added or deleted from the list.
After the votes are taken, the archbishop may ask for more discussion
and another vote, if he believes it would be useful. He then is responsible
for forwarding the names to the pronuncio (formerly the apostolic delegate)
in Washington, D.C. together with the minutes of the meeting. The report,
besides giving the votes, indicates the office (e.g., auxiliary or ordinary)
and the type of diocese (large or small for which the bishops believe
the candidate is suitable. it also includes a curriculum vitae and an
evaluation of each candidate. The evaluation varies in length from three
lines to half-page.
The list of candidates is also sent to the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops (N.C.C.B.), which has a standing Committee on the Selection of
Bishops. This committee was formed during Cardinal John Dearden's term
as president of the N.C.C.B. shortly after the new norms on the selection
of bishops were issued by the Vatican in 1972. Early on, however, "it
was found that it could not effectively function," reports Bishop James
W. Malone, current N.C.C.B. president. "It still exists, but it does not
meet for the purpose in its title." the problem was that in a conference
the size of the United States, most members of the committee did not know
the priest who were being considered for the episcopacy.
The number of names on the list varies depending on the size of the province;
it includes anywhere from 5 to 25 names. The votes on the candidates are
not always unanimous. Archbishop Jadot, Apostolic Delegate from May 1973
to December 1980, explained: "The voting varies. In a tiny minority, when
everyone knows the priest, he gets all positive votes. If he is less known,
he gets a number of positive votes and abstentions. And some are contested,
half and half. It would be very exceptional to send a name that got a
negative vote. This happens when a name, for some reason is removed from
the list. Someone becomes a black sheep."
How important is this list of candidates? Under canon law, the pronuncio
could nominate for ordinary someone not from this pool of candidates,
and the Pope could appoint any priest he wanted. In fact, the list appears
to be very important. "It would be exceptional," reports Archbishop Jadot,
"if a bishop were appointed without being on the list. He might not be
on the list of the province where he was appointed, but he would be on
some list."
An ordinary might argue that he needs help because of the size of the
diocese or because his health is poor. Sometimes the pronuncio responds
by saying that if the diocese is too large perhaps it should be split,
or if the bishop's health is bad, perhaps he should retire. These responses
will discourage some bishops from asking again for an auxiliary. Other
reasons given for an auxiliary might be that a large ethnic or racial
group in the diocese requires special attention. Some bishops also need
help because they must devote time to work outside the diocese. Archbishop
John P. Roach of Minneapolis found he was spending one-fourth of his time
working on national issues when he was president of the N.C.C.B.
Although a bishop could petition Rome for an auxiliary without the support
of the pronuncio, it is highly unlikely that he would be successful. Finally,
even if an auxiliary is clearly needed, there appears to be an unwritten
law that if a bishop has less than a year-and-a-half to retirement, then
no auxiliary will be appointed, lest he be imposed on the new bishop.
If the office to be filled is that of a diocesan bishop, then the pronuncio
draws up a list of three names, a "terna," that he sends to Rome with
an indication of his preference. If the position is that of auxiliary,
then the diocesan bishop draws up the terna and sends it to the pronuncio.
The names proposed in a terna by an ordinary will normally come from the
list of priests who had been proposed by the province bishops. If one
is not from this list, the pronuncio will want to know why. Sometimes
the priest was not on the list because his bishop did not want to lose
him to another diocese: "I wanted to save him." But if the priest was
not proposed at the province level because the other bishops would not
support him, then his candidacy as an auxiliary is in trouble. The pronuncio
or Rome can reject all three names on the terna.
Archbishop Jadot explains, "Sometimes I would know it was useless to
send the names to Rome, and I would say, `Please put another name forward.'
If I turned down a terna, I would inform Rome that I couldn't accept it."
The bishop usually gets one of the three names he proposes, but not always
the first name.
Archbishop Jadot reports: "I never saw an auxiliary imposed on a bishop
against his will. if there is no agreement between a bishop and Rome--a
stalemate--then there is no appointment." This appears to have happened
in Chicago under Cardinal Cody, who had only two auxiliaries when he died.
Within 15 months of his appointment as Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal
Bernardin received four new auxiliaries. These appointments indicated
not only that the Chicago Archdiocese is once again in favor with Rome,
but also that Rome wants Cardinal Bernardin free to devote time to work
for the N.C.C.B. and the synod of bishops.
The report is sent by the administrator to the pronuncio together with
the names of people from various age groups and parts of the diocese whom
the pronuncio can contact to check the accuracy of the report. "Usually
the heads of the various administrative bodies and other persons in leadership
positions are contacted," explains Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., of the pronuncio's
staff. Normally, heads of religious orders in the diocese would be queried
as well as lay people who are officers in diocesan lay organizations and
members of advisory committees in the diocese. Some the pronuncio may
have met personally in his travels, but many o f these names are simply
taken by the pronuncio from those listed under the name of the diocese
in The Official Catholic Directory. All of these people are not only asked
about the state of the diocese but also asked to recommend names of possible
candidates to the pronuncio.
If there are bishops who have previously served in this diocese, they
will be contacted about candidates for their old diocese. The pronuncio
will also consult the bishops from the province to which the vacant diocese
belongs as well as the president and vice president of the N.C.C.B. For
an archdiocese, all the archbishops will be contacted. These bishops can
recommend names of priests or bishops who might be appropriate for the
vacant diocese.
After the pronuncio has narrowed down the list of candidates to eight
or ten names, he sends them to the president of the N.C.C.B. Bishop Malone
explains, "The pronuncio says, `These are the names that have surfaced.
Give me a list of three in order of your preference and give the reasons
for your preference.'"
In the past there were certain American bishops who were "kingmakers"
in the hierarchy because they had unique influence in the choice of bishops.
Cardinal Francis J. Spellman of New York and Bishop Edward F. Hoban of
Cleveland were very influential, but "There is no kingmaker among the
American bishops today," reports Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, a prominent church
historian.
During this inquiry, Archbishop Jadot reported that "the bishops of a
region are most helpful for the new ordinary. For an auxiliary, the bishop
and the priests are most helpful." While he was apostolic delegate, Archbishop
Jadot recalls that "Ninety-nine percent of the time, two to five names
come out strongly as the candidates. Most often there is a strange coincidence
of names coming from the bishops and from the priests--seldom is there
difference between them. When there is, then the apostolic delegate has
to work it out." On the other hand, input from the laity appears to be
of limited value. "It is exceptional when their answers are helpful,"
said Archbishop Jadot. "They are usually fine answers, but they have limited
knowledge."
If a vacant diocese has an auxiliary, he is an obvious candidate to become
the ordinary, and the pronuncio will hear from people about his qualifications.
The pronuncio also hears the views of people on whether the new bishop
should be from the diocese or from outside. While someone from within
might be more sensitive to the local situation, someone from outside might
be freer to act without his critics claiming that he is listening only
to his old friends and appointing them to offices. Sometimes there is
the feeling that "new blood" is needed in the diocese. Archbishop Jadot
reports that "there is usually unanimity or quasi unanimity in the diocese
over the question of whether the bishop should be a local person or from
outside.
In order to get information about a priest for the terna, the pronuncio
sends a questionnaire on the candidate to 20 or 30 people who know him.
Some of these names are suggested by the priest's ordinary; others are
diocesan officials or people the pronuncio has gotten to know personally
in the diocese through his travels. No only priests but also religious
and lay people are sent the questionnaire. The laity consulted ten to
be officers in diocesan lay organizations or on diocesan advisory committees.
Once again, names are also taken by the pronuncio from those listed under
the diocese in The Official Catholic Directory.
The questionnaire sent by the pronuncio contains 14 items, including
a request for additional names of persons who know the candidate (see
accompanying questionnaire). Although the questionnaire is detailed, the
covering letter indicates that it "is only to serve as an orientation.
. ." The pronuncio asks that the information be given "in a discursive
manner so as to develop fully your observations."
Most of the questions deal with the obvious physical, intellectual, moral,
spiritual, social and priestly characteristics that one would hope for
in a bishop. It is interesting to note that while the questionnaire does
ask about the administrative skills of the candidate (item 10), it goes
into much more detail, asking about his pastoral fitness and experience
(item 8). Under this item are listed not only pastoral skills but also
"a spirit of ecumenism" and "the promotion and defense of human rights."
And the question on leadership qualities (item 9) clearly indicates that
an authoritarian pastor is not wanted: "A fatherly spirit . . . the ability
to lead others to dialogue, to stimulate and receive cooperation . . .
to direct and engage in team work; appreciation for the role and the collaboration
of religious and laity (both men and women) and for a just share of responsibilities
. . ."
The questions on orthodoxy (item 6) indicate that a priest supporting
the ordination of women, optional priestly celibacy or a liberalized position
on birth control would not be made a bishop. But neither would a priest
opposed to the teaching of the church on social justice. Archbishop Jadot
explains: "If the priest's first reaction to Humanae Vitae was
negative--he just blew up--and later came to accept it, this would not
be a major objection. But if he does not agree with the magisterium .
. The Pope has been strong on this. He wants people who agree with himself,
and this is very natural. If the priest has given a lecture or written
an article against Humanae Vitae or for women's ordination, he would have
a difficult time becoming a bishop. He is saying the opposite of the magisterium."
According to Archbishop Jadot, it is exceptional when the responses to
the questionnaire reveal something about the candidate that forces his
removal from the terna.
After the pronuncio has examined the responses to the questionnaires
and prepared a terna, he writes a report (approximately 20 pages) in Italian,
extracting and synthesizing the content of the consultation and giving
his own judgment. He lists the candidates in alphabetical order and gives
his choice. He sends all of the documents that he has received to Rome
with his report. For the appointment of an ordinary this can be 120 to
130 letters. When the candidate is already a bishop, the documentation
is less. In this case, the question is not whether he is qualified to
be a bishop but whether he is apt for the particular diocese. All of this
can take two to four months depending on the size of the diocese or the
unanimity or tension in the diocese. Archbishop Jadot noted that "Archbishop
Laghi works faster than I did on appointments, be he travels less."
If everything is in order and the cardinal prefect approves, the appointment
process moves forward. If the appointment involves a bishop who is being
promoted, the episcopal members of the congregation do not have to review
the promotion, but it can be handled by the cardinal prefect and the staff.
In this case, the staff would prepare a five-page summary of the documents,
which the prefect would then present with his recommendation to the Pope
in a private audience.
If the appointment involves a priest who is to be made a bishop, his
candidacy must be considered by the full congregation. A cardinal relator
is chosen by the undersecretary of the congregation to summarize the documentation
and make a report at the meeting of the congregation. The cardinal relator
has to be fairly fluent in the language of the country of the candidate,
since only the pronuncio's report is in Italian.
The cardinal relator is often a former papal representative from the
country of the candidate being considered. But since the congregation
does not have a former representative from the United States, Cardinal
William Baum, and American who resides in Rome, is sometimes the cardinal
relator, but not always. The job of relator is rotated in order not to
overburden any of the cardinals. Cardinal Baum, for example, is also prefect
of the Congregation for Education and cannot devote all of his time to
the Congregation for Bishops. The more complicated and controversial the
appointment, the more likely the undersecretary will try to get a relator
fluent enough to understand the nuances in the documents.
All of the members of the congregation are notified two weeks before
the next meeting and given the agenda, which usually consists of four
or five appointments that will be up for consideration. Only those planning
to attend the meeting, however, are given the pronuncio's report. Since
most of the noncurial members of the congregation usually do not attend,
the decisions of the 32-member congregation are heavily influences by
the 14 curial cardinals.
Cardinal Terence Cooke and Cardinal Humberto Medeiros were members of
the congregation until they died, and they have not been replaced by other
Americans. In any case, they attended only a few meetings of the congregation
when they were in Rome for other business. Cardinal Cooke was known to
make special trips to Rome when the congregation was considering appointments
in New York.
Muriel Bowen in Concilium (137) reported that through most of
the 1970's Cardinal Heenan of Britain and Cardinal Conway of Ireland would
attend meetings of the congregation when appointments were being considered
for their countries. Cardinal Heenan told her that when an appointment
to Upper Volta was being considered, "I keep silence, read my papers,
write my letters," but when an English bishop was being appointed, "I
made clear whom we consider the best man." Cardinal Wright before his
death in 1979 complained to her, "Now it's reached the point where everybody
falls over backwards to meet the wishes of the local church. People like
myself with wider experience are ignored."
At the meetings (usually on Thursdays) of the congregation in the Vatican
Apostolic Palace, the cardinal relator gives his report in Italian and
the members of the congregation discuss in Italian the appointment under
the chairmanship of the cardinal prefect, who until recently was Cardinal
Sebastiano Baggio but is now Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, from the Benin
Republic in West Africa.
After the members of the congregation discuss the appointment, they vote.
Very often (some estimate 80 to 90 percent of the time) they follow the
recommendation of the pronuncio. Sometimes they recommend his second or
third choice. And sometimes they reject the terna altogether and tell
him to present a new one.
There has been some speculation that when Archbishop Jadot was apostolic
delegate from 1973 to 1980, most of his recommendations were approved
at the beginning of his term but that toward the end he had more of them
rejected. "[Archbishop] Jadot was very high when Paul was Pope," commented
one expert on the American hierarchy, "but he went down under John Paul."
This observer noted that "in 1980 when the president of the Secretariat
for Nonbelievers died of a heart attack, Archbishop Jadot was appointed
to replace him in a disgraceful haste in order to get him out of the United
States." A Vatican official, however, categorically denied this. "It is
not true that Jadot was removed," he said. "He asked to leave for reasons
of health."
Whatever the case, once he got to Rome, Archbishop Jadot says he was
not consulted concerning appointments to the U.S. hierarchy. This reluctance
of the Vatican to use an obvious source of information supports the view
that he is out of favor in Rome.
The final step in the appointment process is taken when the prefect presents
his and the congregation's recommendations to the Pope at a Saturday audience.
The prefect summarizes the discussions of the congregation and reports
any dissenting opinions and votes.
The Pope can play an active role at this point, especially if he knows
the candidates, as might be the case with bishops being put forward for
promotions. Certainly Pope John Paul II would play an active role in appointments
in the Polish church, as Pope Paul did in Italian hierarchy. The Pope
would also have to play an important role if his advisers disagree with
one another. Thus if the prefect and the congregation or the congregation
and the pronuncio are not in agreement, the Pope would have to choose
whom he would follow.
More important, perhaps, is the general orientation and direction that
the Pope gives to the congregation, the pronuncio and the bishops. Archbishop
Jadot, for example, was told to appoint more pastoral bishops in the United
States. Pope John Paul II, for his part, seemed to stress unity and fidelity
to the magisterium in his address to the American bishops making their
ad limina visits in September 1983. He said that they should look for
"priests who have already proven themselves as teachers of the faith as
it is proclaimed by the magisterium of the church and who, in the words
of St. Paul's pastoral advice to Titus, `hold fast to the authentic message'(1:9)."
He told the bishops, "It is important for the episcopal candidate, as
for the bishop himself, to be a sign of the unity of the universal church
. . . Never is the unity of the local church stronger and more secure,
never is the ministry of the local bishop more effective than when the
local church under the pastoral leadership of the local bishop proclaims
in word and deed the universal faith, when it is open in charity to all
the needs of the universal church and when it embraces faithfully the
church's universal discipline."
A few days after meeting with the prefect, the Pope informs the congregation
of his decision. The congregation notifies the pronuncio, who then approaches
the nominee and asks if he will accept the appointment. The extent of
the secrecy involved in the process is evident in the number of appointees
who are honestly surprised when they are approached. If the candidate
accepts, Rome is notified and a date is set for the announcement. The
entire process takes from four to eight months from the time a vacancy
occurs.
Although the pronuncio plays a key role in the selection of bishops,
the American bishops are also very important. First, by nominating priests
in province meetings they provide the pool of candidates from which bishops
are selected. Second, by drawing up the ternae for auxiliaries, ordinaries
have a tremendous impact on the American hierarchy. Two-thirds of all
the U.S. bishops received their first appointments as auxiliaries, including
57 percent of the ordinaries. They also can influence the pronuncio's
terna with their suggestions.
A third key actor in the process is the retiring ordinary or, in his
absence, the administrator of the diocese. He determines how wide and
thorough will be the consultations on the needs of the diocese and the
qualities desired in the next ordinary. he recommends to the pronuncio
the names of people who should be consulted about the diocese and the
appointment.
A fourth set of actors are the priests and others who fill out the questionnaires
on the individual candidates. These are primarily diocesan officials or
members of committees listed in The Official Catholic Directory. With
their answers they can make or break a candidate.
Fifth, there is the role of the Congregation for Bishops and its prefect.
Their role appears to be primarily a check on the pronuncio. If he loses
their confidence, they get him replaced.
The absence of resident American cardinals on the congregation is an
obvious defect in the current operation of the congregation. But it would
be of little help if American cardinals are appointed and then rarely
attend, as has been the case in the past. It is silly for American Catholics
to complain about Italian domination of the Roman curia if American cardinals
are not willing to fly to Rome to attend important congregation meetings.
Certainly the American church can afford the plane fares. But if they
do attend, they will have to learn Italian since it is the working language
of the Vatican.
Finally, there is the all-important role of the Pope. he is the one who
can ultimately appoint as bishop any priest he wants. While he cannot
give his undivided attention to each appointment throughout the world,
he sets the tone and the criteria by which candidates are nominated and
evaluated. He works primarily through the Congregation for Bishops and
the pronuncio, who are well aware of his wishes. If he does not like what
they are doing, he can replace them.
The selection process is not a democratic process but an institutional
process that attempts through wide consultation to find a candidate who
will be a pastoral bishop sincerely concerned about the good of the people
in his diocese. On paper it appears to be an autocratic process, but what
makes it work as well as it does is the good faith of the participants,
who are concerned for the good of the church and recognize the problems
that would result from imposing a bishop at odds with his priests and
people.
Besides good will on the part of the participants, the process works
well because of the checks and balances provided by people at various
levels within the process. For example, the administrator of a diocese
and a small clique of chancery officials might conceivably push a candidate
who the pronuncio finds through his investigation is not widely supported.
Or if the pronuncio begins appointing bishops out of touch with the needs
of the American church, the American bishops, especially the archbishops
and cardinals, can appeal to the Congregation for Bishops or even the
Pope. Even the role Rome is limited by the fact that it is almost totally
dependent upon information that is sent to it by the pronuncio and the
American church.
Although most of those involved in the process oppose making it more
democratic and public, they believe that the major flaw in the process
is the fact the priests do not take it seriously. Priests can have an
impact through recommending names to the bishops and the pronuncio and
by thoughtfully filling out the questionnaires on the candidates. Lay
participants are handicapped by their limited knowledge of possible candidates.
They can, however, have an important impact in describing the needs of
the diocese and the kind of bishop they would like. The bishop must ultimately
serve their spiritual needs and be their pastoral leader. While there
might be their pastoral leader. While there might be another system that
would work better, these are the procedures that are in effect, and it
is best to make the most of them.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, August 25, 1984
Copyright © 1984 by America
Press
All rights reserved
Province Candidates
For first appointments, the process begins when all the bishops (including
auxiliaries) of an ecclesiastical province meet under the chairmanship of
their archbishop to consider the names of priests who are possible candidates
for the episcopacy. The United States is divided into 33 provinces, each
under an archbishop. The bishops of a province meet once a year, except
for the Philadelphia Province, which has an indult allowing it to meet every
other year. In Chicago, Cardinal John Cody refused to call a province meeting
for three or four years, allegedly because he could not get the auxiliaries
he wanted.
Auxiliaries
The next step in the process depends on whether the position to be filled
is that of an auxiliary or a diocesan bishop (an ordinary). If a diocesan
bishop wants an auxiliary, he must first convince the pronuncio that there
is a need. If his auxiliary has died or been promoted, this will not be
difficult, but if he wants auxiliary in a diocese that has never had one
or if he requests an additional auxiliary, he will have to make his case.
Diocesan Bishops
Before the terna is sent to Rome, the pronuncio does his own investigation
of the candidate. If the appointment is as an ordinary, the pronuncio will
request from the current ordinary (or if there is none, from the administrator)
a report on the condition and needs of the diocese and the qualities desired
in the ordinary. Priests, religious and laity can be consulted both individually
and collectively in drawing up this report, as long as individual names
are not mentioned. In St. Louis in 1979, the example, four reports--from
the Archdiocesan Consultors, the Pastoral Commission, the Council of Priests
and the Council of Religious Women--were also drawn up and sent to the apostolic
delegate. This process was public and involved wide consultation.
Questionnaire
The scrutiny of a priest prior to being first appointed bishop is in some
ways greater than it is for bishops who are being promoted. Bishops have
already been through the process once and are better known by the pronuncio
and Rome.
Congregation for Bishops
When the documents arrive in Rome at the Congregation for Bishops, they
are checked by the staff person in charge of appointments from the United
States to see if they are complete. He summarizes and reports on the documents
at a staff meeting of the congregation.
Conclusion
A number of things become clear from a description of the process by which
a bishop is appointed. The pronuncio, as long as he maintains the confidence
of the Vatican, is the key figure in the process. For ordinaries, he draws
up the terna, and for auxiliaries, he can influence or veto the terna drawn
up by an ordinary. But once he loses the confidence of the Vatican, he will
soon be removed. In addition to his role in developing the terna, the pronuncio
is very influential through his report, which accompanies the terna. This
report is in Italian, the first language of most of the staff and curial
cardinals on the Congregation for Bishops. While he does send other documents
to the congregation, which can be read by members of the congregation and
its staff who read English, his report is the primary document. In 1973
Archbishop Jadot was asked to translate all the English documents into Italian,
but he refused because of the immensity of the task. In the 1950's the documents
were all translated into Latin.
For more information on the appointment of bishops, see chapter
1 in Archbishop: Inside
the Power Structure of the American Catholic Church, chapter 1
in A Flock of Shepherds: The
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and chapter 9 of Inside
the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Please describe the nature of your association with the candidate and indicate
the length of time that you have known him.
See also