The Selection of Bishops
From Archbishop: Inside the Power Structure of the American Catholic
Church (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989) We try to find the "saint" who fits the niche. God help us all. From the time Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas as one of the
twelve apostles, the process by which bishops, the successors of the apostles,
are selected has been an important and often controversial issue in the
church.\1 Over the centuries the process has changed.\2 Even the United States has known different
methods of selecting bishops.\3 During
most of this century, however, the U.S. bishops and archbishops have been
appointed by the Pope with the aid of his representative in Washington
who is called a pro-nuncio. It is not easy to become one of the thirty-one archbishops in the United
States. According to canon law, an archbishop, like any bishop, must be
a Catholic single male, at least thirty-five years of age and an ordained
priest for at least five years.\4 In fact, the average American archbishop
is fifty-three years of age at the time of his appointment. Normally (90
percent of the time) a priest is already a bishop before being made an
archbishop. He might have been an auxiliary bishop or a diocesan bishop.
An auxiliary bishop helps a diocesan bishop, who heads a diocese, or an
archbishop, who heads an archdiocese. An auxiliary bishop is often promoted
to diocesan bishop before he is becomes an archbishop. Thus an archbishop
is usually not only a bishop (90 percent of the time), but also the head
of a diocese (61 percent of the time) at the time of his appointment.
In only about 10 percent of the cases, a priest who is not a bishop is
made an archbishop as happened in the case of Oscar Lipscomb of Mobile.
What is the system that selects such men to be archbishops? Bishops and archbishops are appointed by the pope, and they normally
stay in office until they die or reach seventy-five years of age. The
process leading up to the appointments involves a limited number of participants.
It is a process shrouded in secrecy with the participants bound by pontifical
secret about the names under consideration. "ANY VIOLATION OF
THIS SECRET NOT ONLY CONSTITUTES A GRAVE FAULT, BUT IS ALSO A CRIME PUNISHABLE
WITH A CORRESPONDING ECCLESIASTICAL PENALTY" warns the pro-nuncio
in large bold print when requesting information on a candidate for the
office of bishop.\5 Although unwilling
to reveal the names and backgrounds of episcopal candidates, key participants
were willing to describe to me the process itself, but most did not want
to be quoted by name. In examining the process, it is important to distinguish between this
first appointment of a priest as a bishop and his later promotion to a
higher position, for example, from auxiliary to diocesan bishop (who heads
a diocese--called an ordinary under the old code of canon law) or from
bishop to archbishop. The process for selecting an archbishop is fundamentally
the same as that for selecting any diocesan bishop. It should be remembered,
however, that the pope can make any priest a bishop or archbishop if he
wishes. 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.\6 The United States is divided into thirty-one
Latin-rite provinces, each headed by an archbishop who is called the metropolitan.
The other bishops of the province are called suffragans. The bishops of
a province must meet at least once every three years for this purpose,
although they often meet once a year. In Chicago, however, Cardinal John
Cody refused to call a province meeting for many years. 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 to all of the bishops prior to their meeting.
Included with the names is a brief description of each priest's education
and his assignments since his ordination. At the meeting, the bishops share their information and observations
on each candidate. They are supposed to indicate whether their information
is derived from firsthand knowledge or from what they have heard from
others. This is the only stage in the selection process where a group
of non-Vatican officials meets to discuss the names of episcopal candidates.
Anyone can individually send in names to the pro-nuncio in Washington,
DC, but meeting in groups to discuss names is strictly forbidden. The Vatican "Norms for the Selection of Candidates for the Episcopacy
in the Latin Church" is very explicit about the qualities the provincial
bishops should look for in a candidate. He must be "a good pastor
of souls and teacher of the Faith." They must examine whether the
candidates 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.\7
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."\8 The diocesan bishops are instructed to "take care to obtain all
the information needed for carrying out this important and difficult duty."\9 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."\10
Although no cathedral chapters exist in the United States, diocesan consultors
and priests' councils play an important role in diocesan governance. By
specifically mentioning them, the Vatican recognizes that their members
would be knowledgeable of the diocese and possible episcopal candidates.
Individual members of these consultative organs can be approached for
information by their bishop, but group consultations are forbidden. Vatican officials are very adamant in their opposition to collective
or group consultations, because they fear such meetings can be divisive
and lead to politicking and pressure group activity. "Nothing resembling
group consultations, canvasses or referendums may take place," wrote
the pro-nuncio Archbishop Pio Laghi in 1983 to a group of seventy people
in Pittsburgh who wanted to be consulted as a group. "This process,"
explains Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., former secretary to the pro-nuncio, "can
never rely on popularity or prevailing opinion of what the church `ought
to be' but on what the church actually is in light of the needs of the
local community and the universal church."\11 "People write on their own, even without being consulted,"
observed one participant. "They write to the pro-nuncio and to Rome
[indicating] whether they want a particular man." When groups ignore
canon law and lobby, it is often against a particular candidate rather
than for one. But individuals and groups will also push a particular priest
they want to become a bishop. "We usually look upon that with a critical
eye," said a participant in the process. "If there is any indication
of politicking or even the man himself engineering the campaign, it works
to his detriment. But sometimes it is very spontaneous, the priest is
loved and respected. The clergy, laity, and religious would like him considered
to be their next bishop, and he is, in fact, chosen. Vox populi."
This appears to have happened in San Antonio where numerous people and
organizations wrote in favor of the appointment of Archbishop Patrick
Flores. One of the first bishops to be aggressive in consulting his priests about
episcopal candidates was Bishop Ernest Primeau of Manchester, NH. In 1967
he wrote his presbyterate asking each priest to send him the names of
three priests judged by them to be suitable for the episcopacy. The bishop
alone saw and tabulated the returns. He then presented the top three names
to the provincial meeting of the bishops. This approach became know as
the Manchester plan and was promoted by the National Federation of Priests'
Councils.\12 According to a survey by the Canon Law Society of America's Committee
on the Selection of Bishops, bishops who consult their dioceses 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. Rev. James H. Provost reports, however, that the "returns
to such mailed requests are reported to be low."\13 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 nominated by the bishops must be priests who have somehow
come to their notice. As a result, 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 priest within the province. Most candidates are diocesan priests,
but the bishops can nominate priests who are members of religious orders.
Often the religious appointed bishops in the United States have been black
or Hispanic priests. The candidates put forward by a bishop are usually from his current diocese
or from one where he served as a priest or bishop. These are the priests
he knows best. Since many bishops have worked in archdioceses either as
priests or auxiliary bishops, it is probable that a larger percentage
of the province candidates come from archdioceses than their numbers would
call for. The presence of auxiliaries at the meetings also mean that the
bigger (usually archdiocesan) sees have extra votes at the province meeting.
Finally, as chairman of the meeting, the archbishop could also help push
forward archdiocesan priests. Since the names of the candidates are secret,
this hypothesis cannot be tested. It is clear, however, that while 36
percent of the diocesan priests in the United States are in archdioceses,
half the bishops originally came from archdioceses. "Few bishops know any of the priests from far away dioceses,"
explains Archbishop Jean Jadot who was Apostolic Delegate to the United
States from May 1973 to December 1980. "If the diocese had been divided
in two, then they would know, but the link becomes less and less every
year." Bishops have difficulties getting information on priests outside
of dioceses where they have worked. Bishops would know priests from other dioceses if they studied with them
at an interdiocesan seminary, at the Catholic University of America, or
at the North American College in Rome. Bishops who had been professors
or administrators in interdiocesan seminaries would also know many priests
who had studied there as seminarians. Finally, priests who hold diocesan or national offices would also become
known to bishops. This reinforces the natural tendency of a bishop to
nominate priests from his chancery staff or seminary. It is not surprising
that chancellors, secretaries to bishops, and seminary rectors have a
better chance of getting nominated at province meetings than the pastor
of a rural parish. They are better known to the bishops, and as one archbishop
said, "They're more gifted and more experienced." Thus at this very first stage in the selection process, we see some of
the forces that help push forward candidates who are from an archdiocese,
who have worked in a chancery or a seminary, and who have studied in Rome
or at the Catholic University of America.\14 These characteristics will be reinforced
as the process goes on. 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. The colors refer to small balls that were used for
voting in the past. A "neutral" bishop is encouraged to learn
about the candidate, since all the candidates will be voted on again at
the next meeting 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 pro-nuncio in Washington, DC, together
with the minutes of the meeting. The report, besides giving the votes,
indicates the office (e.g., auxiliary or diocesan bishop) and the type
of diocese (large, medium, or small) for which the bishops believe the
candidate is suitable. The form used indicates the candidate's name, diocese, parents' names,
schools attended and degrees received, date and place of ordination to
the priesthood, foreign languages known (in the United States, Spanish
is very important), appointments since ordination, "an appraisal
of the candidate in view of qualities necessary for a good pastor of souls
and teacher of the faith," and the "names and addresses of associates
(clerical, lay, religious) who could give information about the candidate." The appraisal varies in length from three lines to half of a page. To
show that a priest would be a "good pastor of souls" the evaluation
might indicate that the candidate is pastor of a "large, active parish"
that he, "in collegial cooperation with his staff, has made a model
of vigorous parish life...." Or a seminary rector might be described
as "highly disciplined while at the same time in close contact with
the thinking and trends of priestly formation today." In the evaluation, it is usually important to indicate how the priest
is viewed by his peers. If he has been elected president of the priests'
council, this would be mentioned. If the priests have been asked to send
in names for an auxiliary, the evaluation might note where he ranked in
the consultation conducted among the priests. Or the appraisal might indicate
that he "played a leadership role among his brother priests. He is
highly respected by clergy and laity alike." Finally, if there is something about the candidate that might raise questions,
this would be addressed. For example, if he is elderly, the evaluation
would note "he has good health, a vigorous spirit." Or if he
is relatively young, "he is very mature, balanced." The list of candidates is also sent to the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops (NCCB), which has a standing Committee on the Selection of Bishops.
This committee was formed during Cardinal John Dearden's term as president
of the NCCB 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, NCCB president (1983-86). "It still
exists, but it does not meet for the purpose in its title." In a
conference the size of the United States, most members of the committee
do not know the priests who are being considered for the episcopacy. As
a result, they have little to contribute. The committee spends most of
its time considering the division of dioceses. "The committee never
met in my three years as president for the consideration of names of candidates,"
recalls Archbishop John R. Roach, NCCB president from 1980 to 1983. The number of names on the list varies depending on the size of the province;
it might include anywhere from five to thirty names. The votes on the
candidates are not always unanimous. Archbishop Jadot explains: "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." How important is this list of candidates? Under canon law, the pro-nuncio
could nominate for diocesan bishop 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." There is some speculation, however, that the lists are not always used.
For example, a number of observers doubted that Bishops Edward M. Egan
and Norbert M. Dorsey were on any province list. These priests were working
in Rome when they were appointed auxiliaries in New York (1985) and Miami
(1986). A bishop also reported to me that a Hispanic religious from his
province became a bishop without being on the list. Certainly the ten black Catholic bishops consider the province lists
important. At a closed-door meeting of the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops in 1985, they called for the appointment of more black bishops,
including a black archbishop. They said, it was not enough that urban
diocesan bishops with large black communities look for black auxiliaries.
"It would be better," they said, "if black candidates were
proposed and considered regularly at provincial meetings in the same way
that other candidates are regularly considered. In that way the names
of talented black priests who could serve with distinction in the episcopacy
would be submitted to the Nunciature and the Holy See on a regular basis."\15 The key actor in the next step in the process is the pro-nuncio, the
papal representative who resides in the Nunciature, or Vatican embassy,
in Washington, DC.\16 Archbishop Jadot, the papal representative
from 1973 to 1980, is credited with the appointment of many pastoral bishops
in the United States. The current representative, Pio Laghi, was appointed
apostolic delegate in December 1980 and became pro-nuncio in 1984. As
pro-nuncio, Archbishop Pio Laghi represents the Holy See to both the U.S.
government and to the American Catholic hierarchy. Prior to the reestablishment
of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and the Holy
See in 1984, the pope's representative to the American hierarchy was an
apostolic delegate.\17 After Archbishop Laghi receives the names from the provinces, he places
them in a green binder where they are organized in different ways: alphabetically,
by province, by ethnic group, etc. The role of the pro-nuncio in the appointment of bishops is emphasized
by all the participants and by all those who have studied the process.
He is the one who sends the names of episcopal candidates to Rome together
with his evaluation and report. "My role is not just to get information,
to just give the facts, but to help the Holy See understand what the facts
mean," explained Archbishop Jadot.\18 "The pro-nuncio is very important
in the process of choosing bishops," reports the American church
historian Msgr. John Tracy Ellis. "Pio Laghi stands very high in
Rome." But the pro-nuncio is not all powerful. His recommendations are influenced
by the American bishops and they must be confirmed by Rome if they are
to take effect. Archbishop Jadot, for example, who had great influence
while Paul VI was pope, lost the confidence of Rome during the reign of
John Paul II. On the other hand, Jadot's predecessor, Archbishop Luigi
Raimondi, lost the confidence of the American bishops who asked Rome to
remove him. With the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Holy See, some
people fear that the American government might attempt to interfere in
the appointment of bishops as have many governments through history. The
National Association of Laity (NAL) joined Americans and Others United
for Separation of Church and State in seeking a court injunction against
the establishment of diplomatic relations. In its brief the NAL. complained
of "the potential for Government intrusion into the internal affairs
of the Roman Catholic Church," thus reducing their input into church
affairs. The Justice Department responded that such fears are "pure
speculation," but that if "the effectiveness of plaintiffs'
input were to suffer, that diminution would not be traceable to any act
of the United States Government, but to decisions of the church hierarchy."\19 In other words, the Justice Department said, if the president through
his ambassador gets the pope to appoint a certain person the bishop of
a diocese, then the NAL should complain to the pope, not the U.S. government.
Since the court sided with the government, the Justice Department's brief
should make Catholics nervous about how the U.S. ambassador to the Holy
See might be used. President Roosevelt, for example, tried to get Bishop Bernard Sheil appointed
as the archbishop of Chicago in 1939. "He is about the only prominent
churchman in the country who has even a faint coloration of liberalism,"
wrote Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes in his diaries.\20
When that effort failed, President Roosevelt tried to get Sheil appointed
the archbishop of Washington, DC. In a memorandum to Myron Taylor, his
representative to the Holy See, the president wrote, "it is important
that he be a reputable and liberal-minded bishop. Bishop Bernard J. Sheil,
who was understudy to Cardinal Mundelein [of Chicago] would be an agreeable
choice."\21 Taylor approached
Cardinal Luigi Maglione, the papal secretary of state, but again Roosevelt
was unsuccessful. Secretary Ickes complained to his diary, "I do
not think that the Vatican would have dared turn him [the president] down
if he had made strong representations."\22 Because of the opposition of the American Catholic bishops to the Reagan
administration's economic and nuclear policies, some bishops feared the
administration would use its ambassador to the Holy See to attack them
in Rome. One archbishop claims that Ambassador William A. Wilson, a California
Catholic, gave a list of twenty or thirty troublesome bishops to the Vatican.
Ambassador Wilson denies this. Ambassador Wilson and the State Department say that they avoid discussing
the internal affairs of the American Catholic church with Vatican officials.\23 This policy goes back to 1784 when Benjamin
Franklin was approached by the papal nuncio at Versailles concerning the
appointment of bishops in the United States. The Continental Congress
instructed Doctor Franklin to notify the nuncio that the question was
outside its jurisdiction. Despite these instructions, Franklin appears
to have recommended John Carroll anyway.\24 In 1848 Secretary of State Buchanan instructed
the first chargé d'affaires in Rome to "carefully avoid even the
appearance of interfering in ecclesiastical questions, whether these relate
to the United States or any other portion of the world."\25
After the names of potential candidates have been sent to the pro-nuncio
by the archbishops, the next step in the process depends on whether the
position to be filled is that of an auxiliary or a diocesan bishop. A
diocesan bishop heads a diocese while an auxiliary helps a diocesan bishop.
If a diocesan bishop wants an auxiliary, he must first convince the pro-nuncio
that there is a need. If his auxiliary has died or been promoted, this
will not be difficult. If he wants an auxiliary in a diocese that has
never had one or if he requests an additional auxiliary, he will have
to make his case.\26 The size of an archdiocese is the major factor in determining the number
of auxiliary bishops it will have. An archdiocese with over 200,000 Catholics
will normally have an auxiliary.\27
In 1987, archdioceses with one auxiliary ranged from 206,382 (Omaha) to
537,810 Catholics (Cincinnati). Two auxiliaries were present in archdioceses
with 237,560 (Dubuque) to 771,908 Catholics (Hartford). Archdioceses with
three auxiliaries ranged from 391,208 (Washington) to 600,469 (St. Paul).
Archdioceses with over 1 million Catholics usually had five or six auxiliaries. Thus, an archbishop might argue that he needs help because of the size
of the archdiocese. Sometimes the pro-nuncio responds by saying that if
the archdiocese is too large perhaps it should be split. Fear of this
response might discourage an archbishop from asking for an auxiliary.
But if a large archdiocese cannot be easily split, one or more auxiliaries
might be appointed. Two or more auxiliaries are more likely to be appointed
in large archdioceses where the archbishop will delegate authority to
them over regions of the archdiocese. Other reasons given for an auxiliary might be that a large ethnic or
racial group in the diocese requires special attention. Some archbishops
also need help because they must devote time to work outside the diocese.
A bishop might also ask for an auxiliary because his health is poor, but
in this case the pro-nuncio might suggest that the bishop retire. Although
a bishop could petition Rome for an auxiliary without the support of the
pro-nuncio, 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 is less than five years from retirement,
then no auxiliary will be appointed, lest he be imposed on the new bishop.
Cardinals appear to be exempt from this rule, as can been seen from the
two Los Angeles auxiliaries (William J. Levada and Donald Montrose) appointed
in May 1983, a year and a half prior to Cardinal Timothy Manning's seventy-fifth
birthday. Within a year of Archbishop Roger M. Mahony's arrival in Los
Angeles, both bishops were promoted to their own sees. Where an auxiliary bishop is needed to help a diocesan bishop, it is
the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to draw up a list of three names,
a ternus or terna,\28 and submit it to the pro-nuncio.\29 The process presumes that the diocesan
bishop, as head of the diocese, knows who will best help him in his diocese.
The pro-nuncio, however, also does his own investigation of the priests
and sends the names to Rome with his report and recommendations. When
a diocesan bishop is being chosen, it is the pro-nuncio who constructs
the ternus which he sends to Rome. The names proposed in a ternus by a diocesan bishop will normally come
from the list of priests who had been proposed by the province bishops.
If one of the bishop's candidates is not from this list, the pro-nuncio
will want to know why. Sometimes the bishop responds that he was not on
the list because the 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 pro-nuncio or Rome can
reject all three names on the ternus. 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."
Sometimes a name may be rejected because the priest is considered too
young. "The ordinary does not always get the auxiliary he wants,"
explained a participant in the process, "He usually gets one of the
three names he proposes but not always the first name." One archbishop
said that under Archbishop Jadot, "When I saw three names, I would
know who would be appointed. Laghi is more unpredictable than Jadot. More
third choices are selected." Archbishop Jadot reports, "I never saw an auxiliary imposed on a
bishop against his will." Others agree that a ternus for an auxiliary
is never sent to Rome without the knowledge and consent of the diocesan
bishop. "If there is no agreement between a bishop and Rome,"
says Jadot, it is "a stalemate--then there is no appointment."
This appears to have happened in Chicago under Cardinal Cody, who had
only two auxiliaries in their midsixties when he died. Within fifteen
months of his appointment as archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin
received four new auxiliaries. As the second largest diocese in the country,
Chicago needed additional auxiliaries. In addition, Cardinal Bernardin
needed auxiliaries so as to be free to devote time to work for the NCCB
and the synod of bishops. Cardinal Bernardin says that as archbishop of
Cincinnati he got whom he wanted for auxiliary. In Chicago, he was satisfied
with the four auxiliaries he received. Recently, however, some observers have concluded that auxiliaries are
being "imposed" on some bishops, but in the cases usually cited,
the diocesan bishops consented to the appointments. Especially noteworthy
were three appointees who had served as priests in Rome. Cardinal O'Connor,
for example, accepted the appointment of Bishop Edward M. Egan as his
auxiliary in 1985 because the pope asked him to, despite the fact that
the cardinal did not even know Egan. The cardinal, since he was not himself
from New York, made it plain to his priests that if he were choosing an
auxiliary himself it would be a New York archdiocesan priest. The same year, Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen of Seattle also accepted
an auxiliary, Donald W. Wuerl, whom he did not request.\30
Likewise David Foley was sent to Richmond as an auxiliary. These two bishops
had special faculties because Rome had lost confidence in the local diocesan
bishops. Similarly, a coadjutor with special faculties was appointed in
Lafayette, LA, after the bishop was sued for negligence in dealing with
priests accused of pedophilia. In the past, such special appointments
were normally made when the bishop was financially incompetent. Sometimes an auxiliary from outside is suggested by the pro-nuncio because
no one local could clear the hurdles. For example, in Miami it is reported
that Archbishop Edward A. McCarthy's ternus was turned down, and he was
then offered Norbert M. Dorsey, C.P., whom he accepted in 1986. Defending
the appointment, a Vatican official pointed out that there are few native
priests in Florida and no native bishops. Most of the Miami priests are
from dioceses in the Northeast, Cuba, or Ireland. Miami already had a
Cuban auxiliary. The Vatican will rarely consider an Irish-born priest
as a candidate for bishop in the United States because preference is given
to native clergy. Some people suspect that the Miami priests were so divided
that an outsider was considered necessary. As one archbishop explained,
"In a couple of dioceses there was difficulty getting auxiliaries
because every time a name would surface and the word would go around,
the caucus would go to work doing a sack job on the candidate." In
fact, after the Miami priests and people got to know Bishop Dorsey, he
was very well received. In another diocese, each ternus the bishop sent in was rejected by Rome.
Only later did he discover that the retired bishop of the diocese was
using his influence in Rome to kill the recommendations in the hope of
getting his own candidate appointed. Finally the bishop put a priest from
outside his diocese on the ternus. That priest was appointed although
he was not the bishop's first choice. Frequently in order to get a black or Hispanic auxiliary, the diocesan
bishop will accept someone from outside (often a religious) suggested
by the pro-nuncio. This appears to have happened in Detroit, Los Angeles,
Newark, and Washington. On the other hand, Archbishop Flores of San Antonio
reportedly tried to have Rev. Virgil Elizondo, director of the Mexican
American Cultural Center, made his auxiliary. Instead a sixty-five-year-old
Polish priest, who had spent his life working with Hispanics, was made
auxiliary. Although there has been much criticism of Roman interference in the appointment
of auxiliaries, allowing bishops a free hand in choosing their auxiliaries
is not without its critics. One official notes: I think that a diocesan bishop has entirely too much control over the
appointment of auxiliary bishops in his own diocese, which is not very
healthy. Oftentimes they are rubber stamps to his own ecclesiology and
his own vision of the church, whether that is in one direction or the
other. A man should not be appointed just because he would make a good
auxiliary without any regard to his potential leadership ability to
become an ordinary. Monsignor Ellis also criticizes diocesan bishops on their choices of
auxiliaries: "The church's history reveals many instances where outstanding
prelates could not, nonetheless, bring themselves to advance a priest
of superior quality lest the latter should outshine them."\31
But some archbishops have chosen auxiliaries who make up for their own
weaknesses. For example, Archbishop James Casey of Denver, a quiet introvert,
strongly supported his more outgoing auxiliary George R. Evans. Likewise
Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco, who hates administration, delegated
a good deal to his auxiliary, Bishop Daniel Walsh. Before the ternus is sent to Rome, the pro-nuncio does his own investigation
of the candidates and the needs of the diocese. "We try to find the
saint who fits the niche," explains Archbishop Laghi. If the appointment
is as a diocesan bishop, the pro-nuncio will request from the retiring
diocesan bishop (or if he is deceased or moved to another diocese, from
the administrator) a report on the condition and needs of the diocese
and the qualities desired in the diocesan bishop. Priests, religious,
and laity can be consulted both individually and collectively in drawing
up this report, as long as individual names are not mentioned. The Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) recommended a series of questions
to help the consultative process: 1. In your opinion, what are the three most important needs of the diocese
today? 2. In the light of the needs you have listed, what do you feel are the
desirable qualifications of the next bishop of this diocese? 3. Please list three persons you feel would be good choices for the next
bishop, and explain why.\32 Bishops, following Roman instructions, have not allowed the use of the
last question in public consultations. Public discussion has been limited
to the state of the diocese and its needs and the qualifications desired
in the bishop. In St. Louis in 1979, 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, but there was no public discussion
of names. On the other hand, in Denver after the death of Archbishop Casey in 1986,
the administrator says that he was told by Archbishop Laghi to meet with
a group of priests to draw up the report and to also submit the names
of possible candidates. There clearly was a misunderstanding here since
Rome never authorizes group consultation on the names of candidates. In
any case, the administrator met with the Denver priests' council, which
discussed and voted on a list of names, most of whom were bishops in the
region. Bishop J. Francis Stafford of Memphis, who got the appointment,
was not on their list. This group consultation does not seem to have had
any negative consequences. Some of the Denver priests felt that the pro-nuncio
already knew who was going to be appointed before they were consulted,
but others felt that Archbishop Stafford fit the description of the type
of person they were looking for although his name did not come up. In the early 1970s, some priests' senates simply took the initiative
and drew up lists of candidates. As elected organizations representing
priests, they had a special interest in who was chosen to be their bishop.
When Cardinal Lawrence Shehan was approaching retirement in 1972, the
Baltimore priests' senate appointed a subcommittee to address the question
of his successor. The subcommittee prepared "A Report on the State
of the Archdiocese of Baltimore--1972" which was mailed to all the
priests and approved by a 225 to 11 vote.\33
In 1973 the subcommittee drew up a list of candidates who were compatible
with the priorities expressed in the report. This list was not made public,
but information on the qualifications of these candidates was gathered
and discussed by the subcommittee. A list of ten men in order of preference
was given to the cardinal along with the report on the archdiocese. The
cardinal gave the report but not the names to Pope Paul VI and members
of the Vatican curia. He later shared both the report and the names with
a number of American bishops. Meanwhile the apostolic delegate conducted
his own inquiries, and in 1974, William D. Borders was appointed archbishop.
He "was one of the candidates recommended highly by the subcommittee."\34 Also in 1974, on the recommendation of Archbishop James P. Davis, the
priests' senate of Santa Fe established an ad hoc committee to gather
information and submit recommendations to the apostolic delegate for the
appointment of his successor.\35 This committee included lay, religious,
and clerical representatives chosen from the priests' senate and the pastoral
council. It followed the procedures recommended by the Canon Law Society
of America including the soliciting and discussion of names. The committee
sent to Archbishop Jadot a report on the needs of the archdiocese and
the results of a survey that surfaced 65 names. The committee recommended
three as the most qualified, including Robert F. Sanchez, who was appointed. In the Los Angeles archdiocese, on the other hand, there was no public
consultation in 1985, nor was there any in Philadelphia in 1987. Rev.
Thomas Curry, chairman of the priests' council in Los Angeles, had seen
the consultation process in Phoenix and New Mexico and was not impressed. I wouldn't want to do it in our diocese. This would be putting people
through all kinds of meetings and all kinds of trouble to come up with
a picture or a profile of the diocese that I could tell you right out
of my head now. Or else to come up with a profile of the kind of man
you need. What we need is a combination of Jesus and a few other people.
We all know that, but to do that is to raise expectations that you can't
fulfill. Sometimes this consultation process is short-circuited by announcing
the appointment of a new bishop at the same time as the resignation of
the old bishop. This was done in Portland, OR, and Newark in 1986 where
the archbishops retired early and their successors were appointed without
any public consultation. Even when a bishop reaches seventy-five, the
acceptance of his resignation may not be announced until his successor
is appointed, as was the case in Philadelphia. A resignation, though accepted,
is not effective until published in the L'Osservatore Romano. This
Nunc pro tunc (Now for then) policy allows the bishop to remain
bishop without becoming the administrator. But it also eliminates any
public consultation for drawing up the report. The report on the diocese is sent by the administrator to the pro-nuncio
together with ten to twenty names of people from various age groups and
parts of the diocese whom the pro-nuncio 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., then of the pro-nuncio's staff.\36 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 people the pro-nuncio may have met personally in his travels, but
many names are simply taken by the pro-nuncio from those listed under
the name of the diocese in The Official Catholic Directory. These
people are not only asked about the state of the diocese but are also
asked to recommend names of possible candidates to the pro-nuncio. The condition and makeup of the diocese as described in the report can
influence the appointment. Thus Atlanta, a city with a history of good
black-white relations, received Eugene A. Marino, the first black U.S.
archbishop. Coincidentally, this took place one week after Jesse Jackson
won the 1988 Democratic presidential primary in Georgia. Likewise, with
large Hispanic populations, the archdioceses of San Antonio and Santa
Fe were natural spots for Hispanic archbishops. Los Angeles also needed
someone who would be sensitive to Hispanics. Roger Mahony not only knows
Spanish but had been very active on behalf of Hispanics in California
before he was appointed archbishop of Los Angeles. When the New York see was vacant, Rev. Fred Voorhes, a staff member of
the Congregation for Bishops, noted that "The second language of
New York is Spanish, so whether or not a man speaks Spanish is one of
consideration for that appointment." In fact, John O'Connor could
not speak Spanish when he was appointed, but one of the first things he
did was to learn it. On another point, Father Voorhes was more accurate
in his prediction: "He has to be comfortable with mass media, especially
in New York, the communications capital of the nation and perhaps even
of the world."\37 The style of the last bishop can also influence the appointment. Archbishop
Jadot recalls, A bishop is appointed to balance what went before. If the diocese is
well managed, but the bishop did not have contact with the people, if
he was authoritarian, or a weak administrator [then the opposite would
be appointed]. McFarland was sent to Reno in 1974 because it was financially
out of hand. Sometimes a bishop might be only concerned with schools
and not social programs. There might be diocesan problems hanging around
unresolved. The diocese might have to be divided and the bishop has
been opposing it or procrastinating--"after my time." Certainly
in Chicago the way of operating as bishop was a factor in the choice
of Bernardin. Bishops who have previously served in this diocese, they would normally
be contacted about the needs of the diocese and possible candidates. Cardinal
Bernardin of Chicago says he has been consulted on appointments in places
where he had served, like South Carolina. The pro-nuncio must also seek suggestions individually from the bishops
and the archbishop in the province to which the vacant diocese belongs.\38 Other bishops and archbishops in the region
might also be consulted. If all of these bishops agree on a candidate,
his chances of being appointed are high. "It is much easier to get
the appointment through," Archbishop Laghi told one archbishop, "when
you all sing with one voice." But one archbishop suspected that there was also a hidden purpose in
consulting bishops on other bishops and dioceses. "It is not so much
what they want to learn about someone else as they want to have another
little insight on you," he says, "what you reveal about yourself
when you start talking about the other diocese." The metropolitan can play an important role in the appointment of bishops
in his province. Some archbishops have taken a very active role. One told
me, Since I came as metropolitan, I fought hard to get what I thought was
necessary for the vacancies that occurred. In one instance, I feared
the appointment of a candidate even weaker than the predecessor. I urged
a particular candidate who I knew could do the job, but there were a
lot of counter-proposals. Eventually, with the support of the suffragans,
excellent men were chosen, the ones I had hoped for. Maybe I shouldn't
have been so insistent, but I thought that was the way I was supposed
to do it. Archbishop Borders of Baltimore reports that he always got the men he
wanted for suffragans or bishops in his province. "It wasn't easy
a couple of times, but I really did," he says. "The Holy See
listens. Sometimes you have to make things rather strong." "I did not necessarily always get the first person that I suggested
for the see," says Cardinal Bernardin. "But I was satisfied
that I was consulted and listened to. I was pleased with the people who
were ultimately chosen." Other archbishops have been less successful. Sometimes their suggestions
were ignored, and sometimes they were not even consulted about the person
who ultimately got the see. One archbishop got involved in two appointments
in his province, but the final choice in both cases was someone he was
not even asked about. Another archbishop said that the two suffragans
appointed in his province were not his choices. A third archbishop said
the man appointed was not his first choice but was acceptable. The ignoring
of archbishops is not unique to the United States. Cardinal Franz Konig
of Vienna said that he was not consulted on the selection of his successor.\39 Some archbishops take little interest in the appointments of bishops
in their province. Others say they don't know the diocese or the priests
well enough to make a recommendation. One claimed not to be of much help
even in the appointment of his successor. I told the delegate, "when it comes right down to it, I don't
know a whole heck of a lot about these other bishops to say this is
the kind of administrator we should have." I know bishops throughout
the country, and I see them at meetings and talk to them, but I don't
know what kind of diocese they run. I don't know what the priests or
the religious or the laity think of them. I don't know what the financial
picture is, not even in my own province. The pro-nuncio also consults with the president and vice president of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. This consultation takes place
in two stages. Archbishop John Roach, conference president from 1980 to
1983, recalls: The president receives notification from the pro-nuncio that a see
will be opening up or that he is considering the appointment of an auxiliary
for a particular diocese. The president is asked to give his impressions
of the state of the diocese, the kind of leadership it needs. Each of the thirteen regions of the United States elects a bishop to
be on the committee for the selection of bishops. I would consult with
the regional representative. They would not get a list of names, but I
would ask what the diocese is like and he would recount its story. I would
forward that to the apostolic delegate. After the pro-nuncio narrows down the list of candidates to eight or
ten names, he sends them to the officers of the NCCB for a second consultation.
"The most recent one I got," said Archbishop John May, president
of the conference from 1986 to 1989, "had maybe six bishops and then
about four or five priests who had been proposed for that particular diocese."
This second consultation is a special concession granted by Archbishop
Laghi to the U.S. bishops who asked to be consulted about the names that
surfaced for a given diocese. Archbishop Jadot avoided this, apart from
oral consultation with the president or general secretary. Because of the size of the United States, often the NCCB officers do
not know the priests who are being proposed. "A lot of times I don't
know any of the priests," admits Archbishop May of St. Louis. "For
instance, Santa Rosa is open. I don't know anybody in Santa Rosa. And
really I don't know many priests in that area of California. The few I
would know tend to be scholars or people who teach or guys who give talks,
very often Jesuits. But I don't know a lot of the diocesan priests." When he was president, Archbishop Roach recalls, "If I did not know
them, I would say, `Sorry.' If the person was already an auxiliary or
a bishop I would know something about him." Archbishop Roach reports that "I would not rank them," but
that has changed. Bishop James Malone, president from 1983 to 1986, explains,
"The pro-nuncio 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.'" Similarly, Archbishop May says, "These names
have been proposed, and you are told, `If you wish, will you comment on
these names or, if you prefer, put in any different names, put in your
own names. Then give us a terna and give your reasons for it.' So I usually
come up with three names [and] tell why I think these three deserve consideration." Some have criticized the NCCB leadership for not taking a more active
role at this point in the process. One archbishop said, When the second consultation occurs, the conference leadership ought
to contact whoever represents that region on the NCCB Committee on Appointments
and find out what he thinks. If that bishop doesn't know, he ought to
find out. But that step doesn't seem to occur, and whenever I hear the bishops
complain about appointments, I feel that we have ourselves to blame
for not using well what has been offered us. 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 was very influential during the
pontificate of Pius XII (1939-58). While his only success in the west
was the appointment in 1946 of his auxiliary James F. McIntyre to Los
Angeles, in the east he was dominant. He supported the appointment of
Richard Cushing as archbishop of Boston in 1944. In 1945, John F. O'Hara,
another New York auxiliary, was named bishop of Buffalo, and in 1951,
at Dennis Dougherty's death, he became archbishop of Philadelphia. In
1947, Patrick A. O'Boyle, Spellman's director of Catholic Charities, was
named archbishop of Washington.\40 But under John XXIII and Paul VI, Cardinal Spellman's influence dwindled.
In 1958, Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi, the new apostolic delegate, made
it clear to the bishops that he, and not Spellman, was in charge. Bishop Edward F. Hoban of Cleveland, as a friend of Amleto Cicognani
the apostolic delegate, was very influential in the late 1950's. According
to Monsignor Ellis: Hoban was either directly responsible for a number of bishops or influential
in starting them on their way, e.g., Floyd Begin to Oakland, Paul Hallinan
to Charleston and then Atlanta, John Krol to Philadelphia, John Treacy
to La Crosse, John Whealon as auxiliary in Cleveland before his promotion
to Erie and subsequently Hartford.\41 John F. Dearden of Pittsburgh and then Detroit and James Malone of Youngstown
were also said to have been boosted by Bishop Hoban. "There is no kingmaker among the American bishops today," reports
the church historian Monsignor Ellis. Neither Archbishop Jadot nor Laghi
had one American prelate whom they listened to exclusively. Cardinals
O'Connor, Law, and Hickey are said to be the members of the American hierarchy
closest to Archbishop Laghi. But one archbishop explained, "In the
long run, Laghi will do a couple of things to make people happy, but then
he will shift off to some other force. He is a very skilled diplomat." Cardinal Hickey confessed to being ambivalent about having so many of
his good men made bishops in other dioceses. "I'm going to hide my
lists," he said jokingly. "Within about a year and a half, four
major leaders were chosen to be bishops: Bishop O'Malley of the Virgin
Islands, Bishop John Ricard, auxiliary in Baltimore, Bishop Donohue, in
the office here for nineteen years as chancellor, and then Bishop Foley
to Richmond. I'm very honored that my priests are considered to be such
fine men, but you know just forget about us for a while." After this
interview, in 1988 he lost another chancellor to Birmingham and an auxiliary
to Atlanta. The American best positioned to play kingmaker today is Cardinal John
O'Connor of New York, who in 1985 was appointed to the Vatican Congregation
for Bishops, a position that was held by his predecessors cardinals Spellman
and Cooke. Cardinal O'Connor is taking very seriously his work on this
congregation that deals with the appointment of bishops. One person in
Denver quoted John O'Connor as saying he was instrumental in the appointment
of Archbishop J. Francis Stafford in 1986. During the appointment process, Archbishop Jadot reports that "the
bishops of a region are most helpful for the new diocesan bishop. For
an auxiliary, the bishop and the priests are most helpful." While
he was apostolic delegate, Archbishop Jadot recalls that "99 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."
Another participant noted that "the replies of religious women are
very useful whether they are commenting on candidates or the condition
of the diocese." If a vacant diocese has an auxiliary, he is an obvious candidate to become
the diocesan bishop, and the pro-nuncio will hear from people about the
auxiliary's qualifications. But, in fact, only 10 percent of the diocesan
bishops were first auxiliaries in the diocese they now govern. In 1987,
only archbishops Flores of San Antonio, Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, Roach
of St. Paul and Sheehan of Omaha were auxiliaries in the archdioceses
they now govern. Interestingly, all four are very popular in their archdioceses. Despite all the work of examining the diocese and consulting with many
people, often the candidates can be determined by which auxiliaries are
due for a diocese. "I have to confess that they do write wonderful
reports about the needs of the local churches, the profile, the resources,"
one participant said. "But I am afraid that the appointments are
very often made on the basis of the human needs of who is waiting in line."
Normally a bishop is an auxiliary for about six years before becoming
a diocesan bishop in another diocese. Campaigning for a diocese can be
delicate. "There are some auxiliary bishops who talk about virtually
nothing else but when they are going to get out of the morass they find
themselves hooked into," said one archbishop. An archbishop will
often approach the pro-nuncio on behalf of an auxiliary. "But some
of the auxiliaries get so agitated that they do go and confront the pro-nuncio
about it. We try to keep them from doing that, but the fact is that sometimes
it happens." Some auxiliaries get promoted soon after a new archbishop
arrives so that he can put in place his own men. But some auxiliaries are never promoted. A few don't want to be diocesan
bishops, but others have been passed over because of health problems or
because they are judged to be poor administrators. So far, few black or
Hispanic auxiliaries have been promoted to diocesan bishops. A few auxiliaries
have been blackballed because of their positions on controversial issues
like the ordination of women. Auxiliary bishops Thomas Costello of Syracuse,
George Evans of Denver, Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, and Francis Murphy
of Baltimore were considered too liberal by Rome to be given a diocese. The pro-nuncio also hears the views of people on whether the new bishop
should be from the diocese or from outside. Someone from the local clergy
is often desired in the hopes that he would be more sensitive to the local
situation. On the other hand, sometimes there is the feeling that "new blood"
is needed in the diocese. 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. Archbishop John F. Whealon recalls going to
Erie and to Hartford as an outsider: I thought that having an outsider was healthy because when I went into
both of them, there was some tension of clerical politics in a negative
sense, factions and groups that were operating. It was healthy for them
to have someone that didn't even know the people involved and then could
make a much more objective judgment. So even though he would be slow
in making judgments, he would be objective. 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." Another official agreed: "Generally
it is one trend or another, and more often than not it is in reaction
to the former bishop. If he was local, they want an outsider, and vice
versa. I can't recall any case where it was divided right down the middle,
where half wanted a local man and half wanted an outsider." Archbishops
who are from their archdioceses are Flores of San Antonio, Lipscomb of
Mobile, Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, Roach of St. Paul, Sanchez if Santa Fe,
and Sheehan of Omaha. The process for appointing an archbishop does not differ substantially
from that of appointing any other diocesan bishop. Greater care may be
taken, and more people may be consulted, but the process is basically
the same. The man chosen to be archbishop is more likely to be already
a diocesan bishop at the time of his appointment. When an archbishop was to be appointed, Archbishop Jadot would consult
all the archbishops. Archbishop Laghi consults some archbishops, but not
all of them all the time. He consults archbishops in neighboring archdioceses
or those who might have special information. "I had been under the
impression that all archbishops are consulted on all archbishoprics,"
says one archbishop. "I have been consulted on a number of them,
but not all of them." Some archbishops reported they were not consulted
on the recent appointments to Atlanta, Boston, and New York. Many observers feel that it is especially in the appointment to fill
large archdioceses that Rome plays a key role. "On those biggies,
Laghi always finds out what Rome wants," explains an archbishop.
"Who is Rome? That is always faceless. Is it Cardinal Baum? Is it
Archbishop Rigali? Is it the pope himself?" Archbishop Justin Rigali, originally from Los Angeles and now president
of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, is said to have been influential
in the appointment of Archbishop Roger Mahony to Los Angeles. Cardinal
William Baum as the only American cardinal in Rome is thought to be influential
especially since he sits on the Congregation for Bishops. One archbishop
thought that Cardinal O'Connor was the pope's personal choice for New
York while Cardinal Law was Archbishop Laghi's candidate for Boston. Many church observers argue that archbishops recently appointed by the
Vatican have been more "conservative," a term I attempt to avoid
in this book. These commentators point to archbishops Bernard Law of Boston
(1984), John O'Connor of New York (1984), Roger Mahony of Los Angeles
(1985), William Levada of Portland (1986) and Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia
(1987) as the Vatican's attempt to reshape the American hierarchy. Whatever
the case, the current appointment process allows the pope to appoint whom
he chooses, and it is likely he gives more attention to the appointment
of archbishops than of other bishops. The pope in some ways faces the same problems in the appointment of bishops
as the president faces in the appointment of judges. Once appointed, it
is difficult to remove either a bishop or a judge. As a result, in both
systems high priority is given to finding out about the candidate prior
to his appointment. "Security" checks are conducted. Information
on his background, education, and previous jobs is gathered. People who
know the candidate are interviewed about his attitudes and views. 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. Great
care is taken to find out about the priest because once he is appointed
he is in until he retires at seventy-five. Bishops, on the other hand,
have already been through the process once and are better known by the
pro-nuncio and Rome, who have seen how they have acted as bishops. In order to get information about a priest for the ternus, the pro-nuncio
sends a confidential questionnaire on the candidate to twenty or thirty
people who know him. Some of these names are suggested by the priest's
diocesan bishop; others are diocesan officials or people the pro-nuncio
has gotten to know personally in the diocese through his travels. Not
only priests but also religious and lay people are sent the questionnaire.
The laity consulted tend to be officers in diocesan lay organizations
or on diocesan advisory committees. Once again, names are also taken by
the pro-nuncio from those listed under the diocese in The Official
Catholic Directory. They are told to answer the questions without
seeking further data from others. Nor can they tell anyone, especially
the candidate, that they have received the questionnaire. Please describe the nature of your association with the candidate and
indicate the length of time that you have known him.
The questionnaire was prepared by the Vatican Congregation for Bishops
and is used for all episcopal appointments that go through the congregation.
The questionnaire had been rather skimpy, but it underwent major revision
in the 1970s when Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio was prefect of the congregation.
The questionnaire sent by the pro-nuncio contains fourteen 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 pro-nuncio 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 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. Fidelity to the magisterium appears to be stressed today even more than
it was in Jadot's time. "Orthodoxy is the big issue today. Someone
who is known to be a challenger can certainly not be chosen to be a bishop,"
said one official involved in the selection process.\42
Orthodoxy is defined primarily in terms of loyalty to the Holy See
and attitudes toward Humanae Vitae, priestly celibacy, and women's
ordination. Bishops must be willing "to take positions not always
shared by one's faithful, diocesan priests or bishops' conference."\43 As far as can be known, this screening process appears to be successful
in getting bishops who uphold traditional views. Episcopal defiance of
the Vatican is rare. Survey data show that "on matters of religious
attitudes and sexual morality, bishops tend to be even more `conservative'
than the clergy over 55, while on matters of ecumenism and social action,
bishops tend to be even more `liberal' than the clergy under 36."\44 This would appear to be exactly what the
Vatican wants. After the pro-nuncio has examined the responses to the questionnaires
and prepared a ternus, he writes a report (approximately twenty single-spaced
pages) in Italian, extracting and synthesizing the content of the consultation
and giving his own judgment. The ternus and the pro-nuncio's report are
sent to the Vatican Congregation for Bishops, and no U.S. bishop sees
them unless he is a member of that congregation. Normally the report gives
a description of the diocese and then describes the process the pro-nuncio
went through in selecting the candidates. The pro-nuncio then lists the
candidates in order of his preference and describes each one. "Laghi
does a good job on his reports," said a Vatican official. "He
covers everything." The pro-nuncio sends all of the documents that he has received to Rome
with his report. For the appointment of a diocesan bishop this could be
one hundred letters, but normally it is about twenty letters for each
of the candidates. 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. On the other
hand, the documentation for an archbishop's appointment can be heavy.
The stack of materials for the appointment of a new archbishop in Los
Angeles was two feet high. Processing the appointment 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, but he travels less." When the documents arrive in Rome, they go to the Congregation for Bishops,
headed by Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, a Vatican official from the Benin
Republic in West Africa who was named prefect of the congregation in 1984.
It is considered one of the most important and hard-working congregations
in the Vatican curia or offices. It deals not only with appointments but
also quinquennial reports and ad limina visits (see
chapter 8). The working language of the congregation and its staff
is Italian. Cardinal Gantin's predecessor, Sebastiano Baggio, was a hard-working
curial cardinal who rarely missed a day in the office. Cardinal Baggio
was Italian, like practically all of his predecessors since the congregation
was founded in 1588. Cardinal Gantin's appointment in 1984 came as a surprise
to most people in Rome, since he is not only not an Italian, he is not
European or Caucasian. "Jaws dropped," says a Roman official.
"He was not one of those who was rumored." Since he is from
a mission country, his own appointment as a bishop went through the Congregation
for Evangelization of Peoples. Despite the surprise, his appointment was
welcomed by the congregation's staff. The documents from the pro-nuncio are checked by the congregation staff
person in charge of appointments from the United States to see if they
are complete. This American priest, who usually serves for five years,
is also in charge of appointments from Canada and Australia. Another priest
handles most of Europe except Italy, which is handled by two priests.
One priest handles Brazil and another the rest of Latin America. Episcopal
appointments for mission countries (most of Africa and Asia) are dealt
with in the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples. Appointments for
the eastern-rite churches in union with Rome go through the Congregation
for the Oriental Churches or their synods. The staff person is expected to read the pro-nuncio's report and the
entire dossier. He evaluates it and offers recommendations on what should
be done if there are unanswered questions, if certain people should have
been consulted who were not, or if more information is needed. For example,
if there was insufficient information about the candidate's orthodoxy,
the pro-nuncio would receive a letter from the prefect asking for the
information. A staff person has no power, noted one official, "but he does have
an awful lot of influence due to the nature of his job and the fact that
his superiors cannot be expected to study the whole issue as thoroughly
as that person has to." The staff works on manual typewriters. There
is a photocopier and electric typewriters for formal letters, but no computers
for data files or for word processing. If everything is in order and the cardinal prefect approves, the appointment
process moves forward to the congregation, which meets twice a month from
October through June. The congregation in 1987 was composed of thirty-six
members, appointed by the pope, who have five-year renewable terms--twenty-nine
cardinals and seven archbishops. Sixteen of the cardinals are permanently
stationed in Rome as part of the Vatican curia. Ex officio members of
the congregation include prefects of the Council for the Public Affairs
of the Church (Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, secretary of state) and of
the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger),
for the Clergy (Cardinal Antonio Innocenti), and for Catholic Education
(Cardinal William W. Baum). Before the appointment goes to the congregation,\45
a cardinal ponente (presenter) is chosen by the undersecretary
of the congregation.\46 After reviewing the full dossier, the ponente,
who is usually a curial cardinal,\47
provides a summary to the other cardinals at a meeting of the congregation.
The ponente, explains Cardinal O'Connor, "synthesizes, analyzes,
and presents the entire picture" to the rest of the congregation.
The cardinal ponente has to be fairly fluent in the language of the country
of the candidate, since only the pro-nuncio's report is in Italian. Cardinal
William Baum, the only American cardinal in Rome, is sometimes the cardinal
ponente on American appointments, but not always. The job of ponente is
rotated in order not to overburden any of the cardinals. Cardinal Baum,
for example, is also prefect of the Congregation for Catholic 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 ponente fluent enough to understand the
nuances in the documents. Most members of the congregation are capable
of reading and understanding English. When Cardinal Baggio was prefect, members of the congregation were notified
two weeks before the next meeting would take place. This made it difficult
for cardinals and archbishops not residing in Rome to attend the meeting.
As a non-European, Cardinal Gantin is more sensitive to this problem.
He sends members of the congregation an advanced schedule of the meetings
to be held from October through June. Thus if a cardinal is coming to
Rome on other business, he can schedule his visit to coincide with a meeting
of the congregation. Still, most members living outside of Rome do not attend. Cardinals Jean-Marie
Lustiger of Paris and Carlo Maria Martini of Milan attend about once a
month, but they live a short airplane ride away from Rome. The archbishop
of Sydney, on the other hand, is twenty-three hours away by air and rarely
attends. Cardinal Terence Cooke and Cardinal Humberto Medeiros were members of
the congregation prior to their deaths. Cardinal Cooke never attended
because he did not understand Italian, the language used in the meetings.
Cardinal Medeiros, who could speak Italian, attended once or twice a year
when he was in Rome for other business. Also fluent in Italian, Cardinal
Joseph Bernardin served on the congregation as an archbishop from 1973
to 1978 and attended meetings a couple of times a year when he was in
Rome on business as president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
or as a member of the council of the synod of bishops. Although still working to improve his Italian, Cardinal John O'Connor
gets to Rome about every other month for meetings of the congregation
since his appointment in 1985. "I try to get there when an American
appointment is under consideration," explains Cardinal O'Connor.
As a result, he reports attending meetings that consider from 75 to 80
percent of the American appointments. This concern for local appointments is not untypical for members of the
congregation. Through most of the 1970s, Cardinal Heenan of Britain and
Cardinal Conway of Ireland attended meetings of the congregation when
appointments were being considered for their countries. Cardinal Heenan
said that when an appointment to Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) was being
considered, he would "keep silence, read my papers, write my letters,"
but when an English bishop was being appointed, "I made clear whom
we [considered] the best man."\48
But since most of the noncurial members of the congregation usually do
not attend, the decisions of the congregation are heavily influenced by
the sixteen curial cardinals. Two weeks prior to the meeting, members are given the agenda, which usually
consists of the names of four or five dioceses whose appointments will
be up for consideration. Until recently, only those attending the meeting
were given the pro-nuncio's report. A member of the congregation from
outside of Rome did not receive the report until he arrived in Rome just
before the meeting. Cardinal O'Connor, however, now receives copies of
all the documents in New York. If he cannot attend the meeting, he phones
or mails in his vote. At the meetings (normally on Thursdays) of the congregation in the Vatican
Apostolic Palace, usually about fifteen cardinals attend, together with
the secretary and undersecretary of the congregation but no other staff
members. The cardinal ponente gives his report and the members of the
congregation discuss the appointment under the chairmanship of the prefect,
Cardinal Gantin. The language used is Italian. Cardinal O'Connor says that he is "tremendously impressed by the
objectivity, sensitivity, and concern demonstrated by the bishops on the
congregation. They are deeply concerned that the world get the best possible
bishops." But some people believe that a candidate who has studied in Rome has
an advantage with the congregation. Thirty seven percent of the bishops
and half of the archbishops have, in fact, studied in Rome.\49
As early as 1880, a "Roman education was seen as guaranteeing loyalty
to Rome."\50 Many believe this is still true. "Some
on the congregation--those very Roman--would see that as a plus factor,"
explains one Vatican observer. They imbibed some of the Roman culture and tradition, and they were
exposed to the universal church because of spending two, three, four,
or six years in Rome. Other members didn't give it a second thought
where a man studied, just that he had some theological depth as well
as canonical knowledge and was orthodox and adhered to the discipline
of the church, as this pope considers those two elements extremely important
in the appointment of bishops. Another observer agreed, "If they get somebody who studied in Rome,
then they can say that at least he should know what he is supposed to
do." Archbishop Jadot says that, while he was apostolic delegate,
"no candidate was ever preferred over another simply because he studied
in Rome. The fact that he had further studies would be important. I never
saw a candidate preferred because he studied in Rome rather than at Catholic
University" in Washington. But one study indicates some statistical
evidence that "elite training [in Rome] is more important than advanced
degrees in helping a candidate become a bishop."\51 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 pro-nuncio. This would especially be true if his
views coincided with those of the local hierarchy. Cardinal John J. Wright,
before his death in 1979, complained, "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."\52 But sometimes the congregation recommends
the pro-nuncio's second or third choice. And sometimes it rejects the
ternus altogether and tells him to present a new one. "Yes, some
are sent back," said a Vatican official. "This reflects the
Pope's concern about the choices."\53 There has been much 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. "Jadot was very high when Paul was pope," commented
one expert on the American hierarchy, "but he went down under John
Paul." "Some in Rome," reported an official, "thought
that some of the bishops appointed during his years in Washington were
not completely faithful to the teaching of the church. They spoke poorly
of him because they thought some of the appointments, some of those who
are under heat today--Hunthausen and Gerety--were considered to be Jadot's
mistakes." An American observer noted that "in 1980 when the president of the
Secretariat for Non-Christians died of a heart attack, Archbishop Jadot
was appointed to replace him in a disgraceful haste in order to get Jadot
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 was out of favor in Rome. "I was disappointed that his expertise
on the church in the United States was never drawn upon because with many
he had lost favor," said one official. "He was a very controversial
figure those final years. There were even many Americans in Rome who had
no use for him." The final step in the appointment process is taken when the prefect presents
the pro-nuncio's, the congregation's, and his own recommendations to the
pope at a Saturday audience. The staff prepares a three- to five-page
memo (Foglio d'Udienza) on the appointment, which the prefect takes
with his recommendation to the pope in a private audience. The prefect
summarizes the discussions of the congregation and reports any dissenting
opinions and votes. "Ninety-five percent of the time, the pope makes
his decision on the spot after the prefect explains the vacancy and informs
the pope of the various options and what the recommendation of the pro-nuncio
is and what the congregation's is," explains an official. "Maybe
5 percent of the time he would say, 'Let's wait a week' or `Let me read
all the documentation; let me consult some other advisers.'" 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 VI did in the Italian hierarchy. An
official who had been in the Vatican since 1977 reports John Paul "takes
a deep and personal interest in the appointment of bishops, especially
to the larger Sees. It is a major theme on his agenda."\54 His travels have given him personal knowledge
of some dioceses and their needs. In addition, Archbishop Laghi meets
more frequently with the pope, and there is more intense consultation
about bishops.\55 In the first ten years of John Paul's reign, approximately 1,200 new
bishops were appointed, which averages 10 bishops a month. With much to
do as pope and only a limited amount of time, he must depend on the congregation
for most of these appointments. This is especially true since he travels
so much. Cardinal O'Connor reports that the "overwhelming percentage
of the congregation's recommendations are accepted by the pope."
If the pope consistently did not like the nominees, he would eventually
have to replace the people on the congregation. The pope would also play an important role if his advisers disagreed
with one another. Thus if the prefect and the congregation or the congregation
and the pro-nuncio were not in agreement, the pope would have to choose
whom he would follow. Similarly, if an American prelate with access to
the pope made his views known, this could have an impact. Usually in such
cases, the pope will ask for more study. Other times he will just decide.
More important, perhaps, is the general orientation and direction that
the pope gives to the congregation, the pro-nuncio, and the bishops. Archbishop
Jadot, for example, was told by Paul VI and by Cardinal Baggio to appoint
more pastoral bishops in the United States, which had a reputation for
bishops who were only managers. Vatican spokesman Navarro-Valls says that
the John Paul II seeks "one element above all--a solid, intellectual
knowledge of theology."\56
In his address to the American bishops visiting Rome in 1983, the pope
stressed unity and fidelity to the magisterium. He said that the bishops
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.'" 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.\57 Sometimes the pope's appointments are not popular. While visiting Holland
in 1985, Pope John Paul II, in an unusual move, publicly defended his
appointments there: The recent appointments of bishops have deeply offended some of you
who are wondering about the reasons for these tensions. I should like to say in all sincerity that the pope attempts to understand
the life of the local church in the appointment of every bishop. He
gathers information and takes advice in accordance with ecclesiastical
law and custom. You will understand that opinions are sometimes divided.
In the last analysis, the Pope has to take the decision. (Must he explain
his choice? Discretion does not permit him to do so.) Believe me, brothers and sisters, this suffering on account of the
church grieves me. But be convinced that I have truly listened, considered
carefully, and prayed. And I appointed the person whom I thought before
God the most suitable for this office.\58 John Paul's appointments have tended to be older than previous appointments.
The average age of the world's bishops has increased under his pontificate
from about fifty-nine in 1978 to nearly sixty-four in 1988. Another change
is the increased number of religious order bishops. More than one-fourth
of his bishops are religious priests.\59 After the pope makes his decision, the congregation notifies the pro-nuncio,
who then approaches the nominee and asks if he will accept the appointment.
The entire process takes four to eight months from the time a vacancy
occurs until the appointment is announced. Usually the pro-nuncio telephones the candidate or his bishop. Archbishop
May received the call from Archbishop Jadot while he was shaving. His
successor, Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, received a letter because Jadot
did not know his private number. If he was willing to accept the post,
he was supposed to telegraph a coded message to Washington: "Diocesan
report on its way." Interestingly, in such cases the letter from
the pro-nuncio does not tell the nominee the code for saying no. They
presuppose he will say yes. In fact, the nominee can refuse the appointment,
and about one out of twenty do. The refusing candidate usually says, "After
having consulted with my spiritual father, I respectfully decline."
Sometimes they can be persuaded to accept the appointment, but often there
is a health problem that people were not aware of. The extent of the secrecy involved in the process is evident in that
some of appointees are honestly surprised when they are approached. On
the other hand, there was wide speculation concerning the appointments
to Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia with Bernardin, Mahony and Bevilacqua
mentioned in the press for those sees. If the candidate does accept, Rome
is notified and a date is set for the announcement, usually a Tuesday. In the meantime, the nominee cannot tell anybody. Archbishop Lipscomb
did not even tell his family ahead of time. On the night before the announcement,
without explanation he asked his sister to gather the family at 6:45 A.M.
in his mother's hospital room since the announcement would be made at
7 A.M. Mobile time. His sister's response to his request was quite natural
considering the early hour: "[Expletive deleted], that is the most
ridiculous thing I ever heard in my life." Next morning when he told them that he was going to be the archbishop
of Mobile, he recalls: For what seemed like an eternity, no one spoke. What could they say?
But my mom finally gave me the first familial word of affirmation and
congratulations, flat on her back in the hospital bed, she looked at
me and held out her arms and said, "Well, God help us all." This was a slightly more positive response than the mother who told her
son, "It's too bad you weren't made a bishop when it still counted." A number of things become clear from a description of the process by
which a bishop is appointed. The pro-nuncio, as long as he maintains the
confidence of the Vatican, is the key figure in the process. For diocesan
bishops, he draws up the ternus, and for auxiliaries, he can influence
or veto the ternus drawn up by a diocesan bishop. For example, "It
did not take long for the American bishops to catch on that Jadot was
looking for pastoral people as bishops," said Monsignor Ellis. "They
would take people out of the chancery or academic work and make them pastors
to get pastoral experience." But once the pro-nuncio loses the confidence
of the Vatican, he will soon be removed. In addition to his role in developing the ternus, the pro-nuncio is very
influential through his report, which accompanies the ternus. This report
is in Italian, the working language of the Congregation for Bishops. While
he does send other documents to the congregation, which can be examined
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 1950s the documents were all translated
into Latin. Although the pro-nuncio 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 ternus for their auxiliaries,
diocesan bishops have a tremendous impact on the American hierarchy. Three-fourths
of all the U.S. bishops received their first appointments as auxiliaries,
including 57 percent of the diocesan bishops. They also can influence
the pro-nuncio's ternus with their suggestions. A third important actor in the process is the retiring diocesan bishop
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 diocesan bishop. He recommends to
the pro-nuncio the names of people who should be consulted about the diocese
and the appointment. It is said that, before his own death, Cardinal Spellman
had requested Cooke's appointment by the Holy See.\60
Likewise, there is some suspicion that Cardinal Timothy Manning of
Los Angeles supported the candidacy of Roger Mahony as his successor.
As a priest, Mahony had been an adviser to Manning, who was bishop of
Fresno prior to his promotion to Los Angeles. A fourth set of actors is 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, is the role of the Congregation for Bishops and its prefect. Their
role appears to be primarily a check on the pro-nuncio. If he loses their
confidence, they get him replaced. In addition, members with personal
knowledge of the United States, such as Cardinal Baum, can be influential. The American members of the congregation residing in the United States
could be very influential if they attended meetings. Until Cardinal O'Connor
was appointed, their attendance was rare. By making the effort to attend
the meetings and to learn Italian, Cardinal O'Connor is becoming a key
figure in the appointment of bishops in the United States. It is too early
to tell if he is the new kingmaker, but the evidence points in that direction. 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 pro-nuncio, 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, who is also loyal to Rome. On paper it appears to be an
autocratic process. 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.
In addition, they recognize the problems that result from imposing on
a diocese a bishop who is at odds with his priests and people or who is
inadequate to their needs. Besides good will on the part of the participants, the process works
because of the checks and balances provided by people at various levels
within the system. For example, the administrator of a diocese and a small
clique of chancery officials might conceivably push a candidate who the
pro-nuncio finds through his investigation is not widely supported. Or
if the pro-nuncio 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, as they did in the case of the apostolic delegate Archbishop Raimondi.
And while the power of Rome appears absolute, it is almost totally dependent
upon information that is sent to it by the pro-nuncio and the American
church. "Few issues are of more vital concern to the priests than the manner
in which bishops are chosen," reports the NCCB Ad Hoc Committee for
Priestly Life and Ministry.\61 Numerous
criticisms have been directed at the appointment process, especially in
1972 when "new" Vatican norms were published.\62
The president of the Canon Law Society of America wrote: A great deal of concern and criticism about these directives was expressed
at the time, noting particularly that the ecclesiology implied in the
norms seemed to be pre-conciliar, but, more importantly, that the consultation
process, although somewhat more liberal, was still too restrictive,
and did not seem to reflect the awakening consciousness of the responsible
People of God in the Church.\63 Some want to strengthen the role of the American bishops in the process
while others would give a larger voice to the clergy and laity. Canon
lawyer Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J., writes in favor of strengthening the role
of the bishops. The bishops are permitted to act collegially only during the first
and abstract part of the selection process, while drafting a list of
candidates. When it comes to finding the right person for a determined
see, no collegial action is asked for. Each bishop is expected to submit
names without the benefit of the wisdom of his brethren. And the delegate
alone must take the awesome responsibility of composing the terna in
preparation of the final choice by the Holy See.\64 Critics note that in the nineteenth-century American church, there was
no apostolic delegate and the bishops of a province met to recommend the
ternus for a diocesan bishop to the Vatican. Father Orsy believes that
"if a see is vacant, the bishops of the province could certainly
gather and deliberate in virtue of their communion about a worthy successor.
No one can forbid them to do so and to send their recommendations directly
to the Holy See. Bishops have rights given them by their consecration
that no decree can take away."\65
Similarly, the NCCB Committee on the Selection of Bishops might meet to
make recommendations when an archdiocese is vacant. The Canon Law Society of America recommended that each diocese have a
committee for the selection of candidates for the office of bishop that
would receive nominations from individuals and groups.\66
One member of the eleven-member committee would be appointed by the bishop,
the rest would be elected by the diocesan pastoral council--two each from
diocesan priests, religious women, religious men, laywomen, and laymen.
After considering the nominees and the state of the diocese, the committee
would submit its report and a list of nominees to the priests' council.
The council would review the report (provide additional comments) and
narrow the committee's list to not more than 10 names. The report and
the names would be given to the diocesan bishop who would make his own
inquiry concerning the merits of the candidates proposed. At the spring
meeting of the bishops in each region of the NCCB, the proposed candidates
would be considered and voted on by the bishops. The results would be
forwarded to the NCCB Committee on the Selection of Bishops, which would
finalize the list of candidates for a particular office of bishop. In
filling a particular office, the Holy See would limit itself to the three
to five names submitted by the NCCB Committee on the Selection of Bishops.
Other critics would like to see group consultations about candidates
so that a consensus could develop.\67
Some want the bishop directly elected by the priests, the priests' council,
or a body composed of priests and laity in the diocese.\68
Such elections would be subject to confirmation and acceptance by
the pope. There is wide support among priests for the election of bishops,
but not among bishops. The election of the bishop by the priests of the
diocese is supported by 70 percent of the diocesan priests and only 24
percent of bishops. Election of the bishop by the priests, religious,
and laity of the diocese is desired by 65 percent of the priests and 24
percent of the bishops.\69 Vatican officials and most bishops oppose making the process more democratic
and public. The more democratic and open it becomes, the more "political"
it will be. Pressure groups and factions will organize and thus divide
a diocese. Democracy fosters campaigns and party politics. They note that
those who want more democracy in the church are the same people who are
not terribly happy with the candidates democracy has produced in the United
States. They also argue that such a "democratic" system would
be subject to pressure from undemocratic governments where the church's
source of independence is Rome's control over episcopal appointments.
Critics respond that the process is already political but the choice is
determined by cliques influential in Rome. Nor has the current process
kept totalitarian governments from interfering in appointments. Many involved in the process believe that a major flaw in the operation
of the current procedures is the fact the priests do not take it seriously.
Priests can have an impact through recommending names to the bishops and
the pro-nuncio 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 impact by 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.
The National Federation of Priests' Councils prepared materials on the
selection of bishops to be used by priests' councils when their dioceses
are in need of a bishop.\70 Any selection process must ultimately be judged by the people it advances.
In chapter 3 we will look at the archbishops who have reached the top
of the ecclesial ladder in the United States. But first we will examine
the archdioceses that they must govern. 1. This is a revised and expanded version of
Thomas J. Reese, S.J., "The Selection
of Bishops," America 151 (August 18, 1984): 65-72. 2. See Giuseppe Alberigo and Anton Weiler, Election
and Consensus in the Church, Concilium 77 (1972); William W. Bassett,
ed., The Choosing of Bishops (Hartford, CT: Canon Law Society of
America, 1971); Peter Huizing and Knut Walf, eds., Electing Our Own
Bishops, Concilium 137 (1980); Raymond Kottje, "The Selection
of Church Officials: Some Historical Facts and Experiences," Concilium
63 (1971): 117-26; Joseph O'Donoghue, Elections in the Church (Baltimore,
MD: Helicon Press, l967); G. Sweeney, "`The Wound in the Right Foot':
Unhealed," Clergy Review 9 (1975): 574-93; also in Bishops
and Writers: Aspects of the Evolution of Modern English Catholicism,
ed. Adrian Hastings (Wheathampstead, England: Anthony Clarke, 1977), 207-34;
L. John Topel, "Ways the Church Selected Its Bishops," America
127 (September 2, 1972): 119-21; Edward Schillebeeckx, The Church with
a Human Face (New York: Crossroads, 1985), 124-48. 3. John Tracy Ellis, "On Selecting American
Bishops," Commonweal 85 (March 10, 1967): 643-9; John Tracy
Ellis, "On Selecting Catholic Bishops for the United States,"
The Critic 26 (June-July 1969): 42-48; John Tracy Ellis, "The
Selection of Bishops," American Benedictine Review 35 (June
1984): 111-127; James Hennesey, "`To Chuse a Bishop': An American
Way," America 127 (September 2, 1972): 115-18; Robert Trisco,
"Democratic Influence on the Election of Bishops and Pastors and
on the Administration of Dioceses and Parishes in the U.S.A.," Concilium
77 (1972): 132-38. 4. Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition
(Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983), Canon 378 §1. 5. Cover letter (1984) from apostolic delegate
requesting information on candidate for the office of bishop. All caps
and bold in original. See also "Instruction on the Pontifical Secret,"
February 4, 1974, Origins 4 (May 30, 1974): 9-11. 7. Council for the Public Affairs of the Church,
"Norms for the Selection of Candidates for the Episcopacy in the
Latin Church," March 25, 1972, (Washington, DC: U. S. Catholic Conference,
1974) [also in Origins 2 (May 25, 1972): 1-9], article 4.2, p.
5. 11. "Delegation Official Explains Bishop
Selection Process," NC [National Catholic] News Service, August 4,
1983.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Copyright © 1989 by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
All rights reserved
For the previous chapter and table of contents, see Introduction
and Contents.
Archbishop Laghi
Mother on learning that her
son was appointed archbishop.Province Candidates
Province List
Pro-nuncio
Government Interference
Auxiliaries
Diocesan Bishops
Influence of Bishops
Role of NCCB
Local Boy or Outsider
Archbishops
Questionnaire
Confidential Vatican Questionnaire on Episcopal
Candidates
Pro-Nuncio's Report
Congregation for Bishops
The Pope
Notification and Consent
Conclusion
Improvements?
Footnotes