More on the leadership crisis

I always thought that the selection of the Bishop was a product of discernment of the wish of God in the Holy Spirit, that lay investiture was a serious problem for the Church in the past. Have confidence in the Pope!. Rejoice in Pentecost! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! The Paraclete has come!

The reason the newer Bishops believe abortion trumps all other issues is that that was a sure way to curry favor with JPII. We have Bishops who seek and crave power. Many are not pastoral leaders or good managerial leaders. Then we wonder why the Church is in decline in America.
Thank you Fr. McBrien for your insight and wisdom. May the Holy Spirit renew our Church!

Once again, let's hear it for: McBrien For Pope!!! That would certainly blow some of John XXIII's fresh air through back into the Vatican.

Fr. McBrien, thank you for all the work you do. Your columns are a source of wisdom in a church where politics, both ecclesial and national, seem to trump not only wisdom but commonsense.

Here in Milwaukee, we are waiting for the appointment of a new arch-bishop. It is with a sense of hopelessness that we wait. We the members of the Arch-diocese of Milwaukee have zero influence on the choice. Most of the people who do have a say will never live here. The RCC needs another Leo the Great who will return us to the first millennium model of church.

Steve

A very insightful analysis, however, there are some points where you're in error.

"For most of the history of the church, especially during the First Christian Millennium, the selection of bishops rested with the clergy and laity of each diocese."

The laity in question, of course, were the emperors and kings. Do you really think we should return to the older model where the Bishops are appointed by heads of state? Should we have had 8 years of W. appointing Bishops?

"A reform movement in the 11th century tried unsuccessfully to restore the ancient practice where the clergy and laity as well as the neighboring bishops played a key part in the selection process"

Also, simply untrue. The 11th century reforms, from the council of Rheims in 1049 on, tried to get the laity -- i.e., the emperor, the king, the dukes, the counts, etc. -- out of the selection of Bishops, and require confirmation of episcopal elections by the pope. A movement to involve the laity -- i.e., the emperor, the king, the dukes, etc. -- in the selection of Bishops would not so much be a reform, as a preservation of the status quo.

I don't believe we have a crisis of leadership in the Catholic Church; what we have in general is an ABSENCE of leadership...thank goodness for well-educated laity, plus some priests & sisters who are willing to stick their necks out and speak out against the abuses of dogma & "power".

We are well-served by essays such as this, yet they also prove frustrating in that we, the Church, are left with no options and no say. Yet we carry on the work of Christ within a heirarchical framework which has an increasingly narrow viewpoint and which at times alienates us. Since when is Catholicism single-issue? Since when does condemnation trump dialogue? Are Catholics to remove themselves from the world and disassociate with people with whom they disagree, or are they to try to do God's work in the world? Many have been the retort that if you don't like it, leave. Is that what God wants, an exclusive uber-religion? Is that what the church wants? And just where do we go when we feel that we haven't left the Church, but that the Church has left us?

About two years ago, a Catholic website in Australia was able to procure the actual rating/promotion form used to 'pick out' candidates to be elevate to the episcopacy in Australia and New Zealand. The website---didn't disclose how it happened to receive this secret info---but it did.

The main question asked on this rating form (and there were several), was how
loyal was the candidate in consideration to the Pope. There was no question asking about the DEMONSTRATED pastoral quality of the candidate. There was no question asking about the candidate's preaching ability. There was no question asking about the candidate's ability to work on an eccumenical level. There was no question about the candidate's ability to inspire his parishioners to a greater spiritual level (encouraging retreats, Men's Days, spiritual events for youth and young adults). And there was absolutely no questions about the candidate's ability to deal justly and fairly with women. Nothing about any of this.

The major questions just focused on support of the Magisterium of the Church---the Curia and the Pope. The Catholic website in Australia concluded that this very same form must also be in use for all English-speaking countries. There conclusion was----this continues to perpetuate the elevation of priests with 'poor leadership abilities.' That was the website's very words.

I am going to interweave the concern expressed on many Catholic websites since early fall of 2008 (with the nomination of the presidential candidates,
the decided stance of some arch/bishops in actually telling their parishioners whom NOT to vote for, the actions of some arch/bishops in declaring that elected/appointed officials who are Catholic would be denied Holy Communion if they attended the Liturgy in their dioceses, the debate over President Obama speaking at UND's Commencement---and receiving an honorary degree), all of this--- making abortion THE and only THE main issue in America---makes one wonder, indeed, about the leadership crisis.

Now, today, hearing about the murder of Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who performed late term abortions, the whole question about the abortion issue is raised to a new dangerous level (even more so than previously). What position are these "one issue" bishops going to take? How should the Pro-life position now be stated? And as you stated, Fr. McBrien, what avenues are left to those who believe "that abortion "trumps" all other moral issues and that confrontation rather than seeking common ground is the only sure path to the church's missionary success."

"Confrontation rather than seeking common ground"--sounds like our bishop!

Father McBrian,

As a practicing Catholic. I have followed your work with great respect for many years. What you've been warning us about for so long got its most dramatic indictment this weekend with the murder of the gynecologist in a Lutheran church.

I cannot help but feel the U.S. Conference of Bishops was directly responsible for that man's death. The bishops who spoke out against Obama receiving an honorary degree made no attempt to tamp down the hate speech that followed from abortion protesters. Tacitly, those bishops gave hate and the resulting violence their imprimatur.

Of course, late-term abortion is murder. But incitement to murder is a sin of the same gravity.

I hope that all CAtholics might read this historical perspective on the current totalitarian papal practice"

'I did a series on the selection of bishops. I pointed out that it is a relatively new development that the pope appoints all the bishops in the Roman Catholic church.

'For most of the history of the church, especially during the First Christian Millennium, the selection of bishops rested with the clergy and laity of each diocese, in keeping with Pope Leo the Great's dictum, "He who is to preside over all must be elected by all."

'Today's common practice in which bishops move up a career ladder from a smaller diocese to a larger diocese, and from bishop to archbishop, was explicitly prohibited by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and again by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

'A reform movement in the 11th century tried unsuccessfully to restore the ancient practice where the clergy and laity as well as the neighboring bishops played a key part in the selection process.

'Pope Pius VII's concordat with Napoleon in 1801 had the unprecedented effect of vesting in the pope alone the power to appoint and remove bishops anywhere in the Roman Catholic church. It is a system that has remained in place ever since.'

The pope just past reportedly on his death bed continued making his exclusive episcopal appointments. Time for the People of God to do so, for the good of our Church and in light of our most ancient tradition.

One partial solution might be for Rome to solicit and take seriously
the recommendations of clergy, religious and active laity within a
diocese, before appointing new bishops. Many committed Catholics would
take pronouncements from Rome and the local chancery more seriously if
they felt that the pope and prelates were interested in the views
of people on every rung of the ecclesial ladder.

Liberals love "going back to the Church's traditions" when it comes to those traditions supporting their own positions and attitudes about the Church. When those traditions do not, however, they are all for the Church "changing with the times".

The selection and supervision of bishops today has its issues, that much is certain. Pope John Paul II made some mistakes when it came to bishops' appointments, including appointing bishops who were too eager to compromise the Faith, and too weak, or unwilling to be strong, when it came to disciplining priests, theologians, nuns, brothers, colleges, schools, etc. who engaged in dissent and/or encouraged others to dissent from Church teaching. He was also too slow or to unwilling to remove dissenting bishops such as Hunthausen, Untener and Weakland, among others.

Pope Benedict's choices of bishops have been interesting, not particularly inspired, however. He seems as constrained as John Paul was in choosing men of a certain age and eliminating from consideration all priests who are young. Truth be told, there is an entire generation of priests, between the ages of 45 and 70 or so, who should be excluded from the selection as unfit to hold office of bishop, since they were formed in the loosey-goosey days of the 70s and 80s, or were the priests who implemented or permitted the worst of the post-Vatican II abuses.

Regardless, there are some bishops who give hope to the rest of us. Bishops like Raymond Burke and Timothy Dolan. Bishops like Cardinal Rigali and Cardinal DiNardo. Bishops like Fabian Brusckewitz and Joseph Naumann and others bring great hope to the faithful of the Church.

Since Vatican Council II, the Church has seen a softening of loyalty among many of those who are supposed to support and encourage its teachings. In addition, the "dictatorship of relativism" as Pope Benedict has called it, along with the so-called sexual revolution has led to a noticeable absence of morality in the public square. This being the case, the Holy See, responding to the needs of the day, has selected bishops who are more likley to support the Church's teachings, more likely to advocate for morality, and more likely to tell people the hard truths that so many, like Father McBrien, want to gloss over or compromise in an attempt to find "common ground".

Common ground exists in the form of the Church and her teachings. Christ gave us the Church, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, as a sure guarantor of eternal truth and the sure way to salvation. Election of bishops by local dioceses would lead to the same kind of politicization as the election of secular leaders. Candidates would step forward and campaign, overtly or covertly, for the position and the Church's teachings would be compromised, either by steering too far to the right or left, based on what the candidates seem to think that their constituents want to hear.

Further, when we have Catholics who do not attend Mass regularly, who presume to call themselves "Catholic" and yet support abortion, or euthanasia, or homosexual marriage, etc., who do not even believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, how can they be expected to select a bishop who teaches truth? Most likely, they would select a priest who preaches love and tolerance, who preaches that sin is a myth and everyone is just fine as they are, and make him a bishop.

Finally, who is Father McBrien to say that the selection and appointment of bishops has "absolutely nothing to do with the will of Christ"? Does he have a direct line to the Lord? Has he received a private revelation? Has he found some unknown passage in Scripture that says bishops must be chosen by the people of their diocese only, from the beginning of the Church until the end?

Once again, I can't help but wonder if Father McBrien is saying all of this because he was never chosen to be a bishop? Perhaps he believes that, had Archbishop Jadot remained, or had John Paul appointed someone like him, Father McBrien's name might have made it on a terna? Who knows?

I am a priest of the St. Paul/Mpls Archdiocese and have been for 35 years. My experience of what has been happening as articulated by Fr. McBrien is exactly the same as his. The people in the pew are not stupid! Their analysis of the narcissism of corporate structures is fully engaged and quickly drawing conclusions. The laity's reaction has been informed by the narcissism other corporate structures exhibited like: the conduct of the Vietnam War, Watergate, Enron and the "enhanced interrogation" techniques of Guantanamo. The Roman imperial governance culture of the RC Church is showing to the world its dark side. What is more tragic it is injuring the mission of the Church in a world with great spiritual need looking for credible spiritual leaders. This "re-enforcing for the status quo" is contrary to the needs of the Church and often hides behind the charge of "relativism" and "secularism". Both of relativism and secularism are real and playing out in the lives of people, BUT the leadership crisis and incredibility of our bishops fan the growing flames of both. I thank Richard O'Brien for his wonderful words and the courage it takes to articulate the truth of our times.

My name is not associated with my words because I judge at this time it not wise for me to go public. (My Archbishop clearly thinks that conformity to the Vatican view is the way a bishop exclusively carries out his responsibilities---and, ofcourse, advances his career.) Someday, however, the needs of the Church may cause me to forcefully and publically articulate the truth that I know--despite likely consequences from a local bishop. Many bishops are under siege by the needs of their diocese and the realities of the 21st century. They, like me, must place fidelity to the Gospel and the pastoral needs of God’s People---first! Thank you--Richard O'Brien

It 's true outside the US as well. Look at Sydney and its present incumbent as the example.

I agree entirely. The estrangement between the bishops and the people grows by the day. The bishops are aware of the peoples' views on a host of important issues but the laity's views (and often the clergy's)are ignored since the bishops answer only to Rome (and the summary removal of the Archbishop of Bangui just last week with no due process or consultation shows what happens when Rome decides that any bishop anywhere is not adhering to the current party line). I am beginning to think it will take a formal schism before Rome deigns to seriously dialogue with ordinary Catholics.

The Jadot bishops are also the ones mostly responsible for the sexual abuse crisis.

i agree with the piece father wrote, it is right on target. my point is that the priests have no one to listen to their problems with their bishop. our bishop is referred yo by his priests as the "snake", because he changes positions at will and slithers all over the place. the boshops should be held accountable via you-tube and the internet but no one has set up a blogosphere for this kind of justice. maybe father will do thid. the national priests council is a total waste. they have a tin ear just like the bishops do. mais, c'est la vie!

...noting that "many on the parish level feel alienated and ... the divide between them and the hierarchy continues to widen."
Aptly put...as one of those on the parish level I very much feel alienated from the Church I love. It seems no one's voices matter but one. Blessed be our Pope, but I am terrified at going backwards to the church I left in my childhood. I blossomed as an active Catholic with Vatican II and now feel held down with the opressive style of the current authorities.
Holy Spirit Come, we need you now more than ever.