Not (Just) Employer

Jimmy Mac sent me this link to The Tablet with a legal defense for a British diocese:

The diocese of Portsmouth this week insisted that a priest accused of abusing a child was employed “in the service” of God, not by the diocese.

…

As it was a preliminary hearing on the case, the court was not tasked with judging the truth of the woman’s allegations, but ruled instead on the question of whether the relationship between a priest and bishop was akin to that between an employer and an employee.

I wonder how often the prosecutors bring up the Church’s own teaching. Christus Dominus 16 is sure to be an eye-opener for the legal world, not to mention a few bishops:

Let (bishops) be true fathers who excel in the spirit of love and solicitude for all and to whose divinely conferred authority all gratefully submit themselves. Let them so gather and mold the whole family of their flock that everyone, conscious of his own duties, may live and work in the communion of love.

…

Bishops should always embrace priests with a special love since the latter to the best of their ability assume the bishops’ anxieties and carry them on day by day so zealously. They should regard the priests as sons and friends (Cf. John 15:15) and be ready to listen to them. Through their trusting familiarity with their priests they should strive to promote the whole pastoral work of the entire diocese.

They should be solicitous for the spiritual, intellectual and material welfare of the priests so that the latter can live holy and pious lives and fulfill their ministry faithfully and fruitfully.

…

With active mercy bishops should pursue priests who are involved in any danger or who have failed in certain respects.

Here’s what I see in the bishop:

• They are tasked with being “fathers” in a “family” of members that “live and work in (a) communion.”
• Their relationship with priests is described as a mutuality not only in ministry, but of cares, of listening, and of respect.
• They share with the clergy “the whole pastoral work of the entire diocese.”
• Their concern is wide-ranging and goes beyond the work their priests do.
• A troubled priest is a target of “active” concern–even pursuit.

Is a bishop responsible? Darn right he is. It goes with the job, and it certainly is intimiately entangled with the nature of the episcopal ministry as the Catholic church teaches and understands it. Is the bishop an employer? That and much, much more. Bishop Hollis should know this.

 

Christus Dominus 44: The Last Word

“This sacred synod prescribes that in the revision of the code of canon law suitable laws be drawn up in keeping with the principles stated in this decree. Due consideration should also be given the observations made by the commissions and the council Fathers.”

Delegation. Love it or hate it, the council indeed left many specifics to the future work of bishops, commissions, and experts in particular fields. Note the importance given not only of the text of Christus Dominus, but also “the observations” of council participants. Presumably, somebody kept notes on all that. I’m not aware of any such resource that might include such observations. Is anyone?

“This sacred synod also prescribes that general directories be prepared treating of the care of souls for the use of both bishops and pastors. Thus they will be provided with certain methods which will help them to discharge their own pastoral office with greater ease and effectiveness.”

I’m aware of some of the these directories being prepared, catechesis is one example.

“There should be prepared also a particular directory concerning the pastoral care of special groups of the faithful as the different circumstances of individual nations or regions require.”

No idea if any “particular directories” have ever been prepared. Anyone?

“In preparing these directories, special attention should be given to the views which have been expressed both by the commissions and the council Fathers.”

Ah! More unofficial input. By way of extension, one might say that continuing views of committees, bishops, clergy, religious, and lay people should be taken into account when preparing to move the Church in a particular direction.

In conclusion, we can see where the follow through has been spotty in regard to Christus Dominus, especially in contrast to the constitution on liturgy. Leadership on the episcopal level, though not usually impacting the daily life of Catholics, nevertheless has a trickle-down effect that alters the path of the Church and directly affects its fruitfulness in preaching the gospel. Don’t count on the USCCB to take a serious look at it, though.

Some questioned the purpose of even looking at this document. I think there is one. I confess I’m a frequent critic of bishops. But is my criticism based on personal likes and dislikes? Is it based on the quirks I see or read about in a bishop? Is it touched by my distaste for the harboring of sexual predators? Perhaps this is so for many, if not all of us. But to be a responsible critic of a bishop or bishops in general, we have the opportunity to weigh their service against the ideal presented in Vatican II. We can read Christus Dominus, and hold up our favorite or detested bishop and see for ourselves: Is it something personal, or does it have an objective basis in fact and church teaching?

Final thoughts?

 

Christus Dominus 42 & 43: Outside Usual Channels

“Since pastoral needs require more and more that some pastoral undertakings be directed and carried forward as joint projects, it is fitting that certain offices be created for the service of all or many dioceses of a determined region or nation. These offices can be filled by bishops.”

Christus Dominus 42 says it. Number 43 continues by strongly suggesting a military vicariate in each nation, if possible.

“Both the military vicar and the chaplains should devote themselves unsparingly to this difficult work in complete cooperation with the diocesan bishops. Diocesan bishops should release to the military vicar a sufficient number of priests who are qualified for this serious work. At the same time they should promote all endeavors which will improve the spiritual welfare of military personnel.”

Even a pacifist agrees this is a necessary ministry.

 

Christus Dominus 39-41: Church Mapmaking

Vatican II wasn’t a completely head-in-the-clouds experience. Christus Dominus 39-41 speaks of “fitting boundaries” for dioceses and ecclesiastical provinces. National or regional episcopal conferences are to work out details, then submit “suggestions and desires” to Rome.

 

Christus Dominus 36-38: Bishops in Synods, Councils, and Conferences

Bishops in Synods, Councils, and Conferences

Those who see the USCCB as a candidate for bureaucratic downsizing, consider Christus Dominus 36:

From the very first centuries of the Church bishops, as rulers of individual churches, were deeply moved by the communion of fraternal charity and zeal for the universal mission entrusted to the Apostles. And so they pooled their abilities and their wills for the common good and for the welfare of the individual churches. Thus came into being synods, provincial councils and plenary councils in which bishops established for various churches the way to be followed in teaching the truths of faith and ordering ecclesiastical discipline.

This sacred ecumenical synod earnestly desires that the venerable institution of synods and councils flourish with fresh vigor. In such a way faith will be deepened and discipline preserved more fittingly and efficaciously in the various churches, as the needs of the times require.

Another “needs of the times” reference. I wish I started keeping count when I began this enterprise. Anyway, the presumption is that associations of bishops exist to do some good. They have the potential to do so. CD 37 picks up this theme, suggesting that bishops are more effective working with their brother bishops in episcopal conferences. The goal? Nothing less than “a holy union of energies in the service of the common good of the churches.”

I’m not too interested today in getting into a discussion on the tug of war between the curia and bishop’s conferences. The bishops are more than capable of sticking up for themselves in that kind of dogfight. And the one who aren’t are probably on promotion road anyway.

CD 38 makes six statements about episcopal conferences:
1. A conference is defined as a national or regional association with the intent to “promote the greater good … especially through the forms and methods of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of the age.”

2. Members include ordinaries of every rite, plus auxiliaries, co-adjutors, and titular bishops. Roman legates are not included. Each conference can determine rules about the “voting power” or consultative role of auxiliary bishops.

3. Conferences draw up their own rules, subject to approval from Rome.

4. “Decisions of the episcopal conference, provided they have been approved legitimately and by the votes of at least two-thirds of the prelates who have a deliberative vote in the conference, and have been recognized by the Apostolic See, are to have juridically binding force only in those cases prescribed by the common law or determined by a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either spontaneously or in response to a petition of the conference itself.”

This item has been changed recently by the curia, which requires unanimity. But as we’ve seen in the case of one ordinary with the sex abuse directives, any bishop is more or less free to do as he wishes.

5. Nations may merge conferences, and single national conferences should maintain communication with each other.

6. “It is highly recommended that the prelates of the Oriental Churches, promoting the discipline of their own churches in synods and efficaciously fostering works for the good of religion, should take into account also the common good of the whole territory where many churches of different rites exist. They should exchange views at inter-ritual meetings in keeping with norms to be given by the competent authority.”

Hopefully we’ll finish up this document in the next day ro two; there are only three more posts to come. I might alter my plan and focus next on the Decree on the Laity rather than on the one devoted to priestly training. We’ll see.

Comments on episcopal conferences?

 

Christus Dominus: An Evangelical View

from Neil

“Bishops should dedicate themselves to their apostolic office as witness of Christ before all men.” – Christus Dominus, 11

What would a Protestant make of this statement? This should not be a meaningless question asked out of mere curiosity. Regarding ecumenism, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1993, “To live unity in separation, in difference, we must learn to accept others in their otherness and precisely in this accomplish communion. We must learn to understand the objection of the other as our own problem. When this and similar things occur, when we can turn toward each other in our differences and let ourselves be refined by each other, as it were, then division can in its way be fruitful – more fruitful than superficial unity.” We might better understand Christus Dominus if we pause for a moment to turn toward a Protestant theologian.

John Webster, a self-consciously Protestant Anglican, now of the University of Aberdeen, would seem to be a likely source of help if we really are willing to “let ourselves be refined.” In a 2001 article, he outlined an “evangelical theology of episcopacy” – one “determined by and responsible to the good news of Jesus Christ,” proceeding by “dogmatic description, not by historical defense.” There is no reverent appeal to “from the earliest times” here. But Professor Webster also has little patience for a reflexive individualism and anticlericalism. Vague archaeological gestures to “from the earliest times” are no worse than a simplistic declension narrative of charismatic Pauline communities fading into a compromised “early Catholicism.”

In other words, there is no evading the question: What is the place of the church in the structure of the gospel? Professor Webster tells us that the God revealed by Jesus Christ is the God who elects, sustains, and perfect a particular human society “for the praise of his glorious grace that he granted us in the beloved” (Eph 1:6). So, there is no God without the church that manifests who he is. But, on the other hand, there is no church without immediate reference to this God whose action constitutes it. If we can happily speak of the church in the language of institutional forms and human intentions, we have lost sight of the true nature of the Church’s existence as creatura verbi divini (“creature of the divine word”). To be sure, we should never bifurcate divine and human action, but we must always give priority to the gracious action of the triune God. “Divine action is sheerly creative, uncaused, spontaneous, saving and effectual; human, churchly action is derivative, contingent and indicative.”

Does this mean that Professor Webster is left with an invisible, “spiritualized” church that is left “incapable of sustaining a coherent historical and social trajectory”? Not really. While Webster does wish to distinguish between “the gospel and its human representations” – perhaps spending sleepless nights worried by the “danger of collapsing Spirit into structure,” he claims that the gospel’s action will always realize in a concrete human representation. The “converting power and activity of Christ present as Spirit” will always form a social shape that we can call church order (and argue over endlessly). Jesus Christ is the minister of this church. Our Lord doesn’t eventually take an emeritus position, succeeded in his retirement by younger human representatives, but, in the words of Calvin, “he uses the ministry of men to declare openly his will to us by mouth, as a sort of delegated work, not by transferring to them his right and honor, but only that through their mouths he may do his own work – just as a workman uses a tool to do his work.”

 We must have bishops in a visible church, then, but their ministry always “points beyond itself to the action of another.” Episcopal ministry is a “showing” of Christ’s self-bestowal in the Holy Spirit, and the bishop’s task, as Karl Barth wrote, “is simply to serve this happening.” This “showing” might be distinguished by tireless activity – teaching, presiding at the sacraments, exercising discipline – but it is always in service of a greater passivity, so that (Barth again) “all encroachment on the lordship of the One who is alone the Lord is either avoided or so suppressed and eliminated in practice that there is place for His Rule.” Jesus Christ is the “bishop of our souls” (1 Pet 2:25), and, to Webster, the local bishop’s “showing” of Christ’s more universal bishopric is simultaneously the refusal of the role of mystagogue.

Unity lies in this refusal. “The ministry of the church can neither create nor represent this unity, but only make it visible through the fact that it points unmistakably away from itself and toward that which it serves – the present action of Christ in the proclamation of the Gospel through word and sacrament.” “Episcopocentric” is a very dirty word indeed. Even Ignatius of Antioch, who might seem “episcopocentric” at first glance, wrote to the Ephesians, “I do not command you, as though I were a great person … For now I am making a beginning of discipleship, and I address you as my fellow-disciples.” Ignatius grounded his own authority in the “manifest will” of the Father to which the bishops were to promote obedience, “since the bishops, established in the furthest quarters, are so by the will of Jesus Christ.” The only ground of what we might call apostolicity is in this sort of claim, Webster says, “because it is not capable of being embodied without residue in ordered forms.”

 In conclusion, the only authentic ministry is the “ministry of a herald” (Barth, for the last time). Bishops only perform the “delegated work” of Jesus Christ. It is a necessary implication of the gospel to create a church order with a ministry of oversight, but this ministry must be self-conscious of the contingency of its particular orderings before the action of the Spirit. Our strivings should never be directed towards the recovery of the ideal forms of a self-sufficient “official Christianity,” but towards the self-questioning that asks whether we are practically “attentive to word and sacrament, docile before the gospel, above all, prayerful for the coming of Christ and his Spirit.”

As Catholics, we would want to question Professor Webster’s suspicion of “ordered forms,” and his strong distinction between the bishop’s “representing” the unity of the church and his “indicating” this unity (Webster can commend only the latter). But we should also, in the then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s words, try to “understand the objection of the other as our own problem.” If we wish to suggest that certain forms are more than contingent and that the bishop can “represent” the church’s unity without diluting its Christology, we will have to show that these forms and representations intensify our “attentiveness to word and sacrament, docility before the gospel, above all, prayerfulness for the coming of Christ and his Spirit.”

Can we do this?

 

Christus Dominus 33-35: Bishops and Religious

Bishops and Religious

Christus Dominus 33-35 deals with the relationship between bishops and religious. CD 33 says nothing new: religious are to cooperate in ministry for “the particular churches.” They pray, perform acts of penance, and give life example for others. “With due consideration for the character proper to each religious community, they should also enter more vigorously into the external works of the apostolate.”

CD 34 informs us that priests of religious orders “can be said in a real sense to belong to the clergy of the diocese inasmuch as they share in the care of souls and in carrying out works of the apostolate under the authority of the prelates.” Non-clergy “also belong in a special way to the diocesan family and offer great assistance to the sacred hierarchy. With the increasing demands of the apostolate they can and should offer that assistance even more and more.”

CD 35 lists six principles for bishops and religious to follow in their shared ministry:

1. Respecting an order’s particular charisms, a bishop may call upon religious to assist actively in diocesan or parish ministry. Religious superiors should encourage this.

2. Those religious active within a diocese should maintain the observance of traditions in their order, and bishops should reinforce this obligation.

3. “The institute of exemption, by which Religious are called to the service of the supreme pontiff or other ecclesiastical authority and withdrawn from the jurisdiction of bishops, refers chiefly to the internal order of their communities so that in them all things may be properly coordinated and the growth and perfection of the Religious common life promoted.”

4. Religious are subject to their bishop’s authority in matters of liturgy, preaching, catechesis of all ages, and moral formation. A bishop also oversees institutions the religious in his diocese conduct, including schools.

5. Cooperation between clergy and religious is essential …

6. … as it is between bishops and religious superiors.

Thoughts?

 

Christus Dominus 28-32: Bishops and their Clergy

Christus Dominus 28-32 details the relationship between the bishop and the clergy of his diocese. Religious priests also are “constituted prudent cooperators of the episcopal order,” but diocesan priests hold “first place” because “they have fully dedicated themselves in the service of caring for a single portion of the Lord’s flock.” Bishops should be free to oversee their priests, making assignments as needed to ensure the continuation of effective ministry.

“The relationships between the bishop and the diocesan priests should rest most especially upon the bonds of supernatural charity so that the harmony of the will of the priests with that of their bishop will render their pastoral activity more fruitful. Wherefore, for the sake of greater service to souls, let the bishop call the priests into dialogue, especially about pastoral matters. This he should do not only on a given occasion but at regularly fixed intervals insofar as this is possible.”

I’ve had very little witness to this, naturally. I do know that my archbishop in Iowa took a very public stance in meeting with clergy and laity. I know from experience he was an excellent listener and had an excellent memory for people and facts. My wife remarked that he remembered our adoption hopes from one encounter to the next. Did this make him a wise collaborator? I can’t say. But there’s no doubt that for a bishop to be involved in substantive dialogue, he’s going to have to be a good listener, or at least pretend to be.

“Furthermore all diocesan priests should be united among themselves and so should share a genuine concern for the spiritual welfare of the whole diocese. They should also be mindful that the benefits they receive by reason of their ecclesiastical office are closely bound up with their sacred work. Therefore they should contribute generously, as the bishop may direct and as their means permit, to the material needs of the diocese.”

I had one pastor who dropped a collection envelope in the basket each week. The priests I’ve known have been generous with their giving. It’s probably harder to effect a unity amongst themselves, given the demands of parish ministry.

Priests “charged with a pastoral office or apostolic organizations of a supra-parochial nature” are “closer collaborators” with the bishop. A nod is also given to priests who serve in non-parish apostolates.

Christus Dominus 30 continues:

“Pastors, however, are cooperators of the bishop in a very special way, for as pastors in their own name they are entrusted with the care of souls in a certain part of the diocese under the bishop’s authority.”

CD outlines this more deeply in three ways.

1. Pastors and their assistants fulfill the bishop’s role in “teaching, sanctifying, and governing” the faithful. In doing so, pastors are to cooperate with one another and other priests involved in non-parish apostolates. Why? Unity and better effectiveness in ministry. What CD calls a “missionary spirit” might be seen as the apostolate of evangelization. Check out this quote:

“Moreover, the care of souls should always be infused with a missionary spirit so that it reaches out as it should to everyone living within the parish boundaries. If the pastor cannot contact certain groups of people, he should seek the assistance of others, even laymen who can assist him in the apostolate.”

Even lay people. Imagine that.

“To render the care of souls more efficacious, community life for priests-especially those attached to the same parish-is highly recommended. This way of living, while it encourages apostolic action, also affords an example of charity and unity to the faithful.”

Another good point, and note the emphasis here. Community life for priests is highly recommended. And not just for those attached to the same parish. This is one area I think bishops have been very lax: in attending to the living needs of dicoesan clergy. My experience in rural Iowa tells me this would have been very difficult for pastors responsible for whole counties, but even so, priests would benefit from more social reinforcement from their peers, if not in living arrangements, then in more frequent gatherings. My pastor in rural Iowa lived about thirty miles from the nearest priest, but he had a healthy social life, and frequently vacationed with a friend or two in the priesthood. Bishops should be more vigilant about ensuring this happens.

2. Pastors are responsible for preaching and teaching. They are also entrusted with the bishop’s duty of sanctifying, seeing “to it that the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the center and culmination of the whole life of the Christian community. They should labor without stint that the faithful are nourished with spiritual food through the devout and frequent reception of the Sacraments and through intelligent and active participation in the Liturgy.”

Even in a document on bishops, we see the conciliar emphasis on “active participation.” CD 30 also underscores the important of the sacrament of Penance, and that pastors “should always make themselves available to hear the confessions of the faithful.”

“In fulfilling their office as shepherd, pastors should take pains to know their own flock. Since they are the servants of all the sheep, they should encourage a full Christian life among the individual faithful and also in families, in associations especially dedicated to the apostolate, and in the whole parish community. Therefore, they should visit homes and schools to the extent that their pastoral work demands. They should pay especial attention to adolescents and youth. They should devote themselves with a paternal love to the poor and the sick. They should have a particular concern for workingmen. Finally, they should encourage the faithful to assist in the works of the apostolate.”

A mission statement every priest should frame and hang on his office wall. CD 30′s point three advises “assistant pastors” cooperate with the pastor, do the things the pastor does, and provides a “united” front in ministry to the parish.

CD 31 deals with the suitability of a priest for the office of pastor. Does your pastor measure up in “knowledge of doctrine but also his piety, apostolic zeal and other gifts and qualities which are necessary for the proper exercise of the care of souls?” Assorted administrative pieces are discussed, including the priority of the parish for the “good of souls” above other previous rights which might have existed previously, the ideal of the stability of the office of pastor in a parish, the suggestion that procedures for moving pastors should be simplified, the retirement of pastors, and the need for the bishop to provide for the support of resigned pastors.

Finally, this pertinent quote, CD 32 in its entirety:

“Finally, the same concern for souls should be the basis for determining or reconsidering the erection or suppression of parishes and any other changes of this kind which the bishop is empowered to undertake on his own authority.”

Whew! Any comments, or are you as tired as I am after sifting through all that?

 

Christus Dominus 27: Who Advises the Bishop?

Christus Dominus 27 tells us.

The most important office in the diocesan curia is that of vicar general. However, as often as the proper government of the diocese requires it, one or more episcopal vicars can be named by the bishop. These automatically enjoy the same authority which the common law grants the vicar general, but only for a certain part of the diocese, or for a determined type of transaction or for the faithful of a determined rite.

Among the collaborators of the bishop in the government of the diocese are numbered those presbyters who constitute his senate, or council, such as the cathedral chapter, the board of consultors or other committees according to the circumstances or nature of various localities. These institutions, especially the cathedral chapters, should be reorganized wherever necessary in keeping with present day needs.

Priests and lay people who belong to the diocesan curia should realize that they are making a helpful contribution to the pastoral ministry of the bishop.

The diocesan curia should be so organized that it is an appropriate instrument for the bishop, not only for administering the diocese but also for carrying out the works of the apostolate.

It is greatly desired that in each diocese a pastoral commission will be established over which the diocesan bishop himself will preside and in which specially chosen clergy, religious and lay people will participate. The duty of this commission will be to investigate and weigh pastoral undertakings and to formulate practical conclusions regarding them.

Anyone ever participated in diocesan organs such as these? My experience of their parish corollaries is that the membership attracted to them corresponds to the seriousness a pastor takes their counsel.

The last paragraph strikes me as a sound approach to parish councils: investigation and prioritization of pastoral undertakings, plus offering practical conclusions. Parish council members, do you find this to be so?

 

Christus Dominus 25-26: One Diocese, Two or More Bishops

You know the difference, right? Auxiliaries have no right of succession; co-adjutors generally do. Christus Dominus 25-26 lays out the need for a bishop who needs help with a demanding job and stresses the need for unity among multiple bishops in a single diocese.

“A coadjutor bishop, appointed with the right of succession, must always be named vicar general by the diocesan bishop. In particular cases the competent authority can grant him even more extensive faculties.”

The celebrated case of “even more extensive faculties” was of Donald Wuerl being appointed in Seattle under Raymond Hunthausen.

 

Christus Dominus 22-24: Bishops and Geography

Three sections of Christus Dominus speak of some practical matters.

CD 22 speaks of practical matters for the good of the faithful: “a fitting revision of diocesan boundaries be undertaken prudently and as soon as possible. This can be done by dividing dismembering or uniting them, or by changing their boundaries, or by determining a better place for the episcopal see or, finally, especially in the case of dioceses having larger cities, by providing them with a new internal organization.”

My home diocese contains two former see cities, Kansas City and St Joseph. The latter city was once responsible for northern Missouri and Kansas City for the central and western parts of the state. Now the two cities are “united,” with a redrawing of diocesan boundaries to accomodate the newest Missouri diocese, headed by the bishop of our state capital (a smaller city than St Joseph, by the way). All this took place decades ago, before the Council, I think.

CD 23 just tells you when you tinker with dioceses, be really careful and consider diocesan personnel, diversity (CD calls it “variety in composition of the people of God”), civil jurisdictions, natural populations of the laity, and no overlapping territories among dioceses. On that last point, I do recall that a cluster of a parish or two from Dubuque and a parish or two from Davenport shared a priest. I presume the bishops and bureaucrats had it all worked out.

“The extent of the diocese and the number of its inhabitants should generally be such that, on the one hand, the bishop himself- even though assisted by others-can officiate at pontifical functions, make pastoral visitations, faithfully direct and coordinate all the works of the apostolate in the diocese and know well especially his priests, and also the religious and lay people who are engaged in diocesan projects.”

Others disagree with me, but I still think dioceses in the US are too large. In Dubuque we had about 200 parishes. In Kansas City, I think it’s about 110. A bishop could be visiting each of his parishes once a year, and one might think that 50 parishes would be about right. Rather than close down self-sustaining communities, why not reduce the bishop’s load? A group of dioceses, especially in large metro areas, might merge appropriate offices to more competently serve regional needs.

“Finally, in order that the ministry of salvation be more effectively carried out in each diocese, it should be considered a general rule that each diocese have clergy, in number and qualifications at least sufficient, for the proper care of the people of God; also, there should be no lack of the offices, institutions and organizations which are proper to the particular church and which experience has shown necessary for its efficient government and apostolate; finally, resources for the support of personnel and institutions should be at hand or at least prudently foreseen in prospect.”

“For this same purpose, where there are faithful of a different rite, the diocesan bishop should provide for their spiritual needs either through priests or parishes of that rite or through an episcopal vicar endowed with the necessary faculties. Wherever it is fitting, the last named should also have episcopal rank. Otherwise the Ordinary himself may perform the office of an Ordinary of different rites. If for certain reasons, these prescriptions are not applicable in the judgment of the Apostolic See, then a proper hierarchy for the different rites is to be established.”

This is extended to consider lay people of a different language group.

CD 24 merely suggests that episcopal conferences look at these matters. Eastern Rite operations are to be left untouched.

Comments?

 

Christus Dominus 20-21: Steering into Specifics

Nearly halfway through Christus Dominus, and I’ll tell you there are occasional good bits ahead, but the heavy theological work is behind us already. Sections 20 and 21 deal with the alpha and omega events of a bishop’s career: appointment and retirement.

 

 

First, note that naming bishops is not a righ tof Rome per se, but of “competent ecclesiastical authority.” Neil and other historians might give us a more in-depth overview, but there has been a longer church tradition for secular rulers naming bishops than Rome. Vatican II says, “Secular rulers, out!”

“The civil authorities, on the other hand, whose favorable attitude toward the Church the sacred synod gratefully acknowledges and highly appreciates, are most kindly requested voluntarily to renounce the above-mentioned rights and privileges which they presently enjoy by reason of a treaty or custom, after discussing the matter with the Apostolic See.”

I wonder if everybody is on board with this now.

And CD 21 speaks of resignations, and the care of retired bishops:

Since the pastoral office of bishops is so important and weighty, diocesan bishops and others regarded in law as their equals, who have become less capable of fulfilling their duties properly because of the increasing burden of age or some other serious reason, are earnestly requested to offer their resignation from office either at their own initiative or upon the invitation of the competent authority. If the competent authority should accept the resignation, it will make provision both for the suitable support of those who have resigned and for special rights to be accorded them.

Again, “competent authority,” not Rome. Is Rome automatically the only competent authority for Western bishops? Note also, retirement is not just for age, but for any “serious” reason by which a bishop is less capable (not incapable) of fulfilling his duty.

 

Christus Dominus 19: Some Cold Water

Christus Dominus 19 states:

“In discharging their apostolic office, which concerns the salvation of souls, bishops per se enjoy full and perfect freedom and independence from any civil authority. Hence, the exercise of their ecclesiastical office may not be hindered, directly or indirectly, nor may they be forbidden to communicate freely with the Apostolic See, or ecclesiastical authorities, or their subjects.”

First sentence I think of Cardinal Law. Second I consider the underground bishops of China and the former Soviet bloc. But still, we laity are now “subjects?”

“Assuredly, while sacred pastors devote themselves to the spiritual care of their flock, they also in fact have regard for their social and civil progress and prosperity. According to the nature of their office and as behooves bishops, they collaborate actively with public authorities for this purpose and advocate obedience to just laws and reverence for legitimately constituted authorities.”

And we “subjects” are subject, of course, to following civil law.

 

Christus Donimus 18: Who Falls Under the “Special Concern” of Bishops

According to Christus Dominus 18, it is “migrants, exiles and refugees, seafarers, air-travelers, gypsies, and others of this kind. Suitable pastoral methods should also be promoted to sustain the spiritual life of those who go to other lands for a time for the sake of recreation.”

I had to smile at the latter, thinking of a few bishops who promote vacation packages or cruises. Somehow, that wasn’t quite what CD 18 had in mind.

But seriously, episcopal concern for the spiritual welfare of these people, some of whom are not the most popular folks in your average parish, would need to be assisted by the lay apostolate. Not every wanderer is served by a bishop hosting a pleasure cruise. What if bishops were to lead delegations to migrant camps? What if they travelled off the familiar Alaskan or Caribbean cruise routes?

 

Christus Dominus 17: Go Team Go!

Christus Dominus 17 begins:

Various forms of the apostolate should be encouraged, and in the whole diocese or in any particular areas of it the coordination and close connection of all apostolic works should be fostered under the direction of the bishop. Thus all undertakings and organizations, be they catechetical, missionary, charitable, social, familial, educational, or anything else pursuing a pastoral aim, should be directed toward harmonious action. Thus at the same time the unity of the diocese will also be made more evident.

It’s a tough challenge in the best of times. With the arrival of a new ordinary in Kansas City, things are understandably in the shuffling process. We had two lay people rather high up in the chancery ranks who were let go after years of service, one was replaced with an experienced pastor, the other by a university professor. After their replacements were named, they were quietly invited back to help with the transition for a year, but declined. Since then, the diocese has made at least one new hire to cover old duties set aside in the new administration. CD clearly places the responsibility for harmony of effort with the bishop. That’s any leader’s responsibility: pastor, choir director, employer. If the work force, the choir, or the parish is falling apart, leaders can’t pass the buck. Their job is not to do, but to oversee, hence the Greek word for bishop, episcopos, means “overseer.” And the bottom line is: you have to see.

The faithful should be earnestly urged to assume their duty of carrying on the apostolate, each according to his state in life and ability. They should be admonished to participate in and give aid to the various works of the apostolate of the laity, especially Catholic Action.

Catholic Action is defined by the Encyclopedia Brittanica as “the organized work of the laity that is performed under the direction or mandate of a bishop in the fields of dogma, morals, liturgy, education, and charity. In 1927 Pope Pius XI gave the term its classical definition as ‘the participation of the laity in the apostolate of the hierarchy.’” (If you wanted it, Neil or other regulars can no doubt give you a substantial history of Catholic Action.) But other lay efforts “which either directly or indirectly pursue a supernatural objective, that is, either the attaining of a more perfect life, the spreading of the Gospel of Christ to all men, and the promoting of Christian doctrine or the increase of public worship, or the pursuing of social aims or the performing of works of piety and charity” are also praised by CD. Essentially, lay people can effectively minister even outside of “official” channels, so long as the overall effort retains some “harmony.”

CD 17 concludes by acknowledging present day circumstances yet again. Unlike the time of Trent, the laity often surpass the clergy today in education, even in theology. This must be considered in judging the overall harmony of a diocese. Bishops are encouraged to show concern for more than “spiritual and moral circumstances,” but also the “social, demographic, and economic conditions” of people. Note this: “Religious and social research, through offices of pastoral sociology, contributes much to the efficacious and fruitful attainment of that goal, and it is highly recommended.”

Vatican II says to use expertise, even secular-based, to effect the mission of the Church, and more: an improvement in the life of people, so far as a bishop can do so. In my experience, dioceses can be spotty in their application of this. Some parishes exceed their chanceries in their attention to ministry, both in effort and effectiveness. Catholic Charities might be the most visible face put on ministry in most dioceses. But I’m hard-pressed to think of any other effort that, across the board, you find fruitful in more than a few sees. Dioceses seem blessed with a handful of leaders in a handful of “departments.” But from place to place in a chancery, the quality can be a mixed bag. Or perhaps your dicoese is doing great things with some consistency. If so, what are they?