(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
Archbishop: Inside the Power Structure of the American Catholic Church
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Copyright © 1989 by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
All rights reserved
Published by Harper & Row, 1989
Introduction
In our western civilization only one formal organization, the Roman Catholic Church, claims a substantial age.
Chester I. Barnard/1
Empirical research by psychologists and sociologists on bishops and other [church] administrators is apparently nonexistent.
Kennedy and Heckler
American Catholic bishops are front-page news. Their involvement in important national issues is chronicled because they are influential and sometimes controversial participants in the political process. Their opposition to abortion and their pastoral letters on peace and on the U.S. economy have been widely discussed and debated. A more recent focus of attention has been the division within the American hierarchy over whether include information on condoms in AIDS education programs. Not only the media but also politicians have paid attention to what the bishops are saying. The Reagan White House attacked an early draft of the peace pastoral. And Geraldine Ferraro could not ignore Cardinal John O'Connor's questions about her stand on abortion.
Despite the media attention given to their positions on public issues, the bishops actually spend very little of their time on public policy or writing pastoral letters. Most of their time is spent on internal church matters in their own dioceses. But little is known about what bishops do in their dioceses, the ecclesiastical territories for which they are responsible. What power do they have? How do they make decisions? How do they spend their time? When the diocesan work of a bishop does come to the attention of the press, it tends to be about highly controversial issues: the closing of a parish or school, a lawsuit dealing with a pedophilic priest, or some other crisis.
Even in his own diocese, the daily work of a bishop is practically unknown. Everyone agrees that bishops are important in the Catholic Church, but few people, including Catholics, know much about their local bishop or his work. Most Catholics only meet a bishop once in their lives, when they receive the sacrament of confirmation. Normally the bishop confirms when he visits a parish every year or two. His visit is usually only long enough to talk to the pastor, celebrate the liturgy, and go to the reception for the newly confirmed and their relatives. The people come away with only the briefest impressions of the personality and views of the bishop and with very little understanding of his other work.
The public ignorance about what bishops do is matched by a similar ignorance in the scholarly community. Canon law describes the power and responsibilities of bishops but does not usually examine how that power is actually exercised. Numerous theological books and articles have been written about bishops, but they are primarily abstract, theoretical treatises on the role of bishops in the church. Often these studies say that the bishop is or should be a spiritual leader and pastoral teacher without any concrete explanation of how these roles are carried out.
Some histories and biographies tell about bishops and what they did in the church of the past, but very little describes the bishops of today and what they do in the post-Vatican II church. There are practically no studies of the bishops from a social science perspective, which is surprising since the Catholic church is the oldest surviving complex organization in the world. What was said in the multivolume The Catholic Priest in the United States in 1972 is still true: "Empirical research by psychologists and sociologists on bishops and other [church] administrators is apparently nonexistent."/2 This lack of interest on the part of social scientists is shocking considering the long existence of the church and the fact that it has been undergoing major changes in the last thirty years.
Purpose of Book
This is not a theological or spiritual book. I approached this study as a journalist who is a political scientist and Jesuit priest./3 It is not an attempt to describe the Spirit working in the church; rather it attempts to describe the people, the processes, and structures through which the Spirit must work. Social scientists cannot measure or evaluate the spiritual nature of the church, they can only describe and analyze its external manifestations in people and organizations.
This book describes what the American archbishops do for a living. It seeks to answer questions such as the following: Who are these men? How do they become archbishops? What do they do besides confirm? How do they spend their time? How do they make decisions? How do they organize and govern their dioceses? What control do they exercise over what is happening in their dioceses?
This study uses social science methodology and theory to gain a greater understanding of church organization and decision making. It examines the decision-making process archbishops use for allocating resources and assigning personnel. It studies how they provide leadership within their archdioceses, how they spend their time, how they get information, how they make decisions, and how they communicate with their priests and people. The role of their chanceries and diocesan consultative bodies in helping them to fulfill their leadership and decision-making roles is also examined.
A major thesis of this book is that archdiocesan governance, like the governance of any organization, is affected by the personality and preferences of the leaders, the environment in which they operate and the "technologies" employed./4 "Technologies" are the means, skills, techniques, and knowledge used by an organization to attain its goals. In the church, these technologies (preaching, counseling, education, etc.) would be organized into ministries. The structures and strategies of an organization, including the church, are determined by its leadership, but they are also rooted in an organization's technology and task environment. An organization's leaders, technology, and task environment do not operate in total independence of one another; each can influence the others.
Church leaders, archbishops, and the people they appoint, can make a difference. Intellectual, interpersonal, organizational, and pastoral talents vary among bishops. This is most frequently noted when comparing a bishop with his predecessor. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago relates better with his priests than did his predecessor Cardinal John Cody. Cardinal John O'Connor of New York and Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston delegate more to their chancery officials than did Cardinals Cooke and Medeiros. The three current cardinals play a larger role nationally than did their predecessors.
But the same men's influence would be different in a different environment. An archbishop's power is limited (or enhanced) by the canonical, political, financial, demographic, and historical environment in which he must operate. Without resources (money and personnel), without the support of his priests and people, an archbishop is very limited, especially if the environment is hostile or indifferent. Competitors in the environment, such as evangelicals among the Hispanics, can cause concern. Law and tradition encourage stability, but demands and feedback from the environment stimulate adaptations of goals and procedures. These changes are normally incremental. Different archdioceses provide different environments, and even a single archdiocese has a variety of environmental factors that affect governance.
Finally, what an archbishop does is dependent not only on his personality and environment but on the technologies available to accomplish his goals. For some of his goals (construction, financial administration, fund raising, education), he can use technologies that are similar to those used by secular organizations. For his more spiritual goals, ecclesial technologies or ministries (preaching, sacraments, etc.) that are unique to the church must be employed.
Some technologies or ministries employed by the church are more susceptible to bureaucratic management than others. As a result, various parts of the archdiocese will be governed in different ways. Financial administration, for example, can be highly routinized, even computerized, but pastoral counseling cannot. The more intensive the technology (the more it requires professional skills, imagination, and response to feedback), the less its use can be controlled by regulations and a central office. Nor can many ecclesial technologies be easily evaluated. In the face of human freedom and the mystery of grace, ecclesial technologies for "saving souls" or promoting vocations cannot work perfectly. In fact, measuring efficiency and effectiveness of technologies with spiritual goals is by definition impossible, especially where the desire is for quality as well as quantity. This uncertainty and complexity encourages decision makers to limit the number of variables examined (bounded rationality), to seek a satisfactory rather than optimal solution to a problem (satisficing) and to respond with incremental rather than radical changes.
The research for this book was done primarily through interviewing archbishops and their cabinet-level staffs (auxiliary bishops, vicars general, chancellors, secretaries to archbishops, moderators of the curia, and the directors of finances, personnel, pastoral service, social service, and education). Over four hundred persons were interviewed./5 All thirty-one archbishops (including all of the cardinals) agreed to participate in the study and every archdiocese was visited between June 1985 and January 1987. The interviews, most of which were taped, provide the factual information for the study and also the opinions and examples that are quoted in the book. In some archdioceses I was also allowed to sit in on meetings of the archbishop's presbyteral and pastoral councils. I was also allowed to attend meetings of some archbishops with their staffs, auxiliary bishops, and cabinets.
Because of the size and complexity of the Roman Catholic Church it was necessary to limit the scope of this study. Eastern-rite churches in union with Rome were not examined because their unique structures and traditions would require a separate book. These churches serve only one percent of U.S. Catholics. Nor did I examine the military archdiocese, a nonterritorial archdiocese that ministers to Catholics in the U.S. armed forces.
The study is limited to the thirty-one Latin-rite archbishops and archdioceses. The church in the United States is divided into 175 geographical units called dioceses or archdioceses depending on whether they are headed by a diocesan bishop or an archbishop. These separate and independent sees (a generic term for dioceses and archdioceses) cover every corner of the United States and are grouped into thirty-one provinces each headed by an archbishop who is called the metropolitan of the province. Some of these archbishops and diocesan bishops are assisted by auxiliary bishops.
All together the archbishops, diocesan bishops and auxiliary bishops add up to almost three hundred Latin-rite bishops working in the United States, plus another eighty or so retired bishops. Interviewing all of them is impractical. Constructing a representative sample of these sees and their bishops (and getting them to agree to participate) is problematic.
As a result, I concentrated on the 31 Latin-rite archdioceses: Anchorage, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, Detroit, Dubuque, Hartford, Indianapolis, Kansas City (KS), Louisville, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Mobile, Newark, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Portland (OR), St. Louis, St. Paul, San Francisco, Santa Fe, San Antonio, Seattle and Washington (DC). These sees are called archdioceses, rather than dioceses, because each is headed by an archbishop rather than a bishop.
As will be explained later, an archbishop's duties and authority are the same as a bishop's except that as metropolitan he has limited supervisory jurisdiction and influence over the bishops in his province who are known as suffragans. Studying archdioceses enabled me to examine a limited number that includes the most important sees in the United States. Their archbishops are also the most well-known Catholic prelates, and include all of the cardinals residing in the United States. As cardinals they elect the pope.
While not a perfectly representative sample, archdioceses are in every part of the country which guarantees that the study is geographically representative. Archdioceses differ from dioceses primarily in size. Although some archdioceses are very small, they tend to be twice the size of the average diocese. The average U.S. see has 186 diocesan priests and 286,000 Catholics, while the average archdiocese has 395 priests and 695,000 Catholics. Archdioceses also tend to be more Catholic, with 27 percent of their area Catholic as opposed to 22 percent for the nation as a whole./6 Most dioceses are like the small and medium-sized archdioceses in this study.
Archbishops do the same things as diocesan bishops, plus a few extra things. They tend to be more active than other bishops in the national and international church. Archbishops also tend to be older, better educated, and more experienced at the time of their appointments./7
Organization
Archdiocesan governance, like any form of governance, is the result of the interaction of numerous factors. It is primarily affected by the personality and style of the archbishop and the makeup and needs of his archdiocese, which he governs within the boundaries set by canon law. This book therefore begins with a chapter on how bishops are appointed, since who is appointed has a tremendous impact on how an archdiocese is governed. Once he is appointed, the new archbishop must govern his particular archdiocese with the power and constraints of canon law. Chapter 2 describes the canon law governing bishops. It also shows how archdioceses vary greatly in terms of demography, geography, institutions, and history. These social, economic, ethnic, geographic, and cultural factors affect how an archdiocese is governed. Chapter 3 describes the personalities and styles of archbishops and explains what structures archbishops use in governing.
The next three chapters then examine how archbishops deal with important parts of their archdioceses. Chapter 4 describes the relationship between the archbishop and his parishes. For most Catholics, their parish is the church. To reach the people, the archbishop must work through the parish structure. Chapter 5 describes his role in the finances of the archdiocese: how he raises money, how he decides to spend it, and how he controls spending by parishes and other archdiocesan agencies. Chapter 6 studies his relationship to his priests, especially through his appointment of pastors. Without the support of his priests, he can do little. Chapter 7 describes archdiocesan governance of Catholic schools and Catholic social services, two of the biggest ministries of the church.
Chapter 8 examines the role of the archbishop outside his diocese, especially his relations with the bishops of his province, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), and the Vatican. Archbishops can be affected by what happens outside their archdioceses, and they can also have an impact on the national and international church. The Conclusion describes the episcopal decision-making process and summarizes some of the issues archbishops must give attention to.
In all of these chapters, the emphasis is on the role of the archbishop and his top staff: What problems come to them? What decisions do they make? What strategies do they follow? Through extensive quotations from the interviews, they are allowed to tell their own stories.
Finally, it must be remembered that this is not a static system. Archdioceses in the United States are constantly undergoing change. Archbishops retire or die and are replaced by new men. Archbishop Donnellan died after being interviewed. Cardinals Manning and Krol and Archbishops Gerety and Power left office after they were interviewed (I also interviewed the new archbishops of Atlanta, Portland, Los Angeles, and Newark). In other archdioceses, cabinet-level staff changed shortly before or after my visit. Even archdioceses with stable leadership were often undergoing reorganization or changes in procedures and policies. As a result, descriptions and examples from individual archdioceses should be considered only snapshots of moving objects.
On the other hand, many of the problems and issues these archbishops face are not going to go away soon. Some archdioceses, like Los Angeles, are just now establishing structures and programs that have been in place for some time in other archdioceses. And as old problems are solved, new ones will arise, and it is likely they will be approached in the ways described here. The church is always changing and always the same.
Since this is the first book of its kind, there will be errors and omissions. It is hoped that more researchers will enter this vast and open field of research to correct and build on what is here.
I wish to thank the American archbishops who allowed me to visit their archdioceses to conduct my interviews: Joseph Bernardin (Chicago), William D. Borders (Baltimore), Thomas A. Donnellan and Eugene Marino (Atlanta), Patrick F. Flores (San Antonio), Peter L. Gerety and Theodore E. McCarrick (Newark), Philip M. Hannan (New Orleans), James A. Hickey (Washington, DC), Raymond G. Hunthausen (Seattle), Francis T. Hurley (Anchorage), Thomas Kelly (Louisville), John Krol (Philadelphia), Daniel Kucera (Dubuque), Bernard F. Law (Boston), Oscar Lipscomb (Mobile), Roger Mahony and Timothy Manning (Los Angeles), John L. May (St. Louis), Edward A. McCarthy (Miami), John J. O'Connor (New York), Edward T. O'Meara (Indianapolis), Daniel E. Pilarczyk (Cincinnati), Cornelius M. Power and William J. Levada (Portland, OR), John R. Quinn (San Francisco), John R. Roach (St. Paul), Charles A. Salatka (Oklahoma City), Robert F. Sanchez (Santa Fe), Daniel E. Sheehan (Omaha), J. Francis Stafford (Denver), Ignatius J. Strecker (Kansas City, KS), Edmund C. Szoka (Detroit), Rembert Weakland (Milwaukee) and John F. Whealon (Hartford). I am also grateful to their staff members whom I also interviewed. Without their openness and hospitality this book would have been impossible to write. If it helps them in their ministry, it will have been worth the effort.
I am indebted to the Woodstock Theological Center, the Loyola Foundation, the Cambridge Center for Social Studies, America magazine, and the California Province of the Society of Jesus for the financial support that made this study possible. Thanks also to my agent, John Breslin, S.J., of Georgetown University. Finally, I am grateful for the hospitality and encouragement of my Jesuit brothers and colleagues, especially those at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University and America magazine in New York City. Other Jesuits welcomed me into their communities as I traveled from archdiocese to archdiocese. Finally, I am especially grateful to those who read the manuscript and gave me both encouragement and many useful suggestions, especially Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, Msgr. George Higgins, Dean Hoge, Rev. James H. Provost (all four of the Catholic University of America), Joseph Fichter, S.J., of Loyola University of New Orleans, Aaron Wildavsky of the University of California, Berkeley, Albert G. McCarthy of the Loyola Foundation, my editors at Harper & Row, and three archbishops who will remain nameless. Although numerous people have helped me while writing this book, I am solely responsible for its contents.
Footnotes
1. Chester I. Barnard, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938), 5.The Functions of the Executive
2. Eugene C. Kennedy, M.M., and Victor J. Heckler, The Catholic Priest in the United States: Psychological Investigations (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1972), 216.
3. For a cybernetic analysis of the church, see Patrick Granfield, Ecclesial Cybernetics: A Study of Democracy in the Church (New York: Macmillan, 1973).
4. James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
5. All quotations that are not footnoted are from these interviews.
6. The Official Catholic Directory 1988 (Wilmette, IL: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1988). Estimates of the percentage of Catholic population in the United States by Gallup are higher than estimates in the directory. See Dean Hoge, Future of Catholic Leadership (Kansas City, KS.: Sheed & Ward, 1987), 228.
7. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., "A Survey of the American Bishops," America 149 (November 12, 1983): 287.
Chapter 1: The Selection of Bishops
We try to find the "saint" who fits the niche.
Archbishop Laghi
God help us all.
Mother on learning that her son was appointed archbishop.
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.
Province Candidates
For first appointments, the process begins when all the bishops (including auxiliaries) of an ecclesiastical province meet under the chairmanship of their archbishop to consider the names of priests who are possible candidates for the episcopacy.\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.
Province List
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
Pro-nuncio
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.
Government Interference
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
Auxiliaries
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.
Diocesan Bishops
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 fulfi