From The Desk Of Karl Keating



March 28, 2006

TOPIC:ARE WE RUNNING OUT OF BISHOPS?

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

Edward N. Peters teaches at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in the Archdiocese of Detroit. An accomplished canon lawyer, Ed worked for a decade in the dioceses of Duluth and San Diego. I got to know him while he was here and count him as a friend.

He hosts a well-done blog called "In the Light of the Law": http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html

Ed's most current posting on the blog is about whether there should be a new retirement age for bishops, who, under current rules, are expected to tender their resignations when they reach 75. Not a few such bishops, as we know, end up staying past 75. Ed offers this reflection:

"[T]he main reason we will see fewer arch/diocesan bishops retiring at 75 is practical: there is a serious shortage of good men, and a vacant see is a bigger problem than is a see held by a man who is over 75. Doubtless, elderly bishops deserve to retire; privately, I imagine, many of them want to retire. But the Church cannot afford to let them go. The bishop crunch is in full swing, and it will be with us for quite some time."

Ed's blog reminded me that he had written about this eleven years ago, in the November 1995 issue of the "Homiletic & Pastoral Review." I retrieved that issue from the library and read his piece again. (The only bad part of the 1995 article is the photograph of the writer: He looked then just as he looks today. I hate it when my friends don't age in step with me.)

In "HPR" Ed outlined his thesis this way:

"The question I want to consider now is simply: during the three years from 2005 to 2007, where will be find 45 men 'outstanding for their solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and other virtues and talents, possessing advanced degrees or true expertise in Scripture, theology, canon law ...' (1983 CIC 378) to fill those episcopal slots?" He noted that from 2005 to 2007 no fewer than 45 American bishops would reach retirement age.

Not seeing how the vacancies easily could be filled, Ed proffered several ways to alleviate the problem:

1. Reduce the number of openings by consolidating episcopal sees. "Surely there are some contiguous dioceses which, on their own, are barely surviving but which, if merged with each other, would be on much more stable footing."

2. Reduce the number of auxiliary bishops. The U.S. has been top-heavy with these "assistant bishops." Ideally, a diocese should have just one bishop. That may not be practical for dioceses that have hundreds of thousands or even millions of Catholics in them, but it does seem that for years Rome was on an auxiliary bishop binge.

3. Bring in foreign priests to serve as American bishops.

4. Currently-serving bishops should single out the best priests serving under them and should give them special training that might make them "episcopabile."

5. Lay Catholics should be encouraged to offer to the Church their own recommendations concerning priests who, to their thinking, might make good bishops.

Here we are, eleven years later, and Ed says that "the bishop crunch is in full swing." The above alleviants either were not tried or, if tried, did not make much of a dent in the problem. The reader of Ed's blog is left with the sense that maybe we'll just have to accept that more and more dioceses will be headed by men over age 75.

I have a different take on the matter than does Ed. Let me make a parallel to the much-vaunted vocations shortage. I don't think there has been such a shortage.

With Archbishop Elden Curtiss (writing on the issue about the same time that Ed's original article came out), I think that the vocations shortage largely has been manufactured, chiefly by seminary staffs themselves.

Many good men have been eased out of seminary formation because they have been deemed too "rigid" or some such thing. I personally know several who, after being booted out of their original seminaries, were accepted in other dioceses, went on to ordination, and now have been serving successfully as priests.

Over the years I have learned of many seminarians who had to keep a low profile to have any hope of reaching ordination, and I have learned of distressingly many who wore their orthodoxy or piety on their sleeves and suddenly found themselves back in the secular world.

Just as there is no true lack of vocations to the priesthood, so I think there is no true lack of good candidates for the episcopacy. Let me mention one possible source.

Ed and I are members of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, an organization of several hundred orthodox Catholic professors, writers, and (as in my case) public nuisances.

Judging from the attire of those who attend the annual FCS convention, I'd say that most of the members are priests. Most of them have advanced degrees. Many possess what canon 378 calls "true expertise" in fields such as Scripture, theology, or canon law. They also seem to have the virtues called for by that canon: "solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence."

About not a few of the priests in the FCS the members have been asking one another for years, "Why hasn't that guy been made a bishop?" Only a simple soul would say, "Well, the Vatican must know something about him that disqualifies him." I appreciate that sign of confidence, but, frankly, I think it's misplaced. In the last three decades the U.S. has been blessed with some wonderful episcopal appointments--and plenty of episcopal disappointments.

At a moment's notice I could name ten outstanding bishops in the American hierarchy--and ten men who never should have accepted the miter. As much as I would like to think that the selection of bishops for America has gone swimmingly, the fact is that it has not. I have reason to think that many priests in the FCS would have done better than have many of today's bishops.

That reservoir of future bishops is still there. While not every priest in the FCS would make a good bishop, I suspect that several dozen would. And FCS is just one organization where you can find orthodox priests to choose from. You no doubt could list others.

So, Ed and I disagree, but I agree with him to this extent: If Rome maintains the existing methodology for selecting bishops for the U.S., then, yes, we will have a crunch. But if Rome takes a fresh approach, then, I think, the crunch will evaporate like the dew.

Until next time,

Karl