The Closest The Church Comes to Direct Democracy?

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
November 17, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

There has been much speculation in recent weeks regarding the visit to the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis by Msgr. Michael Morgan, a member of the staff of the Apostolic Nunciature to the United States. If the Catholic Spirit is to be believed (and I find that it rarely is) Msgr. Morgan's visit was intended to allow him to observe some of the 'listening sessions' held throughout the Archdiocese which are supposedly intended to give the faithful a role in the selection of the new Archbishop.

Interestingly, according to the Spirit, Catholics who attended the listening sessions were asked to comment on the 'strengths and challenges' of the Archdiocese, as well as the 'characteristics desired' in the new Archbishop.
As someone who was frequently involved in the selection process of bishops (despite much inaccurate commentary on how lay people have not been involved prior to these sessions), it is hard for me to see how such vague questions, or answers for that matter, will inform a process that is typically distinguished by a fairly exhaustive and detailed collection of information on prospective candidates and the circumstances of the diocese. Given that the Holy See regularly solicits information on everything from the political bent of the local media to the number of children conceived through in vitro fertilization, asking the lay faithful to enumerate the qualities they seek in a new bishop appears more akin to the scene in Mary Poppins when Jane and Michael Banks are invited to list the qualities of the perfect nanny ('Rosy cheeks, no warts!', 'You must be kind, you must be witty!') than actual consultation, even in the Church.

The fact that the listening sessions have been so well received seems, to me at least, a natural consequence of the fact that those attending have so little information about the way bishops are actually selected. And, this ignorance seems to be something that those who are selling this endeavor wish to exploit. Hence the Monsignor's statement that the listening sessions are the closest the Church comes to direct democracy. That is, simply, bollocks. As the Monsignor knows, there are many examples of direct democracy in the Church. Members of religious institutes, for instance, not only vote directly for their superiors (representative democracy) but every member is invited to participate in the local and general chapters of the institute, which is where policy initiatives are considered and accepted or rejected. And, in this Archdiocese, we had at least one school that was incorporated not under the governance of a board of directors, but following a congregational model.

Moreover, examples of representative democracy abound, both licitly and illicitly. The Roman Pontiff is elected by the College of Cardinals, and the USCCB elects its officers and approves policy and particular legislation by vote. The Presbyteral Council is composed of deans, who are largely elected by the priests of the diocese. Finally, it has become customary in many parishes for members of the Finance Councils and Parish Councils to be elected by the community at large. The latter is not strictly permitted according to canon law, but it is a method that is frequently used nonetheless.

However, what becomes clear when one considers these examples is that the Church is only comfortable with participatory governance when those involved in the selection of representatives are understood to occupy a status equal to those who they are empowered to elect. Thus the Church is not open to empowering the laity in any way that would allow them to have actual authority in selecting the next Archbishop. Instead, we are offered the distraction of the ecclesiastical equivalent of an election in a totalitarian state. For, as Joseph Stalin would insist, 'It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.' If those attending the listening sessions are playing the role of Stalin's voters, it should escape no one's notice that those same individuals, nor any other member of the laity, have no role in counting the votes (actually selecting the next Archbishop).

I should add that I am not alone in fearing that these listening sessions are simply for show and will give rise to expectations that the results can only fail to meet. For instance, at a recent meeting of the Presbyteral Council (a largely elected body), priests expressed concern that the biggest challenge in finding a new bishop will be the expectation that whoever is chosen must 'walk on water'. People should be prepared for this selection process to take an extremely long time.