MINNESOTA
Canonical Consultation
11/17/2015
Jennifer Haselberger
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.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.