Electing Our Bishops. How the Catholic Church Should Choose Its Leaders (review)

The title and subtitle suggest that this book will consist of the description of a method by which the Catholic Church ought to choose its bishops and of the reasons why that method is preferable to the one actually being used. This, in fact, is what one finds in chapter 6, but this is preceded by four chapters that tell the reader how bishops have actually been chosen in the course of the Church's history. The only comment I will make about his account of this history is that I believe there is good evidence that the term universi populi suffragio used by Cyprian to describe the "vote" of the people in an episcopal election is best understood to mean their acclamation of a candidate they judged worthy. I shall focus my remarks on the last two chapters, in which O'Callaghan discusses various proposals that have been made for the reform of the process by which bishops are now being chosen in the Latin Catholic Church.

In chapter 6 he first describes the official "Norms for the Selection of Bishops"issued by the Holy See in 1972, which allow no collective role for the priests and laity of a diocese in the choice of their bishop. He then comments on proposals for the reform of this process that have been made by the Canon Law Society of America, by John Huels and Richard Gaillardetz, and by Ghislain Lafont. Finally he offers his own proposal, which, as is clear from his preface (pp. xi–xii), owes much to a study done by a committee of the Voice of the Faithful of the Diocese of Bridgeport, in which he participated.

While the proposal of the Bridgeport VOTF called for the election of bishops by the clergy and people of the diocese, O'Callaghan proposes two methods: selection and election. Selection follows the current norms in the sense that the ultimate choice is made by the pope. However, the task of conducting the consultation and choosing the names to be sent to Rome is done by a committee elected by and representative of the clergy, religious, and laity of the diocese. His method of election calls for the convocation of a diocesan synod, the members of which are to be elected by and from every category of the faithful. A committee for the election of a bishop, also representing every category of the faithful, does the preparatory work of identifying and examining candidates, and presents them to the assembled synod, which votes by secret, written ballot. A majority of two-thirds is required for election. The bishop-elect sends letters of communion to the pope and his fellow bishops, and is ordained by the archbishop of the province.

I believe the idea that a particular church ought to be able to elect its own bishop is theologically sound, provided that the choice is approved by the bishops of the province. However, I cannot say the same for the idea that O'Callaghan thinks such an election reflects, namely, "that ultimate authority rests with the whole body of the faithful, who confer the right to govern on those elected by the community" (p. 139). As I understand it, this is an idea that is rightly rejected when one says that the Church is not a democracy.