The Task of a Bishop in His Diocese Christus Dominus 11–21

1 Editor’s note: Father Tavard, anAssumptionist priest, a significant conciliar peritus, and one of the most noteworthy Catholic ecumenists in the postconciliar period, was a member of the Peter and Paul Seminar from the beginning. Regrettably he passed away suddenly in Paris on August 13, 2007. For a thoughtful recollection of his ecclesially significant life and ministry, see Donald Bolen, “George Henri Tavard,A.A.-in memoriam, “ Ecumenical Trends 36/8 (September 2007) 13–14. Requiescat in pace. 2 For historical details the author relies chiefly on the four volumes of Antoine Wenger’s Vatican II. Chronique ( Paris: Le Centurion, 1963–1965). Fr Wenger, redactorin -chief of the newspaper La Croix, was the only journalist allowed to sit as an observer in all the daily sessions of the council. 361 The Jurist 68 (2008) 361–381 THE TASK OF A BISHOP IN HIS DIOCESE CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 George H. Tavard1 I. Christus Dominus at Vatican II Christus Dominus has not been considered one of the major conciliar projects, since the principles relating to the nature of the episcopate and the responsibility of bishops were already stated in the constitution De Ecclesia, before any discussion of Christus Dominus. Nevertheless, the composition of this decree was particularly difficult, and its discussion in council far from smooth. The preparatory commission de episcopis composed a text that it presented to the Coordinating Commission of the Council on December 6, 1962.2 The text, more canonical than theological, was focused on the government of dioceses. On January 31, 1963, the Coordinating Commission of Coordination sent a series of remarks about it to the chair, Cardinal Paolo Marella. Revised by a small group from the preparatory commission, it was returned, on March 20, to the Coordinating Commission , which approved it on March 26 for presentation to the council. The conciliar commission de episcopis met for the first time on April 30, 1963. To the surprise of some members, it had nothing to do at first, since the text of the preparatory commission, De episcopis ac de dioecesium regimine, was ready for a full conciliar debate. The debate took place in November 1963 over four days (congregations 60 to 64). On November 5 the bishop of Segni, Luigi Carli, introduced the text. This introduction occasioned immediate protests, for Carli had been chosen by 3 The texts are contained in Acta et Documenta Concilii Vaticani II. Periodus IIa. Pars IV. pp. 313–923. 4 Wenger,Vatican II. Chronique de la deuxième session, (Paris: Le Centurion, 1964) 138, note 6 the president, Cardinal Marella, but the choice had not been submitted to the whole commission. The draft had five chapters and two appendices: Ch. 1. De rationibus inter episcopos et sacras romanae curiae congregationes . Ch. 2. De episcopis coadjutoribus et auxiliaribus. Ch. 3. De nationali episcoporum coetu seu conferentia. Ch. 4. De dioecesium ac provinciarum ecclesiasticarum congruenti circumscriptione. Ch. 5. De parochiarum erectione deque earumdem congruenti circumscriptione. App. I De rationibus inter episcopos et sacras romanae curiae congregationes . App. II De praxi sacrarum congregationum relate ad episcopos. The orientation was canonical and administrative rather than theological or pastoral. On a proposal from the Moderators, chapter 5 was withdrawn and referred to the future reform of canon law. The general discussion of the text lasted six working days, ending on November 15. Approximately sixty bishops spoke. Ninety-seven written animadversions were sent in after the session.3 The debate turned around two chief points, the task of bishops in a collegial administration of the Church, and episcopal conferences. Several interventions, mainly from Spain, anxious to guarantee the freedom of the Church from political pressure, insisted that bishops should be selected by the pope. Several bishops envisaged setting up a permanent organism that would represent the college of bishops in Rome and act in its name. Collegiality in the local church, not covered in the draft, was strongly advocated by the Archbishop of Toulouse, Gabriel Garrone. In agreement with this line of thought, the French bishops who intervened took it for granted that “from the collegial nature of the episcopate taken in its totality, there ensued the collegial character or mark of the action of bishops in one...