Selected Issues in Developing Structures of Diocesan Communion

* Stephan Kuttner Professor of Canon Law, School of Canon Law, Catholic University of America 1 Bradford Hinze, “The Reception of Vatican II in Participatory Structures of the Church: Facts and Friction, “ CLSA Proceedings (2008) 28–52, esp. 28. 2 Initially the author intended to examine certain issues pertinent to ecclesial communion at the international level (synod of bishops) and at the regional level (episcopal conferences). But limitations of time and space require focusing especially on the bishop’s relationship to his fellow believers, especially in selected consultative structures. Furthermore , the author had originally hoped to examine both the diocese and the parish but ultimately decided to focus on the diocesan level. This was partly because the CUAcanon law faculty had already explored various canonical and civil issues affecting parishes at both the 2006 and 2008 spring workshops. For selected papers from those workshops, see the texts of Brown, Chopko, Foster, Green, and Martens in The Jurist 69 (2009) 209–372. 3 Hinze, 28–29. Focusing one’s research only on pope-bishop relationships or on relationships among the bishops seems inadequate to appreciate the richness of the concept of communio. There is a need to view especially the bishop’s relationship to the local church and the internal ‘synodality’ of that church. For example, see Gilles Routhier and Myriam Wijlens, “Introduction,” The Jurist 68 (2008) 2. This essay briefly introduced the research of some of the members of the Peter and Paul III Seminar on the bishop and the local church. See ibid., 321–496. The essays of some other Seminar members were published in The Jurist 69:1 (2009) 1–169. We will comment briefly on the Seminar shortly. 418 The Jurist 69 (2009) 418–441 SELECTED ISSUES IN DEVELOPING STRUCTURES OF DIOCESAN COMMUNION Thomas J. Green* Introduction Vatican II strongly emphasized the Church as a communion at various levels. This has numerous ecclesial implications: new patterns of behavior , habits of thought and action, and attitudes conducive to participatory structures.1 One notable canonical implication has been an increased stress on ‘synodal’or corporate patterns of governance at various levels. This article will explore selected examples of such patterns at the diocesan level, while noting certain tensions in their functioning.2 Such a brief examination may shed light on the vitality of such structures, so crucial to ecclesial renewal3 and pertinent to those fulfilling various diocesan offices during the past quarter century. The broad context of these reflections is the relationship between the council’s theoretical vision of communio and its practical implementa- 4 On the key ecclesiological principles underlying the code, see John Paul II, apostolic constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges, January 25, 1983, in Code of Canon Law Latin-English Edition New English Translation. (Washington: CLSA, 1998) xxx. 5 For example, given its special ecumenical relevance, the theme of the bishop and the local church was examined at a December 2005 symposium in Rome sponsored by the Centro pro Unione and the Ecumenical Institute of Venice. The symposium papers were published in The Jurist 66 (2006) 1–338. Furthermore, the Peter and Paul Seminar III has completed its theological-canonical research on collegiality by exploring the theme of the bishop in the local church. See The Jurist 68 (2008) 321–496; 69 (2009) 1–170. For earlier Peter and Paul Seminar II studies on collegiality at the universal and regional levels, see The Jurist 64 (2004) 1–360. The theme of bishops in the Church was also the principal subject of the June 2007 CTSAconvention in LosAngeles. See CTSA Proceedings (2007) passim. issues in developing structures of diocesan communion 419 tion. For canonical structures should help us implement our theological vision and make our doctrine a lived reality. They should ‘translate’ the conciliar insights practically to facilitate the effective realization of the Church’s threefold mission. And yet no canonical document— even the 1983 code—is totally up to this task given the richness of the conciliar vision. Hence the ‘reception’ of Vatican II is a ‘work in progress.’We canonists need to reflect constantly with theologians, pastoral leaders, and others on the extent to which our structures express the conciliar experience and teaching. And this ongoing task...