(Published by: The Australasian Catholic Record,
January 1998, vol.75.1, pp.36-45.)

 

In the Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops (1985), a request was made that a study be undertaken of the theological status of episcopal conferences and especially of their doctrinal authority. [1]   The Congregations for Bishops, the Doctrine of the Faith, the Oriental Churches and the Evangelization of Peoples, together with the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops, collaborated to produce a document.  In January 1988 the Congregation for Bishops then distributed this paper entitled, "The Theological and Juridical Status of Episcopal Conferences".  The Congregation stated that the document "is not intended to be definitive" and invited responses. 

Since the time of the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (Christus Dominus) of the Second Vatican Council, bishops' conferences have all but replaced earlier structures of particular councils.  The question of their theological status and teaching authority is, therefore, an important one.  Indeed, "it is precisely around this question that the major ecclesiological issues of collegiality, local and universal church, and even magisterium have focussed.  As theologians, bishops and Rome explore this question, they are attempting to work out the implications of the fundamental ecclesiological affirmations of the Second Vatican Council." [2]

I was asked to coordinate the response to the Roman document on behalf of the Australian Bishops.  A number of theologians studied the document and sent me their comments. [3]   With this material I then wrote a response which the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference endorsed in November 1988 and forwarded to Rome .  Since nothing further has been heard from Roman authorities on the topic, it seems a pity to waste the scholarship that went into the response.  The present paper takes that response and turns it into the form of an article on Bishops' Conferences.  I acknowledge my great debt to all the theologians who contributed in 1988, but I alone am responsible for the manner in which the material has been combined and presented.  I have not sought the endorsement of the Australian bishops for this article, so it remains my own.

THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND THE PARTICULAR CHURCHES

1.         The one church of Christ possesses two essential dimensions, the universal and the particular.  They are equally basic and neither can be reduced to the other.  There is no universal church existing in itself and prior to all particular churches.

2.         In the strong sense of the word, the particular churches represent (make present) the universal church.  At the same time, it is in and out of the particular churches that the one and unique Catholic Church comes to exist.

3.         On the one hand, the church is not a federation of pre-existing particular churches, which are free to decide whether or not to federate.  A particular church is not a particular church at all unless it is an expression of the universal church, unless it makes present the universal church.  On the other hand, particular churches are not administrative divisions of a pre-existing universal church.  The universal church exists only in and out of the particular churches.

4.         If the universal church speaks to us of the note of unity of the church, the particular churches emphasise its catholicity. [4]   Catholicity is not a statement about geographic extension, it is a theological principle.  The church is one because it is universal, it is catholic because it is realised only in particular times and places.  The church is one not despite the local churches, but in the variety of the local churches.  The phrase of the Council which best captures these two notes together is "The variety of local churches harmonising (conspirans) into one". [5]

 

COLLEGIALITY

5.         There can be many different types of gatherings of the bishops of the church and the word "collegiality" cannot always be used of these gatherings and their actions and decisions in the same way.  It seems that one must distinguish between a strict and an analogical sense of the word.

6.         Collegiality in the strict sense must always include the Pope.  It can be either complete or partial.  It is complete at an ecumenical council or when "the head of the college summons them (the bishops) to collegiate action or at least approves or freely admits the corporate action of the unassembled bishops, so that a truly collegiate action may result." [6]   It is partial, for example, in the synod of bishops when only some of the bishops are present.  In other words, when the head of the college participates, a univocal sense of the word is present, though the actual collegiality may be either complete or incomplete.

7.         When, however, the Pope is not involved, the word "collegiality" may be used only in an analogical sense.  In this sense, collegiality would always be partial, even if the whole of the remainder of the world episcopate were involved.  This type of collegiality is true, analogical and partial.  It can become collegiality in the strict sense through subsequent "recognition" on the part of the Pope. [7]

8.         To complete these ideas, however, two other concepts need to be considered: representation and the different ways in which a Pope can be said to be present.

 

            Representation

9.         There are occasions when a number of bishops can represent in the strong sense, that is, make present the entire college of bishops.  Acts 15:30 -32 gives an example of this, for after the Council of Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch , read the apostolic letter and then "spoke for a long time, encouraging and strengthening the brothers".  Through them the whole college of apostles was made present.  The Council that had just taken place and the letter from the whole college made this representation possible.

10.       When a person who has not been appointed by the Pope is ordained a bishop, both he and the ordaining bishop cannot fail to be aware that their action is not merely not collegial, but possibly the most anti-collegial action they could perform.  The college of bishops is emphatically not present.  On the other hand, when the person has been appointed by the Pope, the ordaining bishops are performing one of the most collegial actions they will ever perform.  In full union with the Pope and at his express wish they are admitting a new member to the college of bishops and thus ensuring its continuing work.  The entire college is present in and through the ordaining bishops, so the collegiality is strict and not just analogical.  It would be unthinkable to exclude from the ceremony any bishop in union with the Pope who happened to be in that place at the time.

"Pointing to it (the collegiate character and structure of the episcopal order) also quite clearly is the custom, dating from very early times, of summoning a number of bishops to take part in the elevation of one newly chosen to the highest sacerdotal office. [8]

11.       The college of cardinals developed from the idea of the priests of the particular church of Rome electing their bishop, and this idea remains in force today.  The cardinals represent, that is, make present the parish priests of Rome .  In the development of doctrine, however, the cardinals have also come to be closely associated with the college of bishops, as indicated by the requirement of canon 351 #1 that "those who are not already bishops must receive episcopal consecration."  It may be argued that in the conclave the cardinals also make present the entire episcopal college.  It may even be argued that, despite the absence of a Pope at its beginning, it is an act of strict, if partial, collegiality, for the essence of a conclave is that the college of bishops, deprived of a head, immediately seeks to restore its integrity by electing a new head.  Far from being an action performed by a number of bishops without the Pope, its entire purpose is to have a head with whom to be in unity.  Granted the Council's theology of the college of bishops, it would be hard to deny to all bishops some part, in this representative form, in the election of a new head of the college.

            The Presence of the Pope

12.       At an ecumenical council or a synod of bishops the Pope calls the meeting, sets or at least approves its agenda, is physically present and approves the statements and decisions that are made.  This does not, however, exhaust the ways in which the Pope can be present at meetings of bishops.  The Pope can determine that a certain matter will be studied, commit the work to a particular group, approve a consultation of the whole college of bishops and then assess the results.  The formation of both the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are examples of this.  As each bishops' conference discussed these topics, it was taking part in a world-wide consultation of the whole college with the knowledge of, under the authority of and in union with the Pope.  The whole process was a collegial action in a strict and complete sense.

13.       If we consider one meeting of one bishops' conference, it is obvious that the Pope did not call the meeting, did not set or approve its agenda, was not present at the meeting and did not ratify each and every one of its decisions.  From this starting point the meeting was not an act of the entire college of bishops and the word "collegiality" may be used of it only in an analogical sense.  If, however, our starting point is the collective work of all bishops' conferences in fulfilling the mission of the Church throughout the world, the situation is different.  The Pope himself established bishops' conferences as permanent institutions and set their broad agenda.

"By forms and means of apostolate suited to the circumstances of time and place, it (the bishops' conference) is to promote, in accordance with the law, that greater good which the Church offers to all people." [9]

By reason of their "solicitude for all the churches" the bishops in conference seek to assist, not just the people in their own territory, but the people of the whole world.  This united action of all conferences is an important part of the total mission of the Church.  Each particular conference is a concrete expression of the permanent collegial reality that unites bishops in their communion with the Pope and with their fellow bishops.  Though the Pope is not physically present at each of the meetings and does not personally ratify every decision, it is misleading to say no more than that he is absent or to conclude that the work of the conference is not collegial in any sense.

14.       A distinction must be made between collegial action and collegial decisions.  The common action of the Pope and bishops in carrying out the mission of the Church is a genuine collegial action, whether it involves new decisions or not.  The rich concept of collegial action must not be reduced to collegial decision making.  Even when the Pope is not present in the decision making, and hence this can be called collegial only in an analogical sense, he can be present in the collegial action that produced the decision, for that action is part of the universal mission of the Church.

15.       This leads to what Congar and others refer to as "cephality" and "synodality", based on the two poles presented in the New Testament: Peter, and the Twelve including Peter.  Synodality has a long and rich history in the Church and may legitimately be called an integral part of the great tradition.  It is true that this same history speaks of conflicts between the two poles, with each seeking to assert itself at the expense of the other, but tension can be creative as well as destructive.

16.       Without the history of synodality, the great tradition would be poorer than it is, for gatherings of bishops have contributed much to the spiritual heritage of the Church.  The relationship between the Pope and the bishops is an essential part of the tradition, but so is the relationship of the bishops with each other, for this keeps the particular churches in union with each other, always and essentially in their common union with the Pope.  In a similar way, parents are glad that their children relate directly to each other, for this builds the strength and unity of the family and enhances their own position.

17.       In our own day bishops' conferences have become the most common means of expressing synodality.  They are, of course, only a contingent structure, but so are all concrete forms of giving expression to synodality.  It would be wrong to deny the basic principle of synodality simply because any concrete expression of it must be contingent.  It is better to say that conferences are "a contingent expression of a basic principle of Church life that does have a dogmatic foundation...  They are to be judged, not by their contingency, but by their effectiveness in embodying synodality." [10]

18.       There are other contingent expressions of synodality in the Church, e.g. councils, and the history of councils warns us not to be more definite and detailed in our requirements for collegiality than the subject allows.  The first seven ecumenical councils would only with difficulty meet the criteria for collegial action that can be demanded today: they were called by the Emperor, not the Pope, a papal representative was present only at some, the representation from the Western Churches was minimal and some councils had to wait a long time for papal recognition.  Several medieval councils would also be in doubt.  At the fourth Lateran Council (1215) eight hundred abbots and priors attended together with four hundred bishops.  At the Council of Florence (1435-42) three estates were present - bishops, abbots and religious, and lower clergy - and a motion required a two-thirds majority from each of the three estates. [11]   It is always legitimate to make practical decisions concerning the composition, structure, procedure, scope and function of contingent bodies such as councils and conferences but, if we claim a dogmatic basis for any of the details of such bodies, we must be aware of what this would say about events in our history.

19.       Peter and the Twelve with Peter, the Pope and the College of Bishops with the Pope, are not separate and distinct subjects of authority in the Church.  Two separate subjects of one and the same supreme power is a concept that is difficult to sustain.  With Rahner and Congar it appears more exact to say that supreme power belongs to the college, which exercises it either collegially or personally through its head.  It is, therefore, the power of the college that the Pope exercises.  The one mandate of Christ, with its consequence of authority, was given universally to the Church, collectively to the apostles and singularly to Peter. [12]

20.       Collegiality is a broad concept.  Its single most important element is the collegial spirit (affectus collegialis) that should unite all bishops with the Pope and with each other.

 

THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL BISHOP

21.       The Preliminary Explanatory Note to Lumen Gentium states that an ontological share in the sacred roles (munera) of teaching, sanctifying and governing is given by episcopal ordination, though a specific appointment by hierarchical authority is required before it becomes a power ordered to action (potestas in actum expedita).  It must be said, however, that these statements do not provide answers to all the questions that arise.

22.       The term munus lacks a definition in Catholic theology.  The distinction between munus on the one hand and terms such as role, power, office, function, obligation and right on the other hand has never been defined.  The variety of the translations given to the term munus reflects the difficulties that people experience with it and helps to explain why the term has not entered into the language of Catholic people.  Its essence would appear to be that of an obligation and a corresponding right.  The diocesan bishop has an obligation to teach, sanctify and govern his diocese and has the rights that enable him to fulfil this obligation.

23.       In speaking of individual bishops, however, Lumen Gentium constantly refers only to diocesan bishops within their own diocese.  At no point did the Council attempt to present a serious theology of the diocesan bishop outside his diocese or retired or titular bishops.  Logic would say that auxiliary bishops receive the same episcopal ordination as diocesan bishops and so receive the same ontological powers, which then become ordered to action by appointment to a particular diocese.  Logic would add that, for the sake of the unity of the diocese, the auxiliary should exercise the powers he receives from ordination and appointment only in conjunction with the diocesan bishop.  Instead, Christus Dominus says only that he should be appointed as Vicar General, thus seeing his powers as a delegation from the diocesan bishop. [13]

24.       It would seem that each of the three munera must be considered separately, for it is hard to make common statements about the exercise of all three.  It is not in dispute that an individual bishop requires a canonical appointment before he can exercise the role of governance (munus regendi), that is, he must be assigned a portion of the People of God before he can exercise the role of governance over them.  Outside of his own diocese, he exercises a role of governance only as a member of the college of bishops.

25.       On the other hand, the role of sanctifying (munus sanctificandi), whether it is seen as a power or as an obligation, is something that a bishop can and should exercise at all times and in all places.  He always exercises it as a bishop, that is, it is always an exercise of the ontological power he received at ordination.  It would be hard to maintain that a retired or auxiliary bishop, because he has no diocese of his own, has no practical role of sanctifying.  Needless to say, every bishop must respect the role of governance of the diocesan bishop in all that pertains to the practical exercise of the role of sanctifying.

26.       The role of teaching (munus docendi) is the most difficult to determine.  It can perhaps best be assessed by making a number of statements one after the other.

a)         Episcopal ordination gives to a bishop a certain mysterious presence of the Holy Spirit in his role of teaching and proclaiming the Word.  This is true of every bishop, not just the diocesan bishop within his own diocese.

b)         This presence of the Holy Spirit does not confer infallibility on a bishop, nor is his teaching divinely inspired.  He is never excused from the prayer, study and preparation needed to express the truths of the faith to the best of his limited ability, and he is quite capable of making errors.

c)         His role of teaching can never be separated from his membership of the college of bishops and the authenticity of his teaching comes from the college as a whole.

d)        It would be difficult to maintain that the teaching of a bishop has a greater degree of authenticity when he is teaching in his own diocese than when he is visiting another diocese.

e)         A bishop's rights are not unlimited within his own diocese.  His teaching must be in conformity with Catholic teaching and he does not have the authority to demand allegiance to ideas that are only theological opinions.  It is not the teaching of the Church that two bishops in two dioceses both have the right to demand allegiance to two contrary theological opinions.

f)          Considered as an obligation, the role of teaching is the obligation to proclaim and to ensure that others proclaim.  While every bishop has this obligation, the diocesan bishop has a particular responsibility in his own diocese.  The actual proclaiming will be delegated to many other people, but the responsibility itself can never be delegated.

g)         The major correlative right of the diocesan bishop can perhaps best be expressed as the role of a judge.  Part of his function is to say "This may be safely taught in this diocese, for it is according to Catholic teaching" or "This may not be safely taught in this diocese, for it is not according to Catholic teaching" or "This is a theological opinion and may not be presented in this diocese as more than a theological opinion".

h)         Christ's faithful are required to respond to such decisions of the diocesan bishop "with a religious submission of mind". [14]   Canon 752 distinguishes this religious submission of mind from the assent of faith, while Lumen Gentium further refines it as "a religious submission of will and intellect".  This order of will first and intellect second was a change from an earlier draft and was important to the Council.  It means a willingness to accept the teaching, a wanting to believe what is taught, a readiness of will to accept the teaching authority, with this willingness or wanting then doing all in its power to influence the intellect.  It is not necessarily incompatible with a failure of the intellect to agree with the teaching. [15]

In a code which usually strives very hard to be faithful to the Council, this is one case where it does not do so (Can.752).  It reverses the order of will and intellect chosen by the Council, thus putting the accent on intellectual assent and it says that the submission must be given to the teaching (doctrinae), while the Council had said that the submission is to be given to the teaching authority.  The Code has thus changed a willingness to accept the teaching authority of the person into an intellectual assent to what is taught.  In such a clash, Council must clearly prevail over Code.

i)          In the broader teaching of the bishop the degree of assent required of Christ's faithful will depend on the doctrine taught (a revealed truth or a proximate or more remote consequence of a revealed truth) and the theological qualifications of the truth (a dogma, an ordinary teaching, a theological opinion).  At times the teaching of the bishop will require the absolute assent of faith, at times a genuine though not necessarily irreformable intellectual assent, at times a "religious submission of will and intellect", at times no more than an obedient silence.

j)          It is legitimate prudently to challenge a diocesan bishop concerning his decision.  It is also legitimate, of course, to appeal to the Holy See against a bishop's decision.

 

THE ROLE OF THE BISHOPS' CONFERENCE

27.       The limits of any role of governance of the bishops' conference are set out in canon 455.  Indeed, the law that is envisaged there is more a papal law for a particular territory than a law of the bishops' conference. 

28.       The Church consists of the universal church and the particular churches, and a nation is largely irrelevant in Church theology and law, though it should be added that this causes some problems.  Catholics as well as non-Catholics speak of "the Australian Church " and are not impressed if told that no such entity exists.  There can be times when people expect "the Australian Church " to act as one and they are not tolerant when informed of the autonomy of each bishop.  This has certainly been true concerning the response to sexual abuse within the Church.  If the will to do so is present, the bishops can exercise their individual role of governance in a collective manner by all agreeing to the same law for each of their dioceses.

29.       A bishops' conference has that role of sanctifying which the assembled bishops choose to give it.  The conference can take many initiatives that are an expression of the role of sanctifying exercised in common.

30.       The role of teaching of a bishops' conference was the major concern of the document of the Congregation of Bishops of 1988.  It said that conferences do not possess what it called a munus magisterii, and it seemed to be particularly concerned that they should not issue statements of a doctrinal character that could concern the universal Church.  It said that they should leave this to higher authority and restrict themselves to "applying pronouncements of the magisterium of the universal Church" to their own particular circumstances.  The term munus magisterii appears to be newly coined for this document. [16]   In other words, in seeking to ensure that conferences should not encroach on the prerogatives of Roman authorities, the document sought to play down the entire role of teaching of conferences.

31.       As a matter of simple fact, the teaching of a bishops' conference has a greater moral authority than does the teaching of an individual bishop.  This is especially true when it is a matter of commenting on national issues or even confronting the government of the territory on a question involving faith or morals.  In these circumstances, the conference has a genuine obligation to proclaim the teaching of the Church and the correlative right to do so, that is, it has a genuine role of teaching.  Conferences throughout the world have shown that they understand this obligation.

32.       The conference does not have the diocesan bishop's obligation to proclaim the entirety of Catholic teaching and it may not usurp his role in this regard.  Before the conference speaks, there must be some common necessity or usefulness, agreed on by a consensus of the bishops.

33.       There is no right of appeal to a bishops' conference against a decision of a diocesan bishop on a matter of faith or morals, for the conference is in no way the individual bishop's superior.

34.       The conference does not have a universal role of judge for all matters of faith or morals in its territory.  Legitimate authority, however, can give this role, and the role of teaching that goes with it, to a bishops' conference and the Code of Canon Law in fact does this in a number of matters.  A role of teaching is inherent in the right to regulate Christian teaching on radio and television (can.772 #2 and can.831 #2), to publish a catechism (can.775 #2), to establish norms concerning the catechumenate (can.788 #2), to protect the principles of Catholic doctrine in Catholic universities (can.810 #2), to publish books of the Scriptures and approve translations (can.825) and to establish a commission of censors of books (can.830 #2).

35.       The document of the Congregation of Bishops of 1988 would hold that individual bishops can exercise their individual role of teaching in a collective manner, but the structure which brings them together, the bishops' conference, does not possess the role of teaching.  But can.753 speaks of the bishops gathered at a bishops' conference as authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care.  To reduce this to a collective use of the individual role of teaching of the diocesan bishops goes against the natural meaning of the words used.  An analysis of the origins of this canon leads to the same conclusion. [17]

36.     Conrary to the understanding of many people, the Second Vatican Council did not actually use the word "collegiality".  It spoke of the college of bishops, of course, and it spoke of a collegial spirit.  It is this collegial spirit, this desire to work together, that is at the heart of the notion of a college of bishops.  The structures are contingent and only the desire to work together can make the structures breathe and live.

---