Episcopal Pastoral Decisions and Ecclesial Communion

Pittsburgh Catholic, August 26, 2005

Individual bishops have the responsibility for the pastoral care of the faithful entrusted to them within their dioceses. Only the Apostolic See can legitimately intervene in the decisions of the bishop of a particular diocesan church. A national episcopal conference such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops exists among other reasons to facilitate the pastoral practice of bishops among the diocesan churches of a specific country, but not to interfere with a bishop’s responsibility within his own diocese.

Today, however, given the mobility of the population and the ubiquity and influence of the means of social communications, actions taken by one bishop within a diocese can have immediate national impact and affect the bishops of the rest of the dioceses throughout the country, especially neighboring dioceses that share the same media market.

In this complex pastoral setting the question arises, how should a bishop exercise his pastoral authority and make practical pastoral decisions within the context of ecclesial communion and the “collegial spirit” (affective collegiality) that the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar documents highlight?

The following observations are provided in the hope of offering some context for a collegial commitment among diocesan bishops to develop a pastoral mechanism available to all the bishops that would anticipate some of the problems that arise when specific pastoral decisions need to be made and which will, by their very nature, affect other bishops.

A clarifying distinction
A brief summary of the general principles of collegiality shared in the
Order of Bishops is helpful in understanding how the spirit of collegiality is active in the ecclesiastical structure of the episcopal conference. Key texts are found in the conciliar documents “Lumen Gentium” and “Christus Dominus,” as well as more recent documents such as the apostolic letter “Apostolos Suos,” the post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Pastores Gregis,” and the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983. Also informative is the recently published Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, “Apostolorum Successores.”

A clarifying distinction is made in the documents between the authentic action of the College of Bishops united with its head that is collegial in nature, and the collegial spirit (affectus collegialis) with which the bishops in an episcopal conference work pastorally to confront pertinent issues affecting their faithful throughout the territory of the conference.

The College of Bishops acts in a true collegial nature with supreme power in specific ways limited in its application. It acts collegially in an ecumenical council or when spread throughout the world as a body of bishops acting with the approval of the Roman pontiff, or when the Roman pontiff requests that the college act in a collegial manner (“Apostolos Suos,” 9). Emphasis is placed on the collegial action of the College of Bishops being always united with the head of that college, the Roman pontiff.

An examination of the exercise within the episcopal conference of the
affectus collegialis, or collegial spirit, may demonstrate how the bishops of a region may pastorally assist the faithful of their territory who are affected by a particular issue that by necessity requires a pastoral response due to its nature.

Cooperation of bishops
The conciliar document “Christus Dominus” asserts the establishment of episcopal conferences as a fruitful result of the cooperation of bishops of a given territory who share “insights of prudence and experience” from which “... there will emerge a holy union of energies in the service of the common good of the churches” (“Christus Dominus,” 37).

The Code of Canon Law defines the episcopal conference as a permanent institution in which a grouping of bishops of a given country or territory, according to the norm of law, “jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of their territory in view of promoting that greater good which the church offers ...” (cf.: CIC, canon 447).

Thus, we see that the episcopal conference acts in response to issues of importance that affect the faithful so as to benefit and advance the good of the particular church or in ways that assist them in particular circumstances. Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the assistance rendered by the episcopal conferences as an effective instrument when in “Apostolos Suos” he wrote, “Their importance is seen in the fact that they contribute effectively to unity between the bishops, and thus to the unity of the church, since they are a most helpful means of strengthening ecclesial communion” (“Apostolos Suos,” 6). In fact, they “constitute a concrete application of the collegial spirit” (“Apostolos Suos,” 14).

In the post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Pastores Gregis,” the benefits of the spirit of collegiality as experienced in the episcopal conference among the bishops cooperatively working together for the common good of the faithful is emphasized in paragraph 59 in which it is stated, “A lively awareness of the collegial dimension of the ministry bestowed on them should impel them to bring about among themselves, especially within the same episcopal conference, on both the provincial and regional levels, a variety of expressions of sacramental fraternity, ranging from mutual acceptance and esteem to the various manifestations of charity and practical cooperation.” The synodal fathers noted that, “These assemblies are a valuable means for giving expression and practical implementation to the bishops’ collegial spirit,” and should, therefore, “... be used to their full potential” (“Pastores Gregis,” 63).

Goals and objectives
Pope John Paul II indicated that for the future good of the church Episcopal conferences would need to address new difficulties that the church would encounter in these modern times with the spirit of communion. In “Novo Millenio Ineunte” (44), he wrote referring to several “instruments of communion,” among them being the episcopal conference in which he explained that much more needs to be done in the present, “... in order to realize all the potential of these instruments of communion, which are appropriate today in view of the need to respond promptly and effectively to the issues which the church must face in these rapidly changing times.”

The mission statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops delineates some of the goals and objectives that foster the spirit of collegiality in the episcopal conference. The statement declares that the Episcopal conference itself serves “... to offer appropriate assistance to each bishop in fulfilling his particular ministry in the local church, to effect a commonality of ministry addressed to the people of the United States of America, and to foster and express communion with the church in other nations within the church universal, under the leadership of its chief pastor, the pope” (mission statement, February 2003, Page 2).

Some of the major goals of the episcopal conference are: (1) To foster unity and collegiality between the bishops of the United States and the Roman pontiff; (2) To foster collegial collaboration among the bishops of the United States and between them and the whole episcopal college, including the objective of planning and developing effective means of communication, deliberation and decision making that promote collegial action and the fraternal support among bishops of the United States and unity among dioceses; and (3) To assist the bishops individually and collectively in fulfilling their roles as teachers in the faith community, including the objectives of teaching Catholic doctrine where collective teaching by the bishops is needed and to offer to the bishops evaluations of theological trends and individual theological positions (cf. mission statement, pp. 4-8).

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” specifically relates that, “All the bishops, in fact, have a duty to promote and defend the unity of faith and discipline common to the whole church ...” (“Lumen Gentium,” 23). There are often specific issues of doctrinal and moral nature that are current in a territory that, because of the nature of the subject and the wide spectrum of peoples and circumstances that will be affected, necessitate a greater cooperation among the bishops of a given territory. This cooperation among the bishops in a conference renders a more effective leadership which asserts the more suitable and fruitful ministry of bishops as a result of such harmonious endeavors in the episcopal conference (“Christus Dominus,” 37).

National ramifications
The apostolic letter “Apostolos Suos” provides a non-exhaustive list of areas in which the episcopal conference exercises its pastoral ministry amid the territory of its scope. The cooperation of the bishops is foreseen in various areas listed in “Apostolos Suos” (15), two of which (and pertinent to our topic) are, “... the promotion and safeguarding of faith and morals” and “the defense of human life.”

The issue of a national politician’s reception of holy Communion and public stance on moral issues is a concern that affects not just the local church wherein the politician lives, but also considerably affects the church throughout the nation, as was evidenced in last year’s election and the controversy surrounding Sen. John Kerry. Here, one may well understand the national implications on the part of any diocesan bishop who would rightfully wish to make declarations in regard to a politician receiving or not receiving holy Communion in the church while at odds with church teaching.

A relevant point of reference to this discussion is that “... within his particular church the diocesan bishop possesses all ordinary, proper and immediate power needed for carrying out his pastoral ministry. He, therefore, has a proper sphere for the independent exercise of this authority, a sphere recognized and protected by universal law” (“Pastores Gregis,” 56). In fact, the episcopal conference does not act as a substitute for the diocesan bishop but, rather, as a help to him.

The bishop must respond for the benefit of his faithful, however, keeping in mind that from whatever perspective one may view the manner in which the reception or non-reception of holy Communion by a political candidate who publicly supports legislation permitting abortion is handled by a bishop or bishops, there are always going to be national ramifications in the U.S. beyond the scope of the specific territory in which the politician resides. Therefore, one may understand the benefit of consultation among the bishops of the episcopal conference for a more effective unity in handling such a matter.

No such authority of itself
The difficulty resides in the question of how the bishops of an Episcopal conference may exercise the affectus collegialis in regard to an eventual public declaration that a political candidate or politician may or may not receive holy Communion. It is stated in “Apostolos Suos” (10) that a collegial action equivalent to the supreme power which the body of bishops possesses over the whole church “... cannot be carried out at the level of individual particular churches or of gatherings of such churches called together by their respective bishops” (“Apostolos Suos,” 9, 10).

Importantly, it also states that, “At the level of particular churches grouped together by geographic areas, the bishops in charge do not exercise pastoral care jointly with collegial acts equal to those of the College of Bishops” (“Apostolos Suos,” 10). The document also further clarifies that when the bishops of the episcopal conference collaborate together for the benefit of their faithful regarding certain pastoral challenges which is a direct application of the affectus collegialis or spirit of collegiality, “... this territorially based exercise of the episcopal ministry never takes on the collegial nature proper to the actions of the Order of Bishops as such, which alone holds the supreme power over the whole church” (“Apostolos Suos,” 12).

In order that the joint work of the episcopal conference on behalf of the common good of the people of God in a territory be legitimately exercised and be binding on all the individual bishops of a conference, there must be, “... the intervention of the supreme authority of the church which, through universal law or particular mandates, entrusts determined questions to the deliberation of the episcopal conference ...” (“Aposotolos Suos,” 20, CIC 455 § 1). Additionally, “Bishops, whether individually or united in conference, cannot autonomously limit their own sacred power in favor of the episcopal conference, and even less can they do so in favor of one of its parts, whether the permanent council or a commission or the president” (“Apostolos Suos,” 20).

Since an episcopal conference does not of itself exercise a proper teaching function, its statements derive their binding force from either the Apostolic See that confirms the statement or document or from the consent of all of the members of the conference in their role as individual diocesan bishops. In effect, the doctrinal statements of a conference of bishops derive their authority either from above, the Apostolic See or from the unanimous consent of each individual diocesan bishop. This is so because the conference does not have such authority of itself.

Doctrinal declarations unanimously endorsed by all of the bishops of the episcopal conference may be issued in the name of the conference itself and oblige the faithful as the authentic magisterium of their bishops. Given the difficulty of this issue at hand, such as the public reception of holy Communion by politicians who support legislation that permits immoral actions and in particular laws that promote abortion, such a majority is, I believe, unlikely in the issuance of a doctrinal statement since each individual politician of national prominence would present a unique case.

Practical pastoral solution
This brings us to a consideration of two possibilities for the conference of bishops in attempting to find a practical pastoral manner to express the collegial spirit that is to be a hallmark of episcopal pastoral ministry. One such approach would be an actual mechanism of the conference to facilitate some consensus and unified pastoral practice. Another approach which would be less formal but perhaps more effective would be the commitment on the part of all the bishops to discuss beforehand, through some conference structure, decisions that will impact all of the bishops and the church as a whole.

The bishops of the conference could propose that a mechanism be developed for the “review” of a political candidate (of national prominence) who is being considered as one who should be barred from the reception of holy Communion. Such a procedure would take into account: (1) A reflection on the seriousness of the offense and thus the justification for the action of the bishop; (2) Whether this action would be pastorally effective or possibly cause more harm than good; and (3) The level of support of brother bishops who will have to deal with the ramifications of such a decision in their own dioceses.

If the Apostolic See were petitioned by the episcopal conference to give a special mandate (CIC canon 455 § 1) to the conference to make a general executory decree regarding a “mechanism of review” in the application of canon 915 (barring the reception of holy Communion) to political candidates of national prominence, and a two-thirds majority of the bishops with deliberative vote during a plenary session of the conference were in agreement with the issuance of a general executory decree of such nature, it would require the recognitio of the Holy See before it could be binding upon all individual bishops of the episcopal conference.

Canon 455, §§ 1 and 4 also need to be taken into consideration, since a general executory decree issued (in the application of canon 915) by the episcopal conference would need the special mandate of the Apostolic See, since it is not within the power of the episcopal conference itself to make such a decree as because it is not prescribed by the law itself. However, if the whole body of bishops (each and every bishop ‹ CIC, canon 455, § 4) would agree to the establishment of such a mechanism for the review of a political candidate in accord with canon 915, the episcopal conference could issue a general executory decree on its own.

An alternate approach
As noted above, an alternate approach to the more formal mechanism of review would be an agreement among all of the bishops to refrain from making individual pastoral decisions that would impact upon all bishops until there was an opportunity for them to discuss the issue and the impact of a specific pastoral judgment.

The advantage of the second option is found in its ability both to recognize the responsibility of the individual bishop within his diocese and to provide a context for the communal exercise of that Episcopal responsibility.

In the context of such a discussion among the bishops of the conference, questions could be raised, aired and debated. For example, if it is decided by a bishop that there are sufficient grounds to refuse Communion to a person, given the interrelatedness of the dioceses in this country, should such a decision be finalized only in concert with the conference of bishops whose purpose is to provide some level of pastoral collaboration and coordination?

Clearly, there is no easy answer to the question, but nonetheless there must be some way in which the bishops can establish a process, mechanism or procedure whereby the collegial spirit which “Aposotolos Suos” tells us “inspired the establishment of episcopal conferences and guides their activity” (33) can be expressed and experienced.