Question 4.66

4.66 Some commentators speak up often, calling for a new and authentic application of collegiality in the Church. How do you see this problem?

The social changes in the world caused by progress and technological advances, the many questions that concern the Church, such as the harmonization of her internal discipline, the transmission of Christian doctrine, the implementation of catechetical methods, the evangelization of an increasingly complex world, the crisis affecting the family and marriage, the formation of the laity and of future priests, the education of young people, today go beyond the limits of any one diocese. No merely diocesan solution is sufficient. In order to respond to the development of a globalized society, it is necessary to analyze phenomena together and to offer solutions that enlighten and involve the episcopate of a nation or of several countries or even of a continent.

This is nothing new. In the Church there has always been a willingness to consult with one another at the hierarchical level to examine important questions with a view to arriving at a common position of the bishops. Today such measures are taken with regard to everyday situations and questions.

The competencies and the validity of the decisions of episcopal conferences are surely defined by canon law or by a special mandate of the Holy See. Nevertheless, the doctrinal responsibility is incumbent on each bishop in his diocese and on the See of Peter for the whole Church, while at the same time each successor of the apostles bears some responsibility with regard to the whole Church.

Necessary collegial consultation therefore does not abolish the autonomy and responsibility of the bishop in his own diocese. No one should feel obliged or forced by the collegial decision of the episcopate, especially when pressures and campaigns are organized to exert influence on certain persons for the purpose of imposing a point of view that is not spiritual but ideological. Episcopal collaboration becomes deficient if it is biased because of political aims. Each bishop is responsible before God for the way in which he fulfills his episcopal responsibilities toward the flock that the Holy Spirit has entrusted to his protection.

Collegiality ought to be affective and effective at the same time. Certainly the worst thing is indifference to the advice of others, when a bishop shuts himself up in his diocese without taking into account the expertise of his brother bishops. Synods, which are a highly successful form of implementing collegiality, are great moments in the life of the Church. But the various forums must not demobilize the bishops or give them the sense that their powers of evaluation are diminished. Nor can the major assemblies listen to the fine speakers only, the more “intelligent” ones, the experts who impress, stifle, and impose. The fear of the possibility of seeing ideological ideas and positions being imposed has rather ironically caused opponents of collegiality to say that the apostles never acted in a collegial fashion. The one and only time when they practiced collegiality was in Gethsemane. … The Gospels tell us that “then all the disciples deserted [Jesus] and fled” (Mt 26:56). Nevertheless, the Acts of the Apostles describe for us their consultative activity, especially after Pentecost. They go to prison together; they remain in Jerusalem during the persecution. Similarly, they convoke the first council of Jerusalem to examine the question about circumcision for pagans who have become Christians (Acts 15:6).

Pope Francis would like to increase collegiality, and I think that he is right. Roman centrality has made important achievements possible, but it can also lead to a form of sclerosis. For if the bishop’s responsibility is weakened, there is a problem of trust. Trust is essential but fragile, and it must be preserved like a treasure.

Although it is necessary to promote the responsibility of the bishops and the episcopal conferences, Rome absolutely must keep the management of the apostolate as a whole. Of course, as the Council recalls, every baptized person may participate in the apostolate without any need of a hierarchical mandate. Yet because of the diversity of opinions on some serious questions and the loss of values and the disorientation caused by relativism, we would commit a grave sin against the unity of the Body of Christ and of the doctrine of the Church by giving episcopal conferences any authority or decision-making ability concerning doctrinal, disciplinary, or moral questions. During an address to cardinals and bishops on November 2, 1954, Pius XII called for policies whereby Church “government is made more uniform, the wonder of the faithful is avoided, for often they do not understand why in one diocese a certain policy is followed, while in another, which is perhaps adjacent, a different or even a quite contrary policy is followed.” In addition to consultation among brother bishops, “there should be added close union and frequent communication with this Apostolic See. The custom of consulting the Holy See not only in doctrinal matters, but also in affairs of government and discipline, has flourished from the earliest days of Christianity.” Pius XII concluded: “This union and harmonious communication with the Holy See arises, not from a kind of desire to centralize and unify everything, but by divine right and by reason of an essential element of the constitution of the Church of Christ. The result of this is not detrimental but advantageous to the Bishops to whom is entrusted the governing of individual flocks.” John Paul II clearly gave his opinion on these points in his apostolic letter Apostolos suos, in the form of a Motu proprio, dated May 21, 1998, while spelling out certain norms concerning bishops’ conferences.