Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE ROMAN CURIA UNDER FIRE: SCHEMA ON BISHOPS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF DIOCESES

The discussion of the schema on bishops and the government of dioceses opened on Tuesday, November 5, at the sixtieth General Congregation.

That morning I had a special pass to attend the meeting. At 9 a.m. chimes tinkled softly, inviting the Council Fathers who filled the broad aisle between the two banks of tiered seats to take their places. They did so quickly, and five minutes later the chimes tinkled again and a voice announced in distinct Latin over the crystal-clear public address system that His Beatitude, Paul II Cheikho, Babylonian Patriarch of Baghdad,

Iraq, was about to celebrate Mass in Aramaic in the Chaldaean rite. When the bishops lowered their private kneelers, it sounded like thunder rumbling through the basilica.

Half an hour later, when Mass was over, the hushed basilica burst into life as Council Fathers adjusted their collapsible tables, reached into portfolios for notes and official documents, glanced at the morning newspaper, or exchanged comment with those sitting around them. Latecomers hurried through the center aisle to their places. Five minutes later the Book of the Gospels was solemnly enthroned, and then the Secretary General said: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” Immediately afterwards all Council Fathers and the periti prayed together the “ Adsumus" (“We are here before You, O Holy Spirit”) prayer, and then the day’s business began, with one speaker - following the other at the microphone without a break.

The new schema was presented by Paolo Cardinal Marella, President of the Commission concerned, and Bishop Carli, of Segni, followed with a report on the origin, development, and content of the schema. One of the five chapters was titled, “Relationships between Bishops and the Roman Curia.”

Paul Cardinal Richaud, of Bordeaux, France, made a brief speech in which he said that the Roman Curia should be reorganized with a view to a better distribution of functions, a clearer definition of competency, and a more satisfactory degree of coordination. The membership of the Roman Curia should become international, and it should include diocesan bishops.

These points were also emphasized by the next speaker. Bishop Giuseppe Gargitter, of Bressanone, Italy. Just as the bishops were in the service of the People of God, so too the Roman Curia should be in the service of the bishops, he said. The mere concession of faculties was not enough; effective decentralization was needed. He called for the internationalization of the Curia, saying that no Western nation or nations should have a privileged position in that body. The schema should include a reference to the function of international and even intercontinental episcopal conferences, as well as to national ones.

Bishop Jean Rupp, of the Principality of Monaco, humorously referred to the schema as a “model of Roman brevity”—so short that important questions such as the compulsory retirement of bishops for reasons of age were developed up to a certain point and then left hanging up in the air. The principle laid down for the reorganization of dioceses was much too general, since the schema indicated merely that “dioceses should be neither too large nor too small.” He suggested, further, that bishops had been so careful about clearly stating their rights in the schema on the Church that in this schema it would be well to set out clearly the rights of others in the Church, especially of priests.

Following the example of many Council Fathers, I left my seat halfway through the meeting and went to the coffee shop which the Council Fathers had christened “Bar Jona.” (Coffee shops in Rome are known as bars.) This one was set up in a sacristy, and inside I had to elbow my way through noisy groups of bishops and periti drinking coffee and soft drinks. Archbishop D’Souza, of Bhopal (formerly of Nagpur), whom I met that day in the coffee shop, assured me that criticism of the schema would increase as the days went by. “No one has anything to fear from giving us bishops more power; we are not children,” he said.

The Indian prelate was right. In a fiery address, Patriarch Maximos IV charged that the schema envisaged “only a slight and timid reform in the central government of the Church,” since it provided that “bishops might possibly be invited from the entire world to become members or consultants of the Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia.” The Patriarch maintained that restricting the bishops’ collaboration to the Sacred Congregations corresponded “neither to the actual needs of the Church in our times, 'nor to the collegial responsibility that the episcopate has toward the Church.” His suggestion was that “the task of assisting the Pope in the general government of the Church should be given to a limited number of bishops representing their colleagues.” These representatives should be “the residential and apostolic patriarchs, the cardinal-archbishops by virtue of their archiepiscopal sees . . ., and finally, bishops chosen by the episcopal conferences of every country.” This group, he said, should constitute the new Sacred College to be convoked by the Pope at fixed times, “whenever the need is felt for discussion on the general affairs of the Church.”

Cardinal Konig, of Vienna, made a similar proposal. The schema should contain practical suggestions on the manner in which the bishops, with and under the Roman Pontiff, might collaborate in the government of the Universal Church. “Once or twice a year,” he said, “if the world is at peace, the Roman Pontiff might call together the presidents of episcopal conferences, and also certain other bishops, to take counsel with them and find out what they think about matters affecting the Universal Church.. .. In this, or some similar way, unity will be established between the center and the periphery through closer contact between the Supreme Pontiff and the Episcopal College; real assistance will be rendered by bishops in the government of the Universal Church; and there will be more communication between mission territories and other countries.”

Dutch-born Bishop Francis Simons of Indore, India, speaking in the name of thirteen bishops, said that Christ had entrusted the Church not only to the Pope, but also to all the bishops under the primacy of the Pope, because of the diversity of peoples, languages, and cultures in the world. The Roman Curia in its present form, he said, “is not aware of local conditions, nor does it sufficiently represent the bishops of the whole world”; it was therefore not a suitable instrument for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the Church. “Often," he added, “it is not an instrument of the Pope, but a barrier between him and the bishops.”

Cardinal Alfrink, of Utrecht, speaking on behalf of the Dutch bishops, pointed out that, if collegiality was by divine right, then the episcopal college took precedence over the Curia, and the Curia was not entitled to stand between the Pope and the bishops. This was a theological as well as a juridical question, he said, and one which did not lessen the dignity of the Curia or the respect and gratitude owed to it.

Cardinal Spellman, of New York, drew attention to articles appearing in newspapers and periodicals with interpretations of Council discussions; these, he said, were often misleading, and detrimental to the welfare of souls. “The authority of the Pope is full and supreme,” he said. “It is neither necessary nor essential that the Pope share this authority with the bishops, although he may do so if he wills.” And since the Roman Curia was in fact the executive instrument of the Pope, only the Pope was competent to judge and reform it. “This is something that he has already indicated he will do.”

Bishop Pablo Correa Leon, of Cucuta, Colombia, speaking on behalf of sixty bishops from Latin American countries, proposed a structural change in the schema. In its existing form, he said, it treated only of matters pertaining to the bishop’s role as “ruler of a community.” Another schema, on the care of souls, considered the bishop’s role as sanctifier and teacher. “But these three roles of ruler, teacher, and sanctifier are three different aspects of the same pastoral office of bishops, and they are complementary.” For “the only reason why a bishop has any power to rule at all, or to prohibit, or even to punish, is precisely in order that he may be able effectively to carry out his pastoral office, which obliges him to lead souls, endowed with faith and vivified by grace, to eternal salvation. Consequently, the power to rule is intimately and logically bound up with the bishop’s role as sanctifier and teacher.” He therefore urged that the schema should show clearly that the power to rule flowed from the very nature of the pastoral office of the bishop.

Italian-born Bishop Edoardo Mason, of El Obeid, Sudan, rose in defense of the Roman Curia. “My personal experience,” he said, “has shown me that the Roman Curia as well as papal delegates are always a great help in difficulties and a good friend at all times.” Everyone was aware that an aggiornamento was needed in the Curia, and the Pope himself had said so. “But we are all in need of this aggiornamento ,” said Bishop Mason. “Perhaps the patriarchate needs an aggiornamento too!” And instead of bishops being eager to obtain more faculties, perhaps they should abandon some of those they already possessed, such as wearing a special cape and having the title “Excellency.”

Patriarch Ignace Pierre XVI Batanian, Armenian Patriarch of Cilicia, with residence in Beirut, Lebanon, begged the Council Fathers to be “objective and calm in making their observations on the present form of the central administration of the Church, giving due consideration to the merits of the Supreme Pontiff’s collaborators, and to the obligation of avoiding scandal.” The bishops, he said, were certainly free to suggest whatever they considered effective and useful for the Church. But he asked that “while we do this, we should not give others occasion to think that the Church through its present method of administration has been reduced to a lamentable condition.” A tree must be judged by its fruits, “and we must say that the Church, notwithstanding the calamities that plague the world, is experiencing a glorious era, if you consider the Christian life of the clergy and of the faithful, the propagation of the faith, and the salutary universal influence possessed by the Church in the world today.”

It was difficult for the public to understand how the bishops could pour such severe criticism upon the Roman Curia which had given those bishops, the Pope, and the Church so many decades, generations, and centuries of service.