A simple guide to local ecclesiastical politics

Bernard Guy, priest living in retirement on the east coast of Australia, (using a pseudonym) wonders if the patronage found in civil politics is a mirror image of the ‘election’ of bishops.[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]

In the midst of various election campaigns, state, federal and local government, our alertness to political trickery and manipulation becomes more acute. We sometimes (indeed, most of the time) forget that the same sort of shifty dealing also occurs in the Church. 

At a time of preselection for forthcoming elections, what is it that we notice annoys committed members and lifetime supporters of the various parties? Here are a few that spring to mind.

Parachuting outsiders into safe seats: the loyal people who have stood outside polling stations time after time, door-knocked houses with the party message, and turned up to regular boring branch meetings, find that the person whom they have been fostering, and who they know is committed to the area, with a wide and deep knowledge of local issues, is passed over in favour of a member of the political class (of which more shortly) with connections in high places.

Branch stacking

Stacking branches: the long-time members, the loyal people already mentioned, are surprised (at first pleasantly, then unpleasantly) to find that they have been joined by an amazing number of new members, from a particular race or union or religious background, who turn out to be more interested in preselecting someone of whom the originals have never heard, want to dump their preferred candidate, and whose membership fees (it is rumoured) have been paid by the interloper or the interloper’s sponsors.

The substitution of long-time local influence by that of a political class, in which local experience, and real-life experience in general, is suppressed in favour of “advisors” straight out of school or university, and whose chief skills seem to be character assassination and political skulduggery.

Patronage, factionalism and orthodoxy

Patronage rather than transparency: “advisors”, press secretaries, union secretaries, PR people, all have a better chance of entering parliament than the people who know the area and its problems, simply because they have become known to the leaders of the party, either parliamentary or organisational.

Factionalism: which is, of course, behind all of the above, and which seems to get worse, the longer a party is in opposition (why can’t the current leader win an election?) or in government (the leader is tired, has run out of ideas, has been systematically vilified, etc.); and woe to the non-factionalised!

Orthodoxy: which flourishes especially among party theoreticians, which puts being right above winning the election (as with Labour and Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom until recently) and disallows changing one’s mind (as John Maynard Keynes would advise) when the facts change; the local party member gets the impression that the party organisation has never appreciated the truth of what Edmund Burke said to the electors of Bristol, “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’

I could leave my argument there, and let readers reach their own parallels and conclusions about the Catholic Church in Australia. Nonetheless I shall draw out the argument on some of the above hints, without (I hope) my readers feeling insulted about my estimate of their intelligence.

‘Election’ of bishops

Why do we accept so supinely the parachuting of bishops into dioceses? In politics there is at least the possibility that the local favourite might get up, especially in a marginal seat (where even a woman might get preselected), but if Head Office wants a certain person in parliament, they will overrule the locals. One might therefore think it reasonable that at certain times and in certain countries or regions, the Holy See might think it necessary to intervene in an episcopal appointment. But surely not all the time, as it has claimed ever since the promulgation of the first Code of Canon Law, in 1917! Why do the local clergy and people not have more of a say, as in the earlier Church? Why is every player a captain’s pick?

A great deal of this is the product of patronage and obscurity. The present process allows the appointment of people who prima facie are most unsuitable. The irony is that the word “election” is used to describe the process, but who votes? The standard theological evasion would be to cite Acts 1:23-26 and say that the election is done by the Holy Spirit, with the method of discovering his will being subject to local custom or universal law; in which case we could cast lots, as they did. The present mode of “election” achieves the end of making the one chosen more dependent on the Holy See than on his own clergy and people – which is one reason why a local man is so rarely chosen. (We can remember, surely, the farcical situation where a priest of the diocese of Sale was despatched to Bathurst as bishop in 2009, and then a priest from Bathurst was sent to Sale in 2014.) But it also means that the appointing body (in practice, the Congregation for Bishops), which rarely has direct knowledge of possible candidates (except for those who have happily worked in a Roman dicastery), gratefully receives advice, not only through official channels (especially through the papal representative), but also from others who know them well. Hence the patronage. Hence the corruption.

The patronage involved is rather obscure, and it is linked to factionalism. A factional situation is already at work in the Australian Bishops’ Conference: at the last election for President, it is said, two candidates tied, and the job went to the senior by ordination. Next time the other candidate will not miss out: he is getting his ducks in line, and by getting his choices as his auxiliaries, and then having them transferred to residential sees as they come up, he will have the numbers. Watch out.

Bishop’s qualifications

And, of course, it has often been observed that most bishops, when appointed, are characterised by a marked lack of parish experience. Most come from a rather small pool – bishops’ secretaries, seminary rectors, etc – rarely from parish priests. Indeed, the “pastoral experience” often attributed to those elected is no more than two or three years as a curate or (sometimes) parish priest before being raised to higher things; the actual experience of perseverance in a difficult relational job is trivialised. 

It might be objected that participation of clergy and laity in the “election” of bishops is rendered impractical by the size (population and/or territory) of many Australian dioceses. The provisions of Christus Dominus §§22ff have, in any case, been overtaken by events, including the need for a diocese large enough to support the bureaucracy necessary to comply with civil and ecclesiastical regulation and the tendency (Parkinson’s Law!) for bureaucracy to expand anyway. 

(There are some dioceses in Australia where, if souls could be saved by policies, flow charts, protocols and decrees, the Kingdom of Heaven has already arrived. The Pope is rightly suspicious of prince bishops; has anyone alerted him to CEO bishops?) And, of course, one could recite a litany of examples of abuse in the direct election of bishops down the centuries. But would it be impossible, given modern conditions and means of communication, to devise a way in which clergy and laity could take part, their choice approved (or not) by the other bishops of the province, and finally confirmed (or not) by the Holy See?

A lot could be said, but better not. Let your memory and reason go to work.[/s2If]