By chhotebhai

Kanpur: In the light of the recent appointments of bishops and archbishops, this question may seem audacious. But it is not altogether without merit. Do we really need bishops, what is their role in our lives, and if at all we do need them, then who should decide on their appointments?

The role of the recently removed papal nuncio to India, Archbishop Giambattista Diquattro, even raises the question on the role or necessity of a nuncio. In his letter from Rome in La Croix on November 21, veteran Rome watcher Robert Mickens says that in the USA most Catholics would not even know the name of their bishop or that of the President of the Bishops’ Conference. He could as easily say the same for India.

We have before us the recent removal from the clerical state (why insult us laity by calling it laicisation?) of a 90+ Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, the removal of the Finance Secretary of the Vatican Cardinal Bellucci, and the rap on the knuckles of another 90+ cardinal in Poland, makes one wonder how deep the rot is.

Here in India we have the suspension of the rape accused Franco Mulakkal of Jalandhar, and Bishop Galela Prasad of Kadapa, followed by serious allegations of murder and womanising by Bishop K.A. William of Mysore, now being capped by serious allegations against the archbishop of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar by the priests of his own diocese. Are these instances just the tip of the iceberg?

So far the only known cases of action taken against bishops in India are of Bishop Willie Gomes of Poona some years ago, for having an illegitimate child; and Bishop Isidore Fernandes of Allahabad, for the relatively minor act of ecclesiastical indiscipline in consecrating a Protestant bishop. The latter attracts an automatic latae sententiae ex-communication (Can 1382)! Ironically, murder, rape and financial misappropriation are considered lesser offences! Convoluted logic.

The question then is relevant – do we need bishops at all? During the ongoing Corona pandemic even priests have begun to question the need for organised religion, Sunday obligations, sacramental life or what is sometimes described as Churchianity, as against Christianity.

Ask a common parishioner on the role of a bishop, and pat comes the reply – to pat the children on their cheeks at Confirmation, inaugurate buildings or attend convent concerts. At most he is the one who gives dispensation from mixed marriages or oversees cases of marriage annulments. Does such a seemingly limited role merit the office of a bishop, with a ceremonial coat of arms, a flagstaff car and a residential palace like a medieval European princeling?

The Hindi word for bishop is Dharmadhyaksh, which literally means one who presides over religion. I find the term obnoxious. However, the word bishop is derived from the Greek word episkopos that literally means an overseer or a municipal inspector. By that etymology a bishop would be called a safainayak in Hindi. Not a very flattering definition. Small wonder then that they appropriated for themselves the pompous sounding word, Dharmadhyaksh.

Strangely, the word bishop is not found in the New Testament. Reference is often made to 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Tit 1:5-9. In both these texts the term used is “elder,” obviously a senior person. That is why the authoritative “Dictionary of the Bible” by Rev J McKenzie SJ states that “The institution of the monarchical episcopate, in which each church is governed by a single bishop, does not appear in the New Testament” (Pg 97).

The equally authoritative Jerome Biblical Commentary, in reference to the aforementioned scripture texts says that these elders were presumed to be married with children and not prone to drinking, qualities that would make the Christian community attractive to outsiders (Pg 897). Such an elder was more like a person in charge of a house church. It would require a huge stretch of the imagination to compare the bishops of today with the elders envisaged in the New Testament.

The question therefore arises, is the office of bishop, as seen today, an essential part of Christianity that has got sanctified over time? If it is just a pious tradition then it needs to be re-examined in the light of modern society and societal groupings like a church. Have any of our theologians, with doctorates and licentiates from Rome got the guts to re-examine the office of bishop? They would be opening a Pandora’s Box and closing their own doors for funding. So they choose to be mute spectators or abettors of a tradition that may have outlived its utility, at least in its present form.

Assuming that bishops are necessary let us examine contemporary church teaching about them. The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church states that the principal duty of a bishop is the preaching of the Gospel (LG No 25). The Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church describes a bishop as one “who stands in the midst of his people as one who serves” (CD No 16a). Many of us erroneously believe that the DD suffix bishops use stands for Doctor of Divinity. It actually stands for the Greek term Doulous Duli (Servant of the Servants). Small wonder then that bishops have now dropped this suffix.

Canon Law prescribes that a bishop should have exemplary holiness, charity, humility and simplicity (cf Can 387). It also lays down that he has legislative, executive and judicial powers (cf Can 391:2). This militates against the norms of modern society that is based on separation of powers. Canonically then, a bishop is a dictator, with all powers vested in him. This calls for immediate change.

What about the selection of bishops? It is desirable that they have a doctorate or licentiate (cf Can 378:5). But Jesus, the son of man, the carpenter of Nazareth, did not have any formal degrees. Yet he spoke with authority, unlike religious leaders (cf Mat 7:29). At the age of 12 he could hold his own against the Doctors of the Law (cf Lk 2:41-50).

In Sunday sermons we are reminded of Jesus the Good Shepherd who “lays down his life for his sheep” (Jn 10:11), while the hireling runs away when faced with adversity (cf Jn 10:12). Sermons, however, are silent on what God says about the erring shepherds of Israel. Some quotes will suffice.

“Disaster is in store for the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Are not shepherds meant to feed a flock? Yet you have fed on milk, you have dressed yourselves in wool, you have sacrificed the fattest sheep … You have failed to make weak sheep strong, or to care for the sick ones, or bandage the injured ones. You have failed to bring back strays or look for the lost. On the contrary you have ruled them cruelly and harshly” (Ez 34:2-4).

Angry with his appointed shepherds God says, “The shepherds will stop feeding themselves, because I shall rescue my sheep from their mouths to stop them being food for them” (Ex 34:10). His final salvo is “I myself shall pasture my sheep” (Ez 34:15).

In the light of the above, neither the New nor the Old Testaments support the role of bishops as presently found in the Church. They seem to have become redundant and irrelevant. Perhaps God itself will arise to care for its people.

(The writer is the convener of the Indian Catholic Forum.)