The Task of a Bishop in His Diocese Christus Dominus 11–21

George H. Tavard

The Jurist: Studies in Church Law and Ministry, Volume 68, Number 2, 2008,
pp. 361-381 (Article)

Published by The Catholic University of America Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jur.2008.0038

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/584595/summary

Access provided at 8 Jan 2020 10:12 GMT from The University Of Texas at Austin, General Libraries
The Jurist 68 (2008) 361–381

THE TASK OF A BISHOP IN HIS DIOCESE

CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21

George H. Tavard1

I. Christus Dominus at Vatican II

Christus Dominus has not been considered one of the major conciliar
projects, since the principles relating to the nature of the episcopate and
the responsibility of bishops were already stated in the constitution De
Ecclesia, before any discussion of Christus Dominus. Nevertheless, the
composition of this decree was particularly difficult, and its discussion in
council far from smooth.
The preparatory commission de episcopis composed a text that it pre-
sented to the Coordinating Commission of the Council on December 6,
1962.2 The text, more canonical than theological, was focused on the
government of dioceses. On January 31, 1963, the Coordinating Com-
mission of Coordination sent a series of remarks about it to the chair,
Cardinal Paolo Marella. Revised by a small group from the preparatory
commission, it was returned, on March 20, to the Coordinating Commis-
sion, which approved it on March 26 for presentation to the council.
The conciliar commission de episcopis met for the first time on April
30, 1963. To the surprise of some members, it had nothing to do at first,
since the text of the preparatory commission, De episcopis ac de dioece-
sium regimine, was ready for a full conciliar debate. The debate took
place in November 1963 over four days (congregations 60 to 64). On No-
vember 5 the bishop of Segni, Luigi Carli, introduced the text. This in-
troduction occasioned immediate protests, for Carli had been chosen by

1 Editor’s note: Father Tavard, an Assumptionist priest, a significant conciliar peritus,

and one of the most noteworthy Catholic ecumenists in the postconciliar period, was a
member of the Peter and Paul Seminar from the beginning. Regrettably he passed away
suddenly in Paris on August 13, 2007. For a thoughtful recollection of his ecclesially sig-
nificant life and ministry, see Donald Bolen, “George Henri Tavard, A.A.-in memoriam, “
Ecumenical Trends 36/8 (September 2007) 13–14. Requiescat in pace.
2 For historical details the author relies chiefly on the four volumes of Antoine

Wenger’s Vatican II. Chronique ( Paris: Le Centurion, 1963–1965). Fr Wenger, redactor-

in-chief of the newspaper La Croix, was the only journalist allowed to sit as an observer in
all the daily sessions of the council.

361
362 the jurist

the president, Cardinal Marella, but the choice had not been submitted to
the whole commission. The draft had five chapters and two appendices:
Ch. 1. De rationibus inter episcopos et sacras romanae curiae con-
gregationes.
Ch. 2. De episcopis coadjutoribus et auxiliaribus.
Ch. 3. De nationali episcoporum coetu seu conferentia.
Ch. 4. De dioecesium ac provinciarum ecclesiasticarum congruenti
circumscriptione.
Ch. 5. De parochiarum erectione deque earumdem congruenti
circumscriptione.
App. I De rationibus inter episcopos et sacras romanae curiae con-
gregationes.
App. II De praxi sacrarum congregationum relate ad episcopos.
The orientation was canonical and administrative rather than theolog-
ical or pastoral. On a proposal from the Moderators, chapter 5 was with-
drawn and referred to the future reform of canon law. The general dis-
cussion of the text lasted six working days, ending on November 15.
Approximately sixty bishops spoke. Ninety-seven written animadver-
sions were sent in after the session.3
The debate turned around two chief points, the task of bishops in a col-
legial administration of the Church, and episcopal conferences. Several
interventions, mainly from Spain, anxious to guarantee the freedom of
the Church from political pressure, insisted that bishops should be se-
lected by the pope. Several bishops envisaged setting up a permanent or-
ganism that would represent the college of bishops in Rome and act in its
name. Collegiality in the local church, not covered in the draft, was
strongly advocated by the Archbishop of Toulouse, Gabriel Garrone. In
agreement with this line of thought, the French bishops who intervened
took it for granted that “from the collegial nature of the episcopate taken
in its totality, there ensued the collegial character or mark of the action of
bishops in one country, one region, and even in one given diocese.”4

3 The texts are contained in Acta et Documenta Concilii Vaticani II. Periodus IIa.

Pars IV. pp. 313–923.

4 Wenger,Vatican II. Chronique de la deuxième session, (Paris: Le Centurion, 1964)

138, note 6
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 363

In the author’s judgment the most important, and certainly the most
theological address by far, was that of the Melkite Patriarch, Maximos
IV, who spoke in French and sent a Latin translation to the Secretary of
the Council. The patriarch dwelt on the distinction between the “court of
the bishop of Rome,” and “the Apostolic College of the Successor of
Peter.” He saw the cardinals as part of the court of the bishop of Rome,
and therefore as belonging “to the particular Church of Rome, and not to
the Universal Church of Christ.” He envisaged episcopal conferences as
“a modern form of the historic patriarchates.” He also made far-reaching
suggestions for replacing the present curia and the college of cardinals
with a kind of synodos endimoussa (the permanent synod of the Patriar-
chate of Constantinople), set up in Rome, in which bishops would take
turns representing the universal episcopate and assisting the bishop of
Rome in the administration of the Church.5 He also recommended that,
because of their distinctive cultures, episcopal conferences in China,
India, and Africa be given more autonomy than the older churches of Eu-
rope and the Mediterranean basin, which inherited their culture from the
Greek and Roman civilization.
During the inter-session on January 23, 1964 the Coordinating Com-
mission decided that the decree should be more pastoral, and that it
should address the topic of De cura animarum, one of the twenty drafts
that had been composed by the preparatory commissions. The rewriting
was done by the commission De episcopis in the following months.
On September 18, 1964, Pierre Veuillot, the coadjutor archbishop of
Paris, introduced the new version, De pastorali episcoporum munere in
Ecclesia.
The debate went in many directions. Nineteen bishops spoke. They
discussed the nomination of bishops (of concern to Spaniards because of
a concordat with Spain), the function of religious in a diocese (interest-
ing the Superiors general and the bishops who were religious), the ex-
emption of religious, the schools run by religious communities, which
several bishops wanted to regulate, the retirement of older bishops, the
size of a diocese. Speaking for all the bishops of France, Louis Guyot,
bishop of Coutances, asked for more emphasis on the oneness of the
priesthood, which includes bishops and priests. Altogether six French
bishops spoke, mostly in the same sense, and also with a concern for a

5 Acta et Documenta, 517–518. The Latin translation of the address is on pp.

519–521.
364 the jurist

more up to date view of the bishop’s necessary involvement in the tem-

poral order, especially regarding social problems and the concrete diffi-
culties people were experiencing in contemporary life, be they Catholic
or not. The debate closed on September 22.
On November 4 the commission presented a revised text. The first
vote, on chapter 1, resulted in 1050 placet, 852 placet. juxta modum, and
70 non placet votes. Because it failed to get two thirds placet votes the
chapter was sent back to the commission. Two days later, the second
chapter met with a similar fate, with 1219 placet, 889 placet iuxta
modum, and 19 non placet votes. Only the third chapter, accepted by
1582 placet, 469 iuxta modum, and 15 non placet votes, needed no
rewriting. Revised again, chapter 1 came back for a vote on November 4.
Once more it did not obtain the required majority, as it got 1030 placet,
852 iuxta modum, and 77 non placet votes. On November 6 a revised
chapter 2 also failed. A new version was therefore composed after the
third session.
This final version of Christus Dominus came before the council during
the fourth session. It was approved as a whole on October 6, 1965, with
2167 placet and 14 non placet votes. It was promulgated on October 28,
after a final vote: 2319 placet, 2 non placet, 1 null vote.

II. Outline of Christus Dominus

Proemium
1. Christ, sent by the Father, sends his apostles.
successors of the apostles . . . are fidei Magistri, Pontifices et Pastores.
3. Bishops have their munus from ordination, first toward the uni-
versal Church, then toward their own particular church.
Caput I . . . quoad universam Ecclesiam
I. Partes quas habent Episcopi quoad universam Ecclesiam
4. Bishops are members of the episcopal body (corpus) by virtue of
their ordination and their communion with the head of the college. They
have the right (ius) to attend an ecumenical council.
5. They can be called to the synod of bishops.
6. They together share the solicitude of all the churches by divine in-
stitution, especially the care for the missions, promoting assistance from
laity, clergy . . .
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 365

7. Helping the bishops who are persecuted . . .

II. Episcopi et Apostolica Sedes

8.a) Bishops have all the ordinary, proper, and immediate potestas
that is needed to fulfill their pastoral task.
b) They have the power to exempt the faithful in particular cases.
9. The Roman Pontiff is assisted by the dicasteries of the Roman
curia in the exercise of his supreme, full and immediate potestas over the
universal Church. The council wishes that these dicasteries be renewed,
and also that the functions of papal legates be more exactly determined.
10. It also wishes the membership of the Roman dicasteries to be
more international, and that ordinaries be included in their membership,
as also competent lay persons.
Caput II . . . quoad Ecclesias particulares et Dioceses

I. Episcopi diocesani
11. A diocese is a part of the People of God, entrusted to the pastoral
care of a bishop with his presbyterium, so that, being gathered in the Holy
Spirit by the bishop through the Gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a
particular Church, in which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
of Christ is present and active. The bishop has the task of teaching, sanc-
tifying and ruling . . . The bishop must be a witness of Christ before all
people, including those who have deviated from the way of truth or who
do not know the Gospel and the saving mercy of Christ . . .
12. The bishops teach by announcing the Gospel, thus “calling to
faith in the power of the Spirit” and comforting in faith; explaining the
integral mystery of Christ and the truths that are inseparable from the
knowledge of Christ, along with the revealed way of glorifying God and
thus of acceding to eternal life.
They should show that the earthly realities and human institutions, in
keeping with God’s purpose, are ordered to human salvation, and can
thus contribute not a little to building up the Body of Christ.
They should teach (edoceant) how much the human person, according
to the Church’s doctrine, should be esteemed, with its liberty and its life
in the flesh, and also the family . . . , civil society . . . , labor and leisure
. . . , arts and techniques, poverty and wealth; and they should explain
366 the jurist

how to solve the serious question that relate to ownership, distribution of

goods, peace and war, the fraternity of all peoples.
13. “They should propose the Christian doctrine in a way that is
adapted to the times and that responds to the difficulties and questions
that assail people; they must protect the faith and explain how to defend
and spread it. In so doing they should show the Church’s motherly care
for all people, especially the poor and the weak, whom the Lord sent
them to evangelize. “Since it belongs to the Church to come to dialogue
(ad colloquium) with human society, it is the primary task of bishops to
go to the people, organize and promote dialogues (colloquia). So that
truth be always joined to charity and understanding with love, they
should preside over these dialogues of salvation (salutis colloquia) with
clear language along with humility and tolerance, with the proper pru-
dence along with trust, which naturally unites the souls as it promotes
friendship.”
They should use the modern means of communication for preaching
and catechizing, and propose the doctrine in schools, academies, and
through conferences . . .
14. The aim of catechesis is that in hominibus fides, per doctrinam il-
lustrata, viva fiat atque explicita et operosa: It must be adapted to the au-
dience, use the proper “order and method” in relation both to the content
and to the “mind, capacities and conditions of life” of the audience “in
order to be grounded in Scripture, Tradition, Liturgy, Magisterium, and
the life of the Church.”
They must make sure that catechists are properly formed and in-
formed, know and apply the relevant psychological laws and pedagogi-
cal disciplines.
They must watch out for a better adaptation of adult catechesis.
15. In their task of sanctification, the bishops must remember that
they themselves are human and chosen for humans. I take it to mean that
their personal holiness is not guaranteed by their function. Because,
however, they have received the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, the
presbyters, who also have been consecrati veri Novi Testamenti sacer-
dotes, depend on them (ab ipsis pendent) as their cooperators. The dea-
cons too, who have been ordained ad ministerium, “for service,” depend
on the bishop. Bishops are therefore the praecipui dispensatores myste-
riorum Dei, the moderators, promoters, and guardians of the entire litur-
gical life in the Church entrusted to them.
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 367

The bishops must focus the people’s attention on the paschal mystery
lived through the Eucharist, on being of one mind in prayer like the early
Church, and on receiving the sacraments.
They must promote holiness in the clergy, religious and lay people,
and sanctify their church so that the mind of the Universal Church of
Christ will shine in them. They should encourage priestly and religious
vocations, especially missionary vocations, who will serve the universal
Church.
16. In their paternal and pastoral care . . . sint episcopi in medio suo-
rum sicut qui ministrat . . . They must be good shepherds, who know and
are known by their flock, true fathers, serving the communion of love of
the People of God. They must order their own life in keeping with the ne-
cessities of the times. They must love their priests, consider them as
“sons and friends,” and listen to them . . . They must be solicitous for their
priests’ “spiritual, intellectual and material conditions;” they must make
retreat centers available, be mercifully helpful to those in danger or who
have failed in some way.
They should know the conditions and needs of the people in their care,
give them adequate roles in the Church, recognize their responsibility
and their right in the up-building of the mystical Body of Christ.
Toward fratres seiunctos they should show love and care and encour-
age ecumenism as understood by the Church. They should relate to the
unbaptized also in such a way that the charity of Christ may shine on
them.
17. Through the various forms of apostolate the bishop should seek
the unity of the diocese. All forms of the apostolate of the laity should be
promoted. And they should be brought up to date, taking account of “pas-
toral sociology.”
18. Special care must be taken of migrants, exiles, refugees, sailors,
aviators, nomads. Episcopal conferences should study the problems that
relate to the movements of people.
19. In their apostolic tasks bishops must remain independent of po-
litical authorities. They should promote the good of their society, coop-
erate when this is needed, encourage obedience to just laws.
20. The right to name the bishops should no longer be granted to
civil authorities.
368 the jurist

21. Bishops ought to retire when they can no longer function prop-
erly.

II. Diocesium circumscriptio

22. The nature of the Church must be visible in the people of the dio-
cese.
23. This is the basic principle for deciding on the geography of the
diocese, which should take account of 1) the composition of the people
of God in the area, 2) the size of the territory, 3) the needs of all, espe-
cially when there are several Catholic rites, several languages . . .
24. National episcopal conferences should propose possible changes
to the Holy See.

III. Episcopi Diocesani in munere pastorali cooperatores

1) Episcopi coadiutores et auxiliares
25. Auxiliary bishops can be appointed when the ordinary cannot
fulfill all the required episcopal tasks by himself; they are given the
proper faculties to fulfill their task.
Being called in partem sollicitudinis Episcopi diocesani, they must in
everything work in total agreement (unanima consensione) with the or-
dinary. [When therefore archbishop Hunthausen was given an auxiliary
with secret powers unknown to the archbishop, the Holy See did not fol-
low the rules given by Vatican II].
26. The bishop should not hesitate to ask the competent authority for
one or more auxiliary bishops. He should create vicars general or epis-
copal vicars. The coadjutor must always be a vicar general.
The two bishops, coadiutus and coadiutor, should consult together on
major questions.
2) Curia atque consilia diocesana
27. The preeminent functions of vicar general, episcopal vicars, the
consultors of the bishop (cathedral chapter, board of consultors) are to be
updated if necessary.
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 369

3) Clerus diocesanus
28. The priests, diocesan and religious, all share in the priesthood of
Christ
29. Closer to the bishop are the priests who have supra-parochial
function; diocesan priests form “one presbyterium and one family
whose father is the bishop,” who must have full liberty in deciding their
assignments.
30. The bishop’s principal cooperators are the parish pastors. (De-
scription of their tasks) . . . who should have “fraternal conversation, mu-
tual charity and respect, . . . harmony of will, and common study” with
their assistant priests (vicars).
31. The bishop must take account of the priests’ piety and zeal in giv-
ing them their assignment.
4) Religiosi: Long description of their place in a diocese. Concord and
the “unity of diocesan discipline” must always be maintained: 33–35.
Caput III De Episcopis in commune plurium Ecclesiarum bonum coop-
erantes
I. Synodi, Concilia et presertim Episcoporum conferentiae: 35–38

II. Provinciarum ecclesiasticarum circumscriptio et regionum

ecclesiasticarum erectio: 39–41

III. Episcopi munere interdiocesano fungentes: 42–43

Mandatum generale: canon law should be updated in keeping with this
decree: 44.

III. Commentary, with special attention to nn. 1–21

1. A General Remark
The introduction to Christus Dominus declares that, as Christ was sent
by the Father, he in turn sent the Apostles into the world. It goes on to say
that, as the bishop of Rome succeeds Peter, so the bishops as a whole suc-
ceed the Apostles. Both are sent first of all to serve the whole Church as
Magistri, Pontifices et Pastores; and each one is also in charge of the par-
370 the jurist

ticular Church assigned to him. In both cases, then, the service of the
whole Church has primacy over the service of one particular/local
church.
This perspective fits the theological idea,—which was more recently
emphasized in the May 28, 1992 document of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, “The Church as Communion,” n.10—that the uni-
versal Church does not come about as the sum of particular churches. It
has its own existence prior to the distinction of particular churches in it.
The relation of the universal and the local in the Church is called a mys-
tery. It is not comparable to the connection between a whole and its parts.
At the same time the location of the pastoral care of a particular church
(diocese) within the universal care of all the Churches confirms the pre-
cision, already given at Vatican I, that the ministry of the bishop of Rome
is vere episcopalis, “truly episcopal.” The primacy in the episcopal col-
lege and thereby in the universal Church is that of a bishop among bish-
ops. It is as the bishop of the particular church of Rome that the bishop of
Rome is the primate for the whole Church. When therefore Paul VI
signed, episcopus ecclesiae catholicae, in his promulgation of the docu-
ments of Vatican II, he did not mean, “the bishop of the Catholic
Church,” as if the whole Church was his diocese, but “a bishop of the
Catholic Church.” This basic notion is confirmed by the structure of
Christus Dominus: The explanation of the bishop’s universal responsi-
bility (ch. l) comes before the details of his diocesan functions (ch. 2).
And the details of these functions are followed by a consideration of the
relations of bishops to the other bishops (ch. 3).
This structure of the decree implies that the bishop’s diocesan respon-
sibility is an integral part of his universal co-responsibility. Although it is
not spelled out in the decree, the principle that universal co-responsibil-
ity is primary can justify the fact that some bishops can share the univer-
sal co-responsibility of all bishops without being also responsible for one
particular Church, as is the case with those who work in the offices of
the Holy See. Christus Dominus thus looks at the Church in its univer-
sality before seeing it in the particular sociological context of a given ter-
ritory. In the dialectic of the universal and the local, primacy pertains to
the universal. This of course does not reflect the situation of the primitive
Church, but that of the Catholic Church in subsequent centuries. The
primitive Church, centered in Jerusalem, was evidently limited to the
small territory of Palestine. From there it soon acquired a second center
in Antioch, where it became more universal when Christian Jews in the
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 371

diaspora began to share their faith with Gentile believers. As the letters of
Paul and the Acts testify, the mission to the Gentiles started in earnest in
Antioch. The geographically local slowly merged into the universal to
which it had given birth.
This perspective, chosen at first by the commission and later endorsed
by the council can be understood in two ways. First, the council, oriented
towards the aggiornamento that John XXIII wished for, dealt pastorally
with the situation of the Church as it now is, not as it was at the begin-
ning. Second, the commission intended to make a theological rather than
a historical statement to the effect that, even as it began in Jerusalem, the
tiny local church of the first believers was universal by its very nature, as
the Church of God destined to be the instrument of salvation for all hu-
mankind. These two interpretations are in fact complementary. Para-
graph 1 points to the universal scope of the Church as intended by Christ;
and paragraphs 2–3 describe the advanced ordering of episcopal leader-
ship around the primacy of the bishop of Rome, even though the bishop
receives his function (munus) directly from Christ through ordination
(n.3).
2. Massimo Faggioli’s paper for the April 2004 Peter and Paul Con-
ference at Georgetown University dealt at length with Christus Domi-
nus.6 He was primarily interested in the connections between Christus
Dominus and the synod of bishops. He pointed out that the synod of bish-
ops was created by Paul VI on September 6, 1965 (motu proprio Apos-
tolica sollicitudo) as a merely consultative assembly. This was before
Vatican II approved Christus Dominus, which, in the original form of its
paragraph 5 as presented to the council by the commission De episcopis,
recommended the creation of such an institution, though without limit-
ing its role to consultation.
The only possible reason why Paul VI issued this motu proprio at the
time he did was that he wished the synod of bishops to be a papal cre-
ation, entirely dependent on the pope in its principle and in its function-
ing, rather than a creation of the council. On other occasions Paul VI pro-
posed a number of amendments to the conciliar texts shortly before
the final vote on these texts. Yet the relevant commission remained free

6 “Institutions of Episcopal Collegiality-Synodality after Vatican II. The Decree

Christus Dominus and the Agenda for Collegiality-Synodality in the 21st century,” The
Jurist 64 (2004) 224–246.
372 the jurist

to accept or reject these amendments. In the case of the synod of bishops,

however, Apostolica sollicitudo made it impossible for the council to act
as it was expected to do. The council could only adjust its recommenda-
tion to what Paul VI had just done on his own authority. The idea of a
“core, collegial, stable and permanent episcopal board” that would work
with the bishop of Rome and would have authority over the Roman curia,
had been advocated in the preceding debates, notably by Cardinal Al-
frink, by a Philippino Bishop, Alejandro Olalia, and by Melkite and
Ukrainian bishops. Far from meeting these wishes, the action of Paul VI
ensured that the synod of bishops could claim no authority over the
Curia. It thus affected the way in which the responsibility of all bishops
for the universal Church would be, if not conceived, at least exercised. It
would be strictly controlled by the pope and the Roman Curia.
Massimo Faggioli’s paper was chiefly concerned with the bishops’ re-
sponsibility for the universal Church. The following remarks will be fo-
cused on the role of the bishop in his diocese in paragraphs 11–35.

III. The task of bishops in their particular churches or dioceses (ch. II)
n.11: From the start of chapter II Christus Dominus associates the
diocesan bishop with his presbyterium. It is “to the bishop with the co-
operation of the presbyterium” that the “portion of the People of God”
that constitutes the diocese is entrusted. This portion of the People of
God constitutes the Church in a particular place; it is “gathered by him
[the bishop] in the Holy Spirit” through “the Gospel and the Eucharist”
(Evangelium et Eucharistiam). This is a minimalist view of what consti-
tutes the Church. According to the Confession of Augsburg the Church
“is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in
its purity and the sacraments are administered according to the Gospel.”
(art. VII). The Augsburg Confession declares that there are two sacra-
ments of the Gospel, baptism and the Eucharist, the only ones which are
evident in the New Testament, and are directly related to justification by
faith. Working with a broader understanding of what constitutes a sacra-
ment of the Gospel, the Catholic tradition has, from the eleventh century
on, affirmed seven sacraments properly so called. It therefore seems odd
that Christus Dominus defines the local church under its bishop only in
relation to the Eucharist.
In their own dioceses the bishops work as “proper, ordinary and im-
mediate pastors” under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. This canon-
ical description is associated to the more theological tradition of the
threefold task of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling (munus docendi, sanc-
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 373

tificandi, et regendi). The bishop exercises this task in the context of the
diocese as “a particular Church in which the One, Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church is truly present and active.” The perspective is not re-
stricted to the Latin Church, in which the episcopal charge, in the current
law, comes from appointment by the bishop of Rome to an episcopal see.
It applies to the bishops in all the sui iuris churches, since the text adds:
“They [the bishops] will acknowledge the rights that legitimately pertain
to Patriarchs or to other hierarchical Authorities.”
The threefold task of the bishop is itself modeled on what the consti-
tution Lumen gentium described as the threefold function and dignity of
Christ, who is priest (supremus et aeternus sacerdos: LG. 34), prophet
(propheta magnus: LG. 35), and king (in gloriam regni sui intravit: LG.
36). This characterization of the work of Christ has its origin in the pref-
ace of Eusebius to the Ecclesiastical History (around 325). It was fea-
tured in different forms in medieval theology, and it became central to the
Christology of Calvin.7 Articulated during the first session of Vatican II
by Bishop Emile De Smedt in an address on the priesthood of all believ-
ers, and then developed also by him in a pastoral letter,8 it was included
in Lumen gentium (applied to the laity in n.31), and then in Christus
Dominus. In practice, teaching the Gospel is commonly seen as
prophetic, sanctifying through the word and the sacraments as sacerdo-
tal, ruling the community as royal.
n.12: The prophetic task of teaching. As it describes this task, Christus
Dominus gives priority to “the Gospel of Christ.” The bishops call all
people to the faith in the power of the Spirit, and support in it those who
already believe. They present the mystery of Christ in its integrity, not in
the abstract, but concretely, so that the actual conditions of nature and so-
ciety (res ipsas terrestres et instituta humana) contribute not a little to
building up the body of Christ. The decree enumerates the chief topics to
be developed by the bishop: how highly one should regard the human
person “with her freedom and bodily life,” the family . . . , the civil order,
“labor and leisure, arts and techniques; poverty and wealth . . .” The
bishop should also explain how to treat the problems raised by the right
of ownership, such as the distribution of goods, war and peace, the fra-
ternity of all peoples. This is indeed a broad view of the place of the

7 Institutes of 1559: Book II, ch. 15.

8 Text of the address in Council Speeches of Vatican II, ed. Hans Kung, Yves Congar,
and Daniel O’Hanlon. (Glen Rock, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1964). 39–43; pastoral letter: The
Priesthood of the Faithful, (New York: Paulist Press, 1962).
374 the jurist

gospel in all aspects of human life. And one may wonder how many bish-
ops are qualified to engage in such a range of teaching.
n.13: As described in n. 13, the primary means through which the
diocesan bishop exercises his teaching function is “to go to people,” and
to organize dialogues (colloquia) with them. The primacy of dialogue
derives from the Church’s responsibility to keep in touch with the human
society in which it lives and to listen to it. This approach should be re-
lated to the pastoral constitution, Gaudium et spes, which shed light on
the sort of dialogue that is required in contemporary society as seen at the
time of the council. It can also be related to Paul VI’s 1963 encyclical,
Ecclesiam suam, and to what was said in it on the Church’s essentially di-
alogical structure. One may also remember that, in the encyclical Ut
unum sint (1995), John Paul II invited “the ecclesiastical leaders and
their theologians” to open “a fraternal and patient dialogue” with himself
on how to respond to Christ’s prayer, “May they be one . . .” (n.96). While
it showed a certain openness to the legitimate concerns of churches that
are in dialogue but not in full communion with the Catholic Church, this
invitation raised a number of questions. The very nature of dialogue re-
quires all parties to be of comparable theological standing. One may then
ask: could such a dialogue be truly carried out by Protestant leaders or
theologians with the pope on the basis of the par cum pari principle,
which is precisely a condition of ecumenical dialogue in Unitatis redin-
tegratio, n.9? Can such a dialogue even begin, unless the parties have at
least a preliminary agreement on the relation of the problem to the truths
that are highest in the hierarchy of the Christian faith?
However this may be, it remains highly significant, for a renewal of
episcopacy as an institution, that the episcopal function is conceived to
be dialogical, like the Church’s life as described by Paul VI. The bishop
should initiate dialogues (colloquia) and promote consensus (unanima
consensio) at practically all levels: with his auxiliary and coadjutor bish-
ops (n.25), with his vicars general and episcopal vicars: mutuo se con-
sulere non omittant , with his counsellors, clerical or lay, in the episcopal
curia (n.27). He should do this also with his priests, who constitute “one
presbyterium and one family whose father is the bishop, . . . united by the
ties of supernatural charity, so that sacerdotum voluntatis consociatio
will render their pastoral action more effective,” especially through reg-
ular colloquia (n.28), with the priests in charge of specific tasks that can
be super-parochial or even super-diocesan (n.29), and with the pastors,
deans, and assistant pastors (n.30). Finally he should do so, with the reli-
gious, priests or lay, who work in the diocese, with whom there should be
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 375

cooperatio and coordinatio, and with major superiors of the communi-

ties that are active in the diocese (nn.33–35).
n.14: A major teaching responsibility of the bishop is to supervise cat-
echetics in the diocese. An unusual expression, however, is introduced, in
chapter II, n.14, to formulate the purpose of catechetica institutio: “Its
function is to develop in humans a living, explicit and active faith, en-
lightened by doctrine” [eo tendit ut in hominibus fides, per doctrinam il-
lustrata, viva fiat atque explicita et operosa].
That there is a certain unease with this formulation is detectable in the
variety of vernacular translations.9 The text as it stands raises a series of
questions: What is Catholic doctrine, if it is not also the faith of the
Church? If doctrine is an explanation of the faith, is it taught, or simply
illustrated, by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium? Are the articles
of faith (what is to be believed) to be illustrated by doctrines, as they can
also be illustrated by pictures, icons, windows, and statues? Pictorial il-
lustrations change according to the varied cultures of the world. They are
tied to the process of inculturation of the faith. Apart from the Orthodox
tradition of iconography, there is no stability in the catechetical illumi-
nations of the faith, which necessarily change with the culture and the
times. Are doctrines no more than allegorical illustrations of the faith?
The connection between faith and doctrine needs a clearer formulation.
Should the illustration of faith by doctrine be understood as its expla-
nation? In Christus Dominus, the purpose, or at least the effect, of doc-
trine is said to make the faith “living, explicit, and active.” The author un-
derstands this to imply that faith without doctrine is bound to remain

9 [8] One English translation says: “Bishops should be especially concerned about
catechetical instruction. Its function is to develop in men a living, explicit and active faith,
enlightened by doctrine . . .” (The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Austin Flannery [New
York: Pillar Books, 1975] 571). Another states: “Bishops should take pains that catechet-
ical instructions—which are intended to make the faith, as illumined by teaching, a vital,
explicit, and effective force in the lives of men—be given with sedulous care to . . .” (The
Sixteen Documents of Vatican II and the Instruction on the Liturgy, [Boston: Daughters of
St. Paul, 1967] 269–270). A third one states: “Catechetical training is intended to make
men’s faith become living, conscious, and active, through the light of instruction. Bishops
should see to it . . .” (The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Walter Abbott [New York: Herder
and Herder, 1966] 406). A French translation has, “en l’éclairant par la doctrine,” thus
implying that it is the doctrine as such, rather than the often defective catechetical teach-
ing, that will make the faith “vivante, explicite et active” (Concile oecuménique Vatican
II. Constitutions, décrets, déclarations. [Paris: Editions du Centurion, 1967] 361).
376 the jurist

dead, implicit, and inactive. In other words, doctrine is indispensable to

the life of faith. If faith is revealed, then doctrine is theological reflection
about the faith. The life of faith resides first of all in the mind or intellect,
whence it comes forth explicitly in proclamation or speech, and actively
in the testimony and actions of life. When the Christian faith spreads in a
developed civilization that has rich intellectual, philosophical, and reli-
gious traditions, theological reflection on the Christian faith has to bor-
row tools and processes from those traditions in order to be relevant in
their cultural context. Inspired by such a reflection, the explanations of
doctrine may vary from one theological school to another. When this
happens, however, there is no change in the doctrine, but only in its in-
tellectual context. This stability of doctrine was already underlined, to-
gether with the possibility of varying presentations of it, by John XXIII
in his inaugural address at the first session of the council: “The substance
of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in
which it is presented is another.”
The formulation of Christus Dominus differs from the language of
Thomas Aquinas, and of the scholastics in general, who make a sharper
distinction between faith as a theological virtue infused by God, and “the
object of faith,” given from outside (ex auditu), which is believed.
Fides is the believer’s apprehension of the sacra doctrina that has been
revealed, is summed up in the creeds, and is transmitted in the Church’s
Tradition.10 Catechetical practice, however, has not followed the
scholastic approach very strictly. In his introduction to the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, dated June 14, 1761, Pope Clement XIII identified
“the Catholic doctrine received from Jesus Christ and the apostles,” and
“the faith once handed on to the saints.”11 Both doctrine and faith were
treated as interchangeable objective data that the believers receive and
believe, the word, “faith,” having both an objective sense (the teaching
that is believed) and a subjective sense (the theological virtue).
Pope John Paul II’s introduction to The Catechism of the Catholic
Church reflected the formula of Christus Dominus without making it
more exact: “This Catechism . . . is an exposition of the Church’s faith
and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illustrated by Holy Scripture, the

10 Summa theologiae, Prologue, and II II, q. I : De objecto fidei; q.2: De actu interiori
fidei.
11 Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos, (Regensburg: Mainz,

1882) l.
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 377

Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium . . .”12 Here, faith and
doctrine rightly go together. Their relation to Scripture, Tradition, and
the Magisterium, however, remains excessively vague. In Christus
Dominus, faith is “illustrated by doctrine.” In Fidei depositum, “faith and
doctrine” are “attested to or illustrated” by Holy Scripture, the Apostolic
Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. This leaves the way open to in-
terpreting the Church’s teaching authority and its source in Scripture and
Tradition as merely symbolic.

IV. The task of sanctification (n.15)

Because they have received the fullness of the sacrament of Orders,
bishops are the chief dispensers of the mysteries of God, “the moderators,
promoters, and guardians of the entire liturgical life in the Church en-
trusted to them.” They must ensure that the faithful know and live more
fully the paschal mystery through the Eucharist; and they must endeavor
to have their people “unanimous in prayers” [on the model of the early
Christians in Acts 1:15 and 2:46] and “in the reception of the sacraments.”
At this point, the text does not point out that the bishops also depend on
their cooperators, priests and deacons, for the mysteries of God to be ef-
fectively taught and offered to the people. This somewhat unbalanced in-
terdependence of all the ordained clergy of a diocese affects the whole
range of a bishop’s task, and not only his pastoral care of the people.
The fullness of the sacrament of Orders entails the task of perfector:
The bishop “brings to perfection.” An older spiritual tradition considered
the bishop to be in statu perfectionis acquisitae, in contradistinction
from religious, who would be in statu perfectionis acquirendae. The
council, however, does not locate the perfection of the bishop in himself
or in his objective episcopal state, but in his obligations toward a partic-
ular church and its faithful: In his diocese he should bring everything to
perfection. That is, he must promote the holiness of all, in keeping with
the personal vocation of each. To this end he must set an example of ho-
liness in charity, humility, and simplicity of life. He must strive to make
his particular church a shining instance of the universal Church of Christ.
He must promote vocations to the priesthood and to religious life, espe-
cially vocations oriented toward the missions, which is one way of serv-
ing the universal Church in the particular Churches.

12 John Paul II, “Apostolic constitution Fidei depositum,” in Catechism. of the

Catholic Church. (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994) 5.

378 the jurist

One aspect of the search for holiness seems to be missing in this sec-
tion: the need to learn and to make time for regular meditation, and a cor-
responding care for the availability of adequate spiritual direction for
those who may need it. The Catholic tradition has offered several “meth-
ods of meditation,” that are normally presented to seminarians, but rarely
to the faithful in their parishes. And several religious communities, espe-
cially the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus, make sure that
their members are available for consultation in matters spiritual. But
bishops, it would seem, rarely look into this area of spiritual care. Chris-
tus Dominus does not mention exorcisms among the bishop’s responsi-
bilities. They nonetheless fall within a bishop’s responsibility. The au-
thor once asked Bishop Charles Helmsing if he received many requests
for exorcisms in his diocese (Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO). He said,
“About fifty each year. All requests are examined by a team of psycholo-
gists. Approximately forty are treated by psychologists. The remaining
ten are entrusted to an official exorcist. The exorcism is done in a suite in
a Catholic hospital.” In some parts of Africa exorcisms gain importance
from widespread popular belief in the effectiveness of witches’ and sor-
cerers’ curses, and from an occasional confusion of exorcisms and the
healing processes of the sick. Since the episcopal task of perfector is tied
to the local church or diocese, not to the universal Church, it seems to be
empty of content in the case of bishops who have no diocesan duty.
Since, nevertheless, it derives from the fullness of the priesthood that all
bishops receive by ordination, it is de facto a responsibility that is wait-
ing for a field in which to be exercised. There clearly is a contradiction in
a perfector who has nothing to perfect. This, it seems to me, in spite of
the remark made above, casts doubt on the wisdom of ordaining bishops
who will not be in charge of a local church. Since, however, non-standard
bishops have been in existence since the third century (ordination of
chorbishops in the East), it may be impossible for the Church to do with-
out them. This inner contradiction calls at least for further reflection on
the nature of episcopacy.

V. The task of ruling

n.16: The third munus of the bishop, as already the third nuances of
Christ, is service, not domination: sint Episcopi in medio suorum sicut
qui ministrant. The bishop rules as “father and shepherd.” When most
Christian countries were ruled by kings it made sense to call this third di-
mension of authority “royal.” Since kings, in the civilization of the Fer-
tile Crescent, were considered to be the shepherds of their people, the as-
sociation of shepherding and kingly power could seem natural in the
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 379

early Church. Following the First Epistle of Peter 2:4–10, one could
speak of “a kingdom of priests;” and the priesthood conveyed in baptism
could be called a “royal priesthood.” The conciliar decree Apostolicam
actuositatem does so: In regale sacerdotium et gentem sanctam conse-
crantur . . . (n.3). But if “holy people” still makes sense today, “royal
priesthood” is in sharp contrast with the conventions of a republican and
democratic society.13
Furthermore, in the counter-reformation, the absolute monarchy of
Louis XIV of France was generally taken as the most effective model of
government; bishops were usually chosen from the aristocracy; and they
naturally tended to behave like sovereigns over priests and people. Mod-
ern political systems, however, make it inappropriate to speak and be-
have as they did. As a shepherd the bishop must know his flock. As a fa-
ther he must show “a spirit of love and solicitude” towards all, so that all
will happily be subject to him. Accordingly, the bishops must keep their
own life in order, must be truly attentive to the spiritual, intellectual, and
material conditions of their priests (sacerdotes). They must likewise be
close to their people and to the fratres seiuncti who reside in the diocese.”
The whole section from n.16 to n.21 describes ruling as service. The
model that is followed is not found in the world of politics, but in the
ideal patriarchal family, in which the father rules benevolently, for the
good of wife and children and the edification of neighbors. This model is
revolutionary in comparison with the ideal of the ancien regime, when
the absolute power of a king ruling by divine law provided the central
model for church authority. It is open, however, to the feminist critique
that it does not do justice to women, and reinforces male domination in
all areas of society. In the democraties avancées of Western Europe and
North America, father and mother jointly rule their family. For quite a
long time already the Catholic ritual of marriage has eliminated the
bride’s promise to obey her husband. This alteration of the ritual of mar-
riage is undoubtedly relevant to updating the family model of episcopal
rule. It fits the ideal of concord, unanimity, and collegiality better than
the old-fashioned model of one-man rule followed by the obedience of

13 The text of 1 Peter was used in pre-revolutionary France to justify a theory of the

sacerdoce du Roi, conveyed to him by anointing with the oil of the sainte ampoule;
the king’s priesthood could be seen at work when the king “touched” those who suffered
from skin-disease in order to heal them; in Russian Orthodox theology under the czars
there was a theory which regarded the czar’s crowning as a form of the sacrament of
confirmation.
380 the jurist

all subordinates. It is nevertheless difficult to see how the emerging ec-

clesial model of family life and rule as a partnership of husband and wife
can be truly effective in the patriarchal structure of the Catholic priest-
hood and episcopate. Given the insistence of Christus Dominus on the
importance of contemporary sociological data for updating diocesan or-
ganizations, the episcopal regime should include feminine virtues and
women’s insights in the forms and qualities of its leadership. It would be
an illusion to think that justice is done to this dimension of ecclesial col-
legiality by appending reflections inspired by Marian piety to the author-
itative documents of the hierarchy. Christus Dominus does not fall into
this trap. Papal encyclicals frequently do.
n.17: The promotion of the laity rightly comes under the rubric of rul-
ing when this is conceived as service. The author finds the scope of the
conciliar vision quite remarkable at this point. All forms of the ministry
of the laity should be encouraged and supervised so that their converging
efforts will stimulate a harmonious activity that will manifest the unity of
the diocese. In this lay apostolate all the faithful should be engaged to the
extent of their capacities. As the name itself indicates, the apostolate is
not an individual enterprise but requires team work. This is evident from
the model and example of the apostles, who were united as a college. The
bishop should therefore organize and encourage all the associations that
will promote lay ministries and make them truly fruitful. Furthermore,
these associations and their diverse forms of Christian witness should be
kept up to date with the help of the modern sciences of sociology, de-
mography and economics. The diocese therefore ought to have “an office
of pastoral sociology.” The author cannot help thinking, however, that a
priest will be hesitant to accept a call to the episcopate, if he realizes to
what extent Christus Dominus assumes that he will be familiar with
modern conceptions and methods of social studies.
n.18: The bishop’s pastoral responsibility extends to all migrants who
cross or visit the diocese, not only nomads and gypsies, but also immi-
grants, tourists, and vacationers. “Adequate pastoral methods” must be
devised for them. Since many of those people may pass from one diocese
to another in a short time, Christus Dominus advises episcopal confer-
ences to provide the necessary assistance. A similar remark could have
been made in n.17.
nn 19–20: The content of these sections does not really pertain to the
bishop’s functions. Dealing with the freedom of the Church from politi-
cal authority, they state principles that relate to the government of the
 the task of a bishop in his diocese CHRISTUS DOMINUS 11–21 381

universal Church and its relations with the leaders of nations. Presum-
ably they were included in Christus Dominus as guiding principles for
the revision of canon law that was envisaged. The same may be said of n.
21, recommending the resignation of a bishop who has become unable
to fulfill his functions. This recommendation was endorsed in the code
of canon law (c. 401 §2, the bishop’s resignation at 75 being the object of
§ 1).

Conclusion
The key sections of Christus Dominus that have been surveyed explain
the tasks of bishops in their diocese. The bishop, however, must also
function at least at two other levels: the universal Church, and national
episcopal conference. This three- level responsibility entails a permanent
temptation to focus on immediate local problems and to rely on others
for the other two levels: on the bishop of Rome and the Roman curia for
the universal Church, and on the designated officials of the national epis-
copal conference. Such a state of affairs can give the impression that only
the local diocesan task is important, the other responsibilities being sym-
bolic of the universality of the Church, but not practical. This danger re-
quires more attention on the part of theologians and canonists.