ISAAC HAROLD GOMES
This 29th June the Catholic Church in India celebrated Laity Sunday to affirm the vital role of lay members who are also called the “People of God”. This year’s theme, chosen by the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India for Laity Sunday was: “A Synodal Church: Walking Together and Always Seeking Peace.” This theme emphasises the importance of the Laity in the Catholic Church, encouraging it to actively participate in the Church’s mission. Several church news portals reported that the majority of parishes commemorated Laity Sunday.
The next Sunday, 6th July 2025, the Gospel reading from Luke 10:1-12, 17-20 was Jesus commissioning seventy-two of his disciples two-by-two to preach the Good News, heal the sick and prepare the villages for His coming. The key phrase was: “The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few.” During the homily the priest in a Kolkata parish said that we are a missionary Church sent by the Lord to spread His Word and do His work (serve the have-nots). He added that spreading the Good News is not the job of only priests and religious, it is also the duty and responsibility of the laity, as they too are stakeholders in the Royal Priesthood. “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (Pet 2:9). The exhortation was encouraging for the congregation.
Regarding the Laity’s role, the following questions emanate from the liturgy of the above two Sundays:
- What is the `vital’ role played by the Laity in the Church considering they comprise more than 99% of It?
- Is Synodality (mutual listening, especially to the grassroots faithful) and Servant-Leadership really being practised by the Hierarchy?
- Besides high mass, was Laity Sunday commemorated with seminars/workshops on their role, particularly in the selection of parish priests and bishops?
- Natural justice demands that the Laity must have a role in this selection process which is totally opaque – hardly any lay member knows the process. The laity brings all the donations (domestic and overseas) for the Church. The Holy Spirit doesn’t dwell exclusively in the Clergy! The laity too can “discern”!
- If the Vatican and its bishops possessed the exclusive faculty of ‘Discernment’, then the laity wouldn’t have been tormented by the wisdom-filled Hierarchy’s appointment of black sheep like bishops Franco Mulakkal (Jalandhar), K.A. William (Mysore) and Galella Prasad (Kadapa)! They sucked their dioceses dry.
- Does the laity have a role (parish-wise and diocese-wise) in the Temporal Affairs of the Church and its institutions? Though they have been founded and funded with the Laity’s hard-earned money, they are exclusively controlled by the Clergy. This has resulted in both Institutional and Doctrinal Arrogance.
- In this context, how many parishes and dioceses have Assets Registers? How is it that a miniscule percentage (hierarchy) controls all the Church’s (including its institutions) administrative and financial matters under the garb of Canon Law which has been rapped by courts of law (Cardinal George Alencherry and other cases)? Case study: Kerala High Court judgement dated 10 October 2012. Reiterating that parishioners have a right over church property, the judges gave the verdict: “Church and its properties would not vest in the Pope or the archbishop and the maxim “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” (Rome has spoken, the case is closed) no longer survives.” The Court further held Canon Law cannot override the law of the land (Times of India 11.10.2012). In another observation on 26 February 2018 the Kerala High Court rapped Cardinal Alencherry’s counsel, “It’s strange to hear that the law of the land isn’t applicable to the Cardinal.” (Hindustan Times 26.02.2018).
Bearing in mind the above, the role of bishops is very important to the life of a local church and has tremendous consequences for ordinary Catholics. A bishop has to lead from the front not only in spiritual matters but also in economic, administrative communication and media in today’s fast-paced social media and digital world. Yet currently the Indian Laity has no say in choosing its bishops in 174 Dioceses.
A report in the National Catholic Reporter (November 26, 2024) is captioned “The laity should have a greater voice in choosing bishops”. Currently the Laity has no say in choosing bishops. Officially, this selection is done by the pope, who is guided by a process of consultations with various individuals and bodies within the Church. He has the final say. How can he assess and select Indian bishops sitting 5,917 kilometres away?
The process begins with the bishops of a province/ diocese drawing up a list of priests they think could be candidates for the episcopacy. These names are given to the Nuncio, who is responsible for drawing up a `terna’, a list of three candidates for a vacant see. If he wants, he can nominate someone outside such lists.
The Nuncio writes a report on each candidate using any source available, including a confidential questionnaire that he sends to handpicked clergy and laypeople who know the candidate.The question is who guides/leads him in this exercise? The outgoing Bishop/Archbishop?
The Nuncio writes a report describing the diocese needing a new bishop. For example, if the diocese had been rocked by sexual abuse, they would look for someone who has credibility in dealing with abuse. If the diocese was in financial straits, they would look for a fundraiser with financial skills. If the diocese was divided, they would look for a peacemaker.
Each pope also has criteria that he wants the Nuncio to look for in candidates. Pope Francis wanted bishops who were pastoral and close to the poor, “shepherds who smell their sheep 24×7.” How many bishops do this? Blacksheep bishops Mulakkal and K.A. William did much more than smelling their sheep – they became wolves in sheep’s clothing!
The terna and reports are sent to the Dicastery for Bishops, where they are examined by the staff and submitted to the committee of cardinals and bishops in charge of the Dicastery. If they don’t like the candidates, the Nuncio is asked to submit another list. Ultimately, the committee votes on the candidates and submits its recommendation to the pope, who can accept or reject their suggestion.
There is very little room in the process for inputs from the clergy and laity of the diocese, except for the individuals who are sent questionnaires by the Nuncio.
Historical Context:
In the early Church, the laity, along with the clergy, played a role in electing bishops. Over time, this diminished, and the power to appoint bishops became more centralized in the papacy. The members of the Synod on Synodality recognized that this is a problem and in their final document expressed the desire “that the People of God have a greater voice in choosing bishops”. Today, reformers would like to see the church return to the more ancient practice of electing bishops at the local level.
Selection of Bishops in Indian Catholic Church:
As mentioned above, the entire process is cloaked in mystery. Hardly any lay member knows how the selection is done in India. The CBCI should at least keep the Laity informed of the selection process, however opaque it may be.
Going by the current trend of choosing sons-of-the-soil, all the bishops in Bengal, are sons-of-the-soil except for Asansol and Calcutta. Even in Darjeeling-Sikkim Diocese (which forms part of Bengal Regional Bishops’ Conference) only locals are accepted as bishops. This is the reason why Archbishop Thomas D’Souza of Calcutta couldn’t become the bshop of Darjeeling in 1997. The faithful refused to accept him and approached the Vatican to successfully lodge their petition/protest. To accommodate Thomas, the Bagdogra Diocese was carved out of Darjeeling and he was made its first Bishop on June 14, 1997. Bishop Stephen Lepcha, son-of-the-soil, became Bishop of Darjeeling on 08 November 1997. So constructive protests by the laity do work,
The current scenario of bishops in Bengal is as follows:
1. Bagdogra – Bishop Paul Simick (09/11/24)
2. Baruipur – Bishop Shyamal Bose (04/05/2020)
3. Darjeeling – Bishop Stephen Lepcha (08/11/1997)
4. Jalpaiguri – Bishop Fabian Toppo (08/02/25).
5. Krishnanagar – Bishop Nirmol Gomes (30/04/22)
6. Raiganj – Bishop Fulgence Aloysius Tigga (08/06/2018)
7. Calcutta – Archbishop Thomas D’Souza (23/02/2012)
8. Asansol – Bishop Elias Frank (03/07/2023)
In the 191-year history (established 18.04.1834) of the Archdiocese (and 78-years of post-independence era), late Archbishop Lucas Sirkar (2.4.2002 – 23.2.2012) was the only Bengali prelate of the Archdiocese! Does it imply that there are no suitable sons-of-the-soil to head the Archdiocese? This pattern clearly indicates that Vatican II documents, particularly Gaudium et Spes (Latin for “Joy and Hope”) on Inculturation and Dignity of the Human Person (people of Bengal) is being systematically stymied to perpetuate colonial hegemony. Personally I don’t have a preference for sons-of-the-soil practice/phenomenon. I would rather go for the best who will go out of his chamber to the “field hospital” and respond to the needs of his laity 24×7 (exhortation of Pope Francis). Will other dioceses of India allow one who isn’t a son of the soil to be their bishop/ archbishop even though we claim to be united in one baptism? Darjeeling Diocese is a case in point.
Editor’s Note: This article has been written by Sri Isaac Gomes of Kolkata who is the Secretary of the Indian Catholic Forum. (The views expressed are personal)
Leave a Reply