Sir, – With reference to John Wijngaards's very interesting column "We need a more democratic way of electing bishops" (Rite & Reason, May 2nd), can I point out that the procedure for appointing bishops was much more democratic in 19th-century Ireland than it is now. What happened then when an episcopal vacancy occurred was that the parish priests of the diocese in question would meet in open forum and select three candidates, in order of preference, to commend to Rome for appointment as bishop. The names of the three and the number of votes each received were published in the newspapers. One of those named, usually the first (dignissimus, or "most worthy"), would be chosen – though on rare occasions the Vatican would impose a candidate not on the list drawn up by the clergy. For instance, Archbishop Croke was imposed on the diocese of Cashel in 1875 against the wishes of the clergy there. This level of transparency in the appointment of ecclesiastical authorities was most admirable, and what could be more appropriate than for a bishop to be selected by his peers: it is, after all, how the pope is selected in a conclave. – Yours, etc,
FELIX M LARKIN,
Dublin 18.
A chara, – An interesting opinion piece by John Wijngaards. The writer gives us many insights and opinions, some farfetched, but presumably well intentioned. Unfortunately he then declares that “important changes can happen if thinking Catholics express their real concerns”. He wants democracy but there is something dangerously undemocratic lurking in what he says. Who determines if a concern is real? Who is a thinking Catholic? Someone who agrees with John Wijngaards? Now that I force myself to think about it, I will have to disagree. – Yours, etc,
CIARÁN Mac GUILL,
Clichy,
France.
Sir, – Why don’t Irish Catholics demand parity with the Chinese Communist Party, which, under a 2021 deal with the Vatican, gets a say in episcopal appointments in China? – Yours, etc,
JOAN MURPHY,
Dublin 8.