The single greatest problem within the episcopate is not clericalism.

As I see it, the critics of bishops often apply “clericalism” even to legitimate exercises of episcopal authority. To them, it often seems the problem is not simply that bishops abuse their spiritual authority but rather that they have any spiritual authority, to begin with. I’m quite sure there are some bishops and priests who, in Fr. Jerry Herda’s words, think they are “entitled and should be treated with special privileges.” But for every one of those, I suggest, there are probably a dozen or more who are too aware of their own limitations and frailties to maintain such a mindset.

In fact, the problem runs in almost the opposite direction: a lack of confidence in their apostolic authority which translates into failures of leadership. I suspect this is because the Vatican does not understand leadership and therefore does not know how to seek or develop leaders.

Let me show you what I mean. Here is how the Diocese of Portland (Maine) describes prospective bishops:

A candidate for the episcopal ministry must be at least 35 years old, have five years in the priesthood and be “outstanding for his solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and endowed with other talents which make him fit to fulfill the office.” (Canon #378, Paragraph 1)

He must hold firmly to the orthodox faith, have a devotion to the Apostolic See and be faithful to the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. He must have a thorough knowledge of dogmatic and moral theology, as well as canon law. He must also have an aptitude for governing, a social sense and openness to the signs of the times. A candidate must have reasonably good health, and possess the strength needed to fulfill the tasks of the episcopacy.

The closest this description gets to leadership is “an aptitude for governing”, a quality any competent bureaucrat can be said to possess. If all you do is keep your parish’s books in the black and avoid angering your parishioners, you can be said to have an aptitude for governing. But having a title, a particular position, or a specific level of responsibility and authority is not leadership. Leadership is more than being in charge or holding a slot on an organizational chart.

The best definition of leadership comes from Kevin Kruse of Forbes (excess punctuation removed): “Leadership is a process of social influence which maximizes the efforts of others towards the achievement of a goal.” Put more simply, it is the ability to get people to work together to achieve a common set of objectives. An organization in which people either work towards conflicting objectives or simply try to maintain a status quo is an organization with a leadership problem.

Let us look at the mission statement our Founder gave his apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). “Proclamation of the word of God,” says the 2001 USCCB document The Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of Priests, “is the primum officium or first task and responsibility of priests.”

As successors to the apostles, this is even more the case for bishops: They are the primary teachers and evangelists of their dioceses. The degree to which they succeed at inspiring not only fidelity but also conversion is the measure of their success as leaders of the faith. How many of our priests and bishops are truly effective, inspiring preachers? The consensus is, not nearly enough. This can be remedied, not only in the seminary but afterward through programs like Toastmasters International, but only if the bishops give it the priority it deserves and demands.

One common principle of leadership, especially in the military, is to seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions. This runs counter to the bureaucratic mindset, which tries to avoid ownership of any issue or problem, either burying it or blaming it on someone else or kicking the can down the road until it becomes someone else’s problem. It also runs counter to the lawyer’s mindset, which tends to counsel legal evasion of responsibility out of fear of civil exposure. But it ties into another widely-accepted leadership principle, which is set the example.

There are a number of leadership styles, no single one of which is appropriate to every situation (and at least one of which, the laissez-faire or hands-off style, can easily become non-leadership). Regardless of the style, though, people need the training to know when to apply it appropriately. Currently, there are a couple of training organizations I know of (the Catholic Leadership Institute and Catholic Leadership 360) that work with priests and lay leaders. Hopefully, there are more.

However, diocesan vocations offices ought to be recruiting candidates who have already shown leadership potential in high school and/or in college. Seminaries ought to have leadership development classes and exercises as part of their curricula. Furthermore, leadership development ought to be ongoing, even among bishops, as part of a continuing education process. And the bishop candidate selection process ought to put a premium on leadership skills over the merely managerial “aptitude for government.”

But as much as national bishops’ congresses can do, we still have a leadership problem in Rome. It’s an open question whether any of the popes since Ven. Pius XII has had any effective control over the Vatican bureaucracy, which has been known to work at cross-purposes with the Successor to Peter. And the current pontiff, whatever his other strengths, at times seems to be his own greatest obstacle. If anyone is to get such a vast enterprise as the Holy Catholic Church all working toward the same goal, it has to be the Pope. One has to wonder how long it will be until a leader capable of doing that will finally emerge.