Humility is not measured by the Miter

​

When a priest declines or does not proceed with episcopal ordination, many people instinctively describe the act as humility. And indeed, it can be humility.

To step back from an office of honor, visibility, and great responsibility may reveal a soul that understands the weight of the episcopacy. It may be the fruit of prayer, conscience, and honest discernment. It may be a man saying before God and the Church: “This office is bigger than me. I must not proceed if I am not at peace.”

That deserves respect.

But we must also be careful. If we say that declining an episcopal appointment is humility, we should not imply that those who accepted their appointment are therefore less humble.

Humility is not shown only by refusal. Sometimes humility is shown by acceptance.

A bishop who accepts the call may not be saying, “I deserve this.” More often, the deeper spiritual response is: “I am not worthy, but I will serve.” In the Church, the episcopacy is not a prize to be won, nor a promotion to be celebrated in a worldly way. It is a mission, a burden, and a form of service. The mitre is not a crown of personal achievement; it is a sign of responsibility before God’s people.

Thus, two different responses may both be humble.

One may say: “I am not at peace, so I must step back.”

Another may say: “I am afraid, but in obedience, I will serve.”

The first may be humility through renunciation.

The second may be humility through obedience.

What matters is not merely whether one accepts or declines, but the spirit behind the decision. Was it made before God? Was it made in truth? Was it made for the good of the Church, and not for the self?

The danger is to romanticize refusal as the only form of humility. That would be unfair to many bishops who accepted not because they desired power, privilege, or prestige, but because they felt bound by obedience and love for the Church. Many holy pastors have carried offices they never sought. Their humility was not in avoiding the burden, but in carrying it without making it about themselves.

At the same time, it would also be unfair to dismiss a refusal as weakness, fear, or failure. Sometimes, the most courageous thing a person can do is to admit his limits before the Lord. Sometimes, stepping back is not escape, but truthfulness.

In the end, humility is not a public performance. It is not measured by dramatic gestures, ecclesiastical titles, or the absence of them. Humility is the freedom to stand before God without illusion: neither exaggerating one’s greatness nor denying one’s responsibility.

To decline may be humility when it comes from honest discernment.

To accept may also be humility when it comes from obedience and service.

The opposite of humility is not acceptance.

The opposite of humility is self-importance.

So perhaps the better response is not to compare one bishop with another, or to use one man’s decision to judge another man’s vocation. The better response is prayer: for the one who stepped back, for the one who accepted, and for the Church that continues to need shepherds after the heart of Christ.

For in the end, the question is not: Did he wear the miter or refuse it?

The deeper question is: Did he allow Christ, and not the self, to preach to the people?