"Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord"

[MaryAgnes]

“Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord” a very exciting document written by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, who serve as Vicars of Christ for our spiritual welfare. As Catholic Christians we should take what they have to say very seriously.

Many of us have been in parishes and dioceses where lay persons have served–they may have been DRE’s, Youth Ministers, Pastoral Associates, Catholic School Principals and diocesan leaders. Since Vatican II this has been a norm. However, many of these individuals’ qualifications were simply that they said “Yes” to a pastor who needed to get a job done. We all know them. They are untrained, theologically poorly educated (if they have any formal theological training at all!) and spiritually unformed. And they are responsible for the education/formation of our children, they run our parishes, and have responsible positions in our Liturgical and Sacramental life!

The USCCB has recognized the need for the proper education, formation, certification and authorization (by the local Bishop) for the laity to perform in such a capacity known as “Lay Ecclesial Ministers.”

The document calls “Church leaders, ordained and lay, to become more intentional and effective in ordering and integrating lay ecclesial ministers within the ministerial life and structures of our dioceses.” This is what we have been waiting for!

It is 70 easy-to-read pages long, speaks to a real need in our Church, and would be a wonderful basis for a discussion. :yup:

 

[asquared]

in the first flush of the call by V2 for more lay involvement in the Church, this went in all kinds of directions. Many dioceses instituted lay ministry training programs, and many of these programs were later disbanded because they were teaching error, or promoting a confusion between the proper roles of priests and laity in liturgy, teaching and administration. This was the case in 4 dioceses I have lived in.

this document recognized that problem and addresses it, although it is very general and some of the people who had (name removed by moderator)ut in its creation are some of the same people responsible for earlier problems with lay ecclesial ministry formation and implementation. At last uniform standards and definitions are being called for and applied, and this is a good step.

Lay ecclesial ministry goes way beyond EMHC’s and other liturgical roles that may be performed by lay persons. It encompasses any service to the Church through any of the charisms listed by Paul such as teaching, administration, etc. the lack of priests in many dioceses to fill jobs formerly done exclusively by the ordained, such as directors of diocesan offices of education, catechesis, social services etc., requires participation of qualified laypersons. the same with some parish-based ministries such as DRE, school principal, office manager.

In the past many lay people undertook such service at the request of a priest or bishop and learned by OJT or in poorly designed formation programs, and they did it out of good motivations such as obedience and willingness to share their talents. Of course there are always people with personal agendas who get into positions of influence, but it is the sin of detraction to apply such motives to all lay persons in service of the Church.

New lay ecclesial ministry programs, such as the one our diocese, are based on the CCC and other pertinent documents, and require grounding in basic Christian doctrine, and the theology and practice of the ministry itself. A very positive development. Related to it is the publication by the bishop of national standards for various ministries, such as DRE, youth minister etc.

 

[MaryAgnes]

asquared:

in the first flush of the call by V2 for more lay involvement in the Church, this went in all kinds of directions. Many dioceses instituted lay ministry training programs, and many of these programs were later disbanded because they were teaching error, or promoting a confusion between the proper roles of priests and laity in liturgy, teaching and administration. This was the case in 4 dioceses I have lived in.

this document recognized that problem and addresses it, although it is very general and some of the people who had (name removed by moderator)ut in its creation are some of the same people responsible for earlier problems with lay ecclesial ministry formation and implementation. At last uniform standards and definitions are being called for and applied, and this is a good step.

Lay ecclesial ministry goes way beyond EMHC’s and other liturgical roles that may be performed by lay persons. It encompasses any service to the Church through any of the charisms listed by Paul such as teaching, administration, etc. the lack of priests in many dioceses to fill jobs formerly done exclusively by the ordained, such as directors of diocesan offices of education, catechesis, social services etc., requires participation of qualified laypersons. the same with some parish-based ministries such as DRE, school principal, office manager.

In the past many lay people undertook such service at the request of a priest or bishop and learned by OJT or in poorly designed formation programs, and they did it out of good motivations such as obedience and willingness to share their talents. Of course there are always people with personal agendas who get into positions of influence, but it is the sin of detraction to apply such motives to all lay persons in service of the Church.

New lay ecclesial ministry programs, such as the one our diocese, are based on the CCC and other pertinent documents, and require grounding in basic Christian doctrine, and the theology and practice of the ministry itself. A very positive development. Related to it is the publication by the bishop of national standards for various ministries, such as DRE, youth minister etc.

I believe you are referring to the “National Certification Standards for Lay Ecclesial Ministers,” but you can correct me if I am wrong. These standards were approved by the USCCB in April 2003, however many lay persons are not aware of them. Many pastors are not aware of them! When the Catholic faithful insists upon such certification–it will happen. If we don’t, we will have to continue to deal with the inadequacies (and error!) that we have been experiencing.

Here is a snippit of that document … National Certification Standards They should be applied to all Parish Catechetical Leaders, Youth Ministers, Pastoral Associates, Parish Life Coordinators and Family Life Coordinators. But that is just my humble opinion…

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m glad to see there are others who share my concern.

 

[Elzee]

I admit I haven’t read the document and I’m going off of bits and pieces I’ve read about LEMs (Lay Ecclesial Ministers) on other threads and interviews done by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN, and the Bishops’s Conference I saw partly televevised on EWTN - and comments made by one of the priests of Lincoln,Nebraska who works for Adoremus. Based on all of this, I’m not yet convinced* ‘this is what we’ve been waiting for’.* Here are some concerns:

1. The use of the term ‘minister’. Several bishops (Bruskewitz, Verregno (hope I’m spelling that right) and others I can’t remember had a real concern applying the word ‘minister’ to a lay person. It has always been applied to ordained men. It perpetuates the blurring of the lines between lay and clergy. In short - they don’t want the term used but was told ‘that has already been discussed’.
2. Bishop Bruskewitz raised a big and I think very legitmate concern over liability. He cited an example where a woman (not sure in what state) was moving a statue of Our Blessed Mother from one church to another and was in an accident. Because she was doing something for the church, the church was held liable!! How much greater risk are we putting our church by now formalizing lay ministers - think of the multitude of things they could now be held liable for. The financial implications could be huge.
3. Funding. Money used to fund the certification and education, etc. of LEMs must come from somewhere. Bishop Bruskewtiz eloquently said our seminaries are already streteched for funding, as well as many other discernment programs, etc. offered by the diocese. Will we end up having to deplete these vocational resources even more to fund lay education, when our seminarians need it so badly?
4. Rome has not been conferred with - at least at the time I saw the report on EWTN. The leaders of the USCCB saw no reason to consult with Rome because they were not ‘changing stances on faith and morals’. Again, Verregno and the Bishop of St. Louis I believe, and a few others opposed this saying they wanted Rome to be involved. They were basically told ‘this has been discussed and decided’ by the head of the USCCB (can’t remember his name…).

Unless things have changed from the Bishop’s conference late last year, I’m concerned. What concerns me the most is the unwillingness of the leaders of our USCCB to seek the guidance and consult of Rome and our Holy Father.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Mary Agnes,

I’m pleased to share my initial reaction after I finished reading the document today. :tiphat: My goodness, if all of the qualifications for lay ministry are followed as per the document, there will be stringent criteria for stepping up to the plate and serving God’s people in any official capacity . . . the training requirements are extensive and encompass four major areas. [human, intellectual, spiritual, and pastoral]

The document seems to me rather self-explanatory and common sense for the most part. I remember a number of years ago a parish to which I belonged had hired a business manager, who maybe had one of the four qualifications – intellectual knowledge with perhaps a degree in his field – but he certainly lacked the other three qualifications. As a result, his gambling addiction caused public scandal and loss of huge monies for the parish.

It was edifying to read this section:

References, background checks, and various screening instruments are an objective means of determining an individual’s suitability for ministry

. Lay ecclesial ministers working with children will be required, in accordance with diocesan policy, to submit to a background check. /snip/ Psychological screening instruments can assess mental health and confirm the ability to function in typical human interactions as well as guide further growth. Psychosocial screens usually assess relationships to authority, tolerance of ambiguity, adaptive abilities, and psychopathologies. pg. 33

Just a few initial thoughts…

Carole

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Interesting article on the topic:

ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=MTQ5

 

[MaryAgnes]

Lux_et_veritas:

Interesting article on the topic:

ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=MTQ5

Very Good unbiased article … thanks for sharing it!

 

[MaryAgnes]

Elzee:

I admit I haven’t read the document and I’m going off of bits and pieces I’ve read about LEMs (Lay Ecclesial Ministers) on other threads and interviews done by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN, and the Bishops’s Conference I saw partly televevised on EWTN - and comments made by one of the priests of Lincoln,Nebraska who works for Adoremus. Based on all of this, I’m not yet convinced* ‘this is what we’ve been waiting for’.* Here are some concerns:

1. The use of the term ‘minister’. Several bishops (Bruskewitz, Verregno (hope I’m spelling that right) and others I can’t remember had a real concern applying the word ‘minister’ to a lay person. It has always been applied to ordained men. It perpetuates the blurring of the lines between lay and clergy. In short - they don’t want the term used but was told ‘that has already been discussed’.
2. Bishop Bruskewitz raised a big and I think very legitmate concern over liability. He cited an example where a woman (not sure in what state) was moving a statue of Our Blessed Mother from one church to another and was in an accident. Because she was doing something for the church, the church was held liable!! How much greater risk are we putting our church by now formalizing lay ministers - think of the multitude of things they could now be held liable for. The financial implications could be huge.
3. Funding. Money used to fund the certification and education, etc. of LEMs must come from somewhere. Bishop Bruskewtiz eloquently said our seminaries are already streteched for funding, as well as many other discernment programs, etc. offered by the diocese. Will we end up having to deplete these vocational resources even more to fund lay education, when our seminarians need it so badly?
4. Rome has not been conferred with - at least at the time I saw the report on EWTN. The leaders of the USCCB saw no reason to consult with Rome because they were not ‘changing stances on faith and morals’. Again, Verregno and the Bishop of St. Louis I believe, and a few others opposed this saying they wanted Rome to be involved. They were basically told ‘this has been discussed and decided’ by the head of the USCCB (can’t remember his name…).

Unless things have changed from the Bishop’s conference late last year, I’m concerned. What concerns me the most is the unwillingness of the leaders of our USCCB to seek the guidance and consult of Rome and our Holy Father.

You have made some very good points, some of which are clarified in the article. I’ll try to address each one that you presented.

1. The use of the term “minister” It is true that several bishops questioned the use of the term (the National Catholic Register article that Lux et Veritas (post #6) linked us to also mentions that). However, according to a Jan. 2006 article in the St. Anthony Messenger, it was Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., one of the country’s most noted Catholic theologians, who ended the debate. He said, "the drafters were very careful to see that **the terminology is in accord with documents of the Holy See ** [emphasis mine] and with the whole series of documents previously published by the conference.
2. Question of liability I believe Joysong (post #5) pointed out a significant quote from the document that certainly applies here. Keep in mind, our church already employs people–people who are not adequately trained/formed in all components (human, intellectual, spiritual and pastoral) of parish/diocesan ministry. **How much LESS will our liability be ** if these people were educated/trained/formed and underwent the scrutiny as suggested on p.33 of the document?
3. Funding Bishop Bruskewtiz has presumed that the funding for education and certification will come from funds needed to educate and train seminarians. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate has identified over 30,000 enrollments in Lay Ecclesial Ministry Programs throughout the U.S. during 2002-2003. Tuitions are incurred by and remain the responsibility of the students enrolled in these programs.

4.Vatican involvement The Bishops Subcommittee on Lay Ministry and their various documents are the response of Vatican documents such as Christifideles Laici, Apostolicam Actuositatem and others. It was the late and beloved Pope John Paul II who in his Ad Limina Apostolorum of January 25, 1997 said, “We see a true source of hope in the willingness of a considerable number of lay people to play a more active and diversified roll in ecclesial life, and to take the necessary steps to train seriously for this [emphasis mine].”

The fact is, we have had lay ministry in our parishes and dioceses. However, we are only now defining what is the appropriate development of persons taking on these roles.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Elzee:

Several bishops (Bruskewitz, Verregno (hope I’m spelling that right) and others I can’t remember had a real concern applying the word ‘minister’ to a lay person. It has always been applied to ordained men. It perpetuates the blurring of the lines between lay and clergy. In short - they don’t want the term used but was told ‘that has already been discussed’. "

I believe you are referring to Bishop Allen Vigeron of the Diocese of Oakland who was the hero of the hour with his consistent defense of Liturgiam Authenticam.

Elzee:

Rome has not been conferred with - at least at the time I saw the report on EWTN. The leaders of the USCCB saw no reason to consult with Rome because they were not ‘changing stances on faith and morals’. Again, Verregno and the Bishop of St. Louis I believe, and a few others opposed this saying they wanted Rome to be involved. They were basically told ‘this has been discussed and decided’ by the head of the USCCB (can’t remember his name…).

Unless things have changed from the Bishop’s conference late last year, I’m concerned. What concerns me the most is the unwillingness of the leaders of our USCCB to seek the guidance and consult of Rome and our Holy Father.

I do recall Cardinal Mahony commenting that specific titles needed to be agreed upon so that each diocese would be using the same nomenclature so that we didn’t end up with a “mish mash” of being called one thing in some dioceses, and called another title elsewhere.

Bp Skylstad in in charge of “things” at the NCCB these days but I think you may be referring to Bishop Trautman who commandeered the post of “Liturgy” for them at the last election meeting and his position on Liturgiam is so well known I have no need to repeat it here. Suffice to say, he doesn’t like it.