Do "Lay Ministry" programs harm vocations to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life?

[Lepanto]

In his March 16 address announcing the Year for Priests, the the pope said,

“…it is necessary to be alert to ensure that the ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the proper promotion of the laity for a time in which one would have ‘to do without’ the ordained ministry, because in that case the presuppositions for a further dilution of the ministerial priesthood would be laid and possible presumed ‘solutions’ might come dramatically to coincide with the real causes of contemporary problems linked to the ministry.”

---

With this in mind, do some people who might feel called to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life enter such programs instead because it’s much less of change in their lives? For example, women who might have an interest in the religious life may see “Lay Ministry” as a way to serve the church yet still be married. The result: fewer religious sisters.

A Catholic seminary in a neighboring state promotes “Lay Ministry” programs as a “career.” If this was a true calling, how can it be a career? It’s one or the other.

And in light of this Vatican document, are the terms “Lay Minister” or “Lay Chaplain” even valid?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

 

[Joannm]

In his March 16 address announcing the Year for Priests, the the pope said,

“…it is necessary to be alert to ensure that the ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the proper promotion of the laity for a time in which one would have ‘to do without’ the ordained ministry, because in that case the presuppositions for a further dilution of the ministerial priesthood would be laid and possible presumed ‘solutions’ might come dramatically to coincide with the real causes of contemporary problems linked to the ministry.”

---

With this in mind, do some people who might feel called to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life enter such programs instead because it’s much less of change in their lives? For example, women who might have an interest in the religious life may see “Lay Ministry” as a way to serve the church yet still be married. The result: fewer religious sisters.

A Catholic seminary in a neighboring state promotes “Lay Ministry” programs as a “career.” If this was a true calling, how can it be a career? It’s one or the other.

And in light of this Vatican document, are the terms “Lay Minister” or “Lay Chaplain” even valid?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

To answer your question from a personal point of view. I never thought of entering a convent and I never thought of lay ministry as a full time “career” (although I think of it as one of my vocations) until after my three children were born. I have encountered very few young people who want to make a career of Church work , usually it is women who already are married with children or married men, some of whom seek the diaconate after being involved in Church ministry for awhile. So the idea that these people in lay ministry would have been priests or religious but rather wanted to get married does not hold water since many decided on mnistry after they were married.

I do know several young people in lay ministry and I do know that some of them are considering priesthood or religious life. Two that I know of, who were in classes for lay formation, did enter religous life, so in their case, being involved in lay minstry led to their vocation to religous life. One of my classmates, who was in lay ministry until his late 30’s, finally entered the priesthood last year.

So I do not think there is a correlation.

 

[ChemicalBean]

With this in mind, do some people who might feel called to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life enter such programs instead because it’s much less of change in their lives? For example, women who might have an interest in the religious life may see “Lay Ministry” as a way to serve the church yet still be married. The result: fewer religious sisters.

I would tend to agree with Joannm in that it really doesn’t affect religious vocations, or at least not detrimentally. But even if, as you suggest, that lay ministry would result in fewer religious sisters and more married women, is this really a bad thing? Wouldn’t these women be more likely to be committed to the church and their faith? To raise up faithful children in the Church? If you want religious vocations to increase, you have to have to start with a larger pool of (young) people who are receptive and have parental support. Priests and sisters and brothers generally don’t, um, reproduce themselves…

 

[plato3]

(name removed by moderator)-good luck with your deacon formation. Our diocese requires years of lay ministery in order to apply for the diaconate.

 

[barb_finnegan]

I say, in a word, YES.

Besides that, I don’t like the use of the word ‘ministry’ in any context outside of the clergy. It smacks of ‘laicization of the clergy, and clericalization of the laity’.

That’s just my opinion…I think the correct word should be APOSTOLATE…and you don’t hear that word very much anymore!

I think the Holy Father is right in what he said when he opened the ‘Year of the Priest’.

 

[JReducation]

There are a few points that need to be addressed.

1. The Holy Father is speaking about roles that properly belong to clerics being assigned to lay people. Notice that he does admit that there is an appropriate apostolate of the laity.
2. The word ministry is not a clerical word or one exclusive to the clerical state. Religious brothers and religious sisters have been involved in ministry for centuries. The term means to serve. When Francis of Assisi founded our order in 1209 he used the term ministry in the rule. Every superior was called The Minister. None of them were priests. All Franciscans use the term ministry: regular and secular. Other communities borrowed the term from St. Francis.
3. A vocation is a call from God. It is not something that we conjure up. Christ calls us to different states in life: clerical state, religious state, married state, and the single state. With each state he also calls us to different forms of service or ministry. A state is a way of life. A ministry is a form of service.

I hope this helps everyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[m134e5]

I believe that Catholic lay ministers have a place in the Church. We are all called to evangelize- there’s nothing wrong with a lay person coordinating youth ministry or a prayer group- or being a catechist or something like that.

I think there is a problem when lay people assume liturgical roles that really only someone who is ordained should have- or administrative roles that only the pastor should have. Still, we are all called to evangelize. There’s nothing wrong with lay catechists or youth ministry directors or directors of ministry for other groups (college students, young adults, seniors, women, men, married people, singles, etc.)

 

[JReducation]

I believe that Catholic lay ministers have a place in the Church. We are all called to evangelize- there’s nothing wrong with a lay person coordinating youth ministry or a prayer group- or being a catechist or something like that.

I think there is a problem when lay people assume liturgical roles that really only someone who is ordained should have- or administrative roles that only the pastor should have. Still, we are all called to evangelize. There’s nothing wrong with lay catechists or youth ministry directors or directors of ministry for other groups (college students, young adults, seniors, women, men, married people, singles, etc.)

The bold is mine.

If I may gently suggest that you be careful on that score. Many religious orders have brothers who run parishes and priests who work in the parish. These brothers are known a parrochial administrators. The religious superiors put them in place, because they have administrative gifts that the ordained brother may not have.

In many dioceses, there are religious sisters, religious brothers and secular men and women who are pastoral administrators at the diocesan level. I believe that it is the Archdiocese of NY that has a secular woman on the tribunal. I’m not sure about the diocese. But these were posts that were occupied by priests or by abbots and abbesses in the past.

With the coming to the American missions, many monastic communities did not expand and take over entire regions of the Church. Therefore, diocesan priests took over the administrative posts as well as the sacramental duties of the parish and dioceses.

Prior to that, we had abbesses runing entire regions as large as dioceses with priests who answered to them. This was more typical of the Benedictine abbesses, but we had it. An abbess is not a priest.

We have become very used to priests being administrators and jack of all trades in the USA. But this was not always the case in the Universal Church, nor is it. That’s how religious communities of women were founded. They ran most of what priests do today.

When the sisters came over from Europe, there was a need for teachers, nurses and caregivers to orphans and seniors. That’s what they took on. But in Europe they had other duties as well, as did brothers in religous communities.

Religious communities of men, especially Franciscans, are returning to the old days in Europe. The brothers are running parishes or working with a pastor as the parish administrator.

The point is, if a brother can do it, why can’t a well trained secular person?

Follow what I’m trying to say?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Joannm]

The bold is mine.

If I may gently suggest that you be careful on that score. Many religious orders have brothers who run parishes and priests who work in the parish. These brothers are known a parrochial administrators. The religious superiors put them in place, because they have administrative gifts that the ordained brother may not have.

In many dioceses, there are religious sisters, religious brothers and secular men and women who are pastoral administrators at the diocesan level. I believe that it is the Archdiocese of NY that has a secular woman on the tribunal. I’m not sure about the diocese. But these were posts that were occupied by priests or by abbots and abbesses in the past.

With the coming to the American missions, many monastic communities did not expand and take over entire regions of the Church. Therefore, diocesan priests took over the administrative posts as well as the sacramental duties of the parish and dioceses.

Prior to that, we had abbesses runing entire regions as large as dioceses with priests who answered to them. This was more typical of the Benedictine abbesses, but we had it. An abbess is not a priest.

We have become very used to priests being administrators and jack of all trades in the USA. But this was not always the case in the Universal Church, nor is it. That’s how religious communities of women were founded. They ran most of what priests do today.

When the sisters came over from Europe, there was a need for teachers, nurses and caregivers to orphans and seniors. That’s what they took on. But in Europe they had other duties as well, as did brothers in religous communities.

Religious communities of men, especially Franciscans, are returning to the old days in Europe. The brothers are running parishes or working with a pastor as the parish administrator.

The point is, if a brother can do it, why can’t a well trained secular person?

Follow what I’m trying to say?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for this post. As a full time lay pastoral associate, I can attest to the need of lay people in parish administration. In our diocese we have a woman (religious) chancellor and a neighboring diocese has a lay woman chancellor. While we don’t have the need for pastoral life coordinators, we have seen a growth in pastoral associates, simply because there is a need that we fill. There are so many programs in our parishes that the priests do not have the time (or in some cases the education or inclination) to take them on as part of their ministry. In my case, and in the case of quite a few of the Pastoral Associates in our diocese, we have more theological education than the priests who serve with us and we are usually more available for parishioners to talk to. They will come to us before they come to a priest, or they will ask advice before speaking to a priest because we are closer to their life situations (as least those of us who are non-religious). I know the pastors appreciate what we do and they trust us with serving in the capacity that we do. My main areas are liturgy and adult faith formation, and I serve in those areas not only in the parish but on the diocesan level, so the bishop must approve of what I (and other lay ministers) do.

 

[Lepanto]

While we don’t have the need for pastoral life coordinators, we have seen a growth in pastoral associates, simply because there is a need that we fill.

But where did this need come from? Do these associates realize that their position came about because of the shortage of priests and that they are a stop-gap until there are more priests? Do they pray for priestly vocations daily? Enough vocations so that the day will come when such associates are no longer needed (as is also the case of extraordinary ministers of holy communion)? Pastoral associates (or whatever name they go by in a diocese) should be the first to jump for joy when their positions are filled by priests. Pastoral associates should not have the mindset of propagating their ranks.

In my case, and in the case of quite a few of the Pastoral Associates in our diocese, we have more theological education than the priests who serve with us and we are usually more available for parishioners to talk to. They will come to us before they come to a priest, or they will ask advice before speaking to a priest because we are closer to their life situations (as least those of us who are non-religious).

This is the same line of argumentation (originating in the Reformation), which, if taken just a few more steps, advocates for women’s ordination and an end to priestly celibacy. Priests are not priests because of their speaking skills or social skills or even their personal holiness.

 

[JReducation]

But where did this need come from? Do these associates realize that their position came about because of the shortage of priests and that they are a stop-gap until there are more priests? Do they pray for priestly vocations daily? Enough vocations so that the day will come when such associates are no longer needed (as is also the case of extraordinary ministers of holy communion)? Pastoral associates (or whatever name they go by in a diocese) should be the first to jump for joy when their positions are filled by priests. Pastoral associates should not have the mindset of propagating their ranks.

What we have to remember is that the ministries and functions that pastoral associates perform did not exist 100 years ago. Parish ministry was less complicated. In addition, priests are not trained to perform these ministries. The average diocesan priest gets a four year general theology degree. For example, diocesan seminarians are not required to study the spiritual life. It is an elective. Those who get a degree in Spiritual Theology or Mystical Theology go over the required four year program of general theological studies. Most do not want to do that. It’s too long. There are other examples such as pastoral counseling. To be a pastoral counselor you must have a degree in counseling and you must have a license to practice counseling. If you do not have these and you get sued, you are in big legal trouble. Priests are not required to study pastoral counseling. They take a course in counseling, but not an entire degree program to enable them to get a license. Therefore, parishes and bishops prefer to have a pastoral counselor who is certified, if they can get one, than a priest who is not certified, because of the legal reasons.

In addition to these examples, comes the other point that I have brought up in a number of threads. Many religious communities are pulling out of parish ministry. This creates a void for the bishops. The reason that religious communities are pulling their priests out of parish ministry is because parishes were not in the mind of their founders. So the communities are sending their priests back to the ministries that their founders wanted.

You have to think of the fact that some religious families are no longer allowing the large number of men to be ordained. They need to keep the number of priests at a minimum to protect their status as brotherhoods. When these communities take on a parish, many of their men are not priests. They are lay brothers. The lay brothers serve as pastoral associates. But these are lay brothers with MA and PhDs in theology or who are expert administrators, such as MBAs or degrees in management and human resoruces. They are perfect for administrative positions.

What we see happening is not that priests are being run out of their job, but the role of the priest in the parish is being redefined as the parish is being redefined. The American paradigm for parishes is changing. It has to change to respond to today’s growing populaton.

I hope you understand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

As much as I at least essentially agree (or fail to disagree) with JReducation, I contend that he answered only part of the concerns raised by Lepanto. I also contend that at least some of them are valid and worth responding to.

Do they pray for priestly vocations daily?

Right with this comment, we know the vision of the pastoral assistant in Lepanto’s mind. Sadly, Lepanto is too often correct. Many are the (largely) women (whether lay or dying-out-congregation religious, alas) who see the position of pastoral assistant - or other such administrative positions other than “secretary” as replacing the priest - as does Lepanto. However, such people tend to consider that a good thing. There are certainly a good number of lay and religious pastoral assistants and whatnot who are well and good. It must not be forgotten that there are plenty who are, shall we say, not. I do, in fact, think that this part of Lepanto’s litmus test is valid/useful in telling the difference.

Pastoral associates (or whatever name they go by in a diocese) should be the first to jump for joy when their positions are filled by priests.

This, I would contend, is quite possibly true. Such a tremendous supply of priests as would be required for this to be responsibly done on any substantive scale would be cause for rejoicing.

Pastoral associates should not have the mindset of propagating their ranks.

If Lepanto were to explicitly add (as was implied) “to the detriment of priests/the priesthood” I would most strongly agree. I can point to certain dioceses in Australia where priests have become (in the eyes of all around) effectively unnecessary except for consecrating the Eucharist (in vast quantities so that it can be shipped out for lay-led liturgies) and for giving the Anointing of the Sick. At least one of these dioceses publicly praises (and encourages more) lay involvement in parish administration and whatnot and qualified local commentators have noted that lay people in positions of adminsitration and whatnot have directly caused (with the substantive assistance of, at the very least, the current bishop) the priestly vocations crisis that they basically ignore - as a crisis, anyway. Non-religious lay people should - in my opinion - serve administratively and whatnot where they (we) are needed, and not feel that they (we) need to serve in certain manners customarily (if recent custom) served by priests when the need to do so is not present. Religious, it would seem, do not so much have this problem as (in principle) as they are sent only where their superiors tell them to go to do that which they are assigned.

This [see Lepanto’s post 2 before mine - Hidden One] is the same line of argumentation (originating in the Reformation), which, if taken just a few more steps, advocates for women’s ordination and an end to priestly celibacy. Priests are not priests because of their speaking skills or social skills or even their personal holiness.

With the possible exception of the historical note, which I can neither verify nor disprove, this is true.

I note that priests being unavailable to talk to (basically period, which is common, unless one is a discerner or Father spends more time in the confessional that he preaches to fill or one is discerning a vocation to something-that-isn’t-marriage) is a problem that is very directly related to our lack of priests. After all, we have almost as many priests worldwide today as we had in 1970, if I got my math right. More priests (esp. serving in parishes) = more availability. There is also this strange concept (which is mentioned by Joannm, and which Lepanto is criticizing) that it is common for it to be better to speak to someone who is not a priest than someone who is a priest regarding spiritual issues and whatnot. While this is certainly true in particular cases depending on who the priest is and who the alternatives are, it is not (or shouldn’t be) systematically true. This (particular) distance between the priest and the lay person - as being something essentially unconquerable in an important sense - is very bad, to use 5 cent words. Curing this craziness is important… fostering it should be (in my opinion) very much avoided, even if/when tending to it is pastorally commendatory.

 

[Lepanto]

In addition, priests are not trained to perform these ministries. The average diocesan priest gets a four year general theology degree. For example, diocesan seminarians are not required to study the spiritual life. It is an elective. Those who get a degree in Spiritual Theology or Mystical Theology go over the required four year program of general theological studies. Most do not want to do that.

How do you know this? (I think you sell diocesan priests and seminaries short.)

There are other examples such as pastoral counseling. To be a pastoral counselor you must have a degree in counseling and you must have a license to practice counseling. If you do not have these and you get sued, you are in big legal trouble. Priests are not required to study pastoral counseling. They take a course in counseling, but not an entire degree program to enable them to get a license. Therefore, parishes and bishops prefer to have a pastoral counselor who is certified, if they can get one, than a priest who is not certified, because of the legal reasons.

Right, but we are talking about “lay ministers” (please see the original post) who are typically much less trained than priests, not counselors who require state licensing for their very narrow specialty.

Let’s get back on track…from the OP…in his March 16 address announcing the Year for Priests, the the Pope Benedict said,

“…it is necessary to be alert to ensure that the ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the proper promotion of the laity for a time in which one would have ‘to do without’ the ordained ministry, because in that case the presuppositions for a further dilution of the ministerial priesthood would be laid and possible presumed ‘solutions’ might come dramatically to coincide with the real causes of contemporary problems linked to the ministry.”

With the pope’s warning in mind, do “lay ministry” programs harm vocations to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life?

 

[JReducation]

How do you know this? (I think you sell diocesan priests and seminaries short.)

I teach Mystical Theology at a regional seminary. I do not sell seminaries or secular priests short. I have worked in their formation for many years and along with them for more. I’m also on the formation team for my own community.

You can ask any diocesan priest what his areas of study were in the major seminary and he wil tell you that he was exposed to an overview of pastoral courses and most courses are theological, not professional. These other ministries are professional ministries. They are not necessarily lay. They are open to the laity, but there are religious and priests who also study them.

Right, but we are talking about “lay ministers” (please see the original post) who are typically much less trained than priests, not counselors who require state licensing for their very narrow specialty.

Pastoral counseling is but one example of lay ministry. There are others such as: Religious Education (which is not taught in seminaries), spiritual direction (which is an elective in seminaries), liturgical music (which is only one semester), youth ministry and pastoral care (which is offered in some seminaries as an elective), pastoral care of the sick (which is also an elective), administration courses (which are not taught) and there are several other areas where priests do need the help of specialists. Some priests do go on for additional training, but that’s not a requirement for ordination.

Let’s get back on track…from the OP…in his March 16 address announcing the Year for Priests, the the Pope Benedict said,

“…it is necessary to be alert to ensure that the ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the proper promotion of the laity for a time in which one would have ‘to do without’ the ordained ministry, because in that case the presuppositions for a further dilution of the ministerial priesthood would be laid and possible presumed ‘solutions’ might come dramatically to coincide with the real causes of contemporary problems linked to the ministry.”

With the pope’s warning in mind, do “lay ministry” programs harm vocations to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life?

Lay programs that fill in the void that priests cannot care for, because it is not in their training, should not deter men from entering the seminary. These ministries should compliment the priestly ministry.

Those of us who are in religious communities where some members are priests have had a very good experience with the complementarity of ministries. You can have parishes that are staffed by priests and non ordained pastoral associates. Just as you have dioceses that are run by a bishop and a non ordained chancellor or a religious house of priests where the superior is a lay brother.

The point is that there are areas of ministry that have been assigned to priests, because there was no one else to do them, not because those are necessarily priestly ministries. This is what the Holy Father is concerned about. We should not replace deacons and priests in areas of ministry that are proper to Holy Orders. But we need not assign ministries to deacons and priests that are not proper to Holy Orders, when there are others who can train and fill these ministries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[m134e5]

The bold is mine.

If I may gently suggest that you be careful on that score. Many religious orders have brothers who run parishes and priests who work in the parish. These brothers are known a parrochial administrators. The religious superiors put them in place, because they have administrative gifts that the ordained brother may not have.

In many dioceses, there are religious sisters, religious brothers and secular men and women who are pastoral administrators at the diocesan level. I believe that it is the Archdiocese of NY that has a secular woman on the tribunal. I’m not sure about the diocese. But these were posts that were occupied by priests or by abbots and abbesses in the past.

With the coming to the American missions, many monastic communities did not expand and take over entire regions of the Church. Therefore, diocesan priests took over the administrative posts as well as the sacramental duties of the parish and dioceses.

Prior to that, we had abbesses runing entire regions as large as dioceses with priests who answered to them. This was more typical of the Benedictine abbesses, but we had it. An abbess is not a priest.

We have become very used to priests being administrators and jack of all trades in the USA. But this was not always the case in the Universal Church, nor is it. That’s how religious communities of women were founded. They ran most of what priests do today.

When the sisters came over from Europe, there was a need for teachers, nurses and caregivers to orphans and seniors. That’s what they took on. But in Europe they had other duties as well, as did brothers in religous communities.

Religious communities of men, especially Franciscans, are returning to the old days in Europe. The brothers are running parishes or working with a pastor as the parish administrator.

The point is, if a brother can do it, why can’t a well trained secular person?

Follow what I’m trying to say?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I wasn’t talking about pastoral administrators in the absence of a priest, or a big parish having a lay administrator to manage the parish. I was only talking about basically giving lay people veto power over the priest- or the priest not having total veto power over the laity.

Here’s a scenario:

A new priest comes to a parish that has a religious education program that misrepresents Church teaching. This new priest is faithful to the magisterium, and believes that the best course of action (we’ll assume he’s tried to fix the problems with the current religious education program and its director) is to dismiss the directors, get rid of the program, and bring in someone new to build a brand new program. Most of the laity might not like that- and the pastor might not be able to be…well…much of a pastor, shepherding souls towards heaven…if his hands are tied on that very important issue. THAT is the kind of lay ministry that gets in the way (and I’ve seen it- and the sooner it is done away with, the better).

 

[JReducation]

I wasn’t talking about pastoral administrators in the absence of a priest, or a big parish having a lay administrator to manage the parish. I was only talking about basically giving lay people veto power over the priest- or the priest not having total veto power over the laity.

Here’s a scenario:

A new priest comes to a parish that has a religious education program that misrepresents Church teaching. This new priest is faithful to the magisterium, and believes that the best course of action (we’ll assume he’s tried to fix the problems with the current religious education program and its director) is to dismiss the directors, get rid of the program, and bring in someone new to build a brand new program. Most of the laity might not like that- and the pastor might not be able to be…well…much of a pastor, shepherding souls towards heaven…if his hands are tied on that very important issue. THAT is the kind of lay ministry that gets in the way (and I’ve seen it- and the sooner it is done away with, the better).

The problem in the hypothetical parish that you have presented does not stem from the lay ministry. It stems from a parish where the hierarchy does not seem to be properly established. In parishes where the hierarchy is very clear, these problem are easily resolved, because everyone knows who has the last word.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Joannm]

Right, but we are talking about “lay ministers” (please see the original post) who are typically much less trained than priests, not counselors who require state licensing for their very narrow specialty.
With the pope’s warning in mind, do “lay ministry” programs harm vocations to the priesthood, diaconate, and religious life?

How do you know that lay ministers are much less trained? My pastor has only a bachelors degree, our associate has an Miv.Div. I have two MA’s in Theology (a general one and one in Liturgy), one in Education (which helps a lot in my ministry), an Advanced Certificate in Pastoral Studies and a Doctor of Ministry. Our DRE has two masters degrees in Religious Education and Theology. Our elementary school principal has a PhD. and our high school principal an MA in Theology, an MA in Educational Adminsitration and a Doctor of Ministry. Our Youth Director has an MA in Counseling and one in Theology. Four of the people on our Faith Formation team have MA’s in Theology and one a PhD in scripture. I would say in our parish many of the lay people in leadership roles have more education than our priests. The priests we work with very much appreciate the education that we have and bring to our ministry in the parish. They depend on us alot to do the things they cannot do adequately (or that they don’t really want to do).

 

[Hidden_One]

Lepanto did not say that all lay ministers are much less trained, only that “typically” it is so.

I don’t disagree with Lepanto.

I do think that Lepanto might have been wiser to attack the usage of not-well-educated lay ministers.