I don’t mean any disrespect here, but I’ve been told that a major reason why some parishes use a lot of EMHCs here in the United States is because in some parishes, they are mostly women. In the parishes where they are mostly women, some priests are afraid to take it away from them. This is also why in the USA, there are few Instituted Acolytes and Lectors, and one reason permanent Deacon candidates are instituted towards the end of their time in the seminary, not early on.
Also in the US, parish councils have a lot more power than they do in other counties. I know that in my parish (for example) our Pastor is very keen on providing the Precious Blood at Mass. But we don’t do it on Sunday Mass because the Parish Committee doesn’t want it, not because the Pastor doesn’t want to do it. We also (due to the Parish Committee) don’t use “Lord Hear our Prayer” on Sundays too; and the Lay Lectors add a brief summary before each reading (perhaps from the Children’s Lectionary or not even licit???). The point is, that today, many Pastors allow things based on the direction or influence of the Parish Council - not always based on their personal views.
In Catholic Countries, the idea of the Parish Council (which is more Protestant) either doesn’t exist or rarely address liturgy.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has some interesting history regarding parish councils from back in the 1700s. One parish was temporarily shut down by the Bishop because they wanted to pick their own priests or at least have a veto like Protestant congregations did.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that Parish Councils are bad or EHMCs are bad, etc. What I’m saying is that Parish Priests should not be afraid to turn down advise from Parish Councils and that the Councils should be more concerned with social and financial issues, and less with liturgy.
