Instruction Calls for Necessary Change in Attitude and Practice
In Germany the Instruction has created quite a stir and caused conflicting reactions. Some have flatly rejected it, while others have tried to relativize it, with the assurance that it does not concern their area of responsibility. However, astute observers have recommended a calm examination that will lead, if necessary, to the correction of erroneous tendencies.
Formal aspects
For a correct evaluation of the Instruction we must first consider some of its formal aspects. The Instruction is a legislative text and must be read as such. After an ample introduction, we find two parts entitled: "Theological Principles" and "Practical Provisions". The criticisms publicized by the media are almost exclusively aimed at the second part and complain about the "dryness" of its language. In response, it should be noted that a legislative text cannot be judged by literary standards, but primarily on the precision of its content and the clarity of its statements. The Instruction is not a theological essay, much less a magisterial text on the laity's role in the Church.
An "Instruction", by virtue of its juridical nature, is an administrative provision (cf. can. 34 CIC).1 It is characterized by the fact that it does not create any new law, but merely insists that the law currently in force be observed. Furthermore, it is not addressed to everyone who is a subject of the current law, but only to those who are responsible for seeing that the law is respected. The Instruction we are commenting on is primarily addressed, by reason of its timeliness and for the sake of prevention, to all diocesan Bishops of the Latin Church (cf. can. 392 CIO). They will see that its contents are suitably communicated to those concerned.
The document is dated 15 August 1997 but was not published until 13 November. It gives no indication of when it goes into force. Contrary to what is determined for the promulgation of laws (cf. can. 8, §1 CIC), the general norms do not regulate either the promulgation of Instructions or when they are to take effect. That is basically unnecessary, since it is merely a question of reminding the recipients of an obligation already in force for some time. The months elapsed between the date of approval and the day of publication were probably needed for translating the text into the various languages. If the publication of important documents into the mostly widely used modern languages is something to be prized, we must nevertheless stress how worthwhile it is for the Holy See to see that an authentic version is drafted in Latin. The Holy Father recently recalled the importance of Latin for the Church.2
The fact that, in addition to the Congregation for the Clergy, seven other Roman dicasteries share responsibility for the Instruction conforms to the legislative provisions of the Roman Curia.3 According to these provisions, what falls within the competence of different offices should be treated by all, under the co-ordination of the office primarily concerned with the question. In the case we are examining, one has the impression that various sorts of problems had piled up over time and had to be examined from different aspects, leading to a broad curial consultation. It would have sufficed if the document had only been signed by the Congregation for the Clergy, while noting the preceding interdicasterial consultation. However, the fact that all the dicasteries involved signed with their respective heads and secretaries clearly expresses their co-responsibility as well as the importance that the Curia attaches to this subject.
That is also underscored by the fact that the Pope approved the Instruction "in forma specifica". This modality is envisaged by curial law only for certain dicasterial decrees with legislative force.4 For Instructions, however, it should be remembered that, according to can. 34, §2 CIC, if they are not in accord with the legislative provisions, they have no validity. The mode of approbation chosen by the Pope must be considered in the light of the fact that—as stated in the Conclusion—by this administrative act "all particular laws, customs and faculties which are contrary to the foregoing norms, and were conceded ad experimentum by the Holy See or other ecclesiastical authorities, are hereby revoked". Thus we are spared the possible objection that an administrative act cannot derogate from the norms (laws or customs) currently in force; the intention to ensure coherent legislation in this entire matter is also apparent.
The text of the document contains several assertions that call for hermeneutical clarification. Thus, the part concerned with "Theological Principles" (n. 4) says with respect to the tasks and functions which "are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry" that "the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions". Obviously, there is no wish here to deny that these faithful can legitimately exercise the tasks and functions mentioned. The document wants to state, however, that the nonordained faithful do not have the right to demand that they be assigned to the above-mentioned tasks or functions. Elsewhere the Instruction says in fact: "The officia temporarily entrusted to them ... are exclusively the result of a deputation by the Church" (art. 1, §2). "Deputation by the Church" is a shorthand expression for "deputation by the Church's lawful Pastors". This complete formulation, used in other passages of the Instruction, avoids an identification of the Pastors with the Church herself. And §3 of the same article correctly indicates that "the temporary deputation for liturgical purposes—mentioned in canon 230, §2—does not confer any special or permanent title on the nonordained faithful". The following sentence states that it is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as "pastor", "chaplain", "co-ordinator" or "moderator". What applies to temporary deputation applies with all the more reason to permanent deputation for liturgical or pastoral tasks (cf. can. 230, §1, 517, §2, CIC).
Observations on the content
The Instruction has a very limited purpose and its title should be carefully read with that in mind. The subject is not collaboration between priests and lay people, but the priestly ministry in so far as lay people can collaborate in it.
The document is thus concerned with only a limited area of the laity's field of activity in the Church. It is not a question of the laity defined by their so-called "secular nature", who carry out their mission in civil society; nor are their autonomous activities within the Church being considered. The sole concern here—with one exception, to which we will return—is that area where the laity who say they are available receive an ecclesiastical deputation. But even this area is not examined in all its breadth, since the vast milieus of the school and the university, for example, are omitted. It is important not to forget this fact, since except for the exception mentioned above the vast, ordinary field of activity for lay people in the Church and the world is intentionally not considered by the Instruction. It is only concerned with giving appropriate direction to the exercise of particular functions by particular lay people. By their ecclesiological nature all of these particular functions belong to the realm of the ordained ministry, in which a lay person, however, can collaborate in cases of necessity, if he has been lawfully deputed to do so. But it must be noted here: "in case of necessity"! For example, it could never be the Church's objective to replace the Eucharistic celebration by promoting Sunday celebrations without a priest. Nevertheless, wherever there are no other possibilities, the Church is grateful to that lay person who, being well-disposed and following the instructions of the Bishop who appointed him, conducts a Liturgy of the Word for and with the faithful who have no other opportunity to celebrate the Lord's Day. It is clear that the lay person here is truly a supplementary aid. This does not degrade the lay person; on the contrary, his willingness to accept this task does him honour. However, for the good of the faithful and that is what always counts he too will be glad when a priest is available to celebrate the Eucharist.
The Instruction enables us to indicate many other analogous situations. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that it reduces the role of the laity in the Church to a mere "stopgap". The Instruction will seem restrictive only to those who consider these supplementary tasks as a desirable field of activity for the laity.
The fact that the Instruction is concerned with that area where the laity carry out supplementary functions which belong per se to the ordained ministry leads to a positive evaluation of the document's effort to include a succinct presentation of the theological principles that define the limits of lay collaboration in these functions. It is admirable how they were able to summarize concisely but clearly the elements of the relevant doctrine of the Second Vatican Council.
Nor are the practical provisions limited to listing possible or actual abuses, but they always seek to indicate the theological co-ordinates underlying the respective field of activity and thereby to draw the necessary consequences. The problems mentioned are caused, first of all, by the fact that they are found in a border area. Abuses occur, on the one hand, when exceptional solutions become alternatives, changing an extraordinary competence into an ordinary one, or, on the other, when the limits provided for collaboration are unlawfully extended and a competence is assumed that has not been given.
In this regard, however, it should be pointed out that the laity usually cannot be considered responsible for true and proper abuses. They in fact fulfil—normally with good intentions—that role which has been introduced in their particular Church and has been entrusted to them. On the other hand, it should be noted that the norms established by the Bishops' Conferences or by individual Bishops generally do not contradict the ordinances of universal law, but their clarity at times is not enough to prevent the spread of an abusive practice.
Specific problems in Germany
In dealing with questions concerning collaboration in the ministry of priests priority must be given to the deacon vis-a-vis the lay person. However, in Germany and in several neighbouring countries it has been difficult to put this priority into effect due to the considerable number of lay men and women who receive a complete theological and pastoral formation, while clearly lower requirements are set for deacons. Here we are faced with a system that must be urgently revised.
The requirements of the Instruction even regarding parish councils (art. 5) are nothing new. However, there are two reasons why we are faced here with a special case: 1) the collaboration of the laity on these councils is not envisaged as supplementary but ordinary; and 2) the problems that have arisen in this regard do not stem from individual or collective abuse, but from a legislative anomaly of particular law.
Regarding the parish finance council (can. 537 CIC), it is indisputable that the canonical norms cannot be applied in Germany, since the administration of parish property is governed partly by State ecclesiastical law and partly by contractual law.
It is a different case with the parish pastoral council (can. 536 CIC). One problem is that there is a widespread opinion in Germany—even among the Bishops—that such a council should not be established in this country. Universal law does not in fact consider their establishment obligatory; it is up to the diocesan Bishop to decide its advisability, after listening to the presbyteral council. Its place has been taken by the so-called "parish community council" (Pfarrgemeinderat). The intention has been to avoid in Germany the duplication of councils existing at the diocesan level—where in addition to the diocesan pastoral council we find the "diocesan council of Catholics"—by combining in a single council at the parochial level the functions of the pastoral council and those of co-ordinating the autonomous activities of the laity.
The model of the "parish community council" was developed in the 1970s by the "Synod of the Dioceses of the Federal Republic of Germany". According to this model it is preferable that the chairmanship of the council not be assigned to the parish priest. The parish priest's responsibility, by virtue of his office, should be respected by giving him the veto right. Initially this model was envisaged for the Synod, with the idea, however, of extending it to councils at the diocesan level. It was a purely negative conception of the Pastors' responsibility. The debate that flared up at the time, even outside the Synod hall, led to necessary corrections regarding the presbyteral council and the diocesan pastoral council, but not concerning the "parish community council". Despite the clear definition of the parish pastoral council that came with the promulgation of the new CIC (can. 536), the Bishops' Conference did not consider any reform necessary, since by now the "parish community council" was something different from the parish pastoral council envisaged by the Code. This position seems to be based on the presupposition that can. 536 CIC leaves the door open to any alternative to the parish pastoral council. That is untenable, however, since the provisions made by the Code for the functions of the parish pastoral council must be implemented.5
According to press reports, the President of the German Bishops' Conference said that the Instruction concerns the Church in Germany only with regard to the "parish community councils". The statements of other Bishops, however, were apparently meant to reassure the faithful that the current legislation will be maintained and that there is no need to intervene. The statement made by the President of the Bishops' Conference also points out that the "Vatican" has always tolerated the fact that in Germany the laity are entrusted with chairing "parish community councils". It should be noted, in any case, that the problem does only concern this presiding, but also the unacceptable system of the veto right. It must be acknowledged, however, that we are faced here with a difficult pastoral problem: how does one credibly explain the intrinsic errors of a system that has been promoted or tolerated for over 20 years? I think that in Germany we should begin a bias-free discussion, clearly state the ecclesiological implications and develop a willingness to correct the existing system.
If, on the one hand, the spokesmen of official Catholicism have reacted against the Instruction in such a crude way as to disqualify themselves, on the other hand, consideration must be given to the great efforts made for years by many of the faithful, even if within an incorrect system. While the former have more than one reason to revise their attitude, we must try not to discourage the latter but help them to be open to a new way of conceiving their role.
ENDNOTES
1 For other details, cf. Aymans-Morsdorf, Kanonisches Recht. Lehrbuch aufgrund des Codex luris Canonici, 13th ed., vol. I (Paderborn-Munich-Vienna-Zurich, 1991), pp. 221-224.
2 Cf. L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 21 January 1998, p. 4.
3 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus (28 June 1988), art. 21.
4 Cf. ibid., art. 18 and Regolamento della Curia Romana, art. 110.
5 Cf. Aymans-Morsdorf, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 439-442.
This item 268 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
