Program Group
PRACTICAL THEOLOGY
Topic: The Role of the Parish Council
Conveners: Kathleen A. Cahalan, St. John's University
Raymond J. Webb, University of St. Mary of the Lake
Moderator: Elizabeth Willems, S.S.N.D., Notre Dame Seminary
Presenters: Mark F. Fischer, St. John's Seminary
Gaile Pohlhaus, Villanova University
Bradford E. Hinze, Marquette University
Respondent: William Clark, S.J., College of the Holy Cross

The session addressed the question of the “consultative only” (Canon 536) role of Parish Pastoral Councils. Mark Fischer argued that parish pastoral councils are, in fact, a post-Vatican II success story. He described how , initially, he had tried to soften the consultative-only clause by appealing for diocesan norms that would mandate consultation, would give councils the right to appeal a pastor’s decision, or would define consultative as executive decision-making. Eventually, he came to regard the consultative nature of councils as prudent and liberating. The Church’s teaching emphasizes the rightful purpose of councils -- not to legislate for the parish, but to seek wisdom. It gives pastors the freedom to reject bad advice and councilors the freedom to discover the truth. If pastors fail to employ councils as the Church teaches, this may be a call to improve the quality of vocations to the pastoral ministry.

Brad Hinze disagreed with Fischer. The consultative-only clause in the 1983 Code of Canon Law symbolized, for Hinze, the compromise reached at Vatican II between the older hierarchical ecclesiology that had emerged during the late medieval period and reached its apogee in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and a newer ecclesiological trajectory associated with renewed Christological, pneumatological, and Trinitarian theologies and the development of a fuller theology of baptism and eucharist that called for the full and active participation of all Catholics in the threefold offices of Christ and every member’s active responsibility to contribute to the fuller realization of the identity and mission of the Church. The council introduced this newer ecclesiological trajectory, which in significant ways was based on new receptions of ancient biblical, liturgical, and practical traditions, but was unable in the time allotted to develop these fully or to work out their implications related to the older approach. Any criticism of the consultative-only clause must raise questions about whether, by protecting the spiritual freedom of bishops and priests, there is a simultaneous and unwise spiritual restriction on the spiritual freedom of the laity and a limitation of their ability to take on responsibility in the exercise of their authority and ministry, and thus a stifling of the work of the Spirit in and through the charisms given to the local church. We are quickly immersed in the question of the theology of the relationship of the ordained and non-ordained.

Gaile Pohlhaus reported on the Voice of the Faithful, which was organized after the revelation of wide spread sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston. Within six months it had grown into an international organization which two and a half years later has more than 30,000 members. The group has dedicated itself to 1) support of sexual abuse survivors, 2) supporting priests of integrity, and 3) structural change of the Church. Working committees have evolved around each of these goals.

The national working group formed around structural change has face to face members from Pennsylvania to Maine and virtual members through an active email list serve. Parish Pastoral Councils were identified as the best way to work for structural change. To test this assumption a survey was sent to all VOTF members and one third responded to the survey. A sample was chosen to analyze which represented over 350 different Parish Pastoral Councils in the United States. Despite the inherent biases of the survey (very active members of the Church, 60% from suburban parishes which are presumably middle and upper class as well as well educated) the survey demonstrated that the consultative-only clause with respect to Pastoral Councils does not preclude an active P.P.C. where pastor and council work mutually for the benefit of the parish.

Bill Clark commented that the ministerial authority of the pastor and the baptismal authority of the community itself are not ideally opposed to one another, so the question is about what sense of proportion and order are conveyed by the legal structure. He hoped we could find ways of demonstrating to our communities that pastoral accountability can be required. He was struck by Ignatius of Antioch’s strong position on the role of the bishop as having to do with an overall spiritual authority within the community that is “summed up,” guarded, and enabled by the office of pastor. The whole relationship of parishioners and pastors, a “being and acting in communion,” needs to be assisted by a legal framework in which a genuine sense of mutuality is expected by the systematic arrangements themselves.

RAYMOND J. WEBB
University of St. Mary of the Lake
Mundelein, Illinois