Not Only Consultation, but Communal Discernment and Decision-Making
An Emerging Ecclesiology of Mutual Responsibility and Accountability
Bradford E. Hinze, Marquette University

The consultative-only clause in the 1983 Code of Canon Law symbolizes the compromise reached at Vatican II between the older hierarchical ecclesiology that had emerged during the late medieval period, which reached its apogee in the late 19th and early 20th century, 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 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 relative to the older approach. Rather what we often find in the Vatican II documents is that the two ecclesiological trajectories are juxtaposed and not fully integrated. The consultative-only clause symbolizes these results in what I would describe as an asymmetrical combination that opens the door to fuller lay participation, but gives control to the older hierarchical ecclesiology, and thereby hampers the further development of the alternative trajectory.

In this paper I will sketch a critique of the consultative-only clause and experiment with constructing a counter-proposal that further advances the gains and impulses found in the teachings of Vatican II and in the praxis of parish life since the council.

1. The Argument in Favor of the Consultative-Only Clause:

An analysis of its constitutive ingredients.

Mark Fischer offers a defense of the canonical argument that the parish pastoral council “possesses a consultative vote only”(canon 536). Given the constraints of this forum, he is only able to offer a truncated, not a comprehensive defense. He argues that the clause is not paternalistic and demeaning, but rather prudent because it encourages pastors to consult, and it is liberating because the freedom of the pastor to decide or to legislate, is maintained, and consequently he is not required to take bad advice, while it frees councillors to have a clearly defined ministry. He has offered a fuller treatment of this topic in his very fine 2001 book, Pastoral Councils in Today’s Catholic Parish, which is based on his extensive study of pastoral council guidelines and in other writings as well.

1.1 Fischer does not address explicitly here the doctrinal justification for the consultative- only clause, but we need to be able to identify these arguments so that we might either be convinced by them, or be able to identify complementary, offsetting, or corrective positions. Fischer’s claim about the spiritual freedom of the pastor ultimately rests upon a certain view of ordination and specifically the kingly power or function of his office.).

1.11 The consultative-only clause is derived from a theology of ordained and non-ordained ministries as the cornerstone of the hierarchal constitution of the church.

1.12 The theology of the threefold offices and functions of bishops and priests is derived from a christological justification for the special offices and functions (officia et munera) of bishops and priests deriving from ordination relative to the common priestly, prophetic, and kingly offices which flow from baptism.

1.13 The theology of baptism and ordination, and the correlative official position about teaching and obedience so specified, finds its deepest warrant from certain approaches to christology, pneumatology, and trinitarian theology.

1.14 Fischer’s claim that the consultative-only clause is not paternalistic is based on his own implicit effort to affirm the equality of all believers (asserted by Vatican II), while recognizing the diversity of offices and functions.

1.2 Fischer concentrates on the practical justification for the consultative only clause.

1.21 His major argument is that pastors should not be forced to accept bad advice and that if pastors fail to accept good advice pastoral council members and even parish members can show in one way or another that they do not receive the decision of the pastor.

1.22 His second argument is that councillors function better if they have clearly defined aims, which Fischer has derived from Vatican documents as "investigating pastoral matters, reflecting on them, and recommending practical conclusions to the pastors” (2001, 173).

1.23 The third practical argument is that any alternatives are untenable because they would be too time consuming and would require a new legal code to replace the old.

1.3 One must keep in mind that the official promotion of consultation with the laity at all levels of the church is a doctrinal breakthrough at Vatican II. This doctrinal and canonical development is a profound retrieval of venerable beliefs and practices in the church, which is set forth as a complement or corrective to a unilateral understanding of the exercise of hierarchal authority. Consultation is not required of a bishop or priest, but strongly recommended by Vatican II and the new code. The reception of this teaching and canon, even though it is only recommended, remains partial, incomplete, and ongoing. Some would argue that we need to promote and patiently wait for wider reception of the consultative-only clause in order to realize the vision of Vatican II. Others may argue that we need to make the consultative-only clause a requirement, not a recommendation. One still has to ask: are other options available

1.4 The implication of Fischer’s position is this: if bishops and priests in good faith practiced consultation with their respective councils, the local church would more effectively realize its identity and pastoral mission. But we have to ask: are there deeper theological and practical reasons for saying consultation with lay pastoral council is necessary, but not sufficient? Are there practical and doctrinal reasons for saying we need to advance communal discernment and decision-making at the parish level for the good of the church. I believe there are.

2. Directives about the exercise of authority and governance

In order to address the issue of the consultative-only clause as it pertains to parish pastoral councils, it is important to be mindful that this particular clause is a part of a much larger set of directives about the exercise of authority and governance in the church.

2.1 One set of claims pertains to the exercise of juridical acts: In certain cases, the code asserts, a superior requires the consent of persons or groups with the superior ratifying the decision, whereas in other cases only advice is required. In the latter cases, there is a need for a superior to seek advice and to hear it from individuals or groups, but the superior is not bound to accept it, even if it is unanimous (Canon 127).

2.2 For our purposes it is especially important to recognize that the code of canon law addresses the issue of consultation in a variety of ways. In certain cases it is treated restrictively only consultation, not deliberation, and in other cases there can be exceptions when deliberation is allowed. It is also helpful to identify those instances where the code does not speak of consultation in the exercise of authority, juridical acts of decision-making, even though it may take place as a part of the deliberative process.

2.21 Consultative-Only Cases

Parish Pastoral Council: Canon 536
Diocesan Pastoral Councils: Canon 514
Diocesan Synods: Canon 466
Diocesan Council of Priests: Canon 500 (Bishop “requires its (the council’s) consent only in the cases expressly defined by law.”)
Particular Councils: Plenary and Provincial (canon 439), the cathedral chapter, council of priests, and (diocesan) pastoral councils have “only a consultative vote.

2.22 Consultative-Only with Exceptions

The synod of bishops with exceptions: Canon 342-343 concerns the consultative role of the synod of bishops relative to the pope’s exercise of authority. Canon 343 states: “The function of the synod of bishops is to discuss the matters proposed to it and set forth recommendations. It is not its function to settle matters or to draw up decrees, unless the Roman Pontiff has give it deliberative power in certain cases; in this event, it rests with the Roman Pontiff to ratify the decisions of the synod.”

2.23 Consultative-Only clause is not specified in the following instances:

Diocesan Finance Committee (492-494)
Parish Finance Committee (537)
Episcopal Conferences (447-459)
General Chapters of Religious Institutes: In a religious institute the general chapter has supreme authority in accordance with the institute’s constitution (631, 633). However, superiors in religious institutes are to promote voluntary obedience. “They are to listen willingly to their subjects and foster their cooperation for the good of the institute and the Church, without prejudice however to their authority to decide and to command what is to be done” (618).

3. Theology and canon law

Theology and canon law pertaining to the exercise of authority and decision-making, and the role of consultation, discernment, and deliberation in the parish pastoral council will be wisely developed to the extent it is informed by the concrete practices of parishes. Roche Pagé argued that it was premature to enact canon 436 because pastoral councils were a new phenomenon (“The Parish Pastoral Council,” Proceedings of CLSA 43 (1982), 45-61). Nevertheless, we are still left to assess this new phenomenon as it has evolved. How can we gather sufficient information about the practices in parish pastoral councils? There are numerous avenues of information available, various aspects involved in the church’s practices of pastoral councils.

3.1 Findings about parish practices from diocesan guidelines. Mark Fischer has provided some important information based on his study of diocesan guidelines concerning parish pastoral councils. He delineated five general approaches to consultation:

(1) a legal approach that emphasizes what a council is not: not policy-making, not decree-issuing, not-statute-formulating, in short, not-deliberative, but it does not say what a council is or is suppose to be doing;

(2) the authoritative council recognizes that they exercise real power and influence by investigating pastoral matters, considering them, and making recommendations;

(3) a consensus approach developed in the 1980s in which the pastor and the council would need to reach consensus on a decision before an action was reached. This required a deliberate group process of discernment and deliberation in search of a consensus, where minority positions are respected and “it ensures that communion is not subordinated to mission.”#1

(4) the pastor as ratifier who “promotes consensus and ratifies the achievement of it.” “Ratification combines the best insights of canon law and consensus. The pastoral remains the one to whom the parish is entrusted, just as canon law says, and he has the final say. But his authoritative word is uttered when the council members have reached agreement. They submit their search for agreement to him. He ratifies what the council has unanimously recommended”(45).

(5) Consultation as policy-making when consensus is reached and in this manner the pastor “delegates authority” to the councillors “with the same trust that the bishop shows” to the pastor (ibid).

3.2 Findings from surveys. Two recent surveys provide important sources of information. One was commissioned by the USCCB Committee on the Laity: “Report on Diocesan and Parish Pastoral Councils” (Executive Summary, Origins, March 12, 2004). A second survey by the Structural Change Working Group of the Voice of the Faithful completed at the end of May 2004. The USCCB document assumes “consultative-only” modes of decision-making for diocesan and parish pastoral councils, but offers no questions concerning option for setting agenda, decision-making process, or implementation.

3.3 Findings from parish evaluation programs. There is important information provided by people who work closely with parishes to evaluate their own practices. One could develop a research project to examine the various kinds of programs and their own assessment of the practices of decision-making in the parishes where they have worked and their own approach to parish pastoral council decision-making. Programs like the Parish Evaluation Project founded by Thomas Sweetser, S.J., have examined the practices of decision-making in parishes and has listened to pastors and pastoral councillors and parishioners discuss their frustrations, anger, and their sense of achievements in these matters. With Patricia Forester, Sweetser identifies five levels of decision-making:

(1) The nitty-gritty level of concrete ministries. Pastors and pastoral councils often exceed their expertise and authority and meddle in the minister's work. “Let the person in charge of [a certain] area of ministry make the decisions.”2

(2) Voting about small matters “that require a vote of confidence or support from the group to which an individual or committee is responsible.”

(3) Consensus by way of going through a process of exploring alternatives and discussing reactions to various options.

(4) Problem-solving “when there are no options from which to choose.”

(5) Discernment process, which involves focusing problems, tentative solution, name vested interests and call for openness to the Spirit working in the group, submit information, seek reasons against proposal, then for; be alert to pros for possible new alternatives, discerners submit tentative proposal and seek response of the parish; if positive, celebrate, if groundswell of discontent reformulate. Sweetser has proposed C-D-I, Consult, Decide, and Inform, which requires that "when any decision comes up, the distinction must be made between those who are the actual deciders, those who are being consulted before the decision is made and those who should be informed after it is decided but before the decision is implemented.”3

3.4 Findings from diverse cultural experiences of the local church. Special attention must be given to the diverse cultural experiences and expressions of leadership and governance in the local churches in the U.S. The experience of pastoral councils among predominantly white, middle-class suburban Catholics cannot serve as the prime example. As Stephen Bevans rightly suggested, there must be an effort to draw from a range of ethnic and racial groups: not only the older European ethnic communities, but also those with significant numbers of parishioners from Latin America, the Caribbean, African Americans, and Asia. The question must be explored: in what ways do these different cultural heritages have a bearing on the exercise of leadership and decision making in local churches?

3.5 Findings from how the current canons are being interpreted and applied. The current code allows for exceptional situations, in which lay members may exercise the power of governance. James Coriden states the issue well: “The present canonical restriction (canon 129 of the 1983 code) . . . seems to limit the possession of the power of governance to the ordained, yet affirms that lay persons can share in the exercise of the power.... The deliberately ambiguous formulation . . . is a pragmatic compromise designed to paper over the gap between 1) the theoretical linkage between the clerical state and the power of governance (or sacred orders and the possession of the power of governance) on the one hand and 2) the reality of contemporary ministry wherein lay persons commonly have and use the power of governance in the Church.”4 As Coriden points out, “Lay persons can receive the power of governance by accepting existing ecclesiastical office which entails its exercise, for example, to offices of ecclesiastical judge, diocesan finance officer, sharing in the deliberations of a synod and councils, e.g., diocesan synods or finance councils. They can also be delegated to exercise the power of governance.”5 Here we can take a lesson here from the 2001 Leadership Conference of Women Religious study Women and Jurisdiction: An Unfolding Reality, which demonstrates how women are already working in juridical roles.6 The same kind of analysis at the parish level would take into account: lay people serving in the role of parish administrator.

In these previous cases the matter is being addressed at the level of individuals who are sharing the episcopal or priestly exercise of authority, (not their own ministerial authority deriving from baptism or personal gifts acknowledged and recognized by the community). We need to explore in what way groups exercise authority, or individual leaders exercise authority with a communal network where group consultation is necessary and where group deliberation is possible. Here I would recommend examining the revisions of constitutions by women religious in the 1980s. Women Religious Institutes sought to develop constitutional language and theology for their own experiments in communal discernment and decision-making. This was a widespread phenomenon in the U.S. For example, the Adrian Dominicans state in their constitution the following: “From Jesus, proclaimed in the Gospel, the authority of the Adrian Dominican Congregation, mediated and affirmed through the Church, resides in the communion of its members according to their respective roles as given in this Constitution and Statutes” (article 20). They thereby advanced a communal model of authority that does not deny the role of individual leaders, but sets such offices and functions within a communal understanding of discernment and decision-making. One can find similar efforts made by Benedictine and other communities, which offer practical, doctrinal, and canonical paradigms that can serve in a parish setting to describe what is already taking place or can take place.

3.6 Findings from comparative study of ecumenical documents devoted to the exercise of episcopal and parish/congregation authority. Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, the so-called Lima document, and the more recent work on The Nature and Purpose of the Church, has relevant information on this topic, as do numerous statements from the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, and the International Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogues, and the U.S. Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogues.

3.7 Section summary: All of these various kinds of information about the practices of parish pastoral councils are important for further advancing the theology and canons concerning the exercise of authority and governance in the church, and specifically in the parish.

4. Theological Critique of the Consultative-Only Clause

As stated above, Fischer argues that the clause is not paternalistic and demeaning, but rather prudent because it encourages pastors to consult, and it is liberating because the spiritual freedom of the pastor to decide or to legislate, is maintained, and consequently he is not required to take bad advice, while it frees councillors to have a clearly defined ministry.

4.1 Doctrinal justification of the spiritual freedom of the pastor, a freedom which is assumed for Fischer in the consultative-only clause, ultimately rests upon a certain understanding of ordination and specifically the juridical or governing power of his office.

4.11 Any criticism of the doctrinal presuppositions of the consultative-only clause must raise questions about the underlying theology of ordained and non-ordained ministries as this provides the cornerstone of the hierarchal constitution of the church. The most basic question raised at one level concerns whether ordination necessarily includes in the grace of office the power and function of governing/jurisdiction at all, or in such a personal manner that must necessary function in contradistinction to the communal exercise of authority in deliberation. The question is whether this doctrine, which undergirds the so-called spiritual freedom of bishops and priests, simultaneously restricts the spiritual freedom of laity and limits their ability to take on responsibility in the exercise of their authority and ministry, and thus stifles the work of the Spirit in and through the charisms given to the local church. And correlatively, as a result, are bishops and priests on the one hand, being unnecessary overextended, and on the other hand, are they unable to be held accountable for their decisions and their actions.

4.12 At another level the issues can be explored in terms of the current specification of the threefold offices and functions (officia et munera) of bishops and priests, which is based on a christological justification within a theology of ordination, but must be understood in relation to the common priestly, prophetic, and kingly offices which flow from baptism. The same arguments about spiritual freedom, responsibility, and accountability pertain here.

4.13 At the deepest level, the theology of baptism and ordination that undergirds the consultative-only clause finds its warrants from certain approaches to christology, pneumatology, and trinitarian theology. A high christology and an under-developed and muted pneumatology and trinitarian theology have long been associated with the defense of the theology of ordination and the exercise of hierarchical authority in the church and the theology of teaching and learning, proclamation and obedience. This continues to be one important and legitimate avenue for criticizing the consultative-only clause. [The development of a more comprehensive christology, alongside of a robust pneumatology, and trinitarian theology is the requisite alternative as will be argued below.]

4.14 Must the consultative-only be paternalistic? I wish to argue that it can only be construed and experienced as paternalistic. The children in this theology must allow the parent, in fact, the father to decide about all matters of importance. His word is law, literally. I believe we need to develop a genuinely non-paternalist approach to decision-making and governance. As stated in 1.14, Fischer’s claim that the consultative-only clause is not paternalistic is based on his own implicit effort to affirm the equality of all believers (asserted by Vatican II), while recognizing the diversity of offices and functions. I can concede that equality of persons and diversity of functions need not be paternalistic. However, not always. On one level, because authority and power reside in the officeholder of bishop and priest and not commensurately and mutually accountable authority and power in other lay roles and ministries, it cannot but be paternalistic. If episcopacy and priesthood were based on an understanding of leadership exercised in communion with the pastoral council, leadership would not in principle be viewed as paternalistic. It would be hierarchical in the sense of people ordained to certain “offices and functions,” but these offices and functions would be redefined so that they would be exercised in a non-paternalistic manner, that is, in terms of an understanding of communal authority as authority exercised in communion with the community. On another level, a prima facie argument can be made that the architects of Vatican II felt little or no resistance to using paternalistic language, which coincides with their doctrine of hierarchical communion.

4.2 Fischer concentrates on the practical justification for the consultative-only clause.

4.21 (A) His major argument is that pastors should not be forced to accept bad advice. In my judgment, this course of action undermines the work and authority of the council and of the pastor. If there is a bad option, the pastoral council should be able to discern the matter and reach some consensus on the matter. If the pastor has reservations, he should be able to articulate them in such a manner that the council can be persuaded to agree. (B) According to Fischer, if pastors fail to accept the good advice of the pastoral council, the members of the parish and even parish council members can show in one way or another that they do not receive the decision of the pastor. This is based on the conviction that the sensus fidei or the sensus fidelium is only able to exercise its authority or guardianship role in the reception of a decision. While reception and non-reception is one way to exercise the gift of the community’s authority that resides in the gift of faith and the prophetic anointing of baptism, there should also be a way to exercise this authority in the genesis of a decision.

4.22 His second argument is that councillors function better if they have clearly defined aims, which Fischer has derived from Vatican documents as “investigating pastoral matters, reflecting on them, and recommending practical conclusions to the pastors” (2001, 173). I am inclined to agree with Fischer’s claim that councils function better if they have clearly defined aims and even his conclusion concerning what those aims should be. I would simply argue that his own specification, based on Vatican II, is necessary, but not sufficient. We need a more exhaustive treatment of this issue, especially in light of a more widespread study of the practices of current councils.

4.23 The third practical argument is that any alternatives are untenable because they would be too time consuming and would require a new legal arrangement to replace old. Too time consuming? A proper discernment and decision-making process can be time consuming, but it may not be that much more time than used currently by councils. Moreover, if more time is need for authority to exercised properly, then more time should be allotted. New legal arrangement needed? Yes, indeed, some modification of the current code would be demanded. In fact it can be consistent with the underlying synodal principles operative in the code.

5. Counter-Proposal

Diocesan bishops and parish pastors (priests) are required to establish pastoral councils that are not only consultative about the spectrum of pastoral issues, but that also engage in communal discernment and decision-making in matters pertaining to the pastoral plan and mission of the local church. The pastoral council is required to determine collectively the agenda items that needs to be addressed by the council, who (which individual or group) makes which decisions in the local church or parish, who is consulted, and who implements these decisions. The leadership provided by the bishop and pastor thereby functions in communion with the local church and parish as represented by the members of the pastoral council, and their authority and credibility is derived neither solely nor primarily from their office, but from their being-and-acting-in-communion with the local community which they lead and represent. Local churches are also required to-be-and-act-in-communion with regional and national ecclesial representatives and entities and with the church universal represented by the pope who exercises his authority in collegial community with the bishops and through practices of synodal deliberation.

5.1 The doctrinal justification for this approach.

5.11 There is a need to continue the renewal of a theology of ordained and non-ordained ministries that will help contribute to the further elaboration of the ecclesiological achievements of Vatican II. Such a renewed theology of ministries provides the cornerstone for an understanding of leadership and authority in the local church that finds its source and proper context in the communal discernment and decision-making of the local church. The personal authority of the office-holder does not thereby supersede and is thereby not set over against communal discernment and decision-making. Instead, the personal authority of individual office-holders and lay leaders is based on, guided by, and flows from the communal exercise of discernment and decision-making. The spiritual freedom of the prophetic leadership of the bishop or pastor and the prophetic leadership of the council, reflecting that of the entire community, is realized in their collaborative deliberation and represents their mutual responsibility and mutual accountability for the good of the local church.

5.12 There must be deeper reflection on and development of the theologies of baptism and orders and their interrelationship. The anointings of the Spirit associated with the priestly, prophetic, and kingly/shepherdly offices and functions of bishops and priests as derived from a christological justification deriving from their ordination must be viewed in a closer and more dynamic relationship with the common priestly, prophetic, and kingly/shepherdly practices which flow from baptism. Moreover, the baptismal anointing and the gift of faith are further manifested in the individual’s sensus fidei and their growing participation in the sensus fidelium and provides the basis for the individual’s and the local community’s role as guardians of the faith. Thus, it is not only bishops and by extension priests who are guardians of the faith, but all baptized Christians are. Consequently, when lay persons individually assume juridical authority they do not exercise such authority solely or primarily (or potentially at all) because they have been delegated a share of the episcopal or priestly authority. Rather their authority is derived from their own baptismal reception of the Spirit’s anointings and their own participation in the offices of Christ and is further derived from the fact of their being-and-acting in communion with the local church as a vibrant community of faith. Their personal authority, like that of the bishop and priest, is exercised in communion with the local church and the church universal. The same arguments about spiritual freedom, responsibility, and accountability pertain here.

5.13 This theology of baptism and ordination that undergirds this counter-proposal for the exercise of authority in the local church finds its most important warrants from a genuinely Catholic and catholic (i.e., comprehensively drawing from the diversity of voices in the scriptures and traditions) approach to christology, pneumatology, and trinitarian theology. The theology of teaching and learning in the church, of proclamation and obedience must flow from a trinitarian theology of a communion of persons. The identity and the mission of the church which requires mutual responsibility and mutual accountability among all ministers and members of the church, finds its ultimate well-spring and orientation in the doctrine of the Triune God. The traditional theology of obedience, which is rooted in a certain understanding of the relation of the Father and the Son and the Spirit, needs to be rethought in terms of a doctrine of the Trinity which affirms the exercise of mutual obedience in divine reality and analogously in the church.

5.14 When the pastoral council exercises authority through communal discernment and decision-making it replaces a paternalistic model of authority with one that represents the mutual responsibility and mutual accountability of all members of the council, and by extension, all members of the local community for the pastoral mission of the local church.

5.2 The practical justification for the counter-proposal.

5.21 (A) Bad advice and poor decisions are always possible and will inevitability occur (in either approach). This will often be based on finite judgments, but it can also take place because of the influence of personal or collective sin. We will always be regularly reminded of the challenges and difficulties of creaturely existence, but also the destructive dynamics and the cruciform and paschal character of every dimension of our personal and ecclesial life. As a result, there must be a keen awareness that whenever bad advice and poor judgments occur, there must be a willingness on the part of the members to reconsider a past decision made and a course of action taken. Changing a decision made or course of action taken is rarely the result of bad leadership, but the sign of responsible leadership working to exercise its authority wisely.

(B) Poor decisions of pastoral councils may not be received by the larger local church, but this will very likely indicate that the larger community has not be sufficiently consulted in the discernment and deliberation process of the pastoral council. The ecclesial acts of reception and non-reception confirms that the sensus fidei and the sensus fidelium is only one way to exercise its authority or guardianship role in the reception of a decision, this should also be exercised in the genesis of a decision.

5.22 The aims of the pastoral councils should be primarily about the pastoral plan and mission of the local church, unless there are urgent and vital issues concerning specific decisions and actions in the local church.

5.23 A new legal arrangement will be required to advance this counter-proposal; more time will be initially needed to cultivate the skills and practices needed for communal discernment and decision-making. These are true to the deepest convictions found in the church’s ancient practices of synods and is also confirmed by the communal processes employ in chapter meetings in religious institutes.

6. Conclusion

Defenders of the consultative-only clause, like Mark Fischer, would likely argue that we are being called upon to be patient as the church more widely receives the teachings of Vatican II and the new Code of Canon Law. By contrast, I have argued that the consultative-only clause represents an unresolved tension in the Vatican II documents and reveals the need for a further development of avenues opened by Vatican II and the practices in the church that have followed upon them. Pastoral councils (and synodal practices at other levels of the church) need to develop the practices of communal discernment and decision-making which are both a grace and task of the body of Christ empowered by the Spirit to witness to and promote the catholicity of the church and the communion of persons in the local church.

Revised 6/18/04

Endnotes

1. Mark F. Fischer, Pastoral Councils in Today’s Catholic Parish (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2001), 44.

2. Patricia M. Forester and Thomas P. Sweetser, Transforming the Parish: Models for the Future (Franklin, WI: Sheed & Ward, 1993, 2nd edition 1999), 93.

3. Ibid., 101; also see Thomas P. Sweetser, The Parish As Covenant: A Call to Pastoral Partnership (Lanham, MD: Sheed & Ward, 2001), 32-34.

4. James Coriden, “Lay Persons and the Power of Governance,” The Jurist 59 (1999) 335-347, at 338.

5. Ibid., 339.

6. Anne Munley, IHM, Rosemary Smith, SC, Helen Maher Garvey, BVM, Lois MacGillivray, SNJM, Mary Mulligan, RSHM, Women and Jurisdiction: An Unfolding Reality, The LCWR Study of Selected Church Leadership Roles (Silver Spring: MD, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, 2001).