Parish Pastoral Councils and the Voice of the Faithful
By Gaile Pohlhaus, Villanova University

In the spring of 2004, Voice of the Faithful completed a survey of Parish Pastoral Councils. The survey revealed a predominately positive view of councils. VOTF members identified them as the best way to work for structural change in the contemporary church. The following summary of survey results shows how VOTF members perceive the main council functions. It also suggests some divergences between the VOTF understanding of councils and the understanding expressed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the conference’s 2003 survey.

Introduction

VOTF includes a Representative Council, composed of a virtual community (which exchanges ideas by email) and a face-to-face community. Part of the Representative Council is the Structural Change Working Group (SCWG). Its members are volunteers from different areas of the country.

The SCWG determined that one of the best ways to call the Church to transparency and accountability was to strengthen the voice of the faithful through Parish Pastoral Councils (PPCs). The Group decided to construct a survey that would be sent out primarily to VOTF members (although not limited to them) asking questions about local PPCs.

Mary Freeman of Saunderstown, Rhode Island and I accepted the task of coordinating the survey. Mary has extensive experience working with computers and I am on the theology faculty of Villanova University. Both of us have worked with surveys before.

The first step was to design and initial draft of the survey that was then critiqued by the entire SCWG. The revised draft was tried out on several affiliates and other interested people. There were further revisions and the survey was sent to the Conference for Pastoral Planning and Council Development. The CPPCD was concerned about built in biases because of the target audience. It suggested additional questions, and they were added to the survey.

After this, further revisions were necessary due to the software chosen to implement the survey. At the suggestion of Eileen Hespler and the VOTF national office, a computer program called Survey Monkey (which enables people to complete the survey online) was chosen to be the tool to administer the survey. The URL and an invitation to participate in the survey were sent to VOTF’s emailing list. Some printed copies were mailed as requested, but most members replied electronically.

Although to this day it is still possible to go to the VOTF web site and take the survey, the following results are based on 1064 replies received by mid-January 2004. Most of the respondents were VOTF members. Because people were invited to send the URL on to other interested people, we may still get responses from people who are not in VOTF.

Respondents to the survey selected themselves, and we must remember that the survey need not reflect either the knowledge or the feelings of the parish member in the pew. On the one hand VOTF members may have more interest in their PPC but on the other they may have different expectations of their PPC.

Selection of Sample

The statistics given here are from a representative sample of those who completed the survey. The sincere interest of those who filled in the survey is reflected not only by the 163 persons from the base group who filled in comments as well as by the over one-third of all respondents who took time to add additional comments.

Dr. Charles Zech, a professor of economics at Villanova University, set up the correlations for this survey. He has done work on parish surveys with Dean Hoge of Catholic University. His articles often appear in America and Commonweal.
Two or more parishes completed the survey from each of forty-two states. Only one parish responded from Arkansas, Nebraska, Utah, and W. Virginia . There was no data from Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, S. Dakota. Full tally by diocese is available from VOTF.

Characteristics of PPCs

Respondents defined six main PPC characteristics: membership makeup, frequency of meetings, existence of by-laws, agenda setting, decision-making processes, and likelihood of implementation of decisions. Although the survey investigated several other aspects of PPCs, it examined the six characteristics in detail. We wanted to see if any associations could be made among them.

Characteristic 1: Membership makeup

The survey found that the maximum number of councillors elected at-large was 29. The minimum was 0. In many cases, the pastor appointed councillors. The maximum per council was 21, the minimum was 0. Up to 21 members per council were chosen in other ways than by election and appointment. These (for example) could be heads of parish committees. Many councillors are chosen by virtue of their office. The maximum per parish was 13, the minimum was 0. Some councillors are appointed by others than the pastor. The maximum appointed by others was 20, the minimum was 0. This could included a stand-in appointed by ex officio members to come in their place.

Characteristic 2: Frequency of meetings

Frequency of meetings is an obvious factor in determining the effectiveness of a PPC. The survey suggested that, the more regularly a PPC meets, the more positive its attributes seem to be.

Characteristic 3: Existence of By-Laws

The existence of by-laws has a positive effect on PPCs. They provide order to council meetings.

Characteristic 4: Agenda Setting

In most councils (72%), members can submit agenda items. In a slightly smaller number of councils (64%), the chairpersons can also submit them. In a still smaller number (62%), parishioners may submit them as well. 25% of parishes have defined yet other ways (than the above) of submitting agenda item. The more that PPC members have input into the agenda, the more the parish feels that the council is representative. Yet in 60% of parishes, the pastor determines the agenda. Chairpersons determine the agenda in 34% of parishes, and councillors determine it in 26% of parishes. In 43% of parishes, the agenda is determined by a combination of pastor, chairperson, and councillors.

Characteristic 5: Decision making Processes

Individual councils make decisions in various ways. Most councils (63%) make decisions by consensus. A smaller number (34%) make decisions by voting. Still others (32%) indicate that they use a discernment process. 15% of councils do not make decisions, and this feature correlates with a negative perception of the council.

Characteristic 6: Likelihood of implementation

But how decisions are reached is not the most important factor. Are these decisions implemented? In 35% of parishes, council decisions are always implemented. In 63%, they are sometimes implemented. Only in 2% of parishes are council decisions never implemented. The average answer is 2.3 - leaning toward never where 1 is always, 2 sometimes and 3 is never.

USCCB Survey

The USCCB Committee on the Laity conducted a survey of diocesan and eparchial bishops one month after the VOTF survey was initiated (December, 2003). This USCCB survey was a follow up on a similar survey conducted in 1997. Both surveys asked about PPCs. But the USCCB survey indicated a greater interest in Diocesan Pastoral Councils than the VOTF survey. Moreover, the two surveys indicated different understandings of pastoral council functions.

According to the USCCB, the main functions of PPCs are as follows:
• Pastoral planning
• Broad consultation with parishioners to elicit hopes and concerns of community
• Empowering parishioners to carry out plan objectives
• Regular prayer and faith sharing
• Coordinating/ overseeing parish activities
• Reporting on parish activities
• Carrying out/ implementing parish activities

According to the VOTF survey, the main functions of PPCs are as follows:
• 65% Pastoral Sounding Board
• 64.5% Planning
• 60% Addresses pastoral concerns
• 50% Problem Solving
• 48% Coordinate parish Activities
• 40% Policy Development
• 39% Stewardship
• 21% Other

It is interesting to note that the two functions of problem solving and policy development, prominent in the VOTF survey, do not appear on the Bishops’ list.

In the future, VOTF hopes to (1) identify websites of parishes with functioning PPCs, (2) post the By-Laws of such councils, (3) list their Best Practices, and (4) include a self-evaluation instrument that can be used by PPCs to improve themselves.

Postscript

Voice of the Faithful 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. It has developed working committees to achieve each of these goals.

In summary, VOTF identified Parish Pastoral Councils as the best way to work for structural change in the church. The VOTF survey tested this thesis. Undoubtedly the survey had inherent biases of the survey. Respondents were very active members of the Church, and 60% were from suburban parishes which are presumably middle and upper class as well as well educated. Despite this bias, the survey demonstrated that the consultative-only clause with respect to Pastoral Councils does not preclude an active PPC where pastor and council work mutually for the benefit of the parish.