Zeni Fox

Zenobia Fox is a professor at Immaculate Conception Seminary, Seton Hall University and she has been an advisor to the USCCB Subcommittee on Lay Ministry, since its inception in 1994.

In 1980, the United States Bishops Conference first noted a new development: “lay persons who have prepared for professional ministry in the church,” whose roles “are not yet clearly spelled out.” The bishops said: “We welcome this as a gift to the church,” and, “we recognize and accept the responsibility of working out practical difficulties such as the availability of positions, the number of qualified applicants, procedures for hiring, just wages, and benefits” (Called and Gifted, 1980).
Two things about this assessment are of interest to me: the welcome expressed, and the very practical list of responses envisaged as needed. The issues that would gradually emerge as central are not yet mentioned: How do we explain this development to ourselves (what is the theology of lay ecclesial ministry)? What is the relationship between lay ecclesial ministers and ordained ministers? What formation do they need? How should this new ministry be ordered?

SYSTEMS

In the late 1990’s, lay ecclesial ministers surpassed the number of priests engaged in parish ministry; clearly, these matters are of increasing importance. We are experiencing a significant change in ministry, a change which in turn is causing further change in the larger system. It is virtually a truism today to say: everything is connected. Biologists have helped us to understand ecosystems, quantum physicists invite us to ponder elementary particles that are radically relational, social scientists ask us to think about our families as a network of relationships. We realize that each thing that is, is part of a system, a grouping of things that are interrelated. And each system exists in relation to other systems. A change in any part affects all the other parts of a system, and of the larger systems of which it is a part.
Change creates disequilibrium; systems strive to restore the balance which had been effective, and was comfortable, familiar. Change is often the result of adaptation to a different environment; systems which do not adapt die. Boundaries help parts of a system, and systems in relation to other systems, maintain cohesiveness. Staying what we are, and changing. It is true of all parts of the universe, and of the church. And in systems which are self-conscious (a family, the church) these processes partake of intentionality and have both cognitive and emotive dimensions, indeed, subconscious and unconscious aspects as well.
The emergence of lay ecclesial ministers is a change which is impacting the church in many ways. It is not just that there is now a body of ministers who are different in some ways from others we have known in recent centuries, but also that there are new relationships with other ministers and therefore new boundary issues to resolve, new roles to develop and stabilize—in themselves and in relation to other persons’ roles—new patterns of interaction to engage and refine, new ways of differentiating one individual role from another, new ways of explaining ourselves to ourselves in light of our tradition. A whole system is in flux.
Let us try to observe this dynamic reaction by noting some discrete aspects of the life of the church system. I will do so by viewing these from diverse angles.

INTERACTIONS

Not so very long ago, the pattern of interaction in our community was rather sharply defined in terms of hierarchical roles, with a clear distinction between laity and clergy, and often between laity and vowed religious. Ordained men, and sometimes vowed religious, exercised authority, taking that role quite for granted; generally, lay men and women accepted that authority.
In the mid-1960s, numbers of men and women were hired as directors of religious education. Often, they had master’s degrees in their field and significant prior experience in education. As part of their role, they developed guidelines, e.g., for consistent student attendance and parent participation in childrens’ sacrament preparation programs. They assumed that this exercise of authority was appropriate. Privately, parents often said: “Who does she think she is?” or “What right does he think he has to tell me what to do?” The DREs said: “Parents don’t understand the importance of their involvement in religious education, and resist efforts to get them involved.” Pastors noted that there were tensions and concluded either that the DREs did not have good people skills, or that parents were not willing to accept the responsibility that was theirs. The complexity of a significant change in the system whereby lay persons were exercising authority relative to other lay persons was generally not examined.
Furthermore, because priests talk to other priests, and to their bishops, sometimes an interpretation began to be made: “It is better not to hire people with degrees, from somewhere else, because it does not work out well. We should identify and train our own people.” Questions about the impact on individuals of being role initiators (both relative to the role of DRE itself, and of a lay person in a position of authority in a parish) and of the dearth of role models for lay leaders were largely unrecognized. Throughout the ‘70’s and ‘80’s the number of lay persons employed in professional roles expanded; youth ministers, directors of liturgy, and pastoral associates were added to parish staffs.
In this context we can note a second relational shift in the system of parish life, that between the new ministers and priests. The new lay leaders tended to see themselves as co-workers with the parochial vicars and pastors in their parishes; they sought opportunities to reflect together with the clergy on the work of the parish, for example, by having staff meetings. The priests, who lived together, were used to a more informal pattern of interactions, over meals, or in the common room; they did not have a felt need for formal meetings. The research on parish ministers indicates that there has been an expansion of staff meetings in parishes, but that laity consistently desired this development more than their priest colleagues.
At times, there has been significant tension between individual priests and LEMs. Of course, some of this is to be expected in the normal course of human interaction. But some could be understood better if the challenge inherent in the shifting patterns of relating were explored. For example, when a newly ordained priest joins a staff with one or more credentialed and experienced lay leaders, he might draw upon the pattern of relating with lay persons known from his youth, expecting that his authority is primary, even in their area of competence and responsibility. At the same time, the lay leader might expect a recognition of the parameters of her role, or the authority of his expertise. Confrontation between them might be subtle or overt, but often it would not engage a central part of the issue: the system has changed, and the interactions between the individuals within the system are under stress as a way to adapt is sought.
More recently, laity have at times been appointed to the role of pastoral care of a parish without a resident priest, a provision of Canon 517.2. Research has shown that individuals who were publicly installed as a Pastoral Life Coordinator were more readily accepted by parishioners than those who were not. One interpretation of this is that the clear mandate from the bishop, publicly executed, influenced the interactions between the people and the new leader. Such a mandate enabled the individual to more quickly get beyond the “By what right does s/he do these things?” The system was better able to adjust to the change, and the life of the community, leader and parishioners together, better able to unfold in a vibrant way.

BOUNDARIES

Each social system is held together by an invisible boundary which defines it. Boundaries may be sharply defined, making quite clear who is and who is not within, or they may be porous or indistinct. In families, at times we negotiate the question of our boundaries. Should the new girlfriend be invited for Sunday dinner? To visit at the summer house? For Christmas Eve? Should the fiancé be asked to visit the sick grandfather in the hospital? Read at the grandfather’s funeral? Should the parents of the girl friend/the fiancé be invited to the funeral repast? Questions such as these both recognize a change in the family system, and struggle with finding the response which both maintains the system and adjusts to the change. Often, there are incremental stretchings of the boundary to include the new person more and more. Too rigid a boundary is detrimental to the growth of the extended family, too loose a boundary means that little holds people together to draw support from one another and to treasure family custom and ritual.
In the Catholic community, the clerical system has a sharply defined boundary. The process of gradual inclusion into the clerical world is long, with a shared life in seminary, and several “entrance” steps celebrated with great moment and ritual. The customs which keep the cohesiveness strong include various gatherings (clergy days), rituals (funerals of priests’ mothers), and theology (priests are different from laity in essence). This boundary is often described precisely as a division in the church into two groups: clergy and laity.
One consequence of this is considerable ambivalence about when to include lay staff in gatherings with priests. In one diocese with a tradition of inviting nationally renowned speakers to address the clergy, the lay ecclesial ministers petitioned that they be included when the topic involved parish ministry. The decision was no, because “the priests need time to be together.” A separate lecture would henceforth be given by these speakers for any interested laity.
The professional needs of the lay ecclesial ministers relative to the priests, and to the laity in general, were not recognized. The boundaries were maintained, the changes in the system not acknowledged, the anger of the lay ministers at their exclusion not even recognized. In another diocese, the bishop noted that the topography of parish ministry has changed and he instituted a ministerium, a gathering once or twice a year of all parish ministry leaders—priests, deacons and lay persons—to consider topics of import for parish life today. These events draw strong and enthusiastic attendance. A more permeable boundary has developed between lay ecclesial ministers and priests.
There is not a clear boundary as to who is, and is not, a lay ecclesial minister. In fact, this has been a key question as the bishops seek to discern the leadership needed relative to this new development. At a theological colloquium framed to discuss precisely the reality of professional lay leaders in ministry, some bishops thought that no separate category among the laity should be developed. They were concerned lest a new elitism arise, or that the primary role for laity, the transformation of the world, be lost. One bishop wondered whether his committed janitor, who worked diligently and with dedication, should be designated a lay ecclesial minister; another expressed concern about the impact on vocations to priesthood and religious life that recognition of lay ecclesial ministers could have.
Each of these positions is at least in part a question of the boundary between clergy and laity. They are entertained precisely because a change has already occurred in the system, and we are trying to adjust to it, seeking a new, or, in some cases restored, equilibrium. Certainly, the debate is rational, and to be expected. But the rational debate also has emotive and psychological aspects, which are generally not acknowledged. Will we lose our treasured comradeship, if it is diluted with new members? Will these new members be like a Trojan horse, bringing those who are not-like-us into our company? Will others have the commitment, dedication, ability, that we have? What will the inclusion of women do to our group? If I do not stand solidly within this group which is so much a part of my identity, who will I be? Boundaries are not unimportant realities!

DIFFERENTIATION

System theorists describe the growth of individuals within a corporate group as a process of differentiation, of growing to be more who each one is (or, speaking spiritually, who one is called to be). This process, whether of the mid-marriage couple exploring ways that each partner will become more fully an individual person, or a teenage boy seeking more autonomy within the family, is difficult. The task belongs to the individual, but the whole system is affected.
Sometimes in reference to parish life, people speak of turf battles between different ministers—the liturgist and the religious educator, the youth minister and the pastoral associate, for example. In part these battles are due to the effort the new ministers are making to differentiate themselves one from another in the system. If the conflict is constructively handled, it can contribute to both clearer work identities for the ministers and greater vibrancy in the ministry.
An example of differentiation that is having considerable impact in ministry today is the identification of competencies needed for particular ministerial roles. The National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry was the first to enter into a process of analysis and consultation with its members in an effort to say, this is what we do, and what we need to do it well. They were struggling to define themselves relative to the two other large groups of lay ministers, religious educators (the first, and largest group) and pastoral associates (of growing influence, and seemingly less marginalized than they were). Their process of differentiation positively impacted the system, causing other organizations to follow similar paths. Then corporately, the groups worked toward a statement of competencies needed for all arenas of lay ministry.
This, a further differentiation, has influenced leaders in ministry formation, diocesan and academic, to work with the common competencies in shaping their programs. And, the document which the bishops’ subcommittee on lay ministry is preparing references these competencies in significant ways. The well-being of the entire system is influenced by the differentiation of individuals and groups within it.

THE GRACE OF THIS MOMENT

Believing that Jesus is always with his church, and that the Spirit is always present in what is, are there insights from systems theory which could help us discern God’s action in our midst today?
The theorists say that change in one part of the system affects all other parts. Change in parishes affects the diocese, change in the diocese affects the church in the United States, change here affects the world church. Vatican II proposed an understanding of the church as the people of God. Prior to all particularities of role and function, we are one body, with a common call to holiness.
The history of recent centuries which emphasized classes within the church and too often saw holiness as possible only within certain states of life, needs considerable unlearning if this vision is to be fulfilled. The influence of lay ecclesial ministry on the rigid boundaries between clergy and laity is itself a growth toward a less dichotomized church. The differentiation of individuals and groups within the church is a movement in our time toward a fuller sharing in the mission and ministry of Jesus by all his disciples. The increase of interactions characterized by mutual respect and granting of appropriate authority to many helps the authority of the church to grow.
Edwin Friedman, who has explored the relevance of family systems theory for congregational life, has analyzed the import of times of passage in human life—births, marriages, deaths. He notes that at these times, the system is in disequilibrium, and therefore more open to the healing of old losses, wounds and hurts, more open also to the manifestation of the sacred in our midst.
Furthermore, the ritual developed by the tradition for marking the passage is the locus in time and place of particularly powerful healing and encounter. Perhaps it is so in our system, the church, as we adapt to the change in our ministerial leadership. Already, the incorporation of lay people in roles at liturgy (lectors, cantors, etc.) signals that we are not simply clergy and laity, two separate groups with two separate functions and places, but a diversity of ministers, carrying forward the mission of Jesus. We are reminded that God is present in all persons in the community, in all places in the world.

^ Top of the Page