This is Jean's second blog in a series of three, where she's taking a look at Lay Ecclesial Ministry and synodality. The entire series is called Synodality and the Spirit of Peaceful Discontent. I think she's offering us, the Church, an important perspective on one element of change that will foster the embrace of synodality: the perspective we have on Lay Ecclesial Ministers. Join Jean's contemplation on this part of her #synodjourney.
Congratulations Jean! You're the author of the 100th blog for PVP.
This is the second blog in a series of three where I am following the Spirit’s lead, examining what it will take to really lead the baptized into mission. In the first blog, I recalled that skewed frame of the Lay Ecclesial Minister’s (LEM’s) certificate on my office’s “wall of learning.” That non-alignment caught me off guard (the Spirit’s prompting) and got me questioning, “What exactly is Lay Ecclesial Ministry and what do we, as Church, need to do with it?”
According to Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, “At Pentecost, the Spirit made the apostles go forth from themselves and turned them into heralds of God’s wondrous deeds…The Holy Spirit also grants the courage to proclaim the newness…with boldness in every time and place, even when it meets with opposition.” Ok, get ready! I am going to make a bold proclamation here that I can safely guarantee will be met with opposition from some. Here it comes:
Officially designated Lay Ecclesial Ministers (LEM’s) and most other parish and diocesan lay leaders are not valued by American clergy. Because of this devaluation and despite their education, experience, and vocation to serve, they are not allowed to be truly co-responsible. They are simply just “Father’s helpers!” The result: Jesus’ mission and the Gospel message are severely limited in its reach and effectiveness.
PHEW! Ok, I got that out. Now, before I am dismissed and labeled as the “disgruntled woman”, allow me to explain a bit further. Stay with me because my walk as a LEM, thus far, has proven quite interesting. There have been times when I sat in meetings that included laity and clergy and my input was by-passed by others to seek out the response of the clergy. There have been times when I am engrossed in a phone call, or a Zoom meeting and parishioners, volunteers, or even other staff members (all of whom are adults) walk directly into my office. I am in mid-communication within the context of a meeting, and they begin addressing the issue they feel compelled to share with me at that exact moment. In other scenarios, when I have been in full swing coordinating/facilitating a celebration of a sacrament in the context of a Mass that is taking place, parishioners will walk up and begin addressing me with their “concern” as if I am not even tending to another family or situation. To go even one further, there have been times when a parent (who is also a volunteer) contacts me (via phone call and text) on my personal cell phone when I am not even in the church building (rather I am with my daughter on a college tour) to ask me if the doors are open or if the scheduled formation program is occurring. Ironically, they did not even bother to attempt to try walking into the building through doors that were most definitely open.
The lack of courtesy or etiquette and respect toward me is something they would never consider doing to Father. There are times when I am directly questioned about why I am continuing to further my education in doctoral studies because “after all, women cannot really advance in the Catholic Church”. Then there are other times when someone will avoid me as a Eucharistic minister in the Communion line at Mass simply so that they can receive from Father. Hmmm…what is askew here? How are the people of God perceiving lay leadership? What is “off”? Images of that “non-aligned” certificate on my wall of learning return to mind, bright and brilliant.
The recently completed Synod on Synodality highlights the co-responsibility of all the baptized for the vitality of the Church, for her work in the world as the very presence of Christ. For this to become what the Spirit is imagining, the current leadership structures will need to include the full recognition of lay ecclesial ministers as called, formed and commissioned for animating the baptized into mission. LEM’s are not “Father’s helpers.” Rather, they are co-responsible leaders, serving the coming of the Kingdom through their designated responsibilities in the areas of teaching, sanctifying, and governing of the people of God...all focused on equipping the baptized to be Christ in the world. Respecting the notions of orders, of charisms, of needs, and of human limitations is vital between clergy and laity so they may journey together to serve effectively in ministry. From my perspective and observation, THIS is the heart of the problem: We are often still seen as “Father’s helpers” because our LEM commissioning does not come with the requisite respect from clergy or fellow laity. We remain second-class or third-class servants, instead of fully commissioned, co-responsible ministers.
True synodality yearns for MORE of this co-responsibility and it needs to be studied further. Conversations in the Spirit between clergy and LEM’s would be a fruitful beginning. Why? By numbers alone, clergy will not be able to animate the gifts of the laity in service to the coming Kingdom by themselves. The true recognition of the ministry of a Lay Ecclesial Minister as someone who is co-responsible with the clergy for the care of the flock is a first step in extending the pastoral care necessary to effectively form missionary disciples. To unleash this gift of grace that will allow for an even greater missional Church will mean that this role will need to be re-defined according to its authority, autonomy, and responsibility and then will require an institutionalized recognition by the universal Church. Here is one such area of LEM responsibility that requires an official designation: the ministry of accompaniment.
How will this come to pass? Official designation of any aspect of LEM will require several steps: 1) a revisiting of the theology of baptism to embrace the truths regarding the Holy Spirit embedded therein but overshadowed by the emphasis on baptism as saving us from original sin; 2) a further confronting of sexism and misogyny that are part of the current clerical culture; and, 3) an embracing of the need for more healers, more spiritual guides and accompanists, and more recognition of the authority of LEM’s to actually carry out this work. Allow me to share just a few of my emerging thoughts in these areas. The theology of baptism will need distinct re-visiting and proclamation. As opposed to solely the forgiveness for original sin and membership in the Body of Christ, the Holy Spirit’s work celebrated in baptism needs amplification. This will lead to a further deep dive into how synodality and pneumatology impacts the LEM role. Additionally, lay theologians are particularly equipped for this scholarship since they bring both education and personal experience to the table and may exponentially assist leaders in ministry.
There is a “newness” to be dreamt of and to strive toward. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, and it will mean confronting clerical misogyny and sexism. It calls for removing the sign from the door of the “Good Ol’ Boys” club and ceasing its power. The sign would be replaced by one that says, “Wounded Welcome” and inside the Church seekers would find those who heal, the field hospital, and those who genuinely teach rather than admonish or demoralize. This comes to a beautiful fruition when clergy and LEMs serve together, called and gifted by the Spirit to heal the wounds of the People of God
Inside this field hospital the seeker would find a Church whose governance and accountability structures promote rather than inhibit the flow of grace possible when the Spirit’s power is not viewed as exclusive to the clergy. In other words, everyone inside the Church truly serves the People of God in mission as the hands and feet of the Gospel in the world today. Structures and systems are designed to respect both ordered roles and those flowing from other officially designated roles, and the entire purpose is to mediate God’s grace.
Well, that was certainly a mind-full, huh? Visit me on any given day at home or at work and I will attest quite confidently that my brain is heavily trafficked with questions, ideas, circumstances, excitement, joy, sadness, wonder, and everything else in between ALL THE TIME! So, I have acknowledged, and I have proclaimed. There is a sense of peaceful discontent within me that is cultivated by the Spirit as I proclaim what is “off”.
When I proclaim it, I own it; when I own it, I am compelled to do something about it: delve further, read further, dialogue further, discern further. This peace surrounding the ownership provides me with a sense of strength, capability, and courage to face the inevitable opposition regardless of where it will take me as I follow the Spirit’s lead.
Stay tuned as we leap into the idea of opposition and the role of coloring in the third and final blog of the series. This is one avenue to peace amidst the inevitable opposition to change. It is assisting me to know when to regroup, recharge, and find solace. And believe it or not, I do that by coloring in a coloring book!
The Spirit will give each of us our own ways. Some people paint, others exercise, still others cook, some meditate. The varied pathways to peace are endless and they all provide a sense of peaceful discontent so that we may keep forging on the journey of examining what is skewed, off, or in need of a re-alignment. I am learning and understanding that peaceful discontent is one of the feelings associated closely with implementing synodality. Now we shall see how this will go as I share in leading our parish more deeply into the vitality of synodality…
Comments