Clericalizing the Laity

An Essay by Fr. Jerome R. Secillano

“Clericalizing the laity” is a result of confusing the role of lay people in the church with that of priests. Lay people, oftentimes, are thought of as collaborators of the church’s hierarchy, i.e., bishops, priests and deacons who are collectively known as clerics. They assist clerics in what is called “inner-Church affairs”, which normally involved the formulation of pastoral plans, distribution of Holy Communion, proclamation of the word, catechism of children and of those about to get married, building of churches and of other structures and the celebration of liturgical activities by acting either as choir members, collectors or sacristans.  These are all important but they are not the high point of the lay apostolate.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, the former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, says that, “the essential feature of the layperson’s role is the vocation to bring the spirit of Christ into the arenas of secular life from within, i.e. into the family, work and profession, trade and commerce, politics and government, mass media, science and culture and national and international relations”. 

When laypersons take on their own distinctive role in the secular sphere as explained above, it seems better to refer to them as witnesses of Christ, or as lay apostles. As such they are called to be model husbands and wives, fathers and mothers or children; exemplary politicians or statesmen; ideal doctors, architects, engineers, pilots and lawyers; honest businessmen, bankers and trade unionists; diligent drivers, waiters, security guards and janitors; conscientious actors, sportsmen and musicians. By being so, the laity, in fact, are “evangelizers in the secular order”, claimed the former pope now St. John Paul II.

The spirit of lay empowerment in Vatican Council II debunks the model of a hierarchical church which many of us have come to accept. This old paradigm implies a more exclusive rather than an inclusive community of believers. With Vatican II, we no longer see the church as merely the exclusive organization of ordained ministers and of religious men and women but it is the “people of God” (Lumen Gentium 9) with the Laity comprising the majority. The assistance being offered by lay people in liturgy, in pastoral and finance councils and in membership in different ministries become the immediate effects of this shift in the understanding of what a church is. Sadly, we were stacked and have not moved on.  So today, we see lay people deeply engaged in these “inner-church affairs” serving as assistants or sharers in the ministerial functions of priests forgetting perhaps that their primordial vocation is to remain “in the world” to be witnesses of Christ as lay apostles and evangelizers in the secular order.

One awkward result of this shift is we have lay people who are more “pastors” than priests. They impose on their pastors to adopt certain programs for the parish, they demand the administration of finances and they sometimes make decisions that overrule the latter. Hence, it is not surprising anymore to hear stories of lay councils ruling the church, of lay people kicking out their pastors or of lay groups staging rallies against priests. These practices reflect a misreading of the real intent of Vatican Council II as far as lay participation in the church is concerned. They are at best anomalous.

The church is therefore duty-bound to correct whatever misinterpretation there is in empowering the laity. In the 2002 Instruction of the Congregation for the Clergy entitled, The Priest, Pastor and Leader of the Parish Community, the document says, “it would therefore be senseless to consider the pastoral council as an organ replacing the parish priest in his government of the parish, or as one which, on the basis of a majority vote, materially constrains the parish priest in his direction of the parish (26, 2).”  

On account of this instruction we see clearly that pastors should be in charge of the church or of the parish. Yes, lay people are their collaborators but the latter should not be calling the shots. The same document continues, "the basic task of such a council is to serve, at institutional level, the orderly collaboration of the faithful in the development of pastoral activity which is proper to priests”. Is it not correct, then, to let priests attend to these “inner-church affairs” with help from the laity but with less meddling from them? Consequently, is it not proper too for the laity to be concentrating more on how to evangelize their family, workplace and community? Or wouldn’t it be nobler for them if they become models of holiness in their chosen profession no matter what that is?  

For objectivity’s sake, it is true that there are priests whose pastoral sense is suspect. Some are lousy administrators. Others do not even have the basic social skills needed in reaching out to parishioners. More seriously, there are corrupt priests and there are those who violate their promise of celibacy. But should lay people work to remove the priests through signature campaign or rallies thus shaming the latter? Or should the pastoral councils take over the administration of the parish? The Code of Canon Law says, “Christ’s faithful have the right and at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters that concern the good of the Church……but in doing so, they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals” (Can. 212 §3).

The priests, as characterized above, may have been the ones who already compromised the integrity of faith and morals but even then there is nothing in the law which says that lay people can get rid of the former, more so, in a harsh manner. In fact, lay people are to show respect and should take into account the common good and the persons’ dignity. This is of course hard to swallow. How can someone show respect if the other is not worthy of it? For many of us, respect is earned and is not an entitlement. The best, therefore, that lay people can do is to have recourse to the priests’ bishops and hope and pray that the latter will apply the full force of Canon Law as warranted by the circumstances mentioned.

Suspending and defrocking of priests are of course not the best solution to the issue of a “clericalized laity”. It is the education of clerics, religious and laity which is important. The clerics and religious would have to be reminded of their essential character as central figures in the church. Whether we admit it or not, they are still the “face” of the church. The lay people, for their part, have to be educated on their roles and be formed as evangelizers in the secular sphere specifically in areas where the presence of priests are not lawfully warranted such as family, politics and business. Advancing the mission of the church should never lead to a struggle for power. On one hand, clerics and religious should not “fear” the laity. Lay people, on the other hand, should not be unnecessarily aggressive. From clerics and religious, the laity receives the strength through the sacraments and the dynamic exposition of the church’s doctrines and then the encouragement to evangelize the secular order. The laity, then, takes full responsibility in the secular area.

But why do clerics, at times, venture into the arenas of politics and business? Why do they involve in discussions about governance and economy? Do these not show their failure to form a dynamic laity whose proper mission is to evangelize these spheres? Is it a move towards a more “secularized” clergy? You be the judge.