The age of the laity

by Editor · March 12, 2003

The Church is in the midst of a reconstruction that centres mainly on the ways its three main constituencies hierarchy, priests and religious, and the laity interact with one another.

The change is most pivotal in the way the laity expects to become more widely involved in the running of the Church, and in which it demands accountability from those who lead the Church.

Even for those resistant to change, this may not be a bad thing. Indeed, the development of a closer cooperation between these three constituencies, based on openness and mutual trust, may well strengthen the Church.

The reasons for this new lay consciousness are diverse, and merit full academic study. In brief, one may identify four main currents which over the past few decades have contributed to this.

Firstly, never in history have lay people been as educated as they are today. Where in the past the parish priest and ecclesiastical authorities were among the learned elite, today large numbers of lay people are as educated (or even more so) than many priests and bishops.

Moreover, the proliferation and wide availability of media (secular and Catholic) has given lay people the means to obtain and analyse information about the way the Church operates, and use that knowledge to guide their opinions and concerns.

Secondly, the Second Vatican Council urged the laity to become part of a universal priesthood. As a result, many lay people have become involved in management issues in the Church, developing a sense of co-proprietorship in the Church. The Southern African Church especially has made tremendous strides in furthering that process.

It is the teaching of Vatican II that the Church is not characterised by its leaders alone, but by all the baptised who are called to the universal priesthood. Arguably, the redefinition of the role of the laity in the Church has contributed directly to lay people assuming the right to make their views known, even when these are in contradiction to the prevailing thinking in the hierarchy.

Thirdly, the great socio-political advance of the 20th century has included the adoption of political democracy and human rights as attainable ideals. Just over a century ago, the Church was critical, even contemptuous, of both ideals as we interpret them today. Now the Church is holding these same ideals as self-evident and just.

Lay people have not been immune to these social changes. As they cooperate in secular governance by voting, by participating in civil society and by criticising the policies and actions of those who govern many lay Catholics increasingly feel entitled to abandon the old ways of unquestioning acquiescence in a prescriptive hierarchy, rightly or wrongly.

In this, the reaction to the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control as defined in Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae is instructive. It is fair to presume that Catholics in great numbers have in this instance overruled the magisterium.

Fourthly, the on-going revelations of sexual abuses by Church personnel have cost the Church’s leadership much in terms of credibility. Contrary to widespread perceptions, it is not the misconduct of a minority of priests (although undeniably scandalous, this is hardly a modern phenomenon) that has disturbed so many people, but Church authorities’ negligent handling of abuse allegations. This has broken an implicit trust between laity, priests and hierarchy.

The circumstances that led to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston in December must be attributed in large part to pressure by the laity (mostly of the middle-of-the-road variety) and a large number of priests in his archdiocese (again, mostly not of a particularly radical disposition).

The broken trust will not be healed by maintaining a status quo that many believe is outmoded. The laity and perhaps not just the laity will inevitably demand greater consultation, transparency and accountability from the leaders of the Church.

Embattled US Bishop John McCormack of Manchester in New Hampshire acknowledged the changing realities when he told a diocesan meeting in February that in the past many bishops and priests concealed scandal because they did not trust the laity.

“We have tried to protect you rather than entrust matters to you,” Bishop McCormack said. “Some of us have been fearful that we could not trust you to handle bad news, and in our fear and lack of trust, you have lost trust in us.”

Herein lies the challenge for the future Church: to engage in a sustained process of transformation in a spirit of mutual trust. In particular out of “the bad news” can arise a renewal that may invigorate the Church in its proclamation of the Good News.