THE CO-RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LAY FAITHFUL IN THE LIFE AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

The church is a family of God’s children; made up of the Christ’s faithful. Christ is the Head and we are the members of the one Body, living in deep communion with one another. However both the lay faithful and the clergy are both responsible for the accomplishment of the mission of the church. In other words, the life and mission of the church is entrusted to the whole Christ’s faithful in accordance to canon 204. This implies that there is a basic necessity for mutual correlation, collaboration and co-responsibility in the mission of the church. By implication too, as is seen in canon 215, the mission of the church does not belong to the clergy and consecrated persons alone; the lay faithful share in this mission. Thus it is not the clergy and the consecrated persons that give the laity a share in the mission of the church, but they share by virtue of their baptism which incorporated them as members of the church.

BACKGROUNDS TO THE CO-RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LAY FAITHFUL IN THE LIFE AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH

            The church is a differentiated body in which individual members have a role to play and it must not favour the superiority of one over another. In his letter to the Philippians St Pauls says “I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel (Phil 4:3). This is also implied in canon 208.

The most striking of the rights recognized in the canon for the faithful is the right to associate. However, this right is also recognized in the civil society. It is not a new right for the faithful to gather in associations, nevertheless, the capacity of the faithful to gather in associations is considered as a fundamental right, irrespective of their state of life. The designation of the term ‘faithful’ includes both the clergy, the religious and the lay faithful.

The church is missionary by its very nature, and evangelization is a fundamental duty of the people of God. Therefore everyone of the Christ’s faithful has a role in the missionary effort as recounted in canon 781. The Pope and the college of bishops direct and coordinate the church’s missionary effort, sharing its concern and fostering it. The activities of the church’s mission aim at implanting and strengthening the church where it has not taken root and where it already exists respectively. This implies a heralding of the gospel. Missionary activities are done by presbyters, deacons, religious or laypersons. For instance catechists are well instructed and known to be good Christians who assist missionaries by teaching the gospel, leading liturgical celebrations and promoting works of charity.[1]

Through baptism, all Christ’s faithful receive a noble mission; bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to the world. The particular responsibility of each of the Christ’s faithful is not separable from the responsibility that all Christians have by virtue of their baptism. Because of the one dignity flowing from Baptism, each member of the lay faithful, together with ordained ministers and men and women religious, shares a responsibility for the Church’s mission. However, this mission cannot be carried out in isolation, but only in communion with the entire people of God (canons 96 and 225). Thus we speak of the co-responsibility of the clergy and laity.

THE CO-RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LAY FAITHFUL AS EXPRESSED IN THE ASSOCIATE RIGHTS

The laity corresponds to the life and mission of the church through the associations of Christ’s faithful. These associations are distinct from institutes of consecrated life and associations of apostolic life. However they all work under one body, the church, striving for perfection of life and working fervently towards one ultimate mission. These associations give the laity an opportunity to strive with a common effort, together with all other members of the church, to foster a more perfect life, promote public worship and Christian teaching. Thus as stated in the canon the lay persons can participate in the mission and life of the church by devoting themselves to other works of apostolate like initiatives for evangelization, works of piety or charity and animation of the temporal order with the Christian spirit[2] (canon 298).

However, in this co-responsibility of the lay faithful in the life and mission of the church, the guidance of clergy and religious is much needed especially the competent ecclesiastical authorities. Nevertheless, under the guidance of ecclesiastical authorities, the lay faithful have the single right to join or constitute associations for the purpose of evangelization. This work and mission of the lay persons are to be reviewed and approved by the competent ecclesial authorities[3] (canon 314). Nonetheless, the lay person cannot undertake a mission in the name of the church except with the proper consent of the competent ecclesiastical authorities. Thus no association should call itself catholic without approval of the competent ecclesial authorities[4]. These, all points to the fact that even though it is not the clergy who give the lay faithful a share in the church’s mission, the lay faithful necessarily need to carry on the mission under close watch of competent authorities[5] (Canon 305).

The co-responsibility of the lay faithful presupposes that each Christian faithful has a particular role in the perfection of the life and the effectiveness of the mission of the church. The responsibility of the lay persons in the life and mission of the church is revealed in their vocations as baptized Christians. Commonly some of the lay persons often exercise their co-responsibility in the life and mission of the church by being members of the third orders. However, the co-responsibility of the laity requires that the lay persons should live with an awareness of belonging to the church, because to exercise the mission of the church, one has to have a sense of belongingness to the church. Thus one cannot say that he is taking part in the life and mission of the church outside of the church. In this way, “the Lord entrusts a great part of the responsibility to the lay faithful, in communion with all members of the People of God”.[6] This equally necessitated the relationship between the clergy and the laity, which centers on mutual collaboration and co-responsibility. Therefore, the responsibility of all the individual faithful is co-responsibility.

The teaching of the church as a communion had brought about a growth in the awareness that the members can and must unite their efforts in cooperation and exchange of gifts, for an effective participation in the mission of the church. This renders an effective response to the great challenge of our time. The laity are therefore invited to share more intensely in the life and mission of the church. Collaboration between the lay faithful and the clerics is very essential for effective evangelization. However, to foster an effective collaborative relationship in co-responsibility, the clerics need and have to step away from their hierarchical beliefs and see the lay persons as equals and collaborative and co-responsible partners in the life and mission of the church. A shared sense of mission should be established. The truth is that there is an authentic dignity to each vocation. However, the lay vocation is devalued by clericalism, whether by treating the lay persons as inferior or by charging them with tasks and characteristics proper to the clergy. The great call of the laity, however, is fundamental to the Church’s mission and cannot be abrogated: it is to bring Christ to the world from within; to evangelize it from the inside out. Thus,

The church hierarchies must do their utmost to foster the sense of the co-responsibility of the lay persons. The daily contact with the life of the church must not lead the hierarchy and clergy to mistrust the authentic responsibility of the lay persons, even implicitly, nor should it lead them to reduce that responsibility to mere consultation on the material or worldly matters.[7]

The co-responsibility is inferred in baptism; however, the relationship of persons is very necessary to make efficient this co-responsibility. This relationship is very important because the clergy person and the lay person have a distinct contribution to the mission of the church which essentially would be realized through collaboration between the two persons. This co-responsibility is not only lived by cooperating with others, but essentially with a deep seated consciousness that all the Christ’s faithful, that is, all the baptized persons, irrespective of their states of life, enjoys a weighty responsibility for the life  of the Church. Co-responsibility therefore concerns the life and mission of the Church in the world, not necessarily a role a person plays. This calls for a serious assimilation of the teachings of the church especially that of the recent council (Vatican II) on the significance of the laity in the church and world.[8] However, regarding this, Benedict XVI says that Co-responsibility demands a change in mindset especially concerning the role of lay people in the Church. They should not be regarded as ‘collaborators’ of the clergy, but rather as people who are really ‘co-responsible’ for the Church’s being and acting.[9]

The lay persons commonly exercise the ministries of their vocation in the associations of Christian faithful. This is generally characterized within the church as a group of persons, not under vows_­ by contrast with the institutes of consecrated life_ but nonetheless, they strive to promote “a more perfect life or to foster public worship or Christian doctrine or to exercise other apostolic works” that those other associations also aspire to. However the distinction only lies in the absence of vows or promises drawing the members towards the goals of the associations. Nonetheless, the canons suggest a subtle orientation toward the clerical outlook, at least in that only its three final canons are addressed specifically to “special norms for associations of the laity”.[10] However it is interesting that the three general aims of these associations of the faithful described in the code echo the indications of the former law as the complete list of all associations of the faithful: third orders (towards the perfection of personal life), confraternities (of public worship and Christian doctrine), and pious unions (defined in the former law as established for the exercise of some works of piety or charity. It is broadened by the present law to include works of the apostolate reaching from evangelization to the explicit Christianization of the secular order).[11]

According to the code, two major classes of associations of the faithful are recognized. These are based either upon the ‘establishment’ of the association or upon its mere ‘recommendation’ or ‘commendation’ by the competent authority. The first brings into being a ‘public’ association with certain express rights and limitations of supervision that come with its status as a ‘juridical person’. The simple endorsement brings into being a recognized association of the faithful within the church; it however, has only ‘private’ status.[12]

However, even though the faithful have the rights to acquire membership to the associations of Christian faithful, they exercise their co-responsibility in the church not by following an already determined program, but rather by a response within a relationship. The lay faithful are called to participate in the life and mission of the church and by extension of the world. They have responsibilities within the church at families, parish and diocesan levels and beyond, such as exercising particular ministries in liturgical service (like readers, altar servers, choir members, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion), providing catechesis, consultants in financial matters, participating in pastoral councils, working in ecclesiastical offices, or holding positions in the diocesan level. These are instances of the many responsibilities the lay persons have within the church. Nonetheless, co-responsibility is not identified so much with these functions or roles themselves, but rather with the concern that we have for the entire life and mission of the church in exercising them.[13]

The relationship between the clergy and the laity centers on the principle of mutual collaboration, co-responsibility and spiritual sharing. This can be traced back to the middles ages when spiritual fraternity started developing when groups started forming around convents to participate in their spiritual merits.[14] Medieval records show numerous lay persons associating themselves with either institution, sometimes living literally with them or in their shadow, pursuing a life in the spirit of the community but without the bonds of vow. These third orders were initially formalized by Francis of Assisi. However, central to the third orders or the associations of the faithful within the church community is that there should be an official recognition and endorsement of the group irrespective of what status it has; private or public, by the competent ecclesiastical authority. In connection with being either a public or private entity, comes a reciprocal relationship of accountability. This is specified and directed to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority that had either endorsed or established the association. The thrust for this supervision is the preservation of the integrity of faith and morals and the verification by the authority that there is no abuse of ecclesiastical discipline.[15]

The principle purpose for the supervision of the associations of Christian faithful is that, for the lay persons to exercise co-responsibility in the life and mission of the church by virtue of their baptism, there is need that they should be nurtured. This is necessary because a matured and committed lay person should be consolidated in order to make their individual contributions to the ecclesial mission with regards for the ministries and tasks each has in the life of the church and always in cordial communion with the ecclesial authorities.[16]

In exercising their co-responsibility in the life and mission of the church, the lay faithful should put into consideration the practices of the time and space. In other words, they should work, improve and progress with the signs of the times; however, they should give a special consideration to the purpose they are intended for. Since the association of the faithful is a society, it is a place where rights are exercised, obligations acquired, and a common good pursued. Thus to earn the right and the privileges attached to an association, a faithful have to be validly received as a member into the particular association in question in accordance with the provisions of the law and with the associations own statutes. Some of these privileges may include indulgences and other spiritual favours. Nevertheless, in exercising their co-responsibility too, the lay faithful are free to enroll themselves into more than one association of the faithful. The associations therefore have the responsibility to be for its members the most effective means for promoting the purpose which they pursue.[17] Hence, this co-responsibility requires particular attention to people and issues that are of fundamental importance. In emphasis to this point, Pope Francis in the part II of his Evangelii Gaudium asks that a special attention should be given to the poor and downtrodden, those who lack the means of sustenance, the unemployed, the ill and dying and especially in those who feel forgotten and seem to have lost hope in a world. Thus co-responsibility in the life and mission of the church takes into consideration the needs of the less privileged, because we equally bear responsibility for them. However, in the context of our country, some associations of the faithful take care of the poor and downtrodden. Thus in addition to the works of the apostolate, the faithful works for social justice. All these are equally proper to the mission of the laity. Therefore the laity in exercising their co-responsibility needs to uphold the true values of human life. The lay faithful who lives co-responsibly for the life of the church always wishes to communicate and defend the dignity of life.[18] In the number 201 of his Evangelii Gaudium, the Holy Father says:

While it is quite true that the essential vocation and mission of the lay faithful is to strive that earthly realities and all human activity may be transformed by the Gospel, none of us can think we are exempt from concern for the poor and for social justice.

Co-responsibility means the lay persons are equally accountable success of the perfection of the Christian life and mission. It is not a passive responsibility, but a participative responsibility. This is not merely pertaining to words but should and must be accompanied with substantial action.

CONCLUSION

The pastoral collegiality has been evident in the history of the church through the actual exercise of particpative responsibility. Thus, since the close of the vatican II many local churches have really experimented and considered the co-responsibility of the lay persons. However, this co-responsibility is not a matter of option. As the clergy die or resign, there will surely be more efficiency in the co-responsibility of the lay persons and more collaboration. However, the lay persons can never be substituted for the clergy. The shortage of clergy or decline in vocation to the clergy life may be a blessed occasion for rediscovering the importance and essence of the co-responsibility of the lay persons and the collaborative principle that is part of the very nature of the church.

---

[1]  James A. Coriden, An introduction to canon law, paulist press, USA (NY) 2004, 114.

[2] Canon 298

[3] Canon 314

[4] Canon 300

[5] Canon 305.

[6] John Paul II, Christifideles Laici 32.

[7] http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/CCCB_Co-responsibility_EN-web.pdf accessed 29 April 2019

[8] Vatican II document: Lumen Gentium 30-42

[9] Benedict XVI, “Message on the Occasion of the Sixth Ordinary Assembly of the International Forum of Catholic Action” (10 August 2012).

[10] James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green Ed., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, theological publications, Bangalore 1994, 224.

[11] Ibid, 224.

[12] Ibid, 224.

[13] http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/CCCB_Co-responsibility_EN-web.pdf accessed 29 April 2019

[14] John P Beal, and James A. Coriden Et.al. Ed., New  Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publication in India, Bangalore 2010, 399.

[15] James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green Ed., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, theological publications, Bangalore 1994, 247.

[16] http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/CCCB_Co-responsibility_EN-web.pdf accessed 29 April 2019.

[17] John P Beal, and James A. Coriden Et.al. Ed., New  Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publication in India, Bangalore 2010, 405.

[18] http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/CCCB_Co-responsibility_EN-web.pdf accessed 29 April 2019.