Lay Ministries: Minnesota parishes tussle with impending ban on lay preaching

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friendPDF versionPDF version
Publication date: 
June 13, 2008
Section: 
G1. News

NCR photo illustration/Toni Ann OrtizNCR photo illustration/Toni Ann OrtizAn archbishop’s recent order to end lay preaching in the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese has brought a deep sense of loss to Catholics who believe in the practice and the theology behind it. In some parishes, lay leaders are seeking ways to register their disagreement with the new ban or to keep lay voices alive despite it. And some people are voting with their feet and finding other places to worship.

Archbishop Harry Flynn sent the letter in January to all archdiocesan pastors instructing them to end lectionary-based liturgical lay preaching by May 2, his retirement date, calling such preaching a “liturgical abuse.” While Canon 766 of the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law states that lay preaching may be permitted when deemed useful or necessary according to norms developed by episcopal conferences, Flynn’s directive appears to be guided by the restrictions in the 2004 Vatican instructional document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which narrows the criteria for allowing lay preaching only to accommodate a scarcity of priests or the needs of a specific community.

Some 29 parishes here are affected by the ban. Some offered formal ministry training and formation for lay preachers, while others offered informal support and resources.

The targeting of lay voices deeply disturbs Patricia Hughes Baumer who, with her husband, runs Partners in Preaching, an Eden Prairie, Minn., organization that has trained 500 lay preachers here and in five other dioceses since 1997.

“[Lay preaching] isn’t an abuse now and it wasn’t even by constructionist standards,” said Baumer, who believes the ban ignores “the direction of canon law” away from prohibition and toward authorization of lay preaching since Vatican II.

Some have speculated that Flynn was cleaning house for his successor. Baumer said, “It was widely anticipated that Archbishop [John] Nienstedt would not be open to the continuation of [lay preaching] and that Archbishop Flynn made the request so that parishes could attempt to respond with grace, that it was not going to be an immediate termination, [which] would be experienced as far more harsh. Clearly, if you believe something is an abuse, you don’t give people four months to terminate it.”

Bishops can and do interpret instructional documents and episcopal norms differently, said Passionist Sr. Elissa Rinere, a canon lawyer. “The fact that it can change easily is the nature of the system.” It is important to understand how that system works, she said. For example, instructional documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum may well inform a bishop’s decision-making but should not supersede canon law itself.

In a 2006 article for Preach magazine, Rinere called the language on lay preaching in the instruction “chilling.” She explained that the instruction not only lacks the legislative standing to trump existing canon law or episcopal norms, but contains discrepancies in wording compared with the canon’s text. Rinere wrote: “The instruction cites the canon as saying ‘Laypeople may preach outside Mass in churches or oratories (161).’ Canon 766 does not contain the words ‘outside Mass.’ ”

Catholics who support lay preaching have expressed dismay, even grief, at the ban.

“I just feel as if somebody stole my church,” said Miriam Meyers, a retired professor of linguistics and a longtime member of St. Stephen Parish in Minneapolis, which has involved lay preachers for almost two decades. “I think the loss [of lay preaching] is profound and really rather devastating.”

Mary Wilmes, also of St. Stephen, resents the effective silencing of the voices of women and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. As the unofficial archivist at St. Stephen, she has collected 336 sermons, which she e-mails to parishioners who request them.

“Different things appeal to different people,” Wilmes said. “When you have a range [of preachers], you are going to be touched more than you will ever be touched by one preacher. Many parts, one body, isn’t it? It is an incredible richness.”

Frank Schweigert of St. Frances Cabrini in Minneapolis spoke emotionally about the importance of lay preaching in setting an example of living with faith for other laypeople, especially “in a formative way for boys and girls. It did a lot to enhance ecclesial understanding of what it means to be a baptized Christian.”

Parishes are wrestling with how to comply yet retain lay presence and perspective. A typical solution is to schedule the lay preacher before Mass.

St. Joan of Arc changed its preaching model well before Flynn’s letter, said associate pastor Fr. Jim Cassidy. Formerly, lay preachers spoke after the Gospel. Now they’re scheduled before Mass. The priest preaches a homily. The advantage to the community, Cassidy said, “besides wanting to respect the guidelines of the liturgy,” is that the two often complement each other. “It is a win-win situation.”

Others find two speakers unwieldy. Staff liturgist Chris Kosowski at St. Frances Cabrini said laypeople have preached for some four decades with the “invitation, encouragement and support of pastors. We have had a feeling of mutuality between lay and clergy.” Parishioners feel various proposals to keep lay preaching in different ways have shortcomings, said Kosowski. “The proposals we have to consider place [clergy and laypeople] on different planes. There’s the sense of not wanting two ‘homilies’ in one Mass. And just the feeling of how can something that was OK, allowed by canon law since 1983, all of a sudden not be OK?”

St. Joseph Parish in suburban New Hope will schedule its usual rotation of lay preachers before Mass but they will not vest or process, said Martha Blenkush, a lay preacher and a board member of Partners in Preaching. “[We’ll be] pointing to the readings rather than referring to them. It’s outside of Mass but still allows for diversity of voices, which we think to be important.”

Lay preachers are important in parishes without a resident priest, and where members and pastor aren’t fluent in the same language, advocates of lay preaching say.

“People have the right to have the Gospel proclaimed and hear the word preached in a language they can understand,” said Blenkush. Spanish-speaking lay preachers have been active in the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese for about six years.

Wilmes has decided to worship with a breakaway group from St. Stephen that retains ties with the parish but has arranged for offsite worship space on Sunday mornings. She’s joined by at least 100 parishioners who feel similarly, including Miriam Meyers.

Others aren’t taking the order lightly, either: One parish council is considering its finance committee’s request to withhold 10 percent of the parish assessment to the archdiocese until lay preaching is restored, according to a lay preacher at that parish.

Even as they await unwelcome changes, many advocates of lay preaching are grateful for the opportunities they’ve enjoyed. Art Zannoni, a lay preacher at St. Cecilia Parish in St. Paul, said, “We chose as a parish to thank Archbishop Flynn for allowing [lay preaching] the number of years he did.”

Partners in Preaching will continue to offer training. Its board has commissioned Baumer to work on a book documenting the impact of lay preaching on the Catholic church. She said, “We will continue to advocate for diversity of voices, believing it really is a need of God’s people.”

Kris Berggren writes from Minneapolis.

National Catholic Reporter June 13, 2008

What I have always wondered

What I have always wondered is:

The format of every mass of every year is rigidly structured. At every mass I have attended since masses began being spoken in the native language, the priests have read everything. There is no room for deviation.

What I wonder is, if the mass is already so rigidly structured, why does it have to be a priest who reads it? What is it that the priest has, other than his title, that makes his reading of the mass different from that of a qualified lay minister? My understanding is that it is the unity of the Holy Spirit in and through those present that creates the blessing of the mass. The priest's role is that of facilitator.

As far as communion, the church has already approved the administration of communion by qualified lay ministers. Granted a priest has to perform the blessing, however, is there any reason a priest traveling a circuit couldnt bless the eucharist ahead of time for future use?

It seems to me that the necessary structures are already in place for qualified lay ministers to perform mass and administer communion. What I dont understand is "why is this such a gargantuan issue to the magisterium? Would the magisterium rather see thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of faithful be denied the blessing of mass and communion, simply because there is no priest available, when the structures are already in place to make these blessings available to the faithful?

It seems to me that this is

It seems to me that this is a power struggle. Some people (the heiarchy) is afraid of losing their power so they want to restrict the church (the laity) from having their voice. Hopefully we will continue to press for our voice being heard.

What is it that the priest

What is it that the priest has...

The priest is ordained; he has received the sacrament of Holy Orders, so he has an indelible mark on his person: "This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ's instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king." (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1581). He has the ministerial priesthood, which is different in essence from the baptismal (or "royal") priesthood of believers. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1536-1600 (link) for additional information about what makes a priest different from a layperson.

The priest's role is that of facilitator.

Not really. The priest doesn't just "preside at" or "facilitate" Mass. Without a priest, there isn't the Mass, because the priest acts in persona Christi to consecrate the bread and wine, by the power and promise of God, and then offer them to the Father. Without the consecration and offering and consumption of the sacrament by the priest, it's not Mass.

As far as communion, the church has already approved the administration of communion by qualified lay ministers.

The Church only approves the use of lay ministers -- "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" -- when there are not sufficient priests and deacons -- who are the "ordinary ministers of Holy Communion" -- to do so. It's not at all appropriate for a priest who is celebrating Mass to relegate the duty of distributing Holy Communion to a group of laypeople; it is part of HIS duty to distribute Holy Communion.

Granted a priest has to perform the blessing, however, is there any reason a priest traveling a circuit couldnt bless the eucharist ahead of time for future use?

The priest does more than just bless the bread and wine; through the sacramental character he received at his priestly ordination, he consecrates them by the words of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and in accordance with the will of the Father, into the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Notice that after the consecration, the Eucharistic Prayer isn't over -- we don't immediately receive Communion. The second half of the Eucharistic Prayer involves the offering of the Eucharist to God the Father. Only after the Eucharistic sacrifice has been offered to God, and a portion of it consumed by the priest (after the model of the Old Testament sacrifices), do the rest of us receive Holy Communion.

Again, receiving Holy Communion outside the context of the Mass (at a Communion service in the absence of a priest, for example) is NOT the same thing as attending Mass. It is the Mass which is the public worship of the Church and which we are dutifully obliged to attend, and not specifically the reception of Holy Communion.

It seems to me that the necessary structures are already in place for qualified lay ministers to perform mass and administer communion.

No, a lay minister cannot "perform mass". Again, there is a difference between Mass and a service at which Holy Communion is received by the faithful. An example is the Good Friday service. It's NOT a Mass -- if you pay close attention, there is no Eucharistic Prayer, and the Communion you receive is from the Hosts that were consecrated the night before on Holy Thursday.

Would the magisterium rather see thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of faithful be denied the blessing of mass and communion...

The Church is sorely grieved when there is no priest available to a community of the faithful! If there is no priest available, there cannot be a Mass, and the faithful are relieved of their obligation to attend (on Sunday). Now, there are some places where, because of a shortage of priests, there is Sunday Mass only once a month, with the priest consecrating enough Hosts to last the whole month; the other Sundays, the parish has a service of the Word with the distribution of Holy Communion. Some of these parishes have a deacon (as opposed to a layperson) preside over these services.

The Church simply doesn't have the power to dispense with the "formalities" of the Mass and priestly ordination. So, instead of seeking ways to get by with a shortage of priests, we should really be praying for more faithful and courageous men to LISTEN to God and hear Him calling them to the priesthood. Prayers for vocations (or rather, for vocations to be heard!) never fall on deaf ears.

I am a Catholic in another

I am a Catholic in another part of the country. I have never seen or heard of a lay preacher. From the contents of the article, it does not seem like I have been missing anything. Mass is for one thing, and that is to worship Jesus, and the homilies should be simple, germane to the day's reading and they should teach Catholic values. The people in the article seem to be more concerned about their own feelings and desires, and making sure everyone knows what THEY think than about the teachings of Christ. Frankly, these people sound more like Unitarian Universalists than Catholics. May God have mercy on them.

It has nothing to do with

It has nothing to do with power. It's about maintaining a proper distinction between the ministerial priesthood who have received Orders and the people. The sacred ministers have been ordained to administer the sacraments and teach the people of God. When the people try to act as priests the priest's role is falsified and thus appears nothing more than a protestant minister.

It is the priest who has the power to sacrifice. It is through the priest that elements are transubstantiated. It is the priest who is the indispensable element in the celebration, not the people. Quite simply, no priest no sacrifice.

Its sad the the people who

Its sad the the people who are so into lay preaching cant see that there is many opertunities for them to preach outside the mass. The Mass is prayed by the priest. He is persona Christi and preaching is part of that. But there are many ways to preach the Word. What about a Bible Study, Catechesis classes, visiting the homebound and sharing the Gospel with them or how many people do it by their daily lives lived in holiness? Laity are called to spread the Gospel in many ways but not through the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass.

I belong to a lay movement,

I belong to a lay movement, Regnum Christi. My service to the Church is at my Pastor's discretion. I am stunned to see so many devastated by this change in process. Priests are ORDAINED by God and the Roman Catholic Church. Others have stated the obvious about their role: in Persona Christi. To consider this act a "power struggle" makes me wonder about how much the sin of Pride has attached itself to this activity. Our role as lay people in our Church is that of facilitator. Our priests need help with evangelization...that is what our "Rite of Baptism" calls for. Belonging to a lay movement helps me to live out my promise. More than anything, our Church calls us to obedience. If our Bishops note a liturgical offense, he has to right and obligation to correct it at once. We are never to critize or speak ill of the authority vested in our Bishops. End of story! We should pray for the future of the Church and for an increase in vocations, but mostly we should pray for our Priests.
In the love of Jesus and His dear Mother,
Mary Baptiste
Hampton, NH

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Solve the simple math problem.
6 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.