Back to: Liturgical Catechesis Project:  

SUNDAY CELEBRATIONS in the absence of a priest:
the ministry of the laity
Rev. Michael Henchal, J.C.L.
Chancellor of the Diocese of Portland in Maine
 
 

From Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest Copyright © 1998, Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions,
Washington, DC. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying , recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
 

 In the absence of a priest, the leadership of such Sunday gatherings devolves upon the deacon, if there is one. Undoubtedly, in some dioceses, these gatherings will often be led by permanent deacons. Among the specific tasks assigned the deacon are the proclamation of the Gospel, the preaching of the homily, the celebration of sacred rites. “For this reason, all things being equal, the diocesan bishop should give preference to the appointment of deacons as presiding ministers at Sunday worship in the absence of a priest.”[1]  Furthermore, a deacon is an “ordinary” (as opposed to “extraordinary” or “special”) minister of holy communion.[2] When we look at the rites themselves we will see that this means that the deacon will do certain things differently from the way a lay leader would.

Even more frequently, however, it seems likely that the leadership of such assemblies will be the responsibility of lay persons. The authorization of Sunday assemblies led by lay men and women is a clear affirmation of the role of the laity in the Church. It is an example of lay persons’ being called “to more immediate cooperation in the apostolate of the hierarchy,”[3] as the dogmatic constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council put it, and an exercise of the common priesthood of the faithful. It is a right, indeed a duty, of the lay Christian faithful, arising from their baptism and confirmation, to exercise their share in the teaching, sanctifying and governing offices of the Church according to their capacity and condition, a point made clearly in GSF, 27.

The Code of Canon Law, canon 230, authorizes laity to fill certain offices and fulfill certain liturgical functions in the Church. Where the instituted ministries of lector or acolyte are in existence, persons installed in these ministries would normally be chosen to lead the assembly. But in the United States it is not usual to have persons instituted into the stable ministries of lector and acolyte, but, rather, to make use of the “extraordinary” or “special” ministries authorized in canon 230, §3.

Paul VI urged the establishment of new ministries and opportunities for the laity to share functions necessary for the vitality of the Church.

These ministries, apparently new but closely tied up with the Church’s living experience down the centuries—such as catechists, directors of prayer and chant, Christians devoted to the service of God’s word or to assisting their brethren in need, the heads of small communities, or other persons charged with the responsibility of apostolic movements—these ministries are valuable for the establishment, life, and growth of the Church, and for her capacity to influence her surroundings and to reach those who are remote from her.[4]

While acknowledging the value of lay ministries and wishing to protect the right of the lay Christian faithful to exercise their proper roles to the fullest possible degree in the Church, nevertheless we cannot ignore the potential conflict of values and rights here. The establishment of Sunday assemblies under the leadership of lay persons is not without its dangers. Such lay presiding may lead to confusion with and devaluation of the ordained priesthood. GSF puts it this way: “It can easily lead to a sense of self–sufficiency that sees little or no need for ordained ministers.”[5] The ecclesiological implications would be enormous if lay presiding were to become statistically normal, however canonically extraordinary. As Father Joseph Komonchak has written:

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the change in the self–perception of the Church and of its ministries which will result. In these cases, the Church will be realizing itself locally under the presidency of “lay people.” . . . In the process, willy–nilly, a different Church will be under construction, by means of a different ministry; and the changes inevitably introduced should not pass without comment or criticism.[6]

The Catholic Church is a hierarchical Church with an order sacramentally constituted by divine institution. The regular gathering presided over by one in the sacrament of orders gathers up and continually reinforces this basic theological datum. The Directory and Ritual express this legitimate concern about the ecclesiological effect on the Church of lay leadership at the Sunday gathering through its regulations regarding qualifications of such a person, selection and supervision by the proper pastor, appointment by the bishop, and the proposal that they be appointed for set terms.

The French national effort to establish Sunday assemblies in the absence of a priest was given its greatest impetus by the document Tous responsables dans l’Eglise?[7] The very title reveals the approach of the French bishops to help offset the danger of clericalization of certain lay individuals: “All are responsible.” It is not a single individual who is responsible for the Sunday assembly when there is no priest; the whole community shares in that responsibility. With that in mind, the French frequently suggest that it not be an individual lay person who is appointed to preside over this assembly, but that a committee always be appointed. Similarly and perhaps for the same reason, GSF recommends that “a minimum of two candidates receive formation in exercising the ministry of leading Sunday celebrations.”[8] While neither the French discussion nor GSF’s discussion of this matter is explicitly in the context of canon 517, §2, authorizing the appointment of a lay person to administer a parish, the suggestion is worthy of serious consideration even in such a case. The appointment of a lay administrator does not necessarily include the exclusive appointment of this same person as the only one who will preside at the Sunday assembly in the absence of a priest. The appointment of a committee of parishioners to preside either jointly or by turns could help offset the danger of a certain clericalization of the lay administrator.

Finally, the Directory quotes the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy: “In liturgical celebrations each person, minister, or layman who has an office to perform, should carry out all and only those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the norms of the liturgy.”[9] In this way, the proper distinction is maintained between clergy and laity. But what is also accomplished—and this is maybe even more important in this context—is a separation of roles among the laity at such gatherings. The lay person who leads this prayer should not read all the readings and direct the singing. It is not the role of presiders (whether cleric or lay) to do everything themselves. Other ministries should be allowed to function fully.[10]