Integrity

Parish vs. Movements? (Why Movements At All?)

In our ongoing series, we've taken a look at the nature of our parishes and what they should be.  I suppose it is time to look at the other side of the fictional dichotomy that I set up and examine the lay ecclesial movements.

Some might be surprised by the criterion that I want to use in examining the lay movements.  On the premise that all charisms are given for the strengthening of the whole Church, I want to ask: what is it that the phenomenon of the lay movements, with all their charisms, tell us about the Church itself?  I think that is far more important than yet another fawning post about the glorious experience a member of a movement had within that movement.  (Although, I think I'm ironically not known for those in St. Blog's.)  For much could be said about the charism of the individual movements, but there are so many of them, that it is difficult not to recognize something larger at work. 

What might the movements be reminding us of?  I think Pope John Paul II might have aptly summarized it when he said that "the Church herself is a movement."  It is so easy to lose sight of that and think of the institutional only.  But to see the Church merely as an institution is to forget its origins.  Pope Benedict reminds us of this when he examines the sacrament of holy orders, the one permanent structure that forms the institutional nature of the Church.  In his article, Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements, Pope Benedict reminds us that, despite any modern tendencies to refer to orders as an office, it is ultimately a sacrament.  This means that the very existence of the Church as an institution is dependent upon the movement of God calling men to Him and the movement of those men towards God in response to the call.   "The Church cannot simply appoint 'officials' by itself, but must await the call from God." 

But this doesn't just describe how the Church is born, but its life itself.  Seen from a different perspective, the history of the Church throughout time is the continuation in each of our lives -- for each of us -- of that initial encounter between Jesus and Andrew and John, between God and Man, an encounter that moved these two apostles to follow, changing their whole lives and the world.  As Fr. Giussani puts it, the word "movement" doesn't describe an organization per se, but "a permanent mode in the Church's history through which the faith becomes persuasive, educationally effective and constructive, and brings a change in life.  ... [It] describes the existential historical way in which the Church becomes a living Church."

I think the movements, with their very visible charisms, help shine a light on how this occurs.  Quoting Fr. Giussani, responding to Pope John Paul II, a charism is nothing other than"the mode with which the Church takes up expressive form in a concrete, historical detail."    Without this, the Church remains an abstraction and ultimately something that doesn't pervade my life, doesn't move me or cause a change in my life:

"Christ becomes present here and now through a charism that, by valuing temperament, personality, and personal sensitivity and history, creates an affinity and this establishes a communion; to obey this communion is to obey the great mystery of the Spirit. It is to go to Christ!"

Any member of a movement can tell many stories of how this has played itself out for them or others in their movement.  It is one of the striking features of the movements.  But rather than being something unique to the movements, it is a reminder to all of us of the way the Church has always been.  In this way, I think it is striking that the story chosen by Fr. Giussani to illustrate a "movement" wasn't one about CL (and as a founder of one of the more prominent movements, surely he could have told many!), but of a priest that served at his mother's parish:

" Without the movement I have tried to describe, a parish is arid and remains a mere institution. I have told my friends many times about my late mother and her priest, Father Amedeo, in Desio. Through his presence in the confessional, more than through the youth center, he created a reality of hundreds of women, all from Catholic families and devoted to the parish, all Children of Mary. They would go to Mass at 5 o'clock every morning, and were always ready to help when the parish needed something. Everyone in the parish knew them.  That priest in his confessional had created a movement in the parish, and in the town. If there had been a hundred thousand instead of a hundred of them, even the Corriere della Sera would have written about them! Father Amedeo, the curate in my huge parish 60 years ago, guided so many young people to Christian maturity, who then went on to bring up so many sound Christian families, and they were always ready to help the parish priest when he needed it."

Thus, I would suggest that asking the question "Why movements at all?" is akin to asking the question, "Why the Church?"  And that what the lay ecclesial movements we have become familiar with offer the parish is a reminder of the way in which the Spirit has generated the Christian people throughout history, or, in other words, of the Church,  and a concrete avenue by which the education in Christian maturity -- the formation of the laity -- can be brought about. 

More on all that next time.

Parish vs. Movements? (The Purpose of Parishes)

In this post, let us explore more concretely what was only hinted at in the last one: namely, what is the purpose of the parish?

Again, I would like to refer to the piece, Parish: Mission or Maintenance?, by the Siena Institute.  Read it through.  Does the understanding of the nature of the laity and the laity's role in the mission of the Church shock you?  Do you find it attractive?  If that piece has gotten you thinking, take a moment now to dig through Integrity, the Vault of Records and Christifideles Laici itself.  (You didn't think I would pass up the chance to plug the very mission of this blog, did you?) To summarize this bold description of the laity, from Parish: Mission or Maintenance?:

"As lay Catholics who have been baptized and confirmed, our identity is fundamentally that of apostles, “sent ones,” who have been anointed by Jesus Christ for his mission. We are more than recipients of the clergy’s ministry; we are apostles. We are more than volunteers in the parish; we are apostles. Importantly, however, we are not clerics; our apostleship is not hierarchical in nature. Our leadership, our charisms, our apostleship focuses primarily upon the secular, not the Christian community. We are the first and primary evangelizers of the people and structures of this world."

The parish should be a place that forms and prepares the laity to carry out that mission.  But if you embrace the vision of the laity described above, you quickly realize how much of our parish life isn't presently suited for fostering that.  Continuing an analogy discussed earlier, the parish cannot remain like a nursing home, taking people in from the world, sheltering them and caring for their basic needs as they live out their remaining years.  (And I don't mean to denigrate nursing homes, but clearly that's the dimension the analogy is drawing on.)  It must be providing for my needs, yes, but by building me up, equipping me to encounter the world, and sending me back out.  It must foster a tangible sense that the dismissal at the end of Mass is the beginning not the end of the Sunday experience. 

As Parish: Mission or Maintenance? emphasizes, what is so often missing from our parishes (if catechesis itself isn't missing) is formation for the apostolate and for mission.  To quote the General Directory of Catechesis, this is the equipping of "the disciples of Jesus to be present as Christians in society through their professional, cultural and social lives."  From my own experience, I can say that most parishes I have known are not doing that.  If I can say that I have received any of that formation, I received it most through my fellowship during law school (although we were blessed with a chaplain from the local parish who assisted) and through Communion and Liberation, a lay ecclesial movement.  My present parish, its good ministries notwithstanding, the couple that are actually forming people are the ones that are associated with lay movements that are present at the parish.

I suppose one could ask, but why should that be the parish's mission? Why not leave that to other aspects of the Church?  My thought here is two-fold.  First, this life is the mission of the Church and each Christian.  It cannot be made the task of just one expression of Church.  It must inform all of them.  The other is practical.  The parish is the predominant place where Catholics meet the Church.  What message is sent if the parish isn't living out this vision?  What message is sent to Catholics when a parish is merely doing spiritual maintenance, all ministry is inward-focused and the world is ignored. I'd suggest that, implicitly, this builds up a dualism in our people between the spiritual life and the rest of the world.  And if you have glimpsed what life without that dualism looks like, and have experienced the vocational support we are talking about here, in the Church's life outside the parish, the parish can become all the more unattractive.

But none of this should surprise us, frankly.  Our priests are overwhelmed as it is.  And the type of formation I am speaking of is one that can't be done by taking a class or reading a book.  That may be an element, but it is ultimately the type of formation that is ongoing and best accomplished through a companionship, a friendship.  Even the most well-meaning and energetic pastor doesn't have the time or ability to provide that type of formation to thousands of people in his parish. 

Yet, if this is what is needed to fulfill the purpose of the parish, how can the need be met?  Fundamentally, I think this requires a laity that are well formed and that help form each other in the faith and living our vocation's unique witness.  This could be accomplished in a number of ways, but certainly it is not without coincidence that the Spirit has raised up in the past 50-75 years, hundreds of movements that are predominantly lay in nature.  Whereas often (at least in the United States), these movements have limited presence in parishes and assist them indirectly by the formation of parishioners who belong to the movements on their own initiative, I do think that a more direct association between the movements and parishes can be a source of the renewal of parish life that we are discussing.

Next time we will look at the movements themselves.

Parish vs. Movements? (Present Reality of Parishes)

Following up on yesterday's post, I think it is important to address Justin's concerns by taking a step back and examining the present state of parishes in the United States.  After all, if we are going to examine whether people involved in the lay ecclesial movements are withdrawing from parish life, it's worth knowing what it is that they might be withdrawing from?

(Before we begin, let's get out of the way the acknowledgment that what I describe below may not be true of your parish.  Certainly, parish vitality varies from place to place.  But I think it is fair to say that the situation described below is going to be more recognizable than not to most people.)

There is no denying that for the vast majority of Catholics, the parish is the place where they come into contact with the visible presence of the Church.  And because of their territorial nature, parishes are the likely place to which non-Catholics in the community would turn, too, as the place where they can come into contact with Catholicism.   As is said in that fantastic Siena Institute piece, Parish: Mission or Maintenance?, the parish is the one truly universal institution of the Church.  I don't see that changing.  As such, its vitality is incredibly important to the vitality of our being as a Christian people.

But just what is it that people encounter when they enter most parishes?  I would suggest to you that in many parishes they will encounter a community of believers that don't seem to display any signs of that koinonia that is a mark of our Christianity.  That they would encounter an inward-looking place, with a limited vision of who we are and what we are called to do.  This quote from Parish: Mission or Maintenance? resonated for me:

"An American pastor (whose name I cannot recall and who might, anyway, prefer anonymity!) recently commented that far from centers for evangelization, our parishes resemble nursing homes, a sentiment I hear echoed among clergy, religious and laity all over the United States and Canada."

Consider what passes for serving the mission of the Church in many parishes: serving as a lecturer or extraordinary Eucharistic minister.  These avenues have their place.  (Although I question the value of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers.  I have yet to attend a parish that truly needs them or needs so many.  Mine routinely has six(!) at a Mass, including the Spanish Mass where less than half of the congregation receives any given week.)  But they are a stilted view of the Church's mission and the laity's role in it.  Even valuable ministries, like food pantries, can fail to be carried out in a way that is rooted in our Catholicity (c.f., ¶ 33, Deus Caritas Est). 

Probably what is most striking to me is the truncated concept of education that is present in most parishes.  Priests receive many years of formation, but the laity?  Education for the laity is something for the kids or the newly initiated.  It is not something for me as an adult.  And yet my life, if reflected upon, screams of my need for education, to be formed.  And here we are talking about being educated in more than the Church's dogma, but also in the Christian life.  Or as Fr. Giussani says in The Risk of Education, "to educate is to help the human soul enter into the totality of the real."  I live in the world and work in the world.  I need the Church's assistance (because it is through Her that I am assisted by Christ) in having the right stance before reality, so that I am better prepared to confront the problems set before me, so that I might be me.  It is an education that I need continuously, an education through companionship, with Christ.  This type of education is unheard of at most parishes.

All of the above leads me, at the moment, to the following challenging conclusion: the most universal experience of the Church, the parish, unfortunately too often fails to form me in the way that I need to be able to truly follow Christ.

Next time, we'll look more directly at what the purpose of the parish is (or should be).

Parish vs. Movements? (Introduction)

In a comment to a post below, Justin writes:

"But a fear of mine is that movements such as CL can detract from the potential community in a parish. . . . I am concerned for the parish that loses the rich resource of those people who commit themselves (exclusively?) to CL or other movements. These are people who have a strong sense of their need for community, the very people who nourish the hungry, the so many hungry that there are in our parishes today.  ... A constant effort to stay intimately involved in your parish, otherwise what are you saying about parishes anyway? I really feel that we're called to learn from these movements and try to integrate their strengths into the parish. Think of how many people are starving for this."

Justin's comment raises a lot of thoughts for me, especially on a personal level.  Rather than just respond to him in a comment  and assure him that members of movements are involved in parishes, I thought this topic would be worth exploring in some detail.  In part, I feel that way because I think the concerns Justin raise are valid and can be seen out there.  (I'm not going to pretend that movement members don't at times become less involved with their parishes.)  But I also think that many of us suffer from a real misconception of what a parish is and how it relates to Christian life.  (For example, to judge the movements merely by their impact on parishes is, in my view, to artificially limit and restrict what they are.)  I'd invite those who are involved in lay ecclesial movements to provide their thoughts and experiences in the comment sections, especially my fellow cielini. As a way of introduction, let me just say that I share Justin's concerns.  Yet, at the same time, I could be an example of precisely what Justin worries about.  (Although, I'm not sure it would be fair to say that my involvement in my parish has lessened because of CL.)

So over the next few days, look for Integrity to explore this topic through the following dimensions:

1. The Present Reality of Parishes

2. The Purpose of Parishes

3. Why Movements At All?

4. How Movements Can Complement Parish Life

5. Challenges