Catholic Sensibility

Zenit carries it, and even the questioner didn't seem to get the gist of what Russell Shaw was saying. Unlike the pre-Vatican II understanding of lay apostolate found in the Catholic Action movement -- the idea, that is, that the apostolate of the laity is a participation in the apostolate of the hierarchy which comes to them by way of hierarchical delegation -- the Council teaches that lay people have a right and duty to engage in apostolate simply because they are members of the Church. Spot on, Mr Shaw. The parish is not the primary place where lay apostolate takes place. Nor is some other Church structure or institution the preferred setting for the apostolate of the laity. Lay apostolate is properly directed to, and takes place in, the secular world. As "Apostolicam Actuositatem" puts it, lay people "ought to take on themselves as their distinctive task this renewal of the temporal order" [No. 7]. Right again. Our current overemphasis on lay activity within ecclesiastical institutions and structures arises from the overemphasis on lay ministries since the 1970s. The Second Vatican Council said very, very little about lay ministry. In speaking about the participation of lay people in the Church's mission, it spoke mainly about lay apostolate, and it made it overwhelmingly clear that this is primarily apostolate that carries the Gospel out into the world. Don't misunderstand -- lay ministry is a good thing. But by stressing ministry instead of apostolate, as is now commonly done, we are getting what the Council intended exactly backward. I'm not sure I agree there's too much emphasis on lay ministry. But Shaw is right that the lay apostolate is hugely neglected even today. Lay people are called to be saints, but we're still taking out cues from a pre-conciliar imprint, follwing priests and religious instead of great lay examples. Let me be contrary to this good journalist and say the hierarchy shares blame: 1. The lack of any quantity of lay people declared saints. People, especially children and youth, need substantial heroes. We don't have enough Jean LaLandes in the martyrology. Rome needs to get with it. 2. Priests themselves are seen as objects of admiration. Still. But we need more lay leaders now living their Catholicism in the world--those are the primary living role models we need. 3. Maybe bishops preach too much about public policy. We need more actions from lay Catholics in the public sphere, and it's the bishops' job to facilitate that and make it happen through formation and leadership. One of the most valuable contributions being made today by the "new" lay groups like Opus Dei, Communion and Liberation, the Neocatechumenate and the rest is their strong emphasis on the in-depth, ongoing formation of the laity. Very limited today. I would say that Marriage Encounter has probably done more than these three groups combined, not to mention the Cursillo movement. Some people were indeed getting it right from the beginning of Vatican II. Somehow (the lay apostolate) doesn't seem to be a big priority in many parishes and Catholic schools. Sad but true. I largely agree with Shaw's points in his interview. It's not different from the conclusions discussed earlier this Fall on CS when we looked at Apostolicam Actuositatem. But I raise a caution of playing lay ministry training against lay apostolate formation. They're not parts of a zero-sum syustem. I think the Church does decently well on preparing people for ministry: we have a decent track record on seminaries and educational systems. It's only natural that a lot of effort would be put into ministry formation. But we still lack a consistent approach to what it means to be a baptized Christian in the world. We carry old baggage that would have us separate the sacred and secular, the religious and the lay. The effort to build a lay apostolate in the world is not an Opus Dei or Neo-Cat undertaking led by the tradis. Progressive liturgists wouldn't nod in approval singing such texts as "We are called to act with justice" or "Teach us courage as we struggle in all liberating strife" or "So the Church is meant for mission" if we didn't believe a world-active laity wasn't important. To my mind, Shaw's lay groups are latecomers to the party. Welcome, by all means, so long as they don't spread the fantasy they were the first to take AA seriously. The real question, rather than hinto at or apportion blame, is to uncover how to develop a lay apostolate on the parish level so it can be spread to homes and schools. That's a conversation worth having.