Thoughts and Excerpts: Receiving the Council by Ladislas Orsy, Post 4, the Laity
Here he describes how a new canon law excludes the laity from governance of the church.
“On the one hand, the pronouncements of Vatican Council II brought remarkable results and opened the door for an increased promotion of the laity. On the other hand, the official policy of the church based on a recent theological opinion that found its way into the revised Code of Canon Law excludes the laity from any major decision-making processes–reversing an immemorial tradition.” (p. 35)
“… the Council acknowledged the right of the laity to proclaim the Good News and to witness for Christ on the strength of their baptism, without any need ‘to be mandated by the hierarchy.’ … After the Council, however, a new provision in canon law (Canon 129) moved in the opposite direction. It excluded laypersons from significant decision-making processes where ecclesiastical ‘jurisdiction’ is in play. … In sum, no layperson is admitted ‘into the inner sanctuary’ that is to have a significant role in building the church from within.” (p. 38)
It did this by stating that only those who receive sacred orders (e.g., are ordained) are qualified for the power of governance; lay people can only “cooperate” in the exercise of this power.
“Such a neat and radical exclusion of the laity from any participation in the power of governance is discontinuous with an immemorial tradition.” Then he points out that lay people participated in the ecumenical councils of the first millennium, participated in the Council of Florence, abbesses had “power of jurisdiction,” etc. “History is not on the side of Canon 129. Therefore, the restriction can hardly be grounded in dogma.” (p. 39)
“Until 1972 tonsure, not ordination, made a cleric. In the new regime ordination to the diaconate does it. Tonsure was a purely ritual act, not a sacrament; the theological status of the tonsured person remained exactly what it was. he continued to be a layperson. Yet from the moment he received the tonsure he could participate (and many did) in the exercise of the power of governance … which is now the exclusive domain of the ordained persons.” (p. 41)
“If the present situation becomes a norm for the future, the church will be more clerical than it ever was. Since the laity will have no part in any major decision-making office or process, much of their God-given gifts and talents will lay fallow. The hierarchy will stress to them that obedience ought to be their principal virtue. Sure, the laity will be promoted in many minor ways, but the line between the ordained and non-ordained will remain sharply drawn.
“In particular, no woman will ever have the opportunity (or capacity) to have a share in major decision-making processes–not even when the subject matter of a decision does not require the sacramental power of ordination.
“We need to think afresh.” (p. 41-2)
He says that the idea of “the laity” as a separate category is meaningless because we never “become” lay people at any point and you wouldn’t define a group by what it’s not (e.g., not the ordained). So he says “in order to understand the place and role of the laity in the church, we must not look at the laity as a distinct unit in the church. We must focus on the entire people as a whole.” (p. 43)
Lay people could and should be voting members of synods or councils, be members of decision-making bodies in the Curia, be in charge of the administration of the assets in the church, or (if qualified) be preachers. The basis for all this is baptism.
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
