Since 2001 when New Wine, New Wineskins was published, pastoral councils have worked to build parish life and advise the pastor on activities, programs, and finances based on a sound model of planning and collaboration. A necessary and well-received document, New Wine, New Wineskins brought council members and pastors to an understanding of the need for colllegiality, utilizing laity skills and insights, and advancing the parish in terms of future planning. The three-fold task of council as expressed in the Decree on Bishops—to investigate, to reflect on the church situation, and to recommend conclusions to the pastor—is met in this venue, yet there is no emphasis on or concern about the community at large. How does the church exist and thrive within the expanded dimension of society?

One only need go to Scripture to read how the early church responded and related to the larger community. As the leaders of these early faith communities convened, they observed and dialogued, prayed, reflected on the situations that the community embraced, and strategically thought about the faith community’s response to what was happening to the larger body. Hermann and Gaston do not suggest that we return to the time of our foundations, but rather to living the charisms today as the early church would live it in our place. History bears out that same principle in pastors such as Thomas Augustine Judge, Michael McGivney, John Carroll, Jean Vanier, and others who did likewise—reflecting with council and through counsel on the church within the bigger picture.

Build a Life-giving Parish does not minimize the importance of the role of council as outlined by the Decree on Bishops, nor does it sideline the task of parish planning. Both authors experienced years of working with councils and understand the critical nature of these tasks. Rather than minimizing these charges, Hermann and Gaston focus on the bigger picture and surmise that through their personal experiences, prayer, reflection, and counsel within council are primary to these other tasks.

In my ministry as retreat center director, I have the privilege of meeting and talking with parishioners who are involved in parish life and pastoral councils. Three such colleagues have read this book and have voiced a resounding “yes” to the authors’ conclusion. “Something is missing from the current situation,” said one. “After five years of working with the traditional planning model, we are going through the routine. It doesn’t ring true. I leave one business meeting at my workplace to sit down to another one with council members and our pastor.” And another: “No one ever asks about what was happening in our lives outside of church; the process no longer seems real.”

In addition, I continually hear how important it is to listen to what is going on in people’s lives. The phrase “prayer and spiritual reflection” prior to dialogue is the key to making the difference. The spiritual practices offered in this book are wonderful ways to bring a council to the understanding that the gifts of the Spirit must be present within the group; good listening skills will help one hear those gifts in others as well as the wisdom that they bring to the table. This is not a neat and tidy undertaking, to say the least. It does not follow a highlighted agenda. But dedication, courage, commitment, and the power of the Spirit, who can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine, can and will create a life-giving parish.

If we hope that our parishes will respond to the realities of the day through our programming and planning, pastoral councils cannot disassociate the church from the world. And we cannot continue planning, albeit practical, without looking at the deeper issues that affect our world, giving them serious reflection and prayer, and then dialoguing about a parish response. Such a response should stem from strategic thinking, which in turn can move to planning and execution of ideas. Perhaps, as these authors note, the actual planning for a parish may move to a different body. But it is the preliminary work that becomes the primary responsibility of a parish pastoral council and pastor– prayer, reflection, listening, and dialogue.

In support of a more formal connection of PPCs to pastoral planning that has application for the United States, I would cite Novo Millenio Ineunete:

“In particular there is a need to foster greater involvement of the laity through such participatory structures as pastoral councils and parish assemblies. Pastoral planning with the lay faithful should be a normal feature of all parishes.”

Clearly Pope John Paul II, as with his letter to the Church in Asia, reiterates the connection between pastoral planning and the ministry of the Parish Pastoral Council. Whether the Parish Pastoral Council leads the planning process or simply participates in it is still an open question. I am inclined to view the answer as a “both / and” rather than “either / or.”

It is in the local churches that the specific features of a detailed pastoral plan can be identified — goals and methods, formation and enrichment of the people involved, the search for the necessary resources — which will enable the proclamation of Christ to reach people, mould communities, and have a deep and incisive influence in bringing Gospel values to bear in society and culture. (no. 29)

Elsewhere in his letter, Pope John Paul lauded the pastoral council as an instrument of communion. He wrote:

To this end [the achievement of communion], the structures of participation envisaged by Canon Law, such as the Council of Priests and the Pastoral Council, must be ever more highly valued. (no. 45)

But the Apostolic Letter does not say that the pastoral planning is the work of the pastoral council. Vatican II’s Decree on the Apostolate of Bishops first recommended pastoral councils. It said that they are to “investigate and consider matters relating to pastoral activity and to formulate practical conclusions concerning them” (no. 27). This threefold task – investigating, considering, and formulating conclusions – can be considered a synonym for pastoral planning, but the actual term “pastoral planning” is not used.

A More Direct Connection
In his Apostolic Exhortation of 1999 to the Bishops of Asia, entitled Ecclesia in Asia, Pope John Paul II made a direct connection between pastoral planning and pastoral councils. The Holy Father said:

In particular there is a need to foster greater involvement of the laity and consecrated men and women in pastoral planning and decision making through such participatory structures as pastoral councils and parish assemblies. (no. 25)

Pope John Paul here makes an unambiguous connection between pastoral councils and planning. It is worth remembering, however, that the pope’s letter is to merely a segment of the Church – the Church in Asia. Since it is not directed to the USA, we cannot say that the pope’s words were directed to us. Ecclesia in Asia states an important principle, but it did not exhort Americans to equate pastoral planning with councils.

The Clearest Examples
The clearest examples of Church teaching about councils and planning come from the Congregation for Bishops. In its “Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops” (Ecclesiae imago, May 31, 1973), the congregation had this to say about the pastoral council:

By its study and reflection, the council furnishes the judgments necessary to enable the diocesan community to plan its pastoral program systematically and to fulfill it effectively. (no. 204).

The 1973 Directory for Bishops is almost forty years old and no longer has canonical force, because it was replaced by the 2004 Directory for Bishops (Apostolorum successores, Feb. 22, 2004). In the new Directory, the congregation had this to say about pastoral councils and planning:

The Bishop may propose themes for the council to discuss in connection with the pastoral activity of the diocese: these include the pastoral plan, various catechetical, missionary and apostolic initiatives, ways of improving the doctrinal formation and sacramental life of the faithful, assistance for the pastoral ministry of the clergy, and various means of raising public awareness regarding concerns of the Church. (no. 184)

The 1973 Directory is useful, however, because it shows a continuity with the 2004 Directory. That is significant. The link between pastoral councils and planning was forged in 1973, and it remained strong in 2004.

Conclusion
Official church documents do not directly equate the work of pastoral councils with pastoral planning. They state, however, that councils have a role to play in such planning. Councils are not simply planning bodies. They can do much more than plan. Their task is to participate in the pastor’s mission of shepherding the flock. They do so in a threefold way, that is, by investigating, reflecting, and recommending their conclusions. This is a broad definition. It is broader than pastoral planning, but certainly may include it.

The focus of Build a Life-Giving Parish: The Gift of Counsel in the Modern World is not to debate the merits or demerits of pastoral planning. Both authors have collaborated together and with others in any number of strategic planning processes in Church groups for well over two decades. We are convinced that, if anything, consistent and good strategic planning is woefully lacking in Church and community organizations. After many years in this work, however, we do not believe that this is the primary function of pastoral councils.

• Fischer writes:

To my mind, that phrase [i.e. “pastoral planning”] is the American translation of the threefold task of pastoral councils as expressed in the Decree on Bishops. They investigate and reflect on church matters and recommend conclusions to their pastors.

We would challenge Fischer’s interpretation of this statement in the document. We are not aware of any official Church documents, including the Decree on Bishops, which formally or officially equate the work of councils with the art and science of planning itself. Vatican II articulated a renewed vision of Church structures, including councils, but did not give a definitive blueprint for how they should function across the diverse cultures of the Church. Canon 536 simply states: “After the diocesan bishop has listened to the presbyteral council and if he judges it opportune, a pastoral council is to be established in each parish; the pastor presides over it, and through it the Christian faithful along with those who share in the pastoral care of the parish in virtue of their office give their help in fostering pastoral activity.” New Wine, New Wineskins, the Diocese of Greensburg PA Pastoral Council Guidelines (1996), adopted pastoral planning as a primary means of moving councils beyond their earlier role as coordinating or managerial bodies for parish ministries and activities. It adopted pastoral planning in light of much research, along with the newfound knowledge and enthusiasm experienced in good planning processes happening everywhere, especially in business. However, it was not understood as the definitive interpretation of the vision expressed in Church documents.

In the intervening years, and after massive changes in parish and societal life, many pastoral and lay council members continue to express quiet discontent and a sense of atrophy about their efforts in council. While planning has engaged their time and energy, it remains fairly clear that the needed pastoral dialogue is rarely occurring. Clearly, pastoral leaders and diverse groupings of parishioners have yet to engage in the dialogue that effectively taps into their deepest spiritual hungers. In the meantime, much of parish life continues in “automatic pilot” mode.

• Fischer writes further:

Experienced councillors will welcome the authors’ efforts to clearly focus pastoral councils by trying to describe their purpose with precision. These efforts would be more successful, however, if they retraced the steps of the Vatican II Decree on Bishops with its threefold definition of the council’s role, and recognized that the pastoral council serves the pastor’s apostolate, not the laity’s.

The authors understand very well the hierarchical structure of the Church and the canonical authority of the pastor as overseer of the parish by appointment of the diocesan bishop. However, we define the distinct and complementary “mission fields” of laity and ordained; we do not put them in opposition to each other. The challenge for the laity is to better understand their lives and world, and to be able to speak forthrightly to the ordained about the challenges of living their faith in a rapidly changing 21st century world. On the other hand, the ordained bring a theological vision, experience and view of life, parish and Church, to the table that can be foreign to and unappreciated by the laity. Both must engage in an appropriately structured faith dialogue that is unique to that community. Each must listen, each must speak, and all must discern the call and grace given to that community in the Holy Spirit. As outlined in the book, this is the critical counsel that is required, and council is the privileged and unique forum in which this process occurs as in no other place in the parish.

If this level of reflection can be learned and practiced (utilizing particular virtues), good counsel can be given to a pastor. There are many ways in which he can choose to “implement pastoral responses” as a result of the counsel received in council.

• Fischer attempts to use the Foreward by Jean Vanier to strengthen his beliefs:

Ironically, the testimony of Vanier undermines or implicitly critiques two of the claims of Hermann and Gaston.

As the founder of L’Arche, Jean Vanier serves as a person who, in his time, believes in the value and need of counsel. Anyone who knows Jean realizes that he constantly seeks this from others. He does not do so to make himself a better leader or person, but to deepen the charism that has been given through him for others. Planning in L’Arche is a totally separate process from engaging in council. It is here that the life of the handicapped person is most deeply heard. It is not about Jean’s apostolate (any more than the parish is the priest’s apostolate). Similar to Fr. Thomas Augustine Judge, Jean Vanier stands out as a man who thinks with the Church not in its hierarchical structure, but in relation to its place in society and in the world. We contend that many more of the laity, like Jean, need to understand their ability to change the world.

In conclusion, we appreciate Mark Fischer’s review and the dialogue that, hopefully, will ensue among pastoral practitioners seeking to better understand the role of councils and to root them in an intrinsic ecclesial context rather than adaptations from elsewhere.

I am grateful to Mark Fischer for his review of Build a Life-Giving Parish as it encourages readers to focus on the book’s highly relevant theme. When I started to read this book I could not put it down, because its message is urgently relevant to all ministries in the church. We simply need to get our priorities right. The book examines what must be the primary driving force in all decision-making within the Church. How a project is defined and then explained powerfully affects what is actually about it. Inaccurate perceptions of, and defective attitudes to, pastoral councils invariably result in much frustration and even failures.

This book is the product of two very experienced pastoral workers, Brenda Hermann and James T. Gaston. They have seen first-hand the frustrations and the failures of pastoral councils for the simple reason that councils have too often forgotten their primary task. The authors succinctly bring us back to this task. They claim that there is “a need for a clearer and deeper understanding of the nature and purpose of pastoral councils for both the ordained and the laity” (p. 1). The purpose, they say, is about “taking counsel in council”, which means “the deliberate process of listening, dialogue, deciding, and implementing pastoral responses for God’s people”(4). The authors, summarizing their own experience, very deliberately refuse to accept the common view that the fundamental purpose of a council is planning (2).

This conclusion is bound to be controversial. They claim that “councils, contrary to some current thinking, are not the strategic planners of the faith community.” Instead councils “are to engage in the pastoral reflection and the strategic thinking that must precede planning” (38). A council, with its pastor and lay councillors, exists to respond to “one critical question: What is the will of God for this community? . . . All processes it uses are to answer this question.” Council meetings must be “centered in seeking a Gospel response to the signs of the times” (41). The global world, with its enormous ever-increasing complexity, impacts on the life of every member of a parish. What is God asking of parishioners? Together, in an atmosphere of prayer and faith, the pastor and councillors unite in seeking to discover in this chaotic world, through dialogue, pastoral answers to this question.

Contrary to Mark Fischer’s review, I believe the authors are right. For this reason the small book is immensely timely and filled with wisdom born of years of experience. The fundamental tension in all faith-based projects, such as hospitals, schools, is that between “the mission” and “the business.” “The mission” is the breaking in of God’s kingdom, a kingdom of love, compassion, justice, reconciliation. “The business” consists of practical issues like planning, setting targets, arranging for finance. Both poles of the tension are necessary, but it is the mission that must be the senior partner. “The mission” must always be driving “the business” side of the project.

We live in a world where (despite the recent global financial disaster) individualism, greed, economic rationalism or unregulated market forces, still remain dominant realities. We are nations renowned for our brilliant practical planning, but our philosophical assumptions have been proved disastrously wrong. We rarely stop and think about deeper issues of life. We are just too busy. Pastoral councils can unwittingly mirror these realities. Consequently, they will give “the business” side (with its emphasis on planning) their primary attention, downplaying the principal purpose for which they exist. No wonder people find their experience of pastoral councils boring, lacking faith-filled inspiration. What is the answer? Less planning, more reflection, more dialogue and strategic thinking. Then planning can take place by the appropriate people.

Finally, the authors helpfully include in their book a range of spiritual practices, such as guidelines for faith-sharing and theological reflection, that will help pastoral councils in their primary task of improving pastoral care. The writing style of the book is clear and illustrated with focused case studies.

Gerald A. Arbuckle, sm, Ph.D. is the author of Refounding the Church: Dissent for Leadership (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993); Healthcare Ministry: Refounding the Mission in Tumultuous Times (Liturgical Press, 2000); and Culture, Inculturation, and Theologians: A Postmodern Critique (Liturgical Press, Sept 2010).