Do you have any helpful conceptual designs for Parish Pastoral Councils that clearly spell out their purpose and practical function with the best latest thinking?

Mark F. Fischer replied:

Peri’s new handbook gives an overview of administration for the seminarian.

Review by Mark F. Fischer

Father Paul F. Peri, a veteran priest of the Archdiocese of Portland and professor at Mount Angel Seminary, has published a modest book that intends to “fly at twenty thousand feet” over the subject of parish administration in a way that is decidedly “nontechnical” (p. 2).  He writes “especially for seminarians,” and that distinguishes the book from anything currently on the market.

The book’s title invites comparison with The Parish Management Handbook, edited in 2003 by Charles E. Zech, whose encouragement Peri acknowledges.  Both are “handbooks,” an Old English word that can mean both a compendium and a source of concise information.  Peri’s book, brief and in a small format, definitely belongs to the latter category.  Zech’s book by contrast is a compendium, written by eight different authors in 217 pages.

Shepherd of Parish Relationships

Peri does not treat the theology of parish administration (as does Zech’s book), but it is rich in practical insight for the pastor who aspires to be “the shepherd of parish relationships” (67).  The phrase expresses Peri’s conviction that administration is not a merely secular task.  The key to being the shepherd of parish relationships is personal maturity.  For Peri, the mature priest-pastor must be able to act prudently and to seek help when it is needed (69).  An experienced pastor, Peri views administration as a worthy vocation and claims that pastors will typically devote one-half of their time to it (8).

Peri’s book has no chapter dedicated entirely to pastoral and finance councils, but it treats parish consultation in a number of places, starting in Chapter One.  There Peri rightly characterizes the pastoral council in terms of “pastoral planning” (15), which he describes in very schematic terms.  Chapter One also describes the parish finance council as an “advisor” to the pastor, who is the “steward for the parish mission.”  Who defines the mission?  The pastoral council has “described” it “for the community” (16), said Peri, indicating what for him is a council duty.

In Chapter Two, Peri advises the pastor to consult his councils and staff members thoroughly (23).  In Chapter Four, he states that the pastor should “train” the finance council so that, by its review and scrutiny of the budget, “unpleasant financial scandals will not happen” (42).  He encourages pastors to avail themselves of the expertise available through chancery officials, who “will give their best estimates of how health insurance, property insurance, and other costs are trending” (44).  Peri does not analyze pastoral and finance councils in detail, but certainly encourages pastors to make use of them.

Human Resources

Chapter Three (“Personnel”) offers practical advice aimed specifically at the pastor.  He should tell his employees (Peri advises) that he will not hear their confessions.  What if “the bookkeeper confesses that she or he has been secretly taking funds from the parish”? (27).  The wise pastor must distinguish between his duties as shepherd of souls and as steward of parish resources.

Peri’s Catholic Parish Administration urges pastor-administrators to clarify employee expectations and review performance regularly (33).  To learn how to do this, however, one would have to consult an overview of human resource management, such as the one provided in Zech’s Parish Management Handbook.  There one can find model job descriptions, a recruitment process for selecting new employees, advice on the management of employee compensation, and an overview of performance evaluations.  “Flying at twenty thousand feet,” Peri’s book does not offer these details, but endorses sound administrative practices.

Chapter Four (“Finances”) begins with an anecdote about how a thief was able to break into the safe of a suburban Portland parish and make off with the Sunday collection.  The chapter focuses on the practice of financial control, and Peri believes that the pastor should co-sign every parish check.  He wants the parish budget to be developed by means of a thorough consultation, and states that parishioners “have a right” to be kept informed about parish finances (45).  There is no detailed explanation of how they are to be informed, but Peri clearly asserts the principle.

After examining the parish budget, Peri turns to the individual finances of the priest.  He urges individual priests to begin saving early for their retirement.  They can apply to parish administration the lessons they learn from planning for their own future.  We do not find, in Peri’s chapter on finances, a large-scale introduction to “Developing Stewards in a Parish Setting,” such as the one we find in Zech.  Instead, Peri offers a down-to-earth description of how to budget, starting with the estimation of parish income and proceeding to its allocation.

Two Surprises

Catholic Parish Administration surprises the reader with chapters on “Property” and on “Insurance and Risk Management” – two chapters that have no counterparts in Zech’s book or in any other guide to Catholic Church management that I know.  Property and insurance are usually treated in management handbooks under the heading of civil law.  Peri does not tackle that vast subject, but exposes the concerns of a pastor who may be offered property as a donation or for sale, and who wants to lower insurance costs and limit risks to the parish.

In short, Peri’s book has a modest aim.  As a handbook for seminarians, it conveys the seriousness of administration for men who aspire to the calling of pastor, but leaves the details of management theory to other textbooks.  The particularity of his book is its emphasis on relationships.  The pastor is engaged in relationships – ecclesial relationships with his bishop and fellow priests; professional relationships with the parish’s employees, vendors, and consultants; and pastoral relationships with his parishioners for whom he is priest and leader.  “Church work,” writes Peri, “is about building and sustaining relationships” (10).  That insight makes this book eloquent and unique.

About Decision-Making by Vote (10.05.2012), Ryan Berning wrote:

I am the new secretary for my parish council.  During the first few meetings I have noticed that the council does not take an actual vote on the items or decisions to be made. When I made a motion that the council vote on a subject, our pastor stated that no voting will take place.  The Diocese of Madison guidelines state that decisions should be reached by consensus, but canon 536 states that the pastoral council possesses a consultative “vote.”  My view is that it is impossible for the council, as a whole, to advise the pastor without voting (counting the votes or requiring a vocal majority). Could you please clarify if the Parish Councils if councils have the right to take vote in order to over their consultation?

Mark F. Fischer replied:

You asked whether  councils “have the right to take a vote” regarding an issue, given the fact that the pastor has stated that no voting will take place.  Canon 536 states that pastoral councils have “a consultative vote only.”  That seems to imply that pastoral councils must reach decisions by voting.

On the other hand, the Diocese of Madison’s draft Norms and Guidelines for Parish Pastoral Councils take a different tack.  Norm #6 says that decisions should be arrived at by consensus, not by a vote.

The trouble is that the word “vote” is a translation from the Latin.  Votum has many meanings, such as: prayer, wish, desire, and promise to God.  The motto of my wife’s Catholic high school was “Non vox sed votum,” or “not words but deeds.”  So your pastor could argue that “consultative vote” means “an expression of the council’s wishes” — not necessarily a straight up-or-down vote.

Let’s consider how your pastor may view the matter.  He is already consulting the council.  It’s up to him decide whether to take the council’s advice or not.  After all, he’s the “consumer” of the council’s advice.  It seems to not want to know precisely what the council members believe.  He probably avoids voting because he does not want to uncover differences of opinion among council members.  He may see the process of voting as polarizing.  Some writers have argued that “voting” or “parliamentary procedure” leads to division in the council.  I don’t subscribe to that viewpoint, but some do.

The Madison Norms and Guidelines call for decisions to be reached by consensus.  You could object that, from your point of view, consensus does not yet exist.  You could ask the pastor or the chairperson to test for whether the council has reached consensus.  That question would be only fair.  You also asked the following questions:

• How can the Parish Council properly advise or give consultation to the pastor, as a whole, without taking a vote in consultation to the pastor?  Your pastor may consult in whatever way he finds useful (subject to the Madison guidelines).  He could say that the informal consultation that he now takes is satisfactory.
• Is the Parish Council permitted to hold its own meetings without the pastor?  Parishioners can meet at any time.  But when they meet without the pastor, the meeting is not, strictly speaking, a meeting of the pastoral council.  It’s just a gathering of parishioners.
• May the council publish its collective consultative votes on issues for the pastor and the parish to reference?  Once again, independent parishioners are free to voice their opinions.  But the pastoral council is not a body independent of the pastor.  The pastor consults it because he wants to make wise decisions, but he is not obliged to “answer” to the council.  A group of parishioners could try to embarrass the pastor by complaining that “the council advised X and he did Y.”  That’s divisive and not very prudent.

Your idea about meeting privately with the pastor is a good one.  You have a few bones to pick with him, and it’s always a good idea to lay out disagreements privately.  Ultimately, your best tack is to say that the Diocese of Madison guidelines advise councils to make recommendations via consensus, and you don’t feel that consensus has yet been reached.

Pastoral Council Effectiveness

Liz Woodhouse wrote on August 4, 2012:

Could you please describe the features of an effective parish council?  We don’t have a council in the parish where I serve, Westminster Cathedral.  Of course we’re a bit unique as we’re the Mother Church of Catholics in Great Britain but there is also a residential “parish” population.

Mark F. Fischer replied:

I visited the Westminster Cathedral website and saw that Canon Christopher Tuckwell is the “Administrator.” That’s a key point, because a pastoral council advises the pastor, and I presume that the “pastor” of the cathedral is Archbishop Vincent Nichols. Canon Law distinguishes between a “diocesan” pastoral council and a “parish” pastoral council. So it is conceivable that Archbishop Nichols has an archdiocesan pastoral council and Canon Tuckwell could establish a PPC in the future. Even though he’s not technically the “pastor,” nevertheless any parish administrator needs the kind of help that a pastoral council offers.

You asked about a “parish” council. Strictly speaking, there are two types of parish councils. One is the pastoral council, the other is the finance council. Canon 536 requires every parish to have a finance council. Canon 537 does not require pastoral councils, but says that bishops may require them in ever parish. I’m going to assume that when you mention a “parish” council, you mean a parish “pastoral” council.

What makes a pastoral council effective? To answer that question, we have to see what the Church expects of them. Pastoral councils were first recommended at Vatican II’s Decree on Bishops, par. 27. It says that pastoral councils do three things: they “investigate” some matter under the pastor’s direction, the “ponder” it, and they “draw conclusions” and recommend them to the pastor. If a council does this well, I believe, then it is “effective.” But the three jobs of the council (investigate, ponder, and conclude) imply many other things that contribute to effectiveness.

First, consider the work of investigation. This implies a lot about the pastor. It implies that an administrator like Canon Tuckwell wants to know more about some aspect of parish life. He has to make decisions on behalf of the parish, and he knows that his own knowledge is limited. He wants to draw upon the knowledge of the council. Investigation also implies some qualities on the part of the councillors. They have to have the freedom, the capacity and the patience to do the work that the word “investigation” suggests.

Next, let’s consider the work of “pondering.” Basically, this means that the council has to reflect on what it has investigated. The council must consider what the investigation means for the local parish community. It has to pray, discern, analyze, discuss, prioritize, and weigh the consequences. Any expert can tell you what is good and appropriate in general and for the most part. But no one outside the community can gauge what is good and appropriate for the community itself, at this moment in its history, and in the situation it faces.

Finally, the council has to draw conclusions and recommend them to the pastor. This too implies a lot about the relation between Canon Tuckwell and the council. If he really wants the council’s help, then he must enable the members to understand the particular situation he faces. If he fails to do this, then the council may recommend something that he cannot accept. If the pastor refuses the council’s advice, he will demoralize the council. It is far better for the pastor to participate in the council’s deliberations, informing the members of his cares and concerns, allowing the council to shape his own perceptions and decisions.  All of that goes along with the pastor’s identity as one who leads the community in the name of Jesus as a good shepherd.

In short, a council succeeds when its investigation is so careful, its reflection so thorough, and its conclusions so wise that a pastor (or administrator like Canon Tuckwell) accepts them and puts them into practice. That is true effectiveness. It also solves the problem of recruiting council members. Everyone wants to be on a group that makes a positive difference. Once the council has had a few successes, then people will vie for membership on it.

“What is your criterion for saying the parish councils are increasing and that they are successful? I have served in several parishes that did not have a council or had one that did not come close to serving its purpose.”

Mark F. Fischer replied:

The Catholic Church’s official documents prefer to speak of the priest as a good shepherd, rather than simply as a leader.  Instead of calling for leadership development at the seminary level, ecclesial documents tend to speak of seminarians learning to imitate the good shepherd, Jesus Christ.  By contrast with secular management textbooks, which define leadership as the ability to influence followers in the accomplishment of tasks,[1] church documents on priestly formation emphasize the assimilation by priests of Christ’s mission.  Through their life and ministry – in short, through their identity with Christ – priests allow God’s incarnate Word to teach, sanctify, and guide the community,[2] so that its members may also make the mission of Christ their own.  This distinguishes pastoring from leadership defined as the ability to influence followers in completing a task.

At the same time, official documents of the Church do speak of priests as “leaders,” albeit in a somewhat muted fashion.  Vatican II, for example, stated that the priest “leads” the brothers and sisters of God as a family.[3]  The priest is not merely influencing followers to accomplish a task, but allowing God to lead through him.  Similarly, John Paul II described the priest as “encouraging and leading the ecclesial community.”  In his view, the priest is able “to coordinate all the gifts and charisms which the Spirit inspires in the community.”[4]  More than influencing others, priestly leadership includes calling forth the gifts of the Christian people.  The United States Bishops also speak of the necessity for leadership formation in their Program of Priestly Formation.  To be sure, they subordinate leadership training to the assimilation by seminarians of the mission of Christ.  But the PPF clearly states that seminarians must acquire the “skills for effective pastoral leadership.”[5]  The priest is more a shepherd than a leader, at least in ecclesial documents, but his ability to lead is essential.

A publication in 2008 of the National Catholic Educational Association, In Fulfillment of Their Mission, has affirmed the importance of leadership from a practical point of view.[6]  The publication describes the nine “duties” of the Catholic priest, of which the fourth is to “lead” parish administration.  Administration encompasses eleven distinct tasks, including the leadership of pastoral and finance councils, the oversight of planning ministry, and stewardship, and the supervision of staff, property, and communication.  While “good shepherd” may be the preferred description of the Catholic pastor, “leadership” is one of his essential duties.

Given the Church’s endorsement (however modest) of the concept of leadership, it is disappointing to see so little attention paid to leadership in the seminary curriculum.  The PPF states that the pastoral formation program “should provide opportunities” for seminarians to acquire “the skills of pastoral leadership” (no. 239, p. 81), but the nature of these opportunities remains vague.  Nowhere does the PPF require a course in leadership as it requires courses in Holy Orders (no. 202) and in Ecumenism (no. 216).  Seminarians are supposed to learn how to be effective pastoral leaders, says the PPF, but the primary means to accomplish this is through “an initiation to various practical, pastoral experiences, especially in parishes.”[7]  In other words, seminarians are invited to observe leadership at the practical level, understand it, and then assimilate it.  One might conclude that education in leadership has been relegated to on-the-job training.

To help seminary educators avoid this false conclusion, this essay will elaborate what ecclesial documents say about leadership development.  While most of the PPF’s treatment can be found under the heading of pastoral formation, the PPF also hints about leadership in the pillars of human, spiritual, and intellectual formation as well.  The essay will retrace aspects of the treatment of leadership within the Church’s official documents about the formation of priests under the following headings:

1. Human Formation.  Under this pillar we will see how the Church connects leadership to obedience.  Official teaching offers an implicit critique of any kind of leadership that is not obedient to the spirit of Christ.
2. Spiritual Formation.  This pillar affirms the teaching that priestly power does not grant the priest an automatic right to be obeyed, but rather stems from his assimilation of the servant-mission of Christ, possibly creating what John Paul II called a “missionary tension” between serving the community and obeying the bishop.
3. Intellectual Formation.  Not just the courses on priesthood and spiritual theology, but even the core courses in the pre-theology curriculum (our examples are epistemology, metaphysics and ethics) can explore the philosophic bases of leadership.
4. Pastoral Formation.  Seminarians reflect on their experiences of leadership in courses guided by pastoral field educators, and seminarian interns who consult their parishioners gain an experience akin to leading a pastoral council.

By drawing out the hints about leadership within all four of the pillars of formation, educators can enhance the seminary’s capacity to form priestly leaders.

A. Human Formation: Learning Leadership through Obedience

The PPF, in its section on human formation, hardly speaks of leadership.  It does say, however, that human formation takes place “when seminarians learn to accept the authority of superiors, develop the habit of using freedom with discretion, learn to act on their own initiative and do so energetically, and learn to work harmoniously with confreres and laity.”[8]  All of these belong to leadership.  Before one can be a leader, one must be able to accept the leadership of others.  The seminarian must learn to see the exercise of leadership as essential to the Christian community.  Utopians may criticize leadership as authoritarian and incompatible with true human equality, but in no society is everyone on an absolutely equal footing.[9]  The well-being of every community depends on wise leaders and intelligent followers.  Seminarians aspire to leadership when they see it exercised wisely.

The passage from the PPF simultaneously extols obedience and freedom.  The seminarian, it says, must learn both to obey and to use freedom with discretion.  Why are these terms linked?  Pope John Paul II’s Pastores dabo vobis, in its section on human formation, gives us a clue.  There we read that “human maturity, and in particular affective maturity, requires a clear and strong training in freedom which expresses itself in convinced and heartfelt obedience to the ‘truth’ of one’s being.”[10]  The passage affirms that freedom is not the antithesis of obedience.  In fact, true freedom means a liberation from everything that would hinder the person from seeing reality (including the reality of God) and acting in accord with it.  True freedom is lived in obedience to genuine authority, whether we call that authority “the ‘truth’ of one’s being” or the Word of God.

We can discern the relevance of this insight to the concept of leadership in another passage from Pastores dabo vobis that links obedience to ecclesial authority and responsible freedom.  The priest should not obey his bishop (nor the seminarian his rector) in a blind and unreflective way.  Speaking of the priest’s obedience to his bishop, Pope John Paul wrote:

The ‘submission’ of those invested with ecclesial authority is in no way a kind of humiliation.  It flows instead from the responsible freedom of the priest who accepts not only the demands of an organized and organic ecclesial life, but also that grace of discernment and responsibility in ecclesial decisions which was assured by Jesus to his Apostles and their successors.”[11]

The priest or seminarian obeys because he accepts the reality of the Church.  But this is not servility or a merely pragmatic assent to those in power.  It is also “discernment and responsibility.”  The obedience of the Christian is not blind but thoughtful.  It acts, not by dumb reflex, but after consideration of the truth.

That is why obedience and leadership are linked.  One obeys an ecclesial authority just as one obeys the truth of one’s being.  Obedience is an expression of insight.  By obeying, one acknowledges the goodness and the superior insight of the leader or authority.  For that reason, John Paul II wrote that learning obedience prepares a person for leadership.  “Only the person who knows how to obey in Christ,” we read, “is really able to require obedience from others in accordance with the Gospel.”[12]  Leadership, whether defined in terms of the good shepherd or in terms of influencing others to achieve a task, necessarily invites obedience.  The priestly leader invites obedience in good faith because he already knows how to obey “in Christ.”  The leader receives obedience from those who hear God’s Word in the invitation to obey.

The goal of this essay is to help educators understand the Church’s call for leadership development within the pillars of seminary formation.  The first pillar, human formation, links the development of the future leader to obedience and to human development.  Seminarians manifest their growth in self-awareness by showing a capacity for leadership.[13]  The link between human formation and leadership has two practical consequences, which we can treat as follows:

• Obedience and Leadership.  Formators should invite seminarians to regard responsible obedience as essential to achieving the seminary’s goals and purposes.  They should reflect on the challenge of offering obedience in the present, and relate it to the challenge of inviting obedience in the future.
• Opportunities for Leadership.  When officials (e.g., Directors of Students) invite seminarians to exercise leadership, the officials should support them during their work and afterwards reflect with them about how well they did.  Human formation means, not just shaping seminarians, but allowing them to be leaders.

Management textbooks commonly treat leadership as the ability to influence followers.  The Church’s official documents about seminary education remind educators that all leaders were once followers.  Being a follower is not a sign of humiliation, but of obedience to the leader’s superior insight.  Becoming a good follower is the seminarian’s first step on the way to becoming a good leader.

B. Spiritual Formation: Leadership and Pastoral Charity

Leadership development also takes place within spiritual formation.  The seminary aims at helping the student to identify with Christ as the unifier of the Christian community.  The sacrament of the Eucharist signifies this unity.  It makes tangible the spiritual reality of communion.

The communion between the priest and the lay Christian poses a delicate challenge to seminary formators.  On the one hand, their task is to help seminarians assimilate Christ, the one to whom they will be conformed in the sacrament of Holy Orders.  Both Lumen gentium and Pastores dabo vobis speak of the ontological bond that exists between Christ and the priest.[14]    At the same time, however, formators must avoid any suggestion that the priest, who is configured to Christ in a sacramental way, is thereby superior in status to other Christians, who are configured to Christ in a general way.[15]  The ontological difference between the ministerial and the common priesthood is no excuse for clericalism.  Nor is it an adequate basis for the priest’s leadership of the community.  Formators should insist that the ordination of a priest does not automatically make him a leader who commands obedience.

The obedience that belongs to the priestly leader is not rooted in the difference between priest and people, but in the love that unites them.  The PPF states that spiritual formation and pastoral formation reinforce one another, and that seminarians are called to love of God and neighbor.  “When they respond positively to this invitation and grow in that love, they find the basis for pastoral and ministerial outreach that culminates in pastoral charity.”[16]  The leadership of the priest must be exercised in love if people are to respond to it in love.

John Paul II affirmed this insight in his discussion of how the priest is configured to Christ.  He began by acknowledging the “spiritual power” of the priest, a power defined as “a share in the authority with which Jesus Christ guides the Church.”[17]  But lest anyone misunderstand this “power” as an authority based on rank, John Paul immediately linked it to service.  The priest’s spiritual power, said the pope, belongs to Christ who heads the Church “in the new and unique sense of being a ‘servant.’”  Unlike other leaders who lord it over their subjects, the Christlike priest manifests pastoral charity.  Quoting St. Augustine, John Paul called the priestly office an “amoris officium.”[18]  It is an office, yes, complete with its own rank, trappings, and privileges.  But at its heart, it is an office of love.  In the pastoral office, the priest commits himself to the Church’s own goal for itself: green pastures and flowing waters.  He leads the flock where the flock itself, possessing the mind of Christ, wants to go.

At the same time, however, experience proves that the flock does not always possess the mind of Christ.  The Church does not oblige the pastor to obey the flock, but instead insists upon his obedience to the bishop.  With the bishop, wrote John Paul II, the priest is in “hierarchical communion.”  That does not simply mean that the priest obeys blindly (see footnote 11).  He does not merely obey the bishop and lead the flock where the bishop decides it must go.  No, John Paul linked the idea of hierarchical communion with unity.  The priest obeys his bishop in order to build up the unity of the flock, inviting its members to follow their vocations and put their gifts at God’s service.  The priest’s ordained priesthood is meant to promote the laity’s baptismal priesthood.  Tension may arise between the priest’s duty of obedience to the bishop and his service to their people.  John Paul II called it a “missionary tension.”[19]  It is an unavoidable aspect of the mystery of the Church as both a diversity and a unity.

Obedience and service help to explain the continued relevance of the term “servant leadership” coined by Robert K. Greenleaf.[20]  The servant leader “serves” followers by helping them achieve their goals.  Such a leader presupposes that followers already know in general where they want to go.  The servant leader facilitates the followers’ growth and goal-oriented activity.  Greenleaf’s concept of leadership is akin to the so-called “path-goal” theory of leadership from the 1970s.  In that theory, followers have a goal, and the good leader serves them by showing them a path to reaching it.[21]  The pastor who is a servant leader helps his people achieve their goal of union with God.  He aids them by clarifying it, focusing his people’s attention on it, and helping them achieve it.[22]  Obedience to the bishop, which may exist in “missionary tension” with service to the community, is an essential part of clarifying the community’s goal.

Partisans of servant leadership may be tempted to overstate their case.  Some may say that it is a form of leadership uniquely suited to the Christian community and superior to other leadership styles.[23]  It might be better to view servant leadership not so much as a leadership style as a set of attitudes that good leaders embrace.  Good leaders serve their followers by helping them to achieve their goals and those of the organization.  Leadership styles, in contrast to the attitudes of servant leadership, are adopted by leaders depending on the situation they face.[24]  There is no one preferred leadership style (e.g., highly directive or laissez-faire), but rather a continuum of styles, each appropriate depending on the level of the followers’ readiness.  Wise leaders (and even servant leaders) change their style depending on what the situation demands.

Despite this criticism, the servant-leader concept successfully blends secular leadership theory with the Christian concept of the good shepherd.  It is not so much a style as it is a set of attitudes.  Good leaders do not merely influence their followers to accomplish a task, but affirm their dignity and help them achieve their own goals, insofar as they are also the goals of the Church.  This has consequences for the spiritual formation of seminarians:

• Leadership and Unity.  Formators should teach seminarians that leadership of Catholics by priests is never simply a direct consequence of the ontological difference between the ordained and the laity, as if ordination made priests leaders.  Leadership by priests in the Catholic community is properly exercised when they invite lay Catholics to freely assimilate the mission of Christ.
• Priestly Spiritual Power.  Spiritual formation should identify the spiritual power of the priest with the concept of service as expressed by Jesus Christ.  The future priest exercises legitimate spiritual power when the Christian community recognizes in his words and deeds the invitation of Christ.
• Bishop and Community.  Formators must help seminarians to see that obedience to the bishop and service to the community are not alternatives, but belong together in missionary tension.  The priestly servant-leader obeys the bishop in order to help clarify the goal of the people and help them reach it.

Spiritual formation assists in the development of priestly leaders by helping them to see the nature of leadership in the Christian community.  Such leadership is not the ability to command obedience due to an ontological difference between the leaders and the led.  On the contrary, it is the capacity for service, for inviting people to assimilate the mission of Christ, and for building up the Christian community.

C. Intellectual Formation: Leadership and Practical Wisdom

Although the seminary curriculum does not require a course in leadership or parish administration, nevertheless the curriculum offers many opportunities to study those subjects.  Courses in the theology curriculum (e.g., priesthood and spiritual theology) will certainly teach the kinds of lessons about leadership that we have sketched above under the headings of human and spiritual formation.  Even the courses now taught in the college seminary or pre-theologate enable students to encounter the philosophical roots of leadership in epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.  Let us examine the link between the philosophy curriculum and leadership development.

In order to see the link, consider the duties that a priest exercises.  Among the nine duties treated in the 2008 NCEA publication, In Fulfillment of Their Mission (see footnote 6 above), the fourth states that the priest leads parish administration.  Within that duty, he has the task of leading the pastoral and finance councils.  The leadership of councils is an art with its own philosophic dimensions.[25]  Canon Law ascribes to these councils a consultative-only vote. The priest leads them by consulting them, and is not obligated to follow the councils’ advice.  At the same time, however, his consultation of them implies an obligation.  Common courtesy and intellectual honesty oblige the priest to consult in good faith, sincerely seeking the wisdom of his councillors.  We shall examine the consequences of this under the headings of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.

C.i. Epistemology

Official documents speak of philosophy courses as if they had nothing to do with leadership.  The PPF, for example, regards the course on epistemology as the basis for drawing “objective and necessary truths” from the study of “contingent reality.”[26]  Here epistemology is presented as the antidote to skepticism and relativism, yet that hardly exhausts its contribution.  Epistemology aims not solely at objective and necessary truths, but also at contingent truths as they emerge in dialogue.  Paul VI spoke of dialogue as “the mental attitude which the Catholic Church must adopt regarding the contemporary world.”[27]  Dialogue, in which human beings struggle to reach agreement even about contingent truths, also belongs to epistemology.  The course provides an opening in the seminary curriculum to teach the capacity for dialogue as essential to the leader.

A few examples should make this clearer.  Epistemology usually includes an examination of the Platonic dialogues.  In them we witness the search by Socrates for the essences of the moral virtues.  Plato presented Socrates as the one who distinguished between examples of justice in the world and justice as an ideal form.  This may be what the PPF alludes to this when it speaks about drawing objective and necessary truths from contingent reality.

Important as this lesson is, the Platonic dialogues also provide the earliest example of the search for truth in dialogue – an essential skill for the priest who must make the right decision in a contingent situation.  As a searcher for truth, the priest must first adopt the attitude of Socratic ignorance (Apology 21a sq.), acknowledging that his knowledge is limited.  That is his motive for consultation, namely, to gain the wisdom of his parishioners.  Then he must lead the conversation, guiding others in the search for truth.  Socrates compared this process to the office of a midwife (Theaetatus 149 sq.) who helps others give birth to insight.  Plato’s portrayal reveals Socrates to be, not the one with all the answers, but the one committed to a truth that the community itself must bring to light.  There is no better literary example of leadership through dialogue.

Professors in the college seminary or pre-theologate must not only teach the difference between contingent and necessary truths.  They should also employ the Socratic dialogues to introduce seminarians to the importance of dialogue as a tool for leadership.  Socrates saw that, in order to discern what wisdom demands, there is no better way than to put forward an argument and subject it to scrutiny.  One must have “recourse to theories,” he said (Phaedo 99e).  Theories, i.e., logoi, are the expressions of thought in language.  We express them so as to examine them.  In dialogue, the leader invites a variety of viewpoints so that the best opinion will reveal itself.  The relevance of this practice to priestly leadership should be made explicit in the study of epistemology.

C.ii. Metaphysics

A second example of the relevance of the philosophic curriculum to leadership training is the course on metaphysics.  It is easy, however, to overlook this relevance.  The PPF states that metaphysics gives seminarians “the structure and ability” to discuss theology.[28]   In other words, metaphysics is viewed primarily as a preparation for theological studies.  John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et ratio amplifies this viewpoint.  It says that metaphysics provides a “horizon” so that students can move “beyond an analysis of religious experience,” that is, “from phenomenon to foundation.”[29]  Without metaphysics, the seminarian might not be able to understand what lies behind (or better said, what expresses itself through) phenomena.  Unfortunately, however, the course on metaphysics may be so preoccupied with the distinction between phenomena and foundations that it overlooks the link between the two.  The phenomenon of language is not separate from metaphysical truth, for it moves the thinker from appearance to reality.

Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics brings this out in a revealing way.  There Aristotle distinguished between “pure science” (knowledge or episteme) and “practical wisdom” (phronesis).  Both are a way of obtaining truths, he wrote, but they differ regarding (1) the types of knowledge at which they aim, (2) their method, and (3) the intellectual gift they require.  The distinction between scientific knowledge and practical wisdom is essential.  Scientific knowledge, on the one hand, aims at necessary truth, proceeds by demonstration, and requires abstract reasoning.  Practical wisdom, on the other hand, has to do with action or the correct thing to do in a given situation.  To gain this wisdom, one engages in a dialogue with others about the goal to be achieved.  The intellectual skill required for practical wisdom, said Aristotle, is the ability to deliberate well (bouleusis).  Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics constitutes a veritable primer for the seminarian who aspires to lead Christians in the search for practical wisdom.

The course on metaphysics undoubtedly must distinguish between a phenomenon and the unseen reality which it expresses.  But such a distinction, by itself, may pose a temptation.  It may tempt students to believe that, by making such a distinction, they have more practical insight than others.  The course on metaphysics should avoid that false implication.  In order to prepare seminarians for pastoral leadership, it should introduce another, complementary distinction: the distinction between the realms of knowledge.  By distinguishing between science and practical wisdom, Aristotle helps the seminarian to see that he cannot learn practical decision-making from a textbook.  The good leader makes wise decisions about how to act, not in isolation, but by conversing with those who are skilled in deliberation.

Metaphysics can show the seminarian the realm of knowledge in which consultation is essential, namely, practical wisdom.  One does not pursue it as one pursues the scientific knowledge of objective and necessary truths.  Practical wisdom is about how to act rightly in a contingent situation.  This is precisely what the priest seeks by consulting his people.  He asks others to deliberate with him about a course of action.  By highlighting this realm of knowledge and exploring the art of deliberation, the course on metaphysics can prepare the seminarian for pastoral leadership.

C.iii. Ethics

The course on ethics provides a final example of the relevance of the philosophic curriculum to leadership training.  The PPF speaks of the course in terms of decision-making.  It enhances ethical decision-making by giving seminarians “a solid grounding in themes like conscience, freedom, law, responsibility, virtue, and guilt” as well as “the common good and virtue of solidarity as central to Christian political philosophy.”[30]  This is to the point, but two examples show the potential for misunderstanding.  The first group of terms, including conscience, freedom and virtue, may be understood individualistically.  They may suggest that, if I guard my conscience, my freedom, and my virtue, I can create within me an ethical fortress, secure from invasion.  Other people, those apart from me, may threaten my conscience, obscure my freedom, or weaken my virtue – so I isolate myself.  That is the danger of individualism.

The second group of terms, “common good” and “political philosophy,” can also be misconstrued.  The concept of the common good, essential to Catholic social teaching, has consequences for economic life.  Because of these consequences, however, students may be tempted to associate the common good with economic matters alone.  Instead they should be led to see its relevance to wider realms, including parish governance.  Something similar can be said for the concept of solidarity.  It is so closely identified with political questions that its relevance to parish leadership can be overlooked.  So teachers of philosophic ethics face a challenge.  It is the challenge of presenting moral decision-making in a way that is not individualistic, and of discussing the common good and solidarity without confining them to the spheres of economy and politics.

Here we begin to see the application of philosophical ethics to pastoral leadership.  St. Thomas illuminates it in his discussion of prudence in the Second Part of the Summa Theologica’s Part Two.  Prudence, he says in Question 47, is thought applied to action (art. 1).  The pastoral leader wants to act prudently.  Such prudence is not concerned with purely theoretical issues, but focuses on action (art. 2).  Questions about how to act cannot be decided on abstract principles.  The principles must be applied to the case at hand.  The question of application has to do with the disposition of means or resources.  Prudence does not aim at an ideal, but at the limited good that can be accomplished with the means at the leader’s disposal (art. 7).  In searching for a sound course of action, the wise leader consults those with prudence, defined by St. Thomas as an intellectual as well as a moral virtue (art. 4).  The prudent decision is not correct in the abstract.  It is correct because prudent people understand it and affirm it.

St. Thomas’ discussion of prudence illustrates the relevance of philosophic ethics to leadership.  From the course on ethics, students can learn how wise pastors reach sound decisions.  They do so by consulting prudent parishioners, by working with the parish’s resources, and by cultivating an understanding of the issues faced by the parish.  The ethics course is rightly meant to prepare students for decision-making.  But such preparations can be misunderstood individualistically or restricted to the economic or political realm.  The teaching of St. Thomas shows the kind of knowledge that pastors aim for in discussions with prudent parishioners.

Despite the fact that the seminary curriculum lacks a course on leadership, the existing courses on epistemology, metaphysics and ethics can provide seminarians with leadership’s philosophical foundations.

• Dialogue.  Epistemology introduces seminarians to dialogue as the Church’s “attitude towards the world” (Pope Paul VI), an attitude that invites conversation as a way of holding up thoughts to intellectual scrutiny.
• Practical Wisdom.  Metaphysics, with its distinction between scientific knowledge and practical wisdom, helps seminarians identify the realm of contingent truth within which communal deliberation is essential.
• Prudence.  Philosophical ethics is not solely about the individual’s cultivation of private virtues, but also about the virtues shared by the community, such as prudence.  The prudent pastoral leader considers with his parishioners the disposition of the Church’s means in order to reach practical ends.

The ordinary courses in the college or pre-theological curriculum provide ample opportunities to prepare seminarians for leadership.  The courses can show them how it emerges in dialogue, pertains to contingent truth, and results in prudent decisions.

D. Pastoral Formation and the Practice of Leadership

The fourth pillar, pastoral formation, emphasizes leadership more than the other three pillars.  The PPF states that leadership development is an “essential element” of pastoral formation.  Such development takes place as “various practical, pastoral experiences, especially in parishes” (footnote 7) initiate the seminarian into an understanding of leadership.  So leadership experiences occur mainly in the field.  The off-campus locations may create the false impression that leadership development is consigned primarily to on-the-job training, independent of the seminary.

The success of pastoral field education in U.S. seminaries belies that false impression.[31]  Although seminarians learn about leadership primarily through practical experiences in parishes and other off-campus locations, nevertheless pastoral field educators ensure that seminarians reflect on their experiences in a formal way.  The typical seminarian, engaging in practical experience off-campus, is simultaneously enrolled in an academic course that invites theological reflection on the experience.  Such courses usually include discussions under the guidance of a professor.  Topics for discussion include the seminarian’s recollection of experiences in the field as well as the written comments of off-campus supervisors.  The seminarians’ disciplined reflection with others led by a professor complements their practical experience.  It would be false to say that leadership development is simply on-the-job training apart from the seminary.

In addition to field education in hospitals, schools, and other institutions, most seminarians also have a parish internship.  At St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, for example, the parish internship is a full-time exercise of ministry under the supervision of a pastor that lasts for an academic year.  The seminarian receives academic credit and must successfully complete the internship to earn the M.Div. degree.  Success is measured in terms of the goals defined by the intern, the Field Education Office, and the pastor-supervisor.  The seminarian makes a “contract,” promising to undertake certain responsibilities at the parish (e.g., preaching, presiding at graveside services, teaching at the parochial school, etc.).  The pastor-supervisor promises to help the intern achieve his goals.

One aspect of the internship at St. John’s Seminary that deserves special attention because of its importance for leadership development is the Intern Advisory Board (IAB).  The board is a group of parishioners that advises the seminarian-intern.  Although the supervising pastor names the IAB members, it is the seminarian’s responsibility to convene and consult them.  The tasks of convening and consulting offer the seminarian an experience akin to the pastor’s formation of pastoral and finance councils.  If the leadership of such councils is one of the principal duties of the Catholic priest, the formation of the IAB initiates the seminarian into a similar form of leadership.  Let us consider for a moment the purpose of the IAB, the job description of members, and the intern’s aim in consulting the group.

D.i. Purpose of the Board

The purpose of the Intern Advisory Board resembles the purpose of parish councils, namely, to share the members’ wisdom with the one who consults them.  This apparently simple fact, however, is far from simple, because the word “consultation” does not make explicit the motives of the intern or of the board members.  Interns consult the IAB because they are looking for a specific kind of help.  On a trivial level, one could say, an intern consults the board in order to satisfy a seminary requirement.  But if that were the intern’s sole motive, he would not benefit much from the board.  The deeper motive for consulting the IAB is not to prove to the seminary that the intern can go through the motions of consultation, but rather to gain wisdom.  So the consultative intern must approach the board with a question.  He has learned from a study of the Platonic dialogues that his knowledge is limited.  He wants to know how well he is accomplishing the goals stipulated in his learning contract.  He believes that the IAB can help him.

The board members, for their part, are motivated by love for the Church and a desire to help the intern.  They are not experts in homiletics, liturgy, or education, but they can tell when the intern preaches, presides, and teaches well.  Moreover, by acquainting themselves with the intern’s learning contract, they can help him see whether he is meeting his goals.  Consulting the IAB can be a challenge to the intern.  On the one hand, he comes to the IAB as a learner.  He consults them to profit from their insight.  On the other hand, however, he leads the consultation.  He has to help the IAB members understand the terms of the learning contract, and he has to formulate questions that will invite reflection and honest dialogue.  In doing so, the intern discovers that leadership is not just influencing followers to accomplish a task.  It means helping followers – the board itself – achieve their goal of providing wise counsel to a future priest.

D.ii. The Board’s Job Description

The Intern Advisory Board is like a parish council, first of all, in that it meets monthly and follows an agenda.  The intern prepares it before the initial meeting.  He is, after all, consulting the members.  For example, he may want to know about his preaching, or about his work in the parish office, or about his teaching skill.  At the close of each meeting, he asks the members to propose topics for discussion.  Part of effective consultation is giving the IAB a say in forming the agenda.  The intern leads by asking questions and guiding the conversation.  He is inviting the board members to show him how to be a better pastoral minister.  This is not something that can be demonstrated in an experiment (as Aristotle might have said), but emerges in a process of deliberation.

The IAB is also like a council in that it requires individual effort by the members between meetings.  If the intern wants feedback on his homilies, for example, he will have to request that board members attend the Masses in which he is preaching.  If he wants to know how well he is teaching at the parochial school, he will have to invite members to observe him.  The intern is consulting the board just as a pastor consults his council.  He has to help the board see what the seminary and the intern pastor expect of him.  He should not be shy about asking board members to read his learning agreement, or to witness his performance of ministerial duties.

At the end of the internship, the IAB evaluates the intern.  Members have to complete a questionnaire and write their impressions of him.  In this way, the IAB differs from a council.  Councils usually are not expected to evaluate pastors.  But the IAB’s evaluation of the intern need not distort the relationship between the two.  Its evaluation does not mean that the board is supervising the intern.  The pastor remains the supervisor.  Rightly speaking, the intern is asking the board to help him gauge his ministerial abilities.  Even though the board evaluates him, he is still the one consulting the board.  He is inviting the board’s wise counsel, and that is an essential aspect of leadership.

D.iii. The Goals of the Intern-Leader

Consulting with an Intern Advisory Board can provide the seminarian with an experience of servant leadership.  This is the kind of leadership that presupposes well-motivated followers and a generous leader.  The leader (in this case, the intern) helps followers (the IAB) to achieve their goal of providing wise counsel to a future priest.  The board members are motivated because the Church wants good priestly leaders.  But it is not always easy for the IAB to give advice.  Board members may be unfamiliar with what the pastor and the seminary expect of the intern.  They may be unsure of their role.  They may be afraid of hurting the intern’s feelings.  The intern becomes a servant leader when he gives clear directions, develops a straightforward agenda, formulates questions, and invites honest dialogue.

Ultimately, the intern seeks self-knowledge.  He wants to learn about his readiness for priestly ministry.  He wants to improve his ministerial skills.  He wants to hone his ability as a leader.  Those are his goals.  In order to achieve them, he has to appreciate the situation of his lay collaborators.  They may not know what kind of help he wants.  They may not know what the seminary expects.  The intern has to understand that, although he is asking them for help, he remains a leader.  He leads the group by eliciting, pondering, and integrating its opinions.  He has to invite specific feedback, even about matters which are potentially embarrassing to him (e.g., his mannerisms and blind spots).  By showing the board that he wants their frank advice and wise counsel, he reveals himself as a servant leader.  He leads by helping the group achieve the Church’s mission and their own.

The Catholic priest, in summary, is expected to lead parish administration, especially through finance and pastoral councils.  For this reason, it is important for seminarians to experience consultative leadership.  Parish interns from St. John’s Seminary learn about this by convening an Intern Advisory Board.  Convening such an advisory group provides experience in leadership in general, and group facilitation in particular.

• Consultative Leadership.  By asking pastoral interns to consult a representative group of parishioners, formators give the interns an experience of leading a dialogue that aims at practical wisdom and prudent knowledge.
• Group Facilitation.  By developing agendas, guiding conversations, and seeking the advice of a representative body of parishioners, seminarian-interns learn how to form a group, focus a conversation, and invite reflection.

The consultative intern asks the board to help him judge how well he is meeting the goals of internship.  Although he is not asking the board to supervise him, he does request that they evaluate him.  In so doing, he learns an important lesson in leadership, namely, that the good leader asks followers to commit themselves to the truth.  However painful it might be to hear that truth, it remains the ultimate basis for unity in spirit.

Conclusion: The Potential for Leadership Development

One reason why the Program for Priestly Formation does not require a course in leadership development is that the term is ambiguous.  When such development can mean so many different things, from being a “servant leader” to “influencing followers to accomplish a task,” it is easy to understand why the Church is wary of it.  Undoubtedly the Church desires priests who are leaders, but it prefers to speak of priests who are good shepherds in imitation of Christ.

An examination of the pillar of human formation reveals a tacit criticism of secular theories of leadership.  Christlike leaders are not merely tools of higher production, capable of influencing followers to perform a task.  They are rather the ones who become leaders by learning obedience.  Seminarians must obey their superiors.  Such obedience is not servility, nor even a subordination of one’s own will to the demands of ecclesial life.  No, it is the thoughtful and discerning acknowledgment of a superior’s goodness and insight.  One does not obey a Christian leader merely to achieve a quota, but because such a leader can help people align their will more closely with God.

Our consideration of the spiritual formation of seminarians revealed some of the difficulties of conceptualizing leadership, even within the Christian community.  The Church’s great esteem for the priest, described in language that distinguishes him from the laity, in fact expresses its great esteem for Christ as he speaks through him.  The priest would be no leader if he acted as if he were entitled to obedience.  On the contrary, the priest becomes a leader to the extent that he serves the community.  Seminarians in spiritual formation undoubtedly must learn about the unity of the Church, and especially the duty of obedience to the bishop.  But the priest’s communion with bishop and people exists, we saw, in a missionary tension.  His mission to this people at times may create tension between him and the bishop.  It is as unavoidable as the tension between unity and plurality within God, and spiritual formation should consider it.

Leadership development does not seem to play a large role in the process of intellectual formation as reflected in the Church’s documents.  But courses in the theology curriculum, especially the courses in priesthood and spiritual theology, are the proper locale for the teaching about Christ as a servant leader.  Moreover, philosophy courses in the pre-theology curriculum should invite students to consider the conceptual bases of leadership.  Too often these courses preoccupy themselves with the dangers of skepticism and relativism, and run out of time before the professor can explore the topic of leadership.  Yet in Plato’s teaching about dialectic, in Aristotle’s doctrine of practical wisdom, and in St. Thomas’ exploration of prudence, seminarians can gain a solid understanding of consultative leadership.  These topics deserve their place under the philosophical sun.

The Church’s documents speak most about leadership development under the heading of pastoral formation.  The documents may seem to suggest that acquiring leadership takes place exclusively in practical experiences far from the seminary campus.  Thanks to pastoral field education, we can see that this is a misconception.  Acquiring leadership skill demands reflection as well as practice.  Parish internships offer seminarians an extensive practical exposure to ministry, and an innovative feature of these internships is the advisory board composed of parishioners.  The board gives them an experience very similar to the pastor’s leadership of parish councils.  The topic of consultative leadership is difficult to teach in the classroom, where consultation at best can be mimicked through role playing.  When an intern, however, has to consult a group of parishioners about how well he is fulfilling the terms of his learning contract, the situation becomes vividly real.  Interns must learn how to ask boards for advice, and about how to guide a consultation.  This is the seminarian’s best possible introduction to consultative leadership.

Leadership development has become more important in recent years as the number of priest has declined and as the time between ordination and the first pastorate grows shorter.  By exploring the potential for leadership development within the existing seminary curriculum, professors and formators can promote this aspect of formation.  It is not treated in great detail in the Church’s official documents, but it will loom ever-more-important.

Introduction
This morning I’d like to tell you a story I call the “organ affair.” No, it’s not about naughtiness in the choir loft. The organ affair was a struggle I witnessed between a parish council chairperson and a pastor over whether or not to do an expensive repair on a church organ. The story introduces my theme for the day, about the psychology of pastors and councils.
The official documents of the Church say that the council has a threefold task. Under the pastor’s direction, the council investigates some practical matter, ponders it, and reaches conclusions. Here in the USA, we call that pastoral planning. We say that it is the main work of the parish pastoral council. But before a council can successfully undertake the work of planning, the council and the pastor must share certain assumptions. I’d like to spell them out. They are essential elements in the psychology of pastors and councils. The first has to do with leadership.
In recent popular literature about pastoral councils, we occasionally read that the pastoral council is a “leadership body.” It leads (the popular authors say) by discerning what choices the parish ought to make. If the council is supposed to lead, then it differs from what Canon Law says. Canon Law says that the pastoral council has a consultative vote only (ca. 536). That means that the pastor consults the council. He is not obliged to accept its recommendations. The Church does not want to force pastors to take poor advice.
But if the council is a leadership body, then it is more than consultative. If the council discerns what is best for the parish, and if it discerns and articulates the parish’s mission, then we’ve got two differing ideas of the council. In one case, it has a consultative vote only. In the other case, it’s a leadership body. When two different versions of the council compete with one another, there is bound to be trouble. So let me tell you about the organ affair.

Trouble in the Choir Loft
Father Fernando became the pastor of St. Michael’s one year ago. He is a middle-aged priest with a fine baritone voice and a love for the liturgy. He particularly enjoys choral singing accompanied by the organ. He and the music director are good friends. As soon as he became pastor, Father Fernando created a liturgy committee. At first, he had asked the committee to work on modest plans for renovating the sanctuary, such as installing new carpets and furnishings.
But then Father Fernando surprised the Liturgy Committee members. He said that he wanted a more elaborate renovation, including a $100,000 digital organ. The Church’s existing pipe organ was old and in disrepair. Father Fernando and the music director had visions of a large choir accompanied by a first-rate organ. The Liturgy Committee members were delighted to be entrusted with such important plans.
But the Liturgy Committee is not the only consultative group in the parish. Father Fernando also has a Pastoral Council. He had inherited the council from his predecessor, and met with the council on the first Monday of each month. The meetings were usually low-key. Father Fernando normally used the 90-minute council meeting to inform the twelve council members about current events at the parish. For example, the youth minister was organizing a visit by Confirmation candidates during Easter break to an American Indian community. The Adorers (to give a second example) were asking parishioners to sign up to visit the Blessed Sacrament at regular hours. The Knights of Columbus were planning their Beer Tasting Night with bratwurst dinner. Father Fernando would share the news with the Pastoral Council and invite its reflections. He didn’t consult the council about anything specific. He didn’t ask it to develop any particular plans. He used it as a sounding board. The council was almost always supportive – until the plans for the $100,000 digital organ were announced.
A problem arose because the chairwoman of the Pastoral Council – a lifelong parishioner whom we’ll call “Mary” – had once been the choir director. Like many choir directors in years gone by, Mary had freely dedicated her time in the choir. In her day she was a good soprano and could play the organ. There were years in which she had served as both choir director and organist, always in a volunteer capacity. Those were the days in which the choir had to hold a bake sale to purchase a choir set of sheet music for Mozart’s “Ave Verum.” Mary had retired from the choir when she joined the Pastoral Council. When she heard about the plan to purchase a $100,000 digital organ she was aghast. It seemed extravagant and out of keeping with the parish’s mission.
Mary believed that there were far more important things on which the church should spend its limited resources. How could the church purchase such an expensive instrument, she wanted to know, when the church had more basic needs? Teachers at the parochial school, Mary knew, had modest salaries. The parking lot needed resurfacing. The kitchen of the parish hall had not been renovated since the popular color for appliances was avocado. When Mary heard that the Liturgy Committee was contemplating the purchase of a digital organ, she insisted on discussing it in the Pastoral Council as well. Father Fernando, she said, had to hear its point of view.
Father Fernando had only been in the parish one year, and he scarcely knew Mary. He wasn’t even aware that she had once been the choir director and the organist (not to mention the soprano soloist). When she brought up the topic of the organ at the Pastoral Council meeting, he was surprised. By this time he and the music director were already negotiating with a digital organ company. Mary should have known, Father Fernando thought to himself, that the Pastoral Council has a consultative-only vote. He certainly had not consulted the Pastoral Council about the organ. What gave Mary the notion that he wanted her opinion about the matters that he had thoroughly discussed with the Liturgy Committee?

Differing Expectations
The conflict between Father Fernando and Mary, the chairperson of the Pastoral Council, illustrates the psychology of pastors and councils. It helps us understand how easily they misunderstand one another. Father Fernando was perfectly correct to say that the Pastoral Council has a consultative-only vote. The Church does not permit councils to legislate for the parish. Pastors are not obliged to accept a council’s recommendations. Father Fernando had already consulted the Liturgy Committee about the digital organ. He did not feel obliged to consult the Pastoral Council as well.
What the Church expects from the Pastoral Council was first expressed in Vatican II’s 1965 Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops. There, in no. 27, it states that the pastoral council has a threefold task. Pastors consult councils by asking them to investigate some practical matter, reflect or ponder over it, and reach a conclusion. They recommend the conclusions to the pastor. This is the work of the pastoral council.
But Father Fernando had not asked the Pastoral Council to undertake this threefold task. He did not have any particular goal for the council. He simply shared news about parish events and employed the council as a sounding board. It is easy to understand why Mary and the other councillors concluded that the council was an open forum for discussion. From her point of view, that’s exactly what it was. Why should the pastor alone (Mary asked) decide the council’s agenda? Why shouldn’t the pastoral council discuss the purchase of a $100,000 digital organ?
We can see that the pastor and the chairwoman of the Pastoral Council had different expectations. In Mary’s eyes, the council was an open forum. It was a sounding board. She was perfectly correct, she believed, to bring up the topic of the digital organ. It was an important topic with relevance to the parish’s mission. From Father Fernando’s viewpoint, however, the pastoral council was his council. He would decide the topics on which he would consult. He did not choose to consult the council about the organ, and he was within his rights. He expected something different from the council than Mary had in mind.

The Psychology of Councils
The Church vision for councils is briefly expressed. The council has the threefold role of investigation, reflection, and reaching a conclusion. There’s not much more to pastoral planning than that. But the official teaching has important implications. One implication is that the pastor expects something from the council. He consults it with an end in mind. The Church’s official documents do not say what this end is. The pastor may consult the council about virtually any practical matter. But his duty is to consult it, and to do so in good faith.
Another implication is that the pastor should give the council freedom to do its threefold job in a thorough way. If he is in earnest about his question, the councillors must be in earnest about the way they seek an answer. They must have the liberty to study the matter, to discover facts, to find out the truth. They must have the opportunity to reflect on it, to pray about the matter, and to discern its importance. They must be able to propose their conclusions honestly and courageously.
But that’s not all. When the Church’s official documents say that the council has a consultative-only vote, it means that the pastor is the one doing the consulting. He consults the council because he wants to make wise decisions. He believes that it will share its wisdom with him. The council, for its part, puts its best efforts at his disposal. The members know that only when the pastor’s decisions are wise do those decisions unite the parish. They want him to make good decisions, decisions that will further the parish mission.
When we reflect on the dispute between Father Fernando and Mary, we can see that neither one really understood the psychology of the council. Father Fernando believed that he was doing well by merely convening the council on a monthly basis. It was enough, he thought, to use it as a sounding board, rather than to ask it to undertake the council’s essential threefold task. He never asked the council to do its real work of pastoral planning.
Mary, for her part, never understood how councils help pastors. She didn’t grasp pastoral planning. She assumed that the council was a sounding board, and she wanted to sound off to Father Fernando. She assumed that she was helping by objecting to the digital organ. She failed to see that pastors only take the advice that they believe will help the parish. Father Fernando was satisfied with the advice that the Liturgy Committee (and not the Pastoral Council) had given him.
A council’s greatest satisfaction is to develop recommendations so wise and good that the pastor will accept and implement them. Councils must prove themselves to pastors. They have to prove that they can investigate minutely, reflect thoroughly, and recommend prudently. They delude themselves if they think that the pastor will welcome unsolicited advice, just because a pastoral council offers it. A council gains authority – the authority of wisdom – when it proves itself by performing the threefold office that the Church gives to it.

Application
The whole presumption behind councils is that pastors want to consult. But this may not be the case. Some pastors, for example, are mired in work and thus not interested in assuming any more projects. If this is the case, then the council is in trouble. The cart (the council) unfortunately may be leading the horse (the pastor who is supposed to do the consulting).
But even pastors who are overworked and not interested in undertaking any more projects usually want what is best for the parish. The challenge for councils is to discover the pastor’s vision or goal. That’s the first step in helping him achieve it. How can councils discover this vision or goal? They can do so by taking a lesson from Greek philosophy. The council must play the role of Socrates, the Greek thinker of the Platonic dialogues. Like Socrates, the council must admit the limits of its knowledge about the parish. The pastor is the chief shepherd. The council must draw from the pastor what he regards as important.
Mary, the pastoral council chairwoman, believed that she already knew the best way to help Father Fernando. In her mind, the poor pastor didn’t recognize the parish’s real needs. Good-hearted Mary was determined to tell him what they were. The digital organ was not on the list.
Mary would have served the council better if she had made a concerted effort to discover Father Fernando’s thinking. No, he did not want the council’s advice about the digital organ. But he may have had some questions about the youth ministry trip to the Indian lands, or about perpetual adoration, or about the beer-tasting night. If the council had exercised its threefold responsibility regarding the items brought up by the pastor, then it might have earned some credibility. Enjoying that credibility, the council may have been consulted about other things, even about purchasing an organ.
In other words, the council must draw the pastor out. The members cannot help the pastor until they know what issues he faces. We know that we cannot tell pastors how to consult. But we can share with them the Church’s teaching about the threefold task of councils and about pastoral planning. If we attune ourselves to the issues that pastors face and put ourselves at the service of the Church, we will understand better the psychology of the council. The pastor is meant to consult. When he chooses to do so, the council can respond by studying, reflecting, and recommending.

Performing the Council’s Task
This week I got a call from a pastor who wants to start a PPC. He said that the archbishop is encouraging the establishment of pastoral councils. He wanted to know how he should establish a council. But experience has taught me that it would not be wise to tell him what to do. Instead I asked him a question: “What kind of help are you looking for from your council?”
After thinking for a few moments, the pastor said that he would like help in two areas. First, he said that he is not satisfied with the parish’s Confirmation program and would like to improve it. Secondly, he explained that he is by himself in the parish, and not a native Spanish speaker. He recognizes, however, that there are a lot of Spanish speakers in his parish. He’s wondering whether the parish should create a Spanish-language ministry, and if so, how it could do so.
I told him that these are great projects for pastoral councils. His new council could study what other parishes are doing in their Confirmation programs, I said, and what the archdiocese recommends. Then it could apply that ideal to the local situation. Or the new council could assess the needs of the parish and its current Spanish-language resources. Then it could apply what it learned to the question of Spanish-language ministry. This pastor wanted to start a council, but had not yet thought what he wanted to do with it.
The Church teaches that pastors are meant to consult. It says that councils are meant to be consulted. They succeed when they are allowed to do what the Church asks them to do. An investigative council can discover effective Confirmation programs. It can study the various types of Spanish-language ministries in neighboring parishes. A reflective council can discern how to apply the successes of neighboring churches to its own parish. The successful council makes recommendations that are so well-considered that the pastor will confidently accept them and implement them.
Working from those assumptions, we understand better the psychology of the pastoral council and the pastor. He does not consult the council well by simply using it as an open forum and by asking members to respond to current parish events (as Father Fernando did). No, the pastor consults best by asking the council to undertake its threefold purpose and to do pastoral planning.
Wise council members do not use council meetings as an opportunity for general and uninvited complaints (as Mary did). Instead, they recognize that the council’s credibility depends on well it performs its threefold task. Council members cannot tell the
pastor how to consult. But we can help him to see what the Church asks of councils. We can show him how the council can help. And we can encourage him to ask for that help.

When a Pastor Doesn’t Accept Council Recommendations

Question from Frank Watson, January 12, 2012

The role of the Pastoral Council is well defined in the Vatican II Decree on Bishops (no. 27) and in more recent documents, such as the Instruction of 2002 entitled “The Priest, Pastor and Leader” and the 2004 Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops entitled “Apostolorum successores.” However, there is no mention of what course of action should be taken if the Pastor refuses to accept the pastoral council’s recommendations. Don’t those recommendations reflect what the Parishioners want?

Response from Mark F. Fischer

From Maggie Goorsky, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Santa Clarita, CA (12.14.11)

One year ago, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Santa Clarita was starting a pastoral council.  One year later we are addressing the question of who should continue to be on the council and how do we recruit new members. In the beginning, our pastor simply invited each of us to join the council.  But now we are looking towards the future.  Is there a better way to ensure that the council members are the best suited for the position?  I did call a couple of parishes in the area and they all just do their own thing which has worked for them over the years.  But I thought you might have some ideas for us as we discuss this at our next meeting.  I looked at your website and did not see information about this but I may have missed it so please direct me if the information is there.