Dioceses, Parishes, Pastors, and Pastoral Care

Joseph W. Pokusa

The Jurist: Studies in Church Law and Ministry, Volume 67, Number 1,
2007, pp. 153-175 (Article)

Published by The Catholic University of America Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jur.2007.0041

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/610261/summary

[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

 The J urist 67 (2007) 153-175

DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS,

AND PASTORAL CARE

J oseph W. P okusa *

A decreasing number of newly-ordained priests and the noticeable

aging of a significant portion of the priests in active ministry present se­
rious difficulties for many American dioceses as bishops and personnel
offices try to staff parishes adequately. At the same time, many pastors
are confronting increased expectations on the part of their parishioners—
and sometimes from the diocesan bishop— while they themselves strive
conscientiously to exercise their everyday parochial duties. These facts
are well known. How the Church responds to such hard realities may be
surprisingly creative or can be devastating both for the laity and for the
clergy. In cities and towns across the United States, dioceses are not
merely facing theoretical cases studies but tension-filled dilemmas:
“Should viable parishes be closed for lack of priests?” 1 How a diocese
addresses this question, nevertheless, can potentially be more invigorat­
ing for the clergy and laity than is often imagined.
Two interrelated yet distinct policy considerations can be supportive
of efforts to promote parish stability even in a circumstance of decreas­
ing numbers of Catholic priests. The first policy would be that a diocese
be committed to utilizing the fuller scope of available canonical options
when making clergy assignments instead of simply assuming that every
parish must have its own parish priest as the individual pastor who is
charged with the care of just a single parish. The 1983 code provides
three other possibilities. Canon 517 §1 offers the alternative sometimes
known as “team ministry”2: “the pastoral care of a parish or of different
[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

parishes together can be entrusted to several priests in solidum, with the

requirement, however, that in exercising pastoral care one of them must

* Diocese of Camden, a Secretary at the Apostolic Nunciature, Washington

1 James A. Coriden, The Parish in Catholic Tradition (New York/ Mahwah, N.J.:
Paulist Press, 1997) 129.
2 See Barbara Anne Cusack and Therese Guerin Sullivan, S.P., Pastoral Care in
Parishes Without a Pastor, Applications o f Canon 5 17 §2 (Washington, D.C.: Canon Law
Society of America, 1995) xviii: “In . . . what is popularly called a ‘team ministry,’ the
pastoral care of the parish or group of parishes is carried out as a common responsibility
of a group of priests. One of these priests serves as a coordinator o f activities and a liaison
to the diocesan bishop. A scarcity of priests is not stated as a condition for the utilization
of this pastoral provision. The circumstances warranting such a pastoral provision are not
stated in the canon as the rationale for its implementation.”

153
154 THE JURIST

be the moderator, namely, the one who is to direct the joint action and to
answer for it to the bishop.” Canon 526 §1 proposes a second arrange­
ment; namely, although a “pastor is to have the pastoral care of only one
parish; nevertheless, because of a lack of priests or other circumstances,
the care of several neighboring parishes can be entrusted to the same pas­
tor.” A even different approach, however, is presented in canon 517 §2:
“If, because of a lack of priests, the diocesan bishop has decided that par­
ticipation in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish is to be entrusted
to a deacon, to another person who is not a priest, or to a community of
persons, he is to appoint some priest who, provided with the powers and
faculties of a pastor, is to direct the pastoral care.”
A brief aside may help to put in historical perspective the requirement
of canon 453 of the 1917 code that “For anybody to validly assume the
pastorate, he must be ordained to the sacred order of the presbyterate.”3
Ecclesiastical reforms had long before insisted on the necessity of the
priesthood for clerics who were charged with the care of souls in view es­
pecially of the responsibility to celebrate Mass and to provide the sacra­
ments for the people. Canon 453 formalized that expectation for the 1917
code. In doing so, however, canon 453 also precluded a canonical rarity,
namely, the case of a deacon legitimately being the pastor in a collegiate
church where other clerics were available to offer Mass. Consequently,
the Sacred Congregation of the Council had to deal with the case of a
deacon who was a pastor when it ruled on May 18, 1919: “Although be­
fore the Code a deacon might lawfully have a parish, that general capac­
ity is not a vested right, since it does not depend upon any past fact. But
if a deacon before the Code had actually received a parish, he would have
a vested right; and in that case, the Code (c. 453), under the general norm
expressed in cc. 4 and 10, would not take that right away.”4 Consistent

3 Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., A Practical Commentary on the Code o f Canon Law

(New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1925) provides the paraphrase of canon 453 from the
1917 code: “Can. 453.— § 1. Ut quis in parochum valide assumatur, debet esse in sacro
presbyteratus ordine constitutus.” (Codex luris Canonici, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis,
1965).
4 T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J. ed., The Canon Law Digest (Milwaukee: The Bruce Pub­
lishing Company, 1934) I: 246. This May 18, 1919 decision dealt with an appeal lodged
by a deacon who, as the cleric of first rank in the chapter of the cathedral church of the Dio­
cese of Cuneo in northern Italy, had previously held the office of pastor in accord with that
chapter’s 1703 document of establishment: “Prior caput ipsius Ecclesiae collegiatae exsi-
stat, et curam ipsius Ecclesiae Collegiatae, choro, capitulo, processionibus, et aliis actibus
et functionibus. .. iurisdictionem et praeeminentiam habeat." (Sacra Congregatio Con-
cilii, “Cuneen. ET Utinen., Praecedentiae 17 maii 1919,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Com-
mentarium Ojficiale XI [1919]: 349-254). The Sacred Congregation of the Council ad­
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 155

with the 1917 code, the 1983 code also continued to require that a man
must be ordained a priest in order to be the pastor of a parish: “To become
a pastor validly, one must be in the sacred order of the presbyterate.” (c.
521 §1).
The second policy consideration that would, however, be supportive
of parish stability is a diocesan commitment to encourage an optimum
expression of Christian vitality even in those parish communities that do
not have an individual pastor assigned to them because there just are not
enough priests available. A parish can no more be exhaustively identified
just with the person of its pastor than it could simply be equated with the
sum total of Christ’s lay faithful who belong to the parish. Canon 515 § 1
describes a parish as “a certain community of the Christian faithful sta­
bly constituted . . . whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor.. . under
the authority of the diocesan bishop.” In the Spanish Exegetical Com­
mentary, Antonio S. Sanches-Gil notes a discussion within the commis­
sion that prepared the 1983 Code of Canon Law which highlighted “the
dynamic interaction among persons united under the same pastor” in
comparing the statement in canon 369 that a diocese is “a portion of the
people of God” (populi Dei portio) and the notion in canon 515 §1 of a
parish as “a certain community of Christ’s faithful” (certa communitas
christifidelium) and which agreed that in canon 515 §1 “the community
aspect was more emphasized in the purview of the parish.”5 Neverthe­

mitted that previously no single norm prevailed for a chapter’s first dignity: “Ita e.g.
quaedam Capitula unam habent dignitatem, quaedam duas, quaedam etiam septem;
pariterque v. g. decani dignitas quae in Hispania est prima in Bavaria est secunda; Archidi-
aconus in Gallia prima dignitas in Austria quandoque tertia recensetur. Nihil igitur obstat
ex parte Codicis quominus Prior Parochus in Cathed. Cuneenis prima dignitas habeatur.”
(AAS XI [ 1919]:351). The Congregation judged the Code was not retroactive in this case:
“Ita v.g. diaconus qui ante Codicem accepit collationem paroeciae, habet ex facto praete-
rito collationis ius quaesitum in paroeciam: quamobrem lex can. 453 exigens ad officium
parochi sacerdotium et auferens diaconis capacitatem ad tale officium, profecto nequit au-
ferre tali diacono capacitatem: eo ipso quia nequit agere retrorsum, nequit ius quaesitum
tollere, dum ageret retrorsum tolleretque ius quaesitum si auferre praetenderet capaci­
tatem dependentem omnino a facto praeterito.” (AAS XI [1919]:351).
5 AntonioS. Sanches-Gil, “Chapter VI Parishes, Parish Priests and Assistant Priests
cc. 515-544” in Angel Marzoa et al., eds. Exegetical Commentary on the Code o f Canon
Law (Chicago: Midwest Theological Forum, 2004) 11/2:1256. (Hereafter, Exegetical
Commentary.) Sanches-Gil refers to a meeting of the Pontifical Commission for the Revi­
sion of the Code of Canon Law which discussed canon 349 (novus) which at that time
stated: Ҥ 1 Paroecia est certa quae in Ecclesia particulari constituitur Populi Dei portio,
cuius cura pastoralis, sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, committitur sacerdoti, paroe­
ciae parocho, eiusdem pastori proprio.” From the session of the coetus de Populo Dei held
 156 THE JURIST

less, although the focus is more on the parish as a community, a parish is

not an association that is created by or is controlled by the people who are
members of it. Commenting on the nature of a parish’s “juridic personal­
ity” as stipulated in canon 515, §3, John A. Renken emphasizes that a
parish “is a non-collegial universitas personarum, that is, a universitas
whose members do not determine its actions through common decision
making (c. 115, §2).”6 Christ’s faithful who are members of a parish do,
nevertheless, rightfully have their own proper and active part in parish
life. In his 1988 post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Christifideles laid,
Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the call of the synod fathers for a renewal of
parishes and stated: “Many parishes . . . cannot do their work effectively
because they lack material resources or ordained men. . . . So that all
parishes of this kind may be truly communities of Christians, local ec-
clesial authorities ought to foster the following: a) adaptation of parish
structures according to the full flexibility granted by canon law, espe­
cially in promoting participation by the lay faithful in pastoral responsi­
bilities; b) small, basic or so-called ‘living’ communities, where the
faithful can communicate the Word of God and express it in service and
love to one another; these communities are true expressions of ecclesial
communion and centers of evangelization, in communion with their
pastors.”7
I. All dioceses
A preliminary question is how dioceses or, as they are also called in the
1983 code, “particular Churches,” are able to mediate for God’s people a

on April 19, 1980, (Communicationes 13 [1981] 147-148) Monsignor Nicola Pavoni re­
ported: “Un Consultore propone che venga assunta l’espressione ‘communitas fidelium’
a posto di ‘populi Dei portio.’ Mons. Segretario accetta la proposta perche le parola ‘por-
[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

tio’ exprime piu un fatto fisico statico che una dinamica interazione tra piu persone unite
sotto lo stesso Pastore. Un secondo Consultore fa notare che quando si parlo della Diocesi
ci si attenne alia espressione ‘Populi Dei portio’ senza parlare di ‘communitas lideliium’
pero concorda che qui si parli di community perche l’aspetto comunitario si avverte di piu
nell’ambito della parrocchia. . . . Concordano tutti perch£ si dica ‘christifidelium commu­
nitas’ al posto di ‘Populi Dei portio.”
6 John A. Renken, “Chapter VI: Parishes, Pastors, and Parochial Vicars,” in John Beal
et. al., eds. New Commentary on the Code o f Canon Law (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2000)
681. (Hereafter New Commentary.)
1 John Paul II, apostolic constitution Christifideles la id , December 30, 1988: AAS 81
(1989) 393-521; The Lay Members o f Christ’s Faithful People; Vatican translation
(Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1988) 65, no. 26. The passage cited incorporates Proposi-
tio 11 of the 1987 synod of bishops, “Vocation and Mission in the Church and in the World
Twenty Years after the Second Vatican Council.”
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 157

Church experience that fosters Christian living among many communi­

ties such as the parishes, small Christian communities and other less-
fully-developed groups or various kinds of Christian associations that are
found within all dioceses. This fundamental consideration is especially
significant since, in the transition from the 1917 code to the 1983 code,
there was a marked development of appreciation in regard to the notion of
a diocese and just what it is supposed to be.
Looking worldwide from something of a colonialist perspective, the
1917 code spoke of the universal Church almost monolithically and about
dioceses as seemingly just territorial subdivisions of the universal
Church. The 1917 code had not described what a diocese is. It simply stip­
ulated: “The Supreme Authority of the Church has the exclusive right to
erect ecclesiastical provinces, dioceses, abbeys and prelatures nullius,
vicariates and prefectures apostolic, or to change their limits, divide, unite
or suppress them.” (c. 215 § 1 §2). Cardinal Avery Dulles has pointed out
that well before the Second Vatican Council, however, changes had al­
ready taken place in the official understanding of the Church; and he noted
that “Pius XII, in Mystici corporis (1943), had begun to distance himself
from the predominately institutional thinking of late Scholasticism.”8 In
the Exegetical Commentary, Juan Ignacio Arrieta notes that the Second
Vatican Council borrowed an image from Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical
Mystici corporis of the universal Church as found among the various
communities of Christians, whether Oriental or Latin, that are governed
by their own bishops; and, in this sense, the council employed such a de­
scription when so presenting “the Church of Christ as a close communion
of Christian communities united under the guidance of their pastors.”9

Avery Dulles, S.J. Models o f The Church, Expanded Edition (New York: Double­
day, 1987)205.
9 Juan Ignacio Arrieta, “Chapter I, Particular Churches cc. 368-374,” in Angel Mar-
zoa et al., eds. Exegetical Commentary on the Code o f Canon Law 11/1:714. In this regard
Arrieta cites the encyclical Mystici corporis'. “Quae autem Nos heic de universali Eccle-
sia diximus, id de peculiaribus etiam asseverari debet christianorum communitatibus, cum
Orientalibus, turn Latinis, ex quibus una constat ac componitur Catholica Ecclesia: quan-
doquidem et ipsae a Christo Iesu proprii uniusque Episcopi voce potestateque reguntur.
Quamobrem sacrorum Antistites non solum eminentiora universalis Ecclesiae membra
habendi sunt, ut qui singulari prorsus nexu iungunter cum divino totius Corporis Capite,
atque adeo iure vocatur ‘partes membrorum Domini primae; sed, ad propriam cuiusque
Diocesim quod spectat, utpote veri Pastores assignatos sibi greges singuli singulos Christi
nomine pascunt ac regunt; id tamen dum faciunt, non plane sui iuris sunt, sed sub debita
Romani Pontificis auctoritate positi, quamvis ordinaria iurisdictionis potestate fruantur,
immediate sibi ab eodem Pontifice Summo impertita. Quapropter, ut Apostolorum ex di-
158 THE JURIST

The 1983 code still continues to acknowledge the importance of the

territorial dimensions of dioceses when canon 372 states: Ҥ1. As a rule,
a portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other par­
ticular church is limited to a definite territory so that it includes all the
faithful living in the territory.” Arrieta, therefore, acknowledges that
“Canon law establishes the territorial principle as the basic criterion for
the organization of ecclesiastical structures for the pastoral care of the
Christian faithful.” *101However, Arrieta likewise observes: “it is defini­
tively the sacramental structure of the Church that indicates the elements
forming this type of entity (bishop, presbyterium, faithful, etc., substan­
tially enumerated in c. 369) and which indicates the basic juridical posi­
tion . . . mainly, the position of the bishop, which, as a pastor, primarily
assumes and personifies the juridical situation. . . .” " In just this per­
spective, the 1983 code describes a particular church in canon 369 by
stating: “A diocese is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted to
a bishop for him to shepherd with the cooperation of the presbyterate, so
that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through
the gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular church in which
the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and
operative.” Canon 369 thus reflects developments found in the Second
Vatican Council’s Decree On the Pastoral Office o f Bishops in the
Church (Christus Dominus, no. 11).12

vina institutione successores, a populo venerandi sunt; ac magis quam huius mundi mod-
eratoribus, etiamsi altissimis, illud Episcopis, utpote Spiritus Sancti chrismate omatis,
convenit effatum: ‘Nolite tangere Christos meos.’” Pope Pius XII, Mystici corporis
Christi, A AS 35 (1943) 211-212.
10 Arrieta, in Exegetical Commentary, 11/1:735.
11 Ibid., 11/1:711.
12 Christus Dominus 11 stated: “ A diocese is a section of the People of God entrusted
to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy.. . . ” (Vatican Council II,
Decree On the Pastoral Office o f Bishops in the Church, no. 11, trans. Vatican Council II,
The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P. ed., [Northport, New
York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975] 569). The Latin text, however, actually said:
“Dioecesis esl Populi Dei portio, quae Episcopo cum cooperatione presbyterii pascenda
concreditur. . . . ” (AAS [1966]: 677). A diocese is entrusted to a bishop to be pastured with
the cooperation o f the presbyterate which is a slightly different perspective than the con­
cept that a diocese is entrusted simply to the bishop alone who, in turn, has available to
himself many individual priests who are, in different ways, his assistants. The notion of
the presbyterate stresses a unity that ought to exist among the priests of a diocese who ex­
ercise a ministry with one another and are associated with each other in their sacramental
priesthood and in pastoral care and concern they provide as they cooperate together with
their own diocesan bishop.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 159

In regard to their own relationship with the Catholic Church world­

wide, the 1983 code further explains what dioceses are by calling them
“Particular churches, in which and from which the one and only Catholic
Church exists.. . (c. 368). The point of innovation or, perhaps, “recov­
ery” reflected in this canon is the recognition that “the one and only
Catholic Church exists” both “in dioceses” and “from dioceses.” The
Church of Jesus Christ is not just a single worldwide institution with nu­
merous franchises spread across the globe. Christ’s Church that is, indeed,
“uniquely one and worldwide” is truly and variously manifested in each
and every local community that enjoys its own distinct identity and living
reality as “a particular Church.” The world’s bishops gathered at the Sec­
ond Vatican Counsel had thus declared: “This Church of Christ is really
present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in
so far as they are united to their pastors [meaning, ‘their bishops,’], are
also appropriately called Churches in the New Testament.” 13 In this re­
gard, therefore, the council fathers had spoken of the role of a diocesan
bishop by saying: “The bishop, invested with the fullness of the sacrament
of Orders, is ‘the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,’ above
all the Eucharist, which he himself offers, or ensures that it is offered,
from which the Church ever derives its life and on which it thrives.” 14
As to how dioceses and the Christian faithful are related, British
canonist Gordon Read observes that canon 369 of the 1983 code under­
stands that there is a “fundamentally dynamic” type of “relationship be­
tween the Bishop, presbyterium and people” in which “it is the Bishop’s
responsibility to gather the people in the Holy Spirit” and that “the means
proposed are the proclamation of the Gospel and the celebration of the
Eucharist.” 15 Canon 369 thus understands that all dioceses have such an
innate capacity to gather Christ’s faithful “in the Holy Spirit through the
gospel and the Eucharist” and that in dioceses and through them “the
[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ” is actually experi­

enced as being “truly present and operative.” Dioceses can mediate an
experience of Church that fosters Christian living so that God’s people
adhere to their pastors (that is, the bishops who gather them) and grow in
faith. Just as dioceses can mediate Christ for the Christian faithful, dio­
ceses also witness to Christ’s living presence before the world.

13 Lumen gentium 26: Flannery, 381.

14 Ibid.
15 Gordon Read, “Section II: Particular Churches and their Groupings,” in Gerard
Sheehy et. al., eds. The Canon Law Letter & Spirit (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1995) 210. (Hereafter Letter & Spirit).
160 THE JURIST

II. A Diocese
In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the bishops at the Second
Vatican Council had affirmed that diocesan churches are really
“Churches in the New Testament” 16 sense. The Catholic Church is not
congregationalist in its fundamental structure; but rather, theoretically
and so much more, the Catholic Church is a Church of communion at the
diocesan level. Church law reflects this reality. The well-known Italian
canonist, Bishop Eugenio Corecco, insisted not only that Second Vatican
Council’s declaration that “the universal Church comes into being in and
from the particular churches” was “the most important ecclesiological
formula of the council (LG 23 § 1)”; but he also agreed that “that the
Code has received the substance of the conciliar doctrine on the commu-
nio ecclesiarum,” 17
By its very nature a Catholic diocese cannot be simply an administra­
tive clustering of local congregations. A diocese is able to and, therefore,
must form a real community wherein, as canon 369 acknowledges, “the
one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and
operative.” What implications does canon 369 have for the sort of rela­
tionship that should exist between a diocesan bishop and that portion of
God’s people entrusted to him? Seeing a bishop more as a pastor, Gordon
Read notes that canon 369 “reflects better the understanding of the early
Church, where territorial boundaries were not rigidly fixed and the influ­
ence of the Bishop extended only gradually from the city to the country­
side as Christianity spread.” 18 Because a “diocese is not a mere adminis­
trative division of the universal Church,” John A. Renken also observes
that “The role of the bishop is presented not in terms of his power but of
his shepherding or pastoral ministry.” 19
Since a diocese is not just a functional structure or a merely nominal
concept but a living community that is to manifest the one, holy, Catholic
and apostolic church, is a particular Church able to be recognized in the
way that its actual inner workings gather the various local communities
of which it is comprised? One way to understand a diocesan church
would be to focus on those components that are essential to a diocese. To
a certain extent, however, this kind of approach must necessarily be ab­

16 Lumen gentium 26: Flannery, 381.

17 Eugenio Corecco, Canon Law and Communio, eds. Graziano Borgonovo and Ar­
turo Cattaneo (Vatican City: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1999) 255.
18 Read, in Letter & Spirit, 210.
19 Renken, in New Commentary, 507.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 161

stract insofar as what is said about any one diocese likewise applies to
every other diocese. From such a perspective in theological terms, “the
constitutive principles of the Church” may be acknowledged to include
“the call of God, the Word of Christ, the grace of the Spirit, the Eucharist,
the apostolic ministry, all of these grounding and generating the commu­
nion that is the distinctive and constitutive mystery of the Church.”20
Likewise, canonically, “the Code, following Vatican II, has formulated a
legal definition of a diocese (can. 369)” that clearly expresses “the con­
stitutive institutional elements of the particular Church. . . : the existence
of a portion of the People of God, a bishop, and a presbyterium.”21 In di­
mensions such as these, all dioceses are essentially the same.
Another way to understand a diocese, however, would be to focus on
the local communities that are, in fact, part of it, an aspect in which each
diocese is different. As to the validity of such an approach, while it is
clear that every person is a human being, it is also true that all people are
different; and this realization is an important aspect of understanding
what it means to be human. Thus it has been quipped: “All men are cre­
ated equal, but some men are more equal than others.” This same point
applies, moreover, to particular Churches since dioceses—although es­
sentially the same—vary in significant ways from one to the next. To ap­
preciate better what a diocese really is, therefore, there are good reasons
to acknowledge and to try to understand the canonical significance of
precisely what is so particular about a “particular church,” that is, the
diocese individually. By another analogy, the distinctiveness of each dio­
cese may bear some comparison with the variations that are found
among the many states of the United States. In some respects all states
are identical (two senators and other federal representatives; a governor
and state legislature; a defined territory and minimal number of citizens);
but in other ways each state has its unique history and its own local pe­
culiarities. Similarly, every diocese is a local community that has its par­
ticular size and shape, its various endowments, and its own unique de­
velopment. When it comes to understanding a particular Church, the
theologian Joseph Komonchak has written: “When the human subjects
of the Church’s realization are introduced into ecclesiology, the focus be­
gins to shift to include also the local communities in which alone the
Church is realized, since human freedom is never realized except in par­
ticular individuals and communities and as a moment in their historical

20 Joseph A. Komonchak, “The Local Church and the Catholic Church: The Contem­
porary Theological Problematic,” The Jurist 52(1992) 420.
21 Corecco, 311.
 162 THE JURIST

self­
projects.”22 Such an alternative approach to a canonical understanding of
what a diocese is would, therefore, try to see a diocese “from the grass
roots up” and attempt to grasp what a particular church actually consists
of by considering the relationships of its various parts, especially its ag­
gregate of parish communities that are the principal loci of service by
which, over the years, its diocesan bishops' organized pastoral care for
the people entrusted to them in the diocesan church for which they were
responsible.
This alternative way of understanding a diocese is important because
it takes into account the real, historical relationships that God’s people in
a diocese have had with their own “particular Church” which has chan­
neled a spiritual capacity for them to foster Christian living throughout
its many local communities. Parishes and their peoples can thereby be
acknowledged to have had an organic connection within the developing
ecclesial life of this particular diocese rather than simply being viewed as
if they were just certain territorial subdivisions of some diocese as an ab­
stract entity. Just as the 1917 code had not defined a diocese but seemed
to conceive of dioceses as, more or less, territorial subdivisions of the
worldwide Church, so likewise it understood parishes. Canon 216 of the
1917 code stipulated: “The territory of every diocese shall be divided
into distinct territorial sections, and each portion shall have its own
proper church to which the Catholic population of the district shall be as­
signed. Such a church is presided over by a rector as the proper pastor for
the necessary care of souls.” In a significant change, however, the 1983
code presented the notion of what parish is in line with its newer and dy­
namic appreciation of the diocese itself. Thus canon 515 of the 1983
code stipulates: Ҥ1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian
faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is
[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

entrusted to a pastor . . . under the authority of the diocesan bishop.” Sta­

ble parish communities are something much more than just territorial di­
visions that may as easily be changed as lines on road maps.
On one hand, therefore, church life and law appreciate that a diocese
somehow provides a sense of communion. Members of a particular
church do experience some sense of shared community as, for instance,
they exhibit a certain comfortableness, a sense of belonging, perhaps
even an awareness of a right to be there, when they participate in a eu-
charistic celebration with their principal pastor, the bishop. In such cir-

22 Komonchak, 447.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 163

cumstances God’s people can come to recognize they live in a commu­

nion of faith with one another. They actually do share and benefit from
the care of their principal pastor, the diocesan bishop to whom they are
entrusted.
On the other hand, these very same people also participate in parish
communities where they likewise enjoy their own regular Sunday cele­
brations. Since a particular church is thus understood to be comprised of
such distinct parish communities wherein Christ’s faithful rightly cele­
brated the Holy Eucharist locally, this portion of God’s people experi­
ences a real communion both in diocesan church assemblies but, more
routinely, shares a sense of community at parish Masses or eucharistic
liturgies and in other activities when they work together with the “pastor
(parochus)” who, as canon 515 states, is their “proper pastor (pastor)
under the authority of the diocesan bishop.” Christ’s faithful can feel “at
home” with one another when they gather from various regions to cele­
brate the Eucharist—or other events— at which their own bishop pre­
sides yet also when they are simply celebrating with their local pastor at
home or they are participating in parish life.
A diocese and its parishes are human communities blessed with
tremendous spiritual potential. Since God works “through people and
their freedom,” the theologian Gerhard Lohfink observed: “it is only
possible for them to desire in freedom what God also desires if they
see, vividly, the beauty of God’s cause, so that they experience joy and
even passionate desire for the thing that God wills to do in the world, and
this passion for God and God’s cause is greater than all human self-
centeredness.”23 In a diocese people realize that the Christian life is man­
ifested not only within parishes but also in a variety of non-parochial ac­
tivities that the faithful enjoy. Christian living is not limited to scheduled
services or special events. Other aspects of Christian life are ecclesial
and can be recognized as ordinary, necessary and life-giving. Citing the
demonstrable spiritual tangibility when a diocese gathers to celebrate
Mass, Olegario Gonzalez de Cardedal pointed to its presence beyond
Mass in local ministries or activities wherein the Church comes to life:
“This ability to be perceived, this character of being an event, is not re­
duced . . . to the celebration of the Eucharist. The sacraments are pri­
mary but they are not the whole Church. . . . In addition to communion
there is society: ‘It is a visible society; as really visible it must continu­

23 Gerhard Lohfink, Does God Need the Church, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Col-
legeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999) 47.
164 THE JURIST

ally realize its historical, spacio- temporal tangibility through the actions
of people.’ ”24 Speaking of his own participation in a vibrant kind of
Catholic community, Lohfink ventured to say: “I have been permitted to
experience the beauty of the Church anew: the wealth and healing power
of its sacraments, the precious value of its traditions, the appropriate and
therefore humanly fitting structural plan of its communities, its interna­
tional character, it origins in the discerning power of Israel, its social
structure, its world-embeddedness.”25
Since neither a diocese nor its parishes exist in the abstract, a particu­
lar church wherein the Catholic Church is manifestly present always has
a unique history from which emerged the relationships between a dio­
cese and its parochial communities and wherein connections were forged
with all other ecclesiastical groups that are to be found in that diocese. In
1963, in respect to the actual division of any diocese into its various
parishes, when the bishops of the world gathered at the Second Vatican
Council, they wrote: “as it is impossible for the bishop always and every­
where to preside over the whole flock in his church, he must of necessity
establish groupings of the faithful; and, among these, parishes, set up lo­
cally under the pastor who takes the place of the bishop, are the most im­
portant, for in some way they represent the visible Church constituted
throughout the world.”2627
III. Parishes
A Catholic’s participation at Sunday Mass and in other parish activi­
ties provides most Catholics with their basic experience of the Church
and their own sense of Christ. In everyday life, most Catholics see their
parish as the Church, although they understand that the Church is more
than just their parish. The expectation that a local parish church should
be readily available to offer the faithful ready access for religious prac­
tice is very deeply rooted. In the Carolingian Reform (from about 750 to
900), “One of their reforming principles was to establish a church, its en­
dowment and a priest in every village. To a remarkable extent they suc­
ceeded, and the system of parishes that they set up endured for centuries

24 Olegario Gonzdlez De Caredal, “Development of a Theology of the Local Church

from the Second Vatican Council,” The Jurist 52 (1994) 38.
25 Lohfink, 321.
26 Sacrosanctum Concilium 42, Flannery, 15.
27 Coriden, The Parish in Catholic Tradition, 30.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 165

in Western Europe, through the darkest times of feudal disruption and

chaos.”27
As to a canonical notion of the parish, canon 515 §1 stipulates that a
parish—as a “definite community of the Christian faithful”—is “estab­
lished on a stable basis;” and, moreover, a legitimately established parish
is a community that “has juridic personality by the law itself’ (c. 515 §3).
Aside from legal provisions, however, people everywhere understand
that their local parish has had its own history. A parish grows as, over the
generations, ordinary Catholics learn and live their faith. Every parish has
seen its occasional special events. Generally a parish has simply been the
focal point of ordinary religious life as is most obviously perceived when
the parish community gathers for the celebration of Sunday Mass. Espe­
cially today when dioceses have found it necessary to close parishes,
many American bishops understand in a more personal way the famous
observation of a former Speaker of the House from Massachusetts, the
Honorable Tip (Philip T.) O’Neill, who once said: “All politics is local.”
The local dimension of church life is not to be underestimated. A good
deal of reflection could be profitably given an insight of the theologian,
Herve Legrand, O.P.: “In the name of a certain modernity one criticizes
easily the principle of one bishop per city, declaring it traditionalist or
even archaic. It will belong to the sociologist to tell us if this ‘modernity’
is not already dated from the moment when post-modern societies redis­
cover everywhere the importance of locality.”28 With deeply-sunken
roots, the stability of a parochial locality may not be easily displaced. In­
deed, as far as canon law is concerned, a parish’s “juridic personality is of
its nature perpetual;”and, although it can be “legitimately suppressed by
competent authority,” once a bishop has established it, a parish does not
otherwise lose its own juridic personality unless it has actually failed to
manifest any parochial “activity for a hundred years” (c. 120 § 1).
[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

Although it was long ago realized that a bishop cannot exercise direct
pastoral care for all the people of a diocese, today the more pressing con­
cern is to support pastors as they vicariously exercise their bishop’s pas­
toral responsibilities and to find the most effective ways for pastors to
fulfill their parochial duties for the people entrusted to them. On one
hand, over the past 1,200 years patterns of parish life in the Western
Church often distanced most of Christ’s faithful within their parishes

28 Herve Legrand, ‘“ One Bishop Per City’: Tensions Around the Expression of the
Catholicity of the Local Church since Vatican II,” The Jurist 52 (1992) 400.
166 THE JURIST

from the ministry of the diocesan bishop except in the case of confirma­
tion. Bishop Corecco, moreover, noted: “Episcopal authority was also
threatened in the internal government of the diocese; from the early Mid­
dle Ages the spread of the parochial structure had gradually broken up
the presbyterate, transforming the priest into a minister, who enjoyed his
own proper rights and had lost for the most part any collegial link with
the bishop.”29 On the other hand, moreover, pastors have also become
progressively isolated from one another through established delivery
systems for pastoral services that fostered unhealthy competition among
parishes and actually encouraged many priests and parishes to be overly
parochial. In the past, “the system” seldom called on parishes to cooper­
ate with one another as much as possible in providing Catholic educa­
tion, pastoral services, or worship opportunities. The pastoral solution
most needed today, therefore, may not be so much just to ordain thou­
sands of new priests to maintain old practices but to discover how fewer
parish priests can work more effectively with each other in providing
pastoral care for people of a number of parishes.
A pastor’s parochial duties mirror, in a more immediately realizable
way, what a diocesan bishop is already responsible for doing. Just as the
1983 code states a parish is a “community of the Christian faithful. . .
whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor. . . under the diocesan
bishop” (c. 515 §1), it describes a pastor’s duties in a way parallel to the
bishop’s responsibilities. Canon 528 § 1 stipulates: “A pastor is obliged to
make provision that the word of God is proclaimed . . . that the lay mem­
bers of the Christian faithful are instructed in the truths of the faith, espe­
cially by giving a homily . . . and . . . catechetical instruction. He is to
foster. .. social justice....... He is to make every effort, even with the col­
laboration of the Christian faithful, so that the message of the Gospel
comes also to those who have ceased to practice their religion. .. .” The
1983 code similarly describes the bishop’s role: “A diocesan bishop, fre­
quently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faith­
ful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals.
He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of
the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are
carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed o n __ ”
(c. 386 § 1). Canon 387 affirms that the bishop: “is the principal dispenser
of the mysteries of God, he is to endeavor constantly that the Christian
faithful. . . grow in grace through the celebration of the sacraments___”

29
Corecco, 61.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 167

So too, canon 528 §2 parallels canon 387 in declaring: “The pastor is to

see to it that the Most Holy Eucharist is the center of the parish assembly
of the faithful. He is to work so that the Christian faithful.. . may ap­
proach the sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist and penance. He is also
to endeavor that they are led to practice prayer even as families and take
part consciously and actively in the sacred liturgy__ ” In an even broader
respect for parish life today, however, canon 529 §2 insists: “A pastor is
to recognize and promote the proper part which the lay members of
the Christian faithful have in the mission of the Church.. . . He is to co­
operate with his own bishop and the presbyterate of the diocese, also
working so that the faithful have concern for parochial communion, con­
sider themselves members of the diocese and of the universal Church, and
participate in and sustain efforts to promote this same communion.” The
bishop and the pastor are each to promote the proper role of the lay faith­
ful. The 1983 code embraces a vision of the diocese wherein all the
parishes share in a communion of life and all of Christ’s faithful work well
together.
IV. Pastoral care in today's parishes for tomorrow’s Church
In light of a serious decrease in the numbers of priests available to
serve as pastors, four observations are paramount in light of the kind of
community of faith that a diocesan church should be. First, priests may
have to understand their own ministry differently than did priests of the
past who worked more in isolation from each other. Second, parish com­
munity should not be unnecessarily disrupted simply because there are
not sufficient priests in a diocese to assign an individual pastor to every
parish. Third, the 1983 code provides a number of ways to deal with the
dearth of priests. Fourth, canon 529 §2 notes that a critical aspect in the
delivery of pastoral care is that priests work in such a way “that the faith­
ful have concern for parochial communion, consider themselves mem­
bers of the diocese . . . and participate in and sustain efforts to promote
this same communion.”
First, canon 369 explains: “A diocese is a portion o f the people o f God
which is entrusted to a bishop fo r him to shepherd with the cooperation
o f the presbyterate. . . . ” Bishop Corecco astutely emphasized that “the
pastoral mission in the diocese is entrusted to the presbyterium as such,
with the responsibility for it being individually differentiated but syn-
odally reciprocal.”30 In other words, the best understanding of the re­

30 Ibid., 273.
 168 THE JURIST

sponsibility being entrusted to the presbyterate is that priests minister

primarily as members of a diocesan “college of presbyters” who con­
jointly work in service with the diocesan bishop; and a diocesan bishop
extends his pastoral care for Christ’s faithful through his priests as they
work with each other, fo r their bishop, and on behalf q/'their brothers and
sisters across the diocese. Priests should, therefore, first clarify with their
bishop and with each other what are the most effective ways of deliver­
ing pastoral service to God’s people in their many parishes before they
separate from each other to work in those individual parishes. Today
priests need to understand their ministry differently than had recently
been the common American experience in which a pastor dedicated him­
self almost exclusively to the care of a single parish, tried to realize a
maximum success in its pastoral programs, accepted primarily the re­
sponsibility to assure the parish’s economic stability and achieved a
sense of priestly fraternity—perhaps even his personal sense of well­
being—chiefly in his work with priests assigned to that parish and/or
among his friends outside the parish.
Priests know that historically it was hard to get neighboring pastors to
cooperate in sponsoring or in funding of ministries beyond their parish
boundaries or in joint hiring of personnel to exercise particular responsi­
bilities in a number of parishes at once. Parishes were fiefdoms. Pastors
guarded their prerogatives and were rewarded for independent accom­
plishment. With progressively fewer priests in ministry, however, pas­
tors must support one another. Pastors will realize that it may be what
they accomplish together that determines the success of their future pas­
toral ministry. Canon 517 §1 provides a new concept of how priests
might actually work together when it proposes that “the pastoral care of
a parish or of different parishes together can be entrusted to several
priests in solidum, with the requirement, however, that in exercising pas­
[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

toral care one of them must be the moderator, namely, the one who is to
direct the joint action and to answer for it to the bishop.” Concerning
such cooperation by priests, Bishop Corecco noted: “two . . . institu­
tions, new even in relation to the council, have their proper place [in this
context]: the entrusting of one or more parishes to several priests in
solidum (can. 517, § 1), thus making the communio ministeriorum of the
presbyterium a reality at the parochial level, and the establishment of a
college of diocesan consultors (can. 502)... .”31

31 Ibid.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 169

Referring to canon 543, §2,10 (concerning the canon 517 § 1 priests to

whom several parishes are entrusted in solidum), moreover, Antonio S.
Sanches-Gil notes: “the priests that belong to the group are obliged to ob­
serve the law of residence.. . . Whenever possible, it is important that
a priest of the group reside in each entrusted parish.. . . In other cases,
it can be preferable for all the priests to live together in one par­
ish. . . ,”32 Priests who wish to do so may find that a common residence
which fulfills the requirement of canon 533 is a true blessing (rather than
finding themselves forced to live alone in separate rectories). Although
living some kind of a common life is not to be imposed, commenting on
canon 280, John E. Lynch notes: “The practice of clerics living together
is a safeguard of celibacy and a means of fostering other virtues.”33 Yet,
even when priests must live in separate rectories, common arrangements
might well be made, for example, to share the main meal of the day to­
gether at some centrally-located rectory for camaraderie, conviviality,
and even economy. Priests will need to find practical ways to enjoy the
fraternity envisaged when canon 275 says: “they are to be united among
themselves by a bond of brotherhood and prayer and to strive for coop­
eration among themselves.”
Second, canon 515 §2 stipulates that a diocesan bishop is neither to
“suppress, nor alter notably parishes, unless he has heard the pres-
byteral council. ” Recent American history has amply demonstrated that
closing parishes or even notably altering parishes can often be very
painful experiences for everyone. No doubt there are times when a dioce­
san bishop must close a parish. Such a decision should be taken, how­
ever, chiefly when the parish’s own community has, indeed, ceased to be
viable. Parish communities need not be unnecessarily disrupted simply
because enough priests are no longer available to assign each parish its
individual pastor.
How do parishes die? If a diocesan bishop no longer has a sufficient
number of active presbyters, there may be the temptation prematurely to
declare parishes—especially the smaller ones—dead, to suppress them,
and subsequently to reassign the parishioners in a merger with another
parish or to split them among a number of other parishes. However, such
an approach to merging parishes may not be the most effective way to
handle the difficult pastoral changes that a diocese must, indeed, under­

32 Sanches-Gil, in Exegetical Commentary, II/2:1369.

33 John E. Lynch, C.S.P., “Chapter III: The Obligations and Rights of Clerics,” in New
Commentary, 365.
170 THE JURIST

take. A basic rule might be to make patient observations that encourage

the parishioners to communicate to the diocese that they realize that their
own parish is less and less viable. Functioning parochial pastoral coun­
cils and genuine parish finance councils may often be the first to recog­
nize that their local venture in ecclesial community is in serious trouble
or “that the patient has already died.”
Especially in the creation of new parishes, demographic studies and
the like are important factors. But making decisions from on high can be
extraordinarily difficult when it is a question of deciding whether a
parish community is viable. What criteria are to be employed, especially
in the “gray areas” of parochial life? The human foundations for a
parish’s spiritual community can be harder to locate. With a constant
search for better housing and increasing pressures to move for economic
purposes, the traditional stability of many communities is no longer one
of the most defining aspects of parishes in America today. For many
Catholics the parish church that they attend may be more of “a chapel of
ease” than the center of a community where they feel deeply enmeshed
or to which they are strongly committed. The traditional involvement of
a Catholic family in its proper parish is often curtailed by the sheer quan­
tity of choices that carry parents and youngsters beyond territorial
boundaries when it is a matter of the churches where they go for Mass,
the Catholic schools in which they may want to enroll their children, or a
selection of the most conveniently-scheduled religious educations pro­
grams for public school children to attend. Outside of rural areas with
widely-scattered parishes or in sections of the country where there are
very few Catholic churches, American Catholics today often attend and
readily register in whatever parish they like—in the church of their
choice, as it were—because they feel that a particular church has some­
thing of interest to offer them (a “quicker Mass,” a more participatory
liturgy, a better homily, a more welcoming community or whatever).
Despite mobility, selectivity, and even inconsistent religious practice
on the part of many contemporary American Catholics, the accurate con­
clusion may not necessarily be that people no longer sense their
parochial identity. People do live in a world where they are accustomed
to having their local bank bought out from under them; and the names of
the neighborhood businesses change many times over. People accept
such realities largely because they have no control over them and less
loyalty to particular companies. Such changes have only a negligible im­
pact on personal life. As to the church in the boundaries of which they
live or to which they have affiliated themselves, nevertheless, people are
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 171

often not so insensitive, fickle, or flexible. Parish communities usually

do not just pass away at a whim. As canon 120 §1 seems to imply in re­
spect to a lack of “activity for a hundred years,” parishes may not cease
to exist simply because of deficiencies in their activities as local church.
Thus what church law stipulates—and, thereby, teaches— about the sta­
bility and the identity of parishes ought not to be too easily set aside. At
times just a small group of people may campaign against the closure of a
parish when their motives are confused because, in fact, the parish’s ac­
tual community had long ago turned to shambles. But, at other times, an
administrative decision to close a parish may have been made when it
was not yet so clear that a parochial community had actually died. In the
latter case, there can be a lot of uncalled for blood letting.
If the decision to close a parish is motivated more by a lack on the part
of a diocese (for example, a dwindling number of priests) than from ac­
tual defects in a once-stably-established “definite community of the
Christian faith,” the people of God will often feel betrayed because, in
their eyes, their parish seemed to be maintaining its own parochial
church, carrying on its religious education program, offering its social
outreach, meeting its financial obligations, and providing its own living
witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the catholicity of the Church.
In that situation, the questions that ought to be asked are whether an ad­
equate consultation with the presbyterate had actually occurred and if se­
rious enough consideration was given to alternative ways to deliver pas­
toral service before the diocesan bishop made the decision to “suppress
or notably alter” a parochial community and thus to sever its history with
the diocese (c. 515 §2).
Third, the 1983 code provides alternatives to the norm o f canon 515
that each parish must have its own resident pastor. Canon 517 §2 pro­
[41.242.66.86] Project MUSE (2024-03-25 09:04 GMT)

vides for a team ministry approach in one or more parishes. Canon 517
§2 recognizes that, given “a lack of priests,” a diocesan bishop might ask
deacons or other persons who are not priests to participate “in the exer­
cise of the pastoral care of a parish” as long as he appoints “some priest
who, provided with the powers and faculties of a pastor, is to direct the
pastoral care.” Canon 526 authorizes, moreover, that, “because of a lack
of priests or other circumstances, the care of several neighboring
parishes can be entrusted to the same pastor.” The assignment of one
priest for two or more parishes may, in the short term, be the most realis­
tic an approach. In the Diocese of Toledo, for instance, the diocesan
bishop offered a specific proposal in 2004: “In order to safeguard the
ministerial effectiveness of the pastor, parishes will only be partnered in
 172 THE JURIST

twos. In these twinned parishes there will be one pastoral council, one fi­
nance council, one administrative center, and combined or collaborative
ministries where possible and/or appropriate. A priest should normally
preside at only three regularly scheduled Sunday celebrations of the eu-
charist (includes Saturday vigil Mass).”34As to the particulars, there can
certainly be differing opinions and interpretations. A diocesan bishop
would, however, want to assure that a priest who directs pastoral care for
two or more parishes is not overburdened, for example, with duplicate
parish finance council meetings. Individual parishes might maintain
their distinct parish finance councils even if the priest who directs the
pastoral care of those parishes only attends a joint meeting for the finance
councils at which a forthright, open discussion of each parish’s economic
situation would afford an opportunity for the most realistic cooperation
and pastoral coordination among such parishes.
Creative thinking about how to deliver pastoral services is needed
both by the bishop whose primary responsibility it is and by the priests
who are to cooperate with their bishop in the process. Whatever solutions
are suggested must be solidly rooted both in Catholic principles and in
the real history of a diocese’s local parish communities. There is no need
to imagine that the deacon pastor with whom the Sacred Congregation of
the Council wrestled in 1919 will emerge again ninety years later.35 Like
the 1917 code, canon 521 §1 of the 1983 code requires that a man be a
priest to be the pastor of a parish. Canon 517 §2 of the 1983 code indi­
cates, nevertheless, that a deacon can participate in the exercise of pas­
toral care in a particular parish under the leadership of a priest who over­
sees the pastoral activity of the parish where a deacon could, for
example, be the local clergyman on the scene. Moreover, Catholic dea­
cons are already authorized to perform many of the regular duties that
most Protestant pastors undertake.
Especially without enough priests to celebrate Sunday Masses, the
very thought of comparing Catholic deacons and Protestant pastors may
evoke trepidation concerning the central tenet of Catholic faith and prac­
tice that is proclaimed in canon 897: “The eucharistic sacrifice, the
memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the sacrifice
of the cross is perpetuated through the ages is the summit and source of
all worship and Christian life, which signifies and effects the unity of the

34 Leonard P. Blair, “Diocese Begins Consultation on Parish Closings and Realign­

ments,” Origins 34/17 (October 7, 2004) 269.
35 Canon haw Digest I: 246.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 173

people of God and brings about the building up of the body of Christ.”
Anecdotes have already been told of parishioners who preferred a dea­
con’s homily and distribution of Holy Communion on Sundays to a long,
drawn-out Mass. Since canon 230 §3 also, in necessity, permits “lay per­
sons . . . to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside over liturgical
prayers. .. and to distribute Holy Communion,” Diane Barr in the
CLS A New Commentary for canon 230 cites the regulation of such ex­
traordinary ministry by The Directory fo r Sunday Celebrations in the
Absence o f a Priest,”36 Nevertheless, stories have circulated about
youngsters with inadequate catechetical formation who, after attending
such a Sunday service, have said that “Sister’s Mass” is better than “Fa­
ther’s Mass.”
On one hand, such legitimate concerns must be addressed at the level
of better and more effective catechesis for both adults and young people
so that they can acquire a fuller appreciation both of Holy Communion
and of the Mass. On the other hand, even if a particular parish has to do
without the regular celebration of Sunday Mass, its church can remain a
sanctuary in which the Blessed Sacrament is reserved; and Mass is peri­
odically to be offered there for the participation of the local faithful. Thus
canon 934 §2 requires that “where the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved,
there must always be someone responsible for it and, insofar as possible,
a priest is to celebrate Mass there at least twice a month.” Likewise,
canon 940 notes that in the church itself a witness to faith is given by its
“special lamp which indicates and honors the presence of Christ” as it
shines “continuously before a tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eu­
charist is reserved.” While participation in the celebration of Mass is to
be most desired. Catholics who understand their faith appreciate the dif­
ference between a parish church in which the Blessed Sacrament is re­
served and a church without the Eucharist. The absence of a routinely
available Sunday Mass may make parishioners even more thankful for
the Blessed Sacrament reserved and the precious times when Mass is cel­
ebrated at their church.
Fourth, an effective delivery o f pastoral care will require that all cler­
gymen—bishops, priests and deacons—capitalize on the proper oppor­
tunities fo r Christ’s layfaithful to exercise their real responsibilityfo r the
life o f the particular Church both within the diocese and in their own
parishes. Even with an abundance of clergy and in the most normal of

36 Diane L Barr, “Title II: The Obligations and Rights of the Lay Christian Faithful,”
in New Commentary, 301.
 174 THE JURIST

circumstances, canon 529 §2 stipulates: “A pastor is to recognize and

promote the proper part which the lay members of the Christian faithful
have in the mission of the Church.” Acknowledging the growing short­
age of priests, however, as well as the more exceptional forms for the in­
volvement of the laity in the delivery of pastoral care that is permitted
in canon 517 §2, John Renken in the CLSA New Commentary rightly
notes: “To assure its proper implementation, the Holy See in November
1997 issued the Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Col­
laboration o f the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of
Priests. It offers a number of helpful directives to clarify the meaning of
the canon, guide its further implementation, and correct any inappropri­
ate applications.”37
Even without employing exceptional provisions, however, there are
so many ways that lay people are actively involved in parochial or dioce­
san activities, in the liturgy; in various kinds of ministry, in catechetics,
Catholic school education or adult faith formation and through participa­
tion in so many associations that promote religious development in fam­
ily life and marriage, or by involvement with small Christian communi­
ties and in programs for justice, for personal outreach to those in need,
and for charity. Bishop Corecco has observed: “The layman is not a lay­
man because of his secular position but because of the way he shares suo
modo et pro sua parte in the sacerdotal, prophetic, and royal office of
Christ.”38 This comment echoes a key teaching of the Second Vatican
Council which is now a point of law insofar as it is enshrined in canon
204 § 1 that declares that clergy and laity alike are all “made sharers in
their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are
called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to
fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.”
Canon 529 §2 emphasizes that a pastor “is to cooperate with his own
bishop and the presbyterate of the diocese, also working so that the faith­
ful have concern for parochial communion, consider themselves mem­
bers of the diocese and of the universal Church, and participate in and
sustain efforts to promote this same communion.” The Catholic Church
is not congregationalist but a Church of communion at the diocesan level
and among the various stable communities within it, especially its

37 John A. Renken, “Chapter VI: Parishes, Pastors, and Parochial Vicars,” in New
Commentary, 686.
38 Corecco, 110.
 DIOCESES, PARISHES, PASTORS, AND PASTORAL CARE 175

parishes. In dioceses and parishes, the bishop, clergy, religious, and lay
people, each in their proper ways, are jointly responsible for pastoral
care, for promotion of vocations and for the overall life and the mission
of Christ’s Church.
Today there are certainly some real challenges to adequate delivery of
pastoral care. The 1983 code does not suggest a one-size-fits-all solution
but offers a number of possible approaches. A particular canonical pro­
vision may work wonderfully in one diocese, but it may be found to be
utterly unworkable in another. The assignment of clergy might well re­
quire the mixing and matching of whichever arrangements are most ef­
fective for a given diocese. In view of just such challenges, the 1983 code
offers the Church encouragement, direction, and some potentially quite
effective old norms as well as some genuinely new provisions.