Collaboration and Communication

[Vox Americana]

By the way, I think the words 'communication' and 'collaboration' are the keys to everything written about in this string

I'd like to have that clarified. Merriam-Webster gives:

Main Entry: col·lab·o·rate
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Late Latin collaboratus, past participle of collaborare to labor together, from Latin com- + laborare to labor

1 : to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor
2 : to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force
3 : to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected

Main Entry: com·mu·ni·cate
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin communicatus, past participle of communicare to impart, participate, from communis common
transitive senses
1 archaic : SHARE
2 a : to convey knowledge of or information about : make known <communicate a story>
2 b : to reveal by clear signs <his fear communicated itself to his friends>
3 : to cause to pass from one to another <some diseases are easily communicated>
intransitive senses
1 : to receive Communion
2 : to transmit information, thought, or feeling so that it is satisfactorily received or understood
3 : to open into each other : CONNECT <the rooms communicate>

Experience over here suggests that many folks think they are communicating when in fact they are only performing the transitive 2a definition; What they miss is the fundamental difference between that and the intransitive 2 definition - they forget to check see whether it is satisfactorily received or understood. Bit like being a broadcaster - are you sure anyone's listening?

Once knew a li'l ol' lady (Lord have mercy on her) who often told me to collaborate with her! What she meant was 'Do it my way, or else'! Heck, it often felt more like definition 2 - working with the enemy - than it did 1, cos there were so-oo many strings attached. I figure collaboration requires giving freely; else it is coercion.

Presbyter tells us that responsibility for pastoral care rests with the priest. Sure does. But that doesn't absolve Father from listening, or from setting up the mechanisms for communicating and collaborating so as to greater leverage the pastoralness. Both Cs are a two-way process, and cos you've two ears and one mouth, maybes you should listen twice as much as you talk - including the clergy! We need a more open and transparent process in the Church. Maybes then the Church here in the US wouldn't be in such a goddamned mess.

[presbyter]

Christifideles Laici and our own bishops' The Sign We Give are very well worth mulling over. As to how best to put those documents into practice and getting the faithful to understand that their vocation is an exercise of co-responsibility in the life and mission of the Church with their pastors - that's more difficult! Did the US bishops produce a commentary and hints for the practical application of CL ?

[Vox Americana]

I think that Called and Gifted was their response. No matter: they did update it and publish Called and Gifted for the Third Millennium which strongly tells us:

One challenge undergirds all... It is the need to foster respectful collaboration, leading to mutual support in ministry, between clergy and laity for the sake of Christ's Church and its mission to the world. This is a huge task requiring changes in patterns of reflection, behavior, and expectation among laity and clergy alike.

Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth of the US Conference of Bishops

Sure is a huge task, Bro: time to walk the walk not just talk the talk.

[Tsume Tsuyu]

But where and how do you begin to foster collaboration and communication (C & C) between clergy and laity? I know that, to a certain extent it exists already but the communication is often of the 2a kind; laity with various ministries are told what to do. In our particular parish it works the other way too. I've said before that our PP trusts us with the music - we simply let him know what we are doing - 2a again. Whilst (I think) we are sensitive about our choice of music and how we deliver it, it would be good to have some discussion with our PP about it, rather than just presenting the finished list.

I guess if you have a pastoral parish council there is more C & C, but we don't. Perhaps those that do could share their experiences. Are these groups forums for genuine C & C, or are the laity dictated to? Or does the laity dictate and the PP just go along with it? I'd be very interested to know.

For there to be C & C, both the clergy and the laity need to be open and receptive to it and, further, the laity need to be open and receptive to one another. I agree with Canonico that C & C are the keys. Actually, I'm inclined to think that it's the second 'C' - communication - that is the only key since collaboration can only come if there is communication first, surely? What I'm not sure about is how you get to the starting line, never mind beginning to walk the walk. Maybe, though, if we follow Vox's thinking that we have two ears and only one mouth and so perhaps should listen twice as much as we speak, that would be a starting point.

TT

[presbyter]

But where and how do you begin to foster collaboration and communication (C & C) between clergy and laity?

You can't do anything without formation. The key concept that the laity have to grasp - and it is difficult and challenging - is co-responsibility. Read CL and The Sign We Give (including the formation sessions) before you even think of forming a Parish Pastoral Council.

[Benevenio]

Read Christifideles Laici here. It's not too easy, having lots of hyperlinks in the text, but it does allow you to look things up.
You can read it at the Vatican site too, without the cross-referencing.

The Sign we Give, as far as I can tell is not freely available on the internet. But you can buy a copy from Matthew James.

It is interesting the you refer to co-responsibility Presbyter. And yet you also tell us that ultimately the priest is in charge. Who can sign the cheques in your parish? Only the guy who answers to the Bishop through obedience? If the clerics keep the power to themselves, then there really can be no co-responsibility, whether there is formation or not. Indeed, formation may only make the situation worse, because then the laity will have the knowledge that they are naked in the garden of Eden...

As I have said in another thread, there is really little evidence from our English bishops that they really want Adult formation - Portsmouth seems to have its act together. Anywhere else? Birmingham? Sad to say the Archbishop's focus appears to be more on Rome that on his own people.

[Martin Foster]

The Sign we Give, as far as I can tell is not freely available on the internet. But you can buy a copy from Matthew James.

I understand that The Sign we Give will soon be available on the Bishops' Conference website as will The Priority of Adult Formation.

Martin

[presbyter]

It is interesting that you refer to co-responsibility Presbyter. And yet you also tell us that ultimately the priest is in charge.

No - I said he is ultimately responsible - before his Ordinary and before God - for the pastoral care of his flock. (The Code of Canon Law has a neat summary of the p.p.'s responsibilities - condensed from several documents)

Now do you - or any of the laity - want to share in that responsibility before God for the well-being of the Church's life and Mission? "Well done good and faithful servant....." ; "Away from me....." ? That's what's being asked of people and, in my experience, the laity find it initially very disturbing. The exercise (or even the existence) of the common priesthood of all, in virtue of our Baptism, is a concept that I suggest has not been very well taken on board yet.

This is not a secular model of working. It's not akin to any form of business management structure nor even political democratic process. How good might you be at reaching decisions through prayer and consensus? Read the documents. Pray with them. So-called power does not reside in a cheque book - and indeed, if you do read the documents and perhaps one or two other publications (which I do not have to hand) you will see that it is highly recommended that the members of the Parish Finance Committee should not also be members of the Parish Pastoral Council. It is the Pastoral Council who tells the Finance Committee what funds are needed for and where to spend money.

For your information, I do believe the Ordinary whose abilities you seem to doubt has set up a formation programme for the clergy of that diocese on CL and related documents which begins in October. I don't think we need to use this forum to make open criticisms of Bishops, do we?

[Benevenio]

I have no doubt at all in Archbishop Vincent's abilities; just where his focus is. If I have offended you in openly criticising him, I apologise. If the charge is false, refute it. That's what open debate in the Church is about. You don't have to agree, but you also mustn't just tell me to shut-up! If this is the wrong forum to criticise, please point me in the direction of one where that right will not be denied me

Look at what you have just written: "has set up a formation programme for the clergy of that diocese on CL and related documents which begins in October" (my emphasis). If we are to truly collaborate, why not have formation of clergy and lay-people together?

I did not say power resides in the cheque book. It was an example where many lay people have far greater training and understanding of the use of money than that the parish priest might have, and is an area where responsibility could be shared... yet cannot be because of the structure and law of the Church.

Do I want to share that responsibility for Christ's Mission? I already do (by virtue of my Baptism). It is my right and duty to live that life, and I choose to do so with as much responsibility as the RC Church will let me today. But taking Christ to the people I meet daily - at work, in visiting the sick in our parish for example - doesn't need permission, or structure. Just perseverence and patience.

Let me turn this on its head. You are ultimately responsible for your flock - to God, you said. Given that you are to serve God's people, as a responsible Master to his servant that means I need to care for you, and I will be answerable to God for that. The question about collaboration is: will you let me be your servant, too?

[Tsume Tsuyu]

I understand that The Sign we Give will soon be available on the Bishops' Conference website as will The Priority of Adult Formation.

I seem to remember, in the early days of this forum, bemoaning the lack of adult formation. It's good it's being talked about, but - a bit like Vox said - talking the talk is one thing. We need it in our parishes, and we need it now.

Some years ago, we did attempt to start up a PPC with an initial meeting to talk about how it would work. Someone brought along a model for a PPC and a commentary from somewhere about how to approach it. These offerings were completely disregarded by the majority who felt that the PP knew best (with the best will in the world, he didn't) and that we only need do what he suggested for it to work. What we had were a group of willing people (including myself) with absolutely no idea what we were trying to achieve, never mind how to do it.

We need adult formation, and there needs to be formation for priests too. Like Benevenio, I cannot see why the two should not take place together, for, if we are all in the same classroom, surely there is a better chance of us learning the same lesson?

TT

P.S. I've made a start on reading Christifideles Laici but it may take me a few days to wade through it!

[presbyter]

If we are to truly collaborate, why not have formation of clergy and lay-people together?

Why not write to your Ordinary and suggest it then? I must abmit though, from my albeit limited experience, that formation for the laity might be best achieved from sensitive preaching and, to start with, gentle, personal encouragement and invitation from the p.p. to his flock. The process of formation, I suggest, is more suited to the initmacy of a parish meeting room rather than the hiring of theatres or large lecture halls and one could not really attempt the formation sessions in The Sign We Give with very large numbers. Please don't suggest a large church is used. The discomfort would be intolerable.

I did not say power resides in the cheque book. It was an example where many lay people have far greater training and understanding of the use of money than that the parish priest might have, and is an area where responsibility could be shared... yet cannot be because of the structure and law of the Church.

I'm sorry but which particular structure and law of the Church are you making reference to? One is tempted to comment on your supposition - so I will - through that remark on a Churchillian (?) marginal note: "Who is Round and to what does he object?" Let me see - I believe the aforementioned diocese has a priest Treasurer (himself well qualified in finance) but in the Treasurer's Department there are some seven or eight lay employees, four of whom have particular expertise in specific areas of financial management. Then at a parish level, a Finance Committee is mandatory (in Canon law) and that same diocese has recently updated and published its parochial financial administration procedures. Furthemore, it is not only the procedures in Canon Law that should be observed but also, in this country, the requirements of the Charity Commissioners. All parishes are subject to audit. All parishes should have considerable lay involvement in the management of their finances, leaving - ideally - the priest just to sign the cheques. That dream may exceed the reality in some places but believe me, most clergy really do want the dream to come true.

Do I want to share that responsibility for Christ's Mission? I already do ....... with as much responsibility as the RC Church will let me today.

So what is so frustrating for you? No - don't answer that in a public forum - sorry. But I think I should say that IMHO, the choice that an individual makes to act out a response to one's Baptism in his or her life is but one aspect of what we are discussing. For sure, radiate the light of Christ in all you do and say in the world or "let your good deed be done in secret." But - and it's a big BUT - when it comes to collaborative ministry and the exercise of co-responsibility with the clergy in the pastoral care of parishes, there is consultation to be done, charismata to be discerned and processes of formation to be undertaken (even CRB checks sometimes these days - ha!). No-one is commissioned as an extrordinary minister of the Eucharist, for example, without some wisdom and prudence in that choice of individual being exercised and then a process of formation....... and now I am even wondering if in future programmes of formation for musicians, there might not be a formal commissioning which could include the question demanded at an ordination: "After enquiry among the People of God, do you find him/her to be worthy?" Hmmm - now there's a thought.

I think that what is of great importance in setting up collaborative ministry is that the individual can put aside self. It is God's will that needs discerning, not one's own, and yes, that is through the lens of centuries of Divine Revelation in Scripture and Tradition. Any perceived present action of the Spirit needs assessing in that light and personally, I would avoid anyone who thinks they have an instant hot-line to God.

And then no-one, for example, sits on a Parish Pastoral Council as the representative of a particular group in a parish (see the documents) nor as someone who just wants to do "their own thing", let alone for their own ends - heaven forbid. How might you discern someone who is masking their intent? Or might you want to avoid the intense "single issue" Catholic? Important, for example, as pro-life issues in the Church (and the world) are, would you necessarily want someone who is narrowly all-consumed and obsessively active in pro-life issues, to the exclusion of all other pastoral concerns, as a member of a pastoral council? I just raise the question.

Even though it might sound a reasonable thing to do, I myself would caution against an initial formation of clergy and laity together. Certainly, an open invitation would just attract maverick elements in the Church, people with axes to grind, individuals who concentrate narrowly on single issues and, I'm sorry to say, just plain nutters. Even good souls who are keen and enthusiastic may not be the right people to be on a pastoral council. For sure, all baptised have the right and duty to be involved in the life of the Church but one only has to read I Corinthians and the gentle yet firm hand of the Apostle applied to that community to see what happens when involvement becomes a free for all.
The divinely given faculty of oversight is needed!

But, of course, that is not to say that formation in parishes should not be a conjoint clerical and lay process - it has to be. We are all being challenged to take on a new mind-set. What is it St Paul says? "Modelled by your new mind, let your behaviour change." (Romans somewhere) It's not easy.

In the setting up of my first PPC, we were all learning together and a demanding but very worthwhile exercise it was too. Yet the discernment as to who might be suitable to be a member of that council had already taken place within the parish. (Here I will confess that the result of that process was me being delated to my Ordinary by an individual (and his wife) who thought he had a right to be on the council but was not chosen. My Bishop asked me what this was all about, to which I replied that the parish think this man is a pain in the neck and should be restricted in what he is allowed to do at church. As to whether or not the Bishop wrote back and told the man everybody thought he was a pain, I don't know!)

I'm rambling and must stop. Whatever you do - don't think this is going to be easy - but do think it is worthwhile. Do take time over the process, learning as you go along..... and I hope, as I did, you learn from others sharing their faith and from their wisdom.

Let me turn this on its head........... The question about collaboration is: will you let me be your servant, too?

Consider CL in the light of the Evening Mass of Holy Thursday. Could we all be being asked to wash one another's feet - and - more importantly? - allow all others to wash ours?

[Benevenio]

Hmmm... you did bite at that! So here's a further thought or two...

I will write to the Bishop and suggest it. Unfortunately, my experience of the reply (or total lack of one) on the one occassion I have written to the bishop leaves me with a low expectation of being heard, let alone listened to - which comes back to the communication front.

Whilst the clergy do have formation in the seminaries, I rather suspect that it is in the application in the parish that most of their pastoral formation takes place. You can learn the theory, but until you try working with God's people, awkward cussed bunch that we are (including the loonies on left and right of the spectrum, not to mention the centre), it is all for nothing. Love is something that is not learned through teaching, but experiencing it, and I think that is at the root of collaboration.

Formation of priest and people together may start with sensitive preaching, but it ought not be the final way. Unfortunately my experience of "cascade" training is the chinese whisper effect. Each in the chain tells the next what (s)he thinks they ought to know. Let's face it, the cascading of the Church documents, revisions to the missal etc have not been effectively pastorally implemented or formation been given. There must be a better way, and I suggest that a formal programme, where priests and people are formed together, is one approach. Leaving it up to the priests to teach the people doesn't work, because they (we all) get bogged down in the day-to-day running of the parish. It needs a more structured approach out of that situation given the time it deserves.

I'd be quite happy for that period of discernment, that commissioning process asking if the candidate is worthy to be a pastoral liturgical musician - or any of the other ministries open to lay people. Note though, that I also think that the Church in England and Wales needs to address what is going to happen when we run out of priests, which we will in the relatively near future. If Eucharist is all we celebrate, if there has been no formation of the laity, if the pastoral structures are not in place, there will be no Catholic Church. So train us - train us to preach pastoral homilies so we can effectively break the word for each other in your absence fo instance. It won't be everybody's charismata, but what did St Paul say about each of us having gifts? One has the gift of tongues and another the gift of interpretation etc. Let us lay people discover the gifts we have and permit us to use them: It isn't only the clerics who have gifts! Who knows, with proper formation of the people of God, we might actually find that vocations to the priesthood and religious actually increase.

BTW how old is CL... 15 years? The Sign we Give... 10 years? What are the bishops doing to implement their own document, let alone Rome's? Where is the "project plan", the "timing" plan? I accept that the Church is not a business and that a secular model might not apply; but there is much that the Church could learn by studying the theories of Management of Change and of Project Management.

[Merseysider]

Accidental post – perhaps Admin could remove

[Dot]

What an inspiring post from Merseysider. One quibble - this suggestion of moving on because of "ongoing problems with" whoever - sounds defeatist. We cannot select our PP, our assembly, or, as described on another thread, our choir of droners and disruptives. We have to make the best of what's there.

If any of you turn up over the next few Sundays, I might be a tad embarrassed at where we're at – but I'm very proud of what we've achieved and I'm pretty happy about where we're going.

If you turn up at our church in September (as both choirs are on holiday over the next few Sundays), there is unlikely to be embarrassment over where we're at musically, but you would not ask us how we get the assembly to sing so well. So your words are especially valuable to us, as that which you do so well is the area where we need to grow. Your networking, listening, planning, familiarising - not absent from our modus operandi - but a few tips there for us to try out. I was just talking things over with another choir member last night, and it does help to be able to air your views and listen to another point of view without recrimination.
Keep 'em coming, M. Do you have any tips on how you communicate/connect with your assembly either just before or during a service?

Dot

[Merseysider]

Accidental post – perhaps Admin could remove