HOW TO BE AT THE SEVICE OF THE CHURCH
LIKE LAYPERSONS AND AS LAYPERSONS?

Pierre Langeron

Your Eminence, Monsignor, dear Ewa, dear friends,

On the occasion of Pentecost the French Catholic newspaper La Croix published a dossier on the theme: “Those laypersons who make the Church work”. Under the title on the front page there was a huge photograph of an elderly lady who, for 25 years as the article specified, was placing a beautiful bouquet of flowers in front of the main altar in an otherwise empty church. . . .the shock of snapshots! May this already be the answer to the question asked of us this afternoon. Is this the service the Church expects of laypersons?

Let’s take this all the way to sheer absurdity: is it possible to imagine the Church without laypersons? A few years ago I was visiting the Uffizi Museum in Florence and my attention was drawn to a small medieval painting entitled something like this: the ideal city. The painting showed a beautiful village with its houses and its church set in a bucolic countryside; men and women busily at work doing the ordinary things of the earthly city: ploughmen in the fields, craftsmen in their shops, women in the kitchen. The painting as a whole projected serenity and harmony in a sort of pale golden light. Really a beautiful painting; a fully Christian city, almost as an example of fulfilment. There’s just one detail, however: there were nothing but monks and nuns. . .what a strange image of a Church, with no laypersons and no posterity! Now, a Church without laypersons would be like a school without pupils, or a hospital without patients.

Let’s close this parenthesis on the symbolic illusion of a medieval painter and return to an evident fact: there are laypersons in the Church. Since it is a matter of seeing how laypersons can serve the Church as laypersons, let’s begin by taking a look at this assembly of ours. It is made up almost exclusively of laypersons. In fact, the members of secular institutes are laypersons and remain laypersons. I willingly recall the excellent formula used by our friend Msgr. Dorronsoro: “fully laypersons and fully consecrated persons”. We are not half laypersons and half consecrated men and women. This is the great “revolution” of Provida Mater, as Fr. Beyer was wont to say. In fact, up until that time a layperson who chose the consecrated life left the condition of belonging to the laity and became a religious. It wasn’t possible to be a layperson and a consecrated person, it was one or the other. Ever since 1947 it has become possible in our institutes to be laypersons and consecrated persons, to commit oneself in the consecrated life without leaving the lay condition. Paul VI referred to the “blending of two realities which is the very shape and fashion of your lives” . 100% laypersons and 100% consecrated persons; behold the wonder of our vocation, and so much for mathematics! Being a layperson is not just a way of living, as if a religious exercised a secular profession and lived in the ordinary conditions of everyone else. Paul VI explained it in these terms: “The condition in which you live, your life-description in human society becomes your theological self and your way of bringing salvation into the realm of reality for all the world to see” . We are fully laypersons and fully consecrated. It is not certain, however, that in the Church, in our parishes, and perhaps in our selfsame institutes this ontological truth is always well understood and even well lived by some members.

Moreover, the aggregation of two states of life is not something new in the Church. For a long time it has been obvious to everyone that a priest assuming a commitment in the consecrated life remains a priest in full, also when being a member in full of the Franciscans, the Jesuits or the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. By way of example I could cite the priests here in the assembly with us, and who are full members of clerical secular institutes: they are priests in full and consecrated in full: their consecration takes nothing at all away from their clerical state.

After this brief overview of some facts regarding our vocation we may now delve into the meat of the matter: “How to be at the service of the Church like laypersons and as laypersons?”. This is a very vast topic, and I am not a theologian, an historian or a sociologist, but only a jurist, a professor of public law at the University of Aix-Marseille in France, and very active at my university, as well as in parishes, in my diocese and in the social and educational works of the Church. I also lived as a great grace the 9 years spent as a member of the Bureau of the National Conference of Secular Institutes of France, a forum of fraternal communion and constructive discussion, as well as the propelling force behind many activities at the service of our Institutes.

Our theme is much like a very high mountain: it can be photographed from different angles without every capturing the whole picture. Our previous congresses extensively developed certain aspects such as presence in the world and secularity. In addition, I am taking into due consideration other presentations on the general theme of the Congress: “Listening to God in the furrows of history: secularity speaks to consecration”. In the time allotted to me, and in order not to overtax your patience on this very warm summer afternoon, I’d just like to take a detailed look at some points together with you, points which nowadays seem deserving of special attention and greater clarity. I will group them together along two simple axes: first laypersons and the Church, and then laypersons and the mission of the Church, referring above all to the teachings of Vatican Council II, whose 50th anniversary we joyfully celebrate .

I. Laypersons and the Church

I will concentrate this first point of my presentation on the Church and the place of laypersons in the Church. As I said, I am not a theologian, hence will not venture into theoretical analyses that would take me far beyond my fields of competence, and will limit myself to a few essential texts of Vatican Council II.

In order to understand how the laity are called to serve the Church we must first ask ourselves a basic question: how do we serve the Church, from the inside or the outside? Or, in even clearer terms, what is our exact place as laypersons in relationship to the Church? Are we only the external users of the spiritual and material services offered to us by the Church? Or are we protagonists in the Church, giving it a specific contribution?

In order to respond to this question in the best way possible, I would propose that we pursue our reflections in four stages.

What does it mean for a layperson to serve the Church like a layperson?

In order to understand the question properly, we logically have to begin by asking ourselves what the word service mean. What does its etymology teach us?

The word service in French, service in English, servizio in Italian or servicio in Spanish comes from the Latin word “servus”, which means slave. The passive sense is very clear: to serve means to obey. The German equivalent is also close, but with a different etymology: Dienst and bedienen. This original sense is still used today in everyday language: often willingly used are expressions such as service personnel, service entrance, quality of service in a restaurant, or else “military” service (Wehrpflicht in German, with the addition of the moral dimension of duty to be performed). From this first perspective the layperson at the service of the Church comes across above all as he or she who obeys the authority of the Church.

Let’s continue with this analysis of the word “service”. Like many other words and terms, the word servus assumed new meanings at the time of the Eastern Roman Empire, which officially became Christian with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. Just as imperium became ministerium (wherefrom the qualifier of the ministers of the Church), servitium became a function, a responsibility at the service of others. Nowadays, for example, we speak unambiguously about public service, meaning by that schooling, health care, transport, etc. Public service therefore means service for the public, even if, unfortunately, it’s not always true in practice. From this viewpoint the layperson at the service of the Church assumes an active function for the benefit of the other members of the community of believers.

The word “service” therefore has two meanings, which have to be both known and distinguished. Let’s take the example of a school: the pupils and their parents are ordinarily the consumers of the education provided and the services offered. In certain countries and cultures, however, parents and local authorities, and even pupils at times, are also active stakeholders directly involved in pedagogical, cultural and even economic choices. It is less a matter of sharing authority, and more one of taking part in the exercise of authority by offering a specific contribution.

Laypersons and the structure of the Church

We now embark upon the second stage of our reflection effort, and beginning from the two senses of the word “service” ask ourselves what is the Church that laypersons are called to serve as laypersons.

In the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium the Church is presented first of all as a mystery, which diverse images can help to illustrate: building, temple, sheepfold, family, cultivated field of God, etc. The Church is also presented as the people of God, the masses of persons who believe in Christ (christifideles) and have been baptized. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, a spiritual community of faith, hope and charity.

But it is also a visible assembly, a society structured according to a hierarchical principle : “In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body […] so all who belong to the People of God […] may attain to salvation […]”

What we have here is the most well known and visible aspect of the Church-institution: the distinction between clerics and laypersons. We all know that the clergy as such has a three level structure: first comes the college of bishops with the pope at its head; then come priests who are the bishops’ co-workers in the exercise of their office; and lastly the deacons. All the other members of the Church are laypersons. You can be a cleric or a layperson: sive clericos, sive laicos, according to the traditional formula. A layperson is therefore a person who is not a cleric. This negative definition of a layperson justifies a certain clerical vision of the Church that marked centuries of our history: the Church, first and foremost the clerics. Everyday language has also conserved many traces of this: in French, for example, people often and willingly speak about “gens d’Église”, people of the Church, or “biens d’Église”, goods of the Church. And in some Sunday celebrations of the Eucharist the prayer of the faithful refers to the Church and her pastors, and then to the faithful, almost as if the faithful were not the Church as well.

This institutional approach has created a strange vision of the Church, the image of a rather original construction. First of all, a well structured pyramid with the three levels we just considered. Below the pyramid and distinct from it we have the faceless mass of the faithful. Lastly, and off to one side in a rather complex situation, we have all the male and female religious; whence that location of the laity in the Church, which a pope had clearly summarized: “No one must ignore the fact that the Church is an unequal society, in which God has destined some as rulers and others as servants. The latter are the laity and the former are the clerics” Voiced by Gregory XVI halfway through the 19th century, these words express for laypersons the first meaning we have given to the word “service”: to serve means to obey.

Following this rationale, the service of laypersons is reduced to being at the service of the institution Church: what not a few sociologists have called clericalism. Ever since the western middle ages the popes themselves have claimed the authority of the clergy over laypersons and civil society at large. The best illustration of this is offered by the “theory of the two swords”, inspired in part by St. Bernard. “In this Church and in its power there are two swords (i.e. two powers), one spiritual and one temporal. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church. In truth, one must be drawn for the Church, and the other by the Church. The second by the clergy, the first by the hands of kings or knights, but according to the command and condescension of the clergy”. Primordial here is the notion of obedience; the activity of the laity may be exercised only within the ambit and under the authority of the clergy.

That medieval approach has been qualified in political philosophy as “political Augustinianism”, in obvious reference to St. Augustine, or more simply as “sacerdotalism”. It has had a profound impact on the history and culture of the west, perhaps lasting to our present day and age. Here are a few examples:

- In the Middle Ages: the popes put kings and emperors on their respective thrones, and dethroned them as well: the history of Germany or Sicily, for example, was deeply marked by this;

- The errors listed by Blessed Pious IX in his famous Syllabus in 1864 included this one: any separation between Church and State was condemned insofar as the Church would lose its power and influence over the State (n°55);

- For a long time the Quebecois society lived in close dependence upon the clergy, and this even in strictly personal and family matters. Nowadays that long period is at times criticized as “the time of great darkness”;

- Post World War II Italy had two major political parties, the Christian Democracy and the Communist Party, and some bishops did not hesitate to enlighten their faithful when election campaigns were underway, insistently reminding them that they were living in a democracy and were Christians. . .;

- Lastly, let us remember that catechesis remained a monopoly of priests and religious for a long time because laypersons, albeit well formed, were not considered reliable.

We could also add the fact that the importance of the Church continues to wane today in certain countries of ancient Christianity, and a return of clericalism is becoming evident. For some young priests, for example, this represents a comprehensible response to the need to bolster a threatened identity. For others it fans hopes for a return to the pyramid of authority where the faithful would once again become the faithful executors of orders.

Lastly, we can note how that clerical vision of the Church was applied in a diverse manner where Christianity only took root later on in time. Western missionaries often brought it with them out of conviction or need. Conversely, at times laypersons were especially the ones who bore the flame of the Church, for example in Korea or in Japan.

In any case, one of the first tasks incumbent upon laypersons remains that of becoming engaged in the various activities of their respective parishes, dioceses and movements. But is this service the only one for a layperson? The most important one?

Laypersons and the Church according to Vatican II

At the beginning we recalled the two meanings of the word ‘service’ and just saw a reductive illustration of that. Let us now consider the true ecclesiology presented to us in clear terms by the Council. In fact, naturally recalled in Lumen Gentium is the principle of the hierarchical constitution of the Church, but this is clarified and interpreted as a communion of services between the clergy and the laity. On one hand, “the holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren” . On the other hand, the laity are at the service of the entire Church: “Indeed, the pastors should recognize and promote the dignity and responsibility of the laity in the Church. They should willingly use their prudent advice and confidently assign duties to them, leaving them freedom and scope for acting […]” . The pyramid quite naturally exists, but forms part of a circle of mutual relations and services.

Blessed John Paul II clearly developed this image of Church–communion in his Exhortation on the Laity: “Ecclesial communion is more precisely likened to an ‘organic’ communion, analogous to that of a living and functioning body. In fact, at one and the same time it is characterized by a diversity and a complementarity of vocations and states of life, of ministries, of charisms and responsibilities. Because of this diversity and complementarity every member of the lay faithful is seen in relation to the whole body and offers a totally unique contribution on behalf of the whole body”

Referring to us, to secular institutes in particular, Paul VI also said: “To get a true picture of Secular Institutes you have to see them in the perspective which the Council contemplates the Church – a living reality both visible and spiritual […] made up of many members and various organs, yet all are intimately united and inter-communicating, all share the same faith, the same life, the same mission, the same responsibilities of the Church itself. But each has a distinct gift, a particular charism of the life-giving Spirit […]”.

To this communion of vocations and services, Lumen Gentium adds the equality of all Christ’s faithful: “There is, therefore, one chosen People of God […]. There is a common dignity of members deriving from their rebirth in Christ, a common grace as sons, a common vocation to perfection. […] There remains a true equality between all […]”

Communion of services, equality of all the faithful, and then there is the mission of the Church. The Council Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity reads as follows: “In the Church there is diversity of ministry but unity of mission. To the apostles and their successors Christ has entrusted the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing in his name and by his power. But the laity are made to share in the priestly, prophetical and kingly office of Christ; they have therefore, in the Church and in the world, their own assignment in the mission of the whole People of God”. Hence, just like the clergy, the laity are fully at the service of the Church’s mission in the world, each one according to his state. We will return to this in the second part of my presentation.

Allow me one final comment on the relationship between the diverse members of the Church. It must be recognized that the renewed ecclesiology of Vatican II at times generated extremes in exactly the opposite direction vis-à-vis previous extremes. Minimizing the Church’s hierarchical structure, or forgetting it altogether, some laypersons somehow laicised the Church at large, and went so far, as in Austria, to assert “Wir sind die Kirche”; translation: we the laity are the Church. This is an equally erroneous claim: there is no Church without the clergy! With considerable subtlety and skillfulness, Benedict XVI responded as follows during his latest journey in Germany: “Wir alle sind di Kirche”; translation: all of us are the Church, laypersons and clergy! Evident at times at a more modest level is the same sort of driftage at the parish level. I know some cases in Francis where the parish priest decides nothing at all without the agreement of the laity: the entire community exercises pastoral and material responsibility. It must be admitted that the grave shortage of vocations to the priesthood at times encourages alternative solutions. On some continents there are also huge parishes or dioceses with very few priests: in such cases it is understandable that laypersons, and also members of secular institutes, shoulder pastoral responsibilities. Should such practices become a cause for concern? In sociology they have what is called the law of common sense, the law of the scales: excessive movement in one direction generates an equally excessive movement in the other direction. With the passing of time the scales reach close to perfect balance. Perhaps this inverse movement is necessary in order to avoid going too far backwards.

The tria munera

In order to clearly understand the position and service of the laity in the Church we have to consider an essential aspect called the tria munera by specialists. With baptism, in fact, laypersons partake of the triple office of Christ and the Church: the priestly office, the prophetic office and the kingly office. How so? Vatican II and John Paul II’s Exhortation on the Laity make this clear:

- The priestly office: “For all their works, prayers and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit – indeed even the hardships of life if patiently borne—all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshiping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God”. Three are the important components to be kept in mind: the central position of the Eucharist, the spiritual dimension of ordinary life at large, and lastly the consecratio mundi, the consecration of the world; this key concept sheds light on our whole life and our mission as laypersons in the Church; unfortunately it is not that well known and often not understood.

When addressing members of secular institutes, Paul VI said about us: “A vast field of work opens before you. Here your twofold purpose is to be achieved, your own sanctification, and ‘consecration of the world’. This fascinating commitment calls for perceptiveness and tact. The world which is your field of work is a world of human beings: restless, real, dazzling. It has its virtues and its passions, its opportunities for good, its gravitation to evil […]”

- The prophetic office: laypersons exercise this office first and foremost with their life witness, “so that the power of the Gospel may shine out in daily family and social life”. They also exercise this office with the word, in their respective families, at work, and in their various social and pastoral endeavors; in this manner laypersons can actively participate in the activities of catechesis, provided they have received suitable formation. Lastly, they may also assume tasks of spiritual accompaniment insofar as this office is not reserved exclusively to priests: just think about all the female religious who have responsibilities in their respective Congregations, as well as laypersons such as Chiara Lubich in Italy, foundress of the Focolari, Marthe Robin in France, foundress of the Foyers de Charité, and Jean Vanier in Canada, founder of the Arche.

- The kingly office: it pertains to the laity to contribute to the coming into being of the Kingdom of God in the world: “Moreover, by uniting their forces, let the laity so remedy the institutions and conditions of the world when the latter are an inducement to sin, that these may be conformed to the norms of justice, favouring rather than hindering the practice of virtue. In this way the field of the world is better prepared for the seed of the divine word and the doors of the Church are opened more widely through which the message of peace may enter the world”.

By way of conclusion to our considerations on this first point about the laity and the Church it is advisable to recall that being a layperson is not just a sociological condition or a mere de facto state in the Church. In Christifideles laici Blessed John Paul II develops a magnificent theology of the laity. Referring to the Gospel parable of the workers in the vineyard, he begins by highlighting that the lay state is not a state by defect (a layperson is someone who does not belong to the clergy), but a positive state in which each person receives a personal call from the Master of the vineyard: “All are called to work in the vineyard”. Yes, there is a lay vocation, just as there is a vocation to the priesthood or the religious life. God entrusts this vocation to all laypersons: naturally enough, it is necessary to know it, hear it and then respond. We must ask ourselves, also in our respective institutes, if we are really aware of this vocation. Might it be possible to suggest that after the year of the priesthood celebrated in 2009/2010, the universal Church also proclaim a year of the laity? What do you think about that idea? Perhaps this could be a project for our institutes to support. . .

II. Laypersons and the mission of the Church

After having examined the position and status of laypersons in the Church, during this second part of our joint reflection effort we can pose questions about the role of laypersons in the mission of the Church. What is the specificity of their participation? The object? Just how far does their responsibility go?

Once again, please bear with my lack of theological competence. Therefore, to express in very simple terms the mission of Christ and the Church in its universal and cosmic greatness, I will limit myself to citing St. Paul: The Father “let us know the mystery of his purpose, the hidden plan he had so kindly made in Christ from the beginning to act upon when the times had run their course to the end: that he would bring everything together under Christ, as head, everything in the heavens and everything on earth” . This is the great mystery of our Christian faith: the work of redemption and salvation.

The mission of the Church

The Council renders the mission of the Church at large very explicit: “The work of Christ’s redemption concerns essentially the salvation of men; it takes in also, however, the renewal of the whole temporal order. The mission of the Church, consequently, is not only to bring men the message and grace of Christ, but also to permeate and improve the whole range of the temporal.” Therefore, the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message of Christ and His grace to men, but also to animate the temporal order and bring it to perfection with the evangelical spirit. This is an essential text for us. It is at the very heart of the Decree of the Apostolate of Laity (n°5), and well deserves to be commented upon in detail.

Let us therefore begin by identifying its structure:

- First of all, a scope: the work of the redemption of Christ; set forth here is the theological and even eschatological dimension of the mission of Christ and the Church; not a particular scope or aim, but a general, global and essential one.

- And then two complementary ways to achieve this aim: the salvation of men on one hand, and the renewal of the temporal order on the other hand; we’ll return to this point at a later stage.

- Lastly, two sets of active agents: the text in question enables us to distinguish the responsibility of the clergy and the laity respectively: it pertains primarily to the clergy to bring the message of Christ and His grace to men through preaching and the sacraments; it pertains primarily to the laity to animate the temporal order and bring it to perfection with the evangelical spirit.

This text also enables us to delve into the service which the laity can take upon themselves in the Church. I’d like to consider three elements useful for our reflection effort.

1/ The common mission of the Church at large: one alone is the mission, but it has two distinct objectives. The fields and the means are different, but one alone is the aim. In this regard the decree on the Apostolate of the Laity is quite precise: “These orders are distinct; they are nevertheless so closely linked that God’s plan is, in Christ, to take the whole world up again and make of it a new creation, in an initial way here on earth, in full realization at the end of time.”

This seems clear. In time and space, however, the mission of the Church has not always been perceived in this way. For example, over the last few centuries the Catholic Church has met up with considerable hostility: persecutions in Japan, Vietnam or in China; the French Revolution; Kulturkampf in Germany; the war of the Cristeros in Mexico; anti-clericalism in Italy, and the war in Spain. Quite often the Church withdrew into the confines of its spiritual mission: the liturgy, the sacraments, prayer and devotions, pilgrimages, personal, family and sexual morality. A great Jesuit, Michel de Certeau, went so far as to refer to a “Church outside the world”. . .but this proved less true in mission countries.

That restrictive approach of Christian life still exists. Today, for example on various continents we find many deeply believing and regularly practicing populations, but who at times reduce the Christian faith to this all too exclusively spiritual and sacramental dimension. Our Holy Father Benedict XVI referred to this situation last March when speaking to journalists on the airplane taking him to Mexico. With that great courage of faith so characteristic of him, he ventured to qualify it as schizophrenic: “In Latin America, and also elsewhere, among many Catholics a certain schizophrenia exists between individual and public morals: personally, in the private sphere, they are Catholics and believers but in public life they follow other trends that do not correspond with the great values of the Gospel which are necessary for the foundation of a just society. It is therefore necessary to teach people to overcome this schizophrenia, teaching not only individual morality but also public morality. We try to do this with the Church’s Social Teaching ”.

Bear with me if I cite a more personal example. A member of my Institute is Filipino and works for a large corporation in Marseilles, France. That company underwent an audit by the national tax authorities and was fined a considerable amount of money for fiscal irregularities. The tax inspector made it very clear that in exchange for a sum of money to be discussed, agreed upon and given to him in a very discrete fashion he could cancel the fine altogether. He insisted on this at length, got upset and said: “We have to reach an agreement on this before 5:00 PM because I have to go to church for the Way of the Cross and Mass”. . .!

In order to help specify the mission of the Church, and hence that of the laity, the Council evoked the themes of St. Augustine and clearly indicated “how the earthly and the heavenly city penetrate one another” ; “One of the greatest errors of our time is the dichotomy between the faith which many profess and the practice of their daily lives. […] Let there, then, be no such pernicious opposition between professional and social activity on one hand and religious life on the other. The Christian who shirks his temporal duties shirks his duties towards his neighbour, neglects God himself, and endangers his eternal salvation” This text then encourages Christians to forge a vital synthesis between the two realms, spiritual and temporal.

The Church and its mission can only be understood in the perspective of the Incarnation.

2/ The salvation of men: between the lines of the apparent triteness of this well known expression there is a grand truth that the Council brought out into the light of day. In fact, up until that time it had been customary in the Church to speak more about souls than persons. Have you noted that slight difference in the words? In the past people usually said it was necessary to save souls, to lead souls to God, etc. Beginning with Vatican II the Church speaks about all about men, persons. In fact, Christian anthropology as a whole is at the centre of attention in this issue of vocabulary. The Church resolutely recalls that man, “though made of body and soul, is a unity” . Blessed John Paul II was most likely the person who expressed this mystery the best, using the force and customary powerfulness of his words. In one key paragraph of his very first encyclical letter, Redemptor hominis, he clearly asserted: “the real man, the concrete man, the historical man, man in his fullness, the whole man, man in his full magnitude, man in all his truth, in his human reality, this man is the way of the Church” .

In order to gauge the full extent of this statement I’d like to share with you two rather extreme yet very revealing examples.

When reading a Catholic magazine a few years ago I discovered the activity of a missionary congregation in Calcutta at the end of the 19th century. Its main mission was to baptize children who died on the streets of that city. The regular reports sent to the General House always mentioned the number of children who had been sent to Paradise. The souls had been saved. But I ask myself if it wasn’t first necessary to attend to the bodies of those children and feed them. One century later Blessed Mother Teresa did not strive to baptize all the dying persons she took in; she attended to their needs at Kalighat.

Here is a second extreme example. I have been active in the field of university chaplainry for more than 25 years, and not long ago a very devout student explained what he thought about young HIV victims: “They have sinned; let them confess their sins, and so be it if they die. Their soul will be saved”. These are terrible words issuing forth from the mouth of a person locked into his convictions, and they cut to the quick like the blade of a sharp knife.

Therefore, it is precisely “every man and the whole of man”, to reiterate the famous words of Paul VI , whom the Church must consider and is the object of both its mission and its charitable apostolate.

3/ Perfect the temporal order with the evangelical spirit: the text we are commenting on indicates three ambits for the mission of the Church:

- Spread the grace of Christ: mainly through the sacraments; this participation in Christ’s priestly office naturally pertains to the clergy;

- Bring the message of Christ to men: this participation in Christ’s prophetic office is shared among clergy and laity;

- Renew the temporal order at large, penetrate the temporal order and bring it to perfection with the spirit of the Gospel: this participation in Christ’s kingly office pertains almost exclusively to the laity. This final point will add richness to our reflection and deserves to be developed.

The Council explains: “Laymen ought to take upon themselves as their distinctive task this renewal of the temporal order. […] All that goes to make up the temporal order: personal and family values, culture, economic interests, the trades and professions, institutions of the political community, international relations, and so on, as well as their gradual development, are not merely helps to man’s ultimate end; they possess a value of their own, placed in them by God […].”

For God, for the Church and for each one of us, therefore, the world has a value of its own. Are we really aware of this? The world has all too often been looked upon in a negative way in the Church as the kingdom of the Evil One and sin: “If the world hates you”, said Jesus, “remember that it hated me before you. You are not of the world, this is why the world hates you […] because the prince of this world has already been condemned.” Without forgetting these other words of St. John for us: “Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life. For God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but so that through him the world might be saved”

Already in its introduction Gaudium et Spes invites us to harbour a grandiose and magnificent vision of the world that reconciles these two aspects: “The world which the Council has in mind is the whole human family seen in the context of everything which envelops it. […] the world which has been freed from the slavery of sin by Christ, who was crucified and rose again in order to break the stranglehold of the evil one, so that it might be fashioned anew according to God’s design and brought to its fulfilment.”

This perspective depicted by the Council clarifies in a very profound way the specific responsibility of the laity in the Church: “By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will. […] There they are called by God that, being led by the spirit of the Gospel, they may contribute to the sanctification of the world, as from within like leaven, by fulfilling their own particular duties. […] It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are so closely associated that these may be effected and grow according to Christ and may be to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer”.

The social doctrine of the Church

How can we “transfigure the world according to the Gospel”, as we read in the beautiful expression of Blessed John Paul II? While the Magisterium speaks initially about family life and the sphere of our private life as individuals, it also stresses our life in its collective and social sense, in the broad sense of the term. And here is where we have to recall the role and importance of the social doctrine of the Church. In fact, for more than a century the Church, mother and educator, Mater et Magistra in the words of Blessed John XXIII, has been lighting our gaze and orienting our deeds as laypersons in the world. From the very outset that teaching was marked by the Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII in 1891, and developed both considerably and substantially after that. Today it embraces practically all the aspects of social life: work, peace and the development of human rights, intemperate practices in world trade and global finance, the protection of the environment, etc. Its most recent expression can be found in the great encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate.

It is not a question here of exploring this immense treasure together with you. Nonetheless, in order to further enrich our reflection on the mission of the laity in the Church I will just cite the nutshell definition of this teaching at large: “The Church’s social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action”.

Let’s take a look at each of these three elements one by one:

- The Church proposes principles for reflection: Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church offer us sure and fundamental principles, such as the dignity of the human person, the demands of justice, truth and charity, the search for the common good, etc. We find these principles set forth in landmark documents such as Pacem in terris, Populorum progressio, Laborem exercens, Evangelium vitae, etc.

- Applied to concrete situations, these principles make it possible to deduce some criteria of judgment. For example, during the obscure days of 1937, Pious XI analysed the foundations of communism and nationalism (Divini redemptoris and Mit brennender Sorge). In the wake of the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet block, Blessed John Paul II offered his analysis of the new world situation (Centesimus annus, 1991). In 2009 Benedict XVII gave us a courageous and lucid analysis of the excesses of world capitalism, liberal individualism and their consequences (Caritas in veritate).

- Lastly, the Magisterium gives guidelines for action. In concrete situations the Church authorities may call on Christians to act together in a certain sense. For example, consider the extraordinary resistance of the Church in Poland under the guidance of Cardinal Wyszynski during the times of communism. Consider the fight in Spain and elsewhere against laws in favour of abortion and same-sex matrimonies. And just think about the battles against corruption, forms of injustice and drug consumption in many countries around the world.

The social teaching of the Church sheds light on and orients the mission of the laity in the world, but does not determine it. In fact, there is no such thing as a Christian political regime, a Christian economy, a Christian pedagogy or a Christian medicine. But there is a Christian way be active in politics, engage in economic affairs, be a teacher or practice medicine. Have you noted the three verbs used in this definition? ‘Propose’, ‘provide’, ‘give’. They are not imperatives. On the contrary, they open the way to the diversity of possible responses, to the pluralism that has not always been well accepted in the practice of Christians. Nonetheless!

For example, a century and a half ago in a very monarchical France, Catholics were forbidden from supporting a Republic inherited by the Revolution; in Italy at the same time Catholics were not allowed to support the monarchy that had just annexed Rome. Then again, in Europe during World War II there were bishops and Catholics in both camps. Looking at things today, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the United States is perhaps the only one to have taken a stand against nuclear weapons.

This pluralism of possible choices highlights the personal responsibility of each layperson in the world, an ambit in which the Council recognizes the rightful autonomy of temporal realities: “The demand for autonomy is perfectly in order: it is at once the claim of modern man and the desire of the Creator”. Liberty and responsibility of laypersons. Paul VI reminded the members of Secular Institutes: “The primary attitude to be lived is one of respect for the world’s rightful autonomy, its values, its laws.” Nonetheless, this autonomy does not stand for independence: created things depend on God, and people cannot dispose of them as they so wish while leaving the Creator entirely out of the picture. Nor can they embark upon a journey contrary to the demands and requirements of their faith.

Therefore, how can laypersons make their choices and decide on what to do in the world? The Council answers this question in the following way: “It is their task to cultivate a properly informed conscience and to impress the divine law on the affairs of the earthly city. For guidance and spiritual strength let them turn to the clergy; but let them realize that their pastors will not always be so expert as to have a ready answer to every problem (even every grave problem) that arises; this is not the role of the clergy; it is rather up to the laymen to shoulder their responsibilities under the guidance of Christian wisdom and with eager attention to the teaching authority of the Church.”

In order to exercise their mission in the Church in the best possible way laypersons therefore have two instruments, two compasses:

- One objective instrument to provide them with intellectual enlightenment: the social doctrine of the Church; Blessed John Paul II even made it one of the three pillars of a serious formation of the laity, together with doctrinal formation and spiritual formation;

- One subjective instrument to provide them with spiritual enlightenment: their conscience. This is an essential requirement for the mission of the laity in the Church, because it is not necessary to be believers in order to apply this social doctrine. Drawing inspiration from Blessed John Henry Newman, thus does Gaudium et spes describe a person’s conscience: “His conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” In order to obey his conscience, a layperson must also learn how to discern the voice of God in his interior silence. He cannot take on his mission in the Church without developing his own interiority in the secrecy of prayer; he cannot serve God in the world if, in faith, he does not first listen to the voice of God in the intimacy of prayer. In fact, laypersons – always if they are believers – are first of all instruments and co-workers of the Holy Spirit, the one and only true master and agent of the mission.

This time has now come to bring this lengthy presentation of mine to a close.

First of all I’d like to underscore a semantic shift I introduced with utmost discretion. In fact, I began from the proposed theme: “the service of the Church like laypersons and as laypersons”; but then the theme progressively turned into “the mission of the laity in the Church”; the mission abounds with much richer significance than service, and “of the Church” became “in the Church” in a more explicit manner. This is already one way to answer the question posed.

On the other hand, and in order to underscore how urgent it is for laypersons to be engaged in the mission of the Church at large, I’d like to share a personal memory with you. Around twenty years ago I worked for a semester at the University of Tübingen in Germany. Posted on the doors of all the churches during Lent was a beautiful phrase in capital letters: “Gott hat keine Hände, nur deine”, (God has no other hands than yours!”). What an invitation!

In his own way St. Ignatius of Loyola called on us to “pray God as if everything depended on Him, and act as if everything depended on us”. And Blessed John Paul II said to laypersons: “A new state of affairs today in both the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle”.

Let us, the members of Secular Institutes gathered here together, see to it that reverberating within us are those expressions of Paul VI we know so well, and which perfectly summarize our ideal:

- “spiritual mountaineers”

- “you are in the world and not of the world, but for the world”

- “an advance guard of the Church in the world”

- “the experimental laboratory in which the Church tests the concrete ways of her relations with the world” .

Since we are here in Assisi, so fraternally close to St. Francis, let us listen to one of his prayers in the light of what we just said:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is discord, harmony;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is error, truth;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.

Thank you for your kind and courteous attention.

Note from the CMIS: the original text is in French.