Table of Contents
Theological Foundations of Co-Responsibility
Co-responsibility of the laity: Historical foundation
Offices that lay people can occupy
Why Participation Matters in Pastoral Planning
Limitations and Challenges of Participation and Co-responsibility
Introduction
Last week’s post examined Christ’s flexibility in pastoral action, concluding that this flexibility was paradoxically indispensable to the effectiveness of his mission. Today’s post examines participation and co-responsibility in pastoral planning.
Co-responsibility refers to the condition in which multiple parties are accountable for a specific mission. It goes beyond mere delegation to include active collaboration, mutual empowerment, and collective ownership. No one can plan and implement a communal vision alone. Effective pastoral planning, therefore, requires participation and co-responsibility.
Theological Foundations of Co-Responsibility
While the origin lies in human nature, the theological foundation goes back to baptism, through which the Christian faithful are incorporated into Christ and constituted as the people of God. Hence, all Christ’s faithful are “made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, and 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” (Can. 204 §1; Lumen Gentium, 9).
This theological foundation is also codified into obligations and rights expected of all Christ’s faithful. Hence, the law reads “All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every age and in every land” (Can. 211).
Those who are ordained are qualified to exercise the power of governance (legislative, executive and judicial power – Can 135 §1) (Can. 129 §1) through which pastoral vision and plan are effectuated. While clergy are qualified to exercise the power of governance, the laity can only cooperate (cooperari possunt) in its exercise according to the norms of the law (Can. 129 §2). This is because the law maintains that “only clerics can obtain offices for whose exercise the power of orders or the power of ecclesiastical governance is required” (Can. 274 §1).
However, the Church’s emphasis today has shifted from collaboration to co-responsibility, in which lay people, alongside the clergy, are “co-responsible for the Church’s being and acting” (Pope Benedict XVI, Message: To the Sixth Ordinary Assembly of the International Forum of Catholic Action, 10 August 2012).
Co-responsibility of the laity: Historical foundation
The laity have not always been considered co-responsible in the Church because there was previously an institutionalised inequality. As Pope Pius X argued in his encyclical, Vehementer Nos, in 1906: “The Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors” (n. 8).
The 1917 Code never mentioned lay involvement in the exercise of power in the Church. The mentality began to change in 1943 with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Christi Corporis, which emphasised that the Church is the mystical body of Christ; Christ is the head of the Church and all others are members of that body with different functions (Rom. 12: 4-8, 1 Cor. 12: 4-31, Col. 1:8) (Mystici Corporis, n. 34,47).
Hence, at the Second Vatican Council, the faithful were identified as the “new people of God” who, through baptism, enjoy “the dignity and freedom of the children of God” (Lumen Gentium, 9), and an equal and fundamental dignity in the Church (Lumen Gentium, 32). The Council was also explicit about the role of the laity, affirming that “they are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world” (Lumen Gentium, 31; cf. Apostolicam Actuositatem, 2).
Offices that lay people can occupy
In light of the above, the laity “have the capacity to assume from the Hierarchy certain ecclesiastical functions, which are to be performed for a spiritual purpose” (Lumen Gentium, 33). The following are offices open to the laity where they can exercise the power of governance: diocesan chancellor and notary (Can. 482-483, 1437), financial administrator of a diocese (Can. 494); and of a religious institute (Can. 636); member of a diocesan finance council (Can. 492), member of the pastoral council (cf. Can. 512), lay person in charge of a parish (Can. 517 §2), administrator of ecclesiastical goods (Can. 1279), tribunal judge (Can. 1421 §2), tribunal director and, assessor (Can. 1424), auditor (Can. 1428), promoter of justice and defender of the bond (Can. 1435).
Pope Francis’ apostolic constitution Praedicate Evangelium opened the possibility for a lay person to head a dicastery of the Roman Curia (II, 5°). In 2018, he appointed Paolo Ruffini as Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication, making him the first lay prefect of a Vatican dicastery. In June 2026, Pope Leo XIV appointed María Montserrat Alvarado to succeed Ruffini as Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication, effective 1 November 2026. With this appointment, Alvarado becomes the first lay woman to serve as prefect of a Vatican dicastery.
Why Participation Matters in Pastoral Planning
“A synodal Church is a Church of participation and co-responsibility. In exercising synodality she is called to give expression to the participation of all… Participation is based on the fact that all the faithful are qualified and called to serve each other through the gifts they have all received from the Holy Spirit” (Synodality In The Life And Mission Of The Church, 67).
Participation helps to identify the real needs of the faithful, discover hidden opportunities for evangelisation, increase commitment to implementation, foster transparency and trust, build a sense of ownership among members, uncover talents and leadership potential within the community. A plan developed through participation benefits from the experience, wisdom, and insights of the entire Christian community. Hence, consultation in pastoral planning is an imperative because a pastoral plan developed without consultation often reflects only the perceptions of its author, and no one, absolutely no one, knows it all. People are more likely to support a plan when they have contributed to its development.
The goal of participation is not to reach consensus or popular opinion, but to discern what God is asking of the community at that particular place and time. Hence, consultations must be accompanied by prayer, reflection, dialogue and openness to the Holy Spirit.
Structures of Participation
The Church provides structures that encourage participation and co-responsibility. They include the college of consultors, the presbyterial council, the finance council, the pastoral council, various commissions in the curia or ministries in a parish. There could also be synods and summits to discuss a particular issue. Consultation can also be done through surveys and questionnaires, as well as through visits to sodalities and pious associations, village community leaders, and families.
Limitations and Challenges of Participation and Co-responsibility
While the Church is synodal and participation and co-responsibility are indispensable and obligatory (cf. Can. 127 §1), they do not eliminate the reality that the pastor takes the final decisions. In many cases, consultations are merely consultative, not deliberative. Yet these final decisions are strengthened by consultation.
Several challenges undermine participation. They include clericalism; a high number of priests, which ordinarily allows them to do more; passivity among the faithful who may prefer to leave everything to the priest; lack of formation for lay leadership; poor communication; resistance to change; and fear of losing authority or influence.
These obstacles can be addressed by priests adopting the spirituality of canon law. Here, it entails that clerics remember, emphasise, and act on the basis that participation and co-responsibility are ecclesial rights of the faithful, not a privilege. All are called to the same mission, each according to one’s status. Another way to address these challenges is to provide formation for lay leaders and build trust among community members.
Conclusion
All Christian faithful have the obligation and right to participate in the mission of the Church for evangelisation and growth in holiness. Hence, whether cleric or lay, there is a need for participation and co-responsibility to achieve this. Pastoral planning becomes most effective when it is both participatory and mission-oriented.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
