09/22/2006 Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — Last year, in June of 2005, I traveled to the cathedral at Baker City to spend a day instructing and training candidates for institution to the official ministry of lector or acolyte. Most people in the Church in the United States seem to be unaware that the Holy See in 1972, Aug. 15 to be more precise, made a very bold and nearly unprecedented move. In a document, Ministeria Quaedam, that is Certain Ministries, the Church dramatically restructured the various steps to the reception of Sacred Orders.

Prior to this document, candidates for the priesthood received tonsure, the minor orders (that is, lector, acolyte, porter, exorcist), subdiaconate, diaconate and finally priesthood. The document eliminated tonsure, porter, exorcist, but retained the minor orders of lector and acolyte, which from then on would be known as ministries, and divided the functions of the subdiaconate between these two remaining ministries. Having been in the seminary at the time and having seen the upper classmen receive these minor orders, I too anticipated receiving them. The change occurred about one year before I would have received tonsure.

I have always considered the changes related to this document, whose full title is “An apostolic letter from Pope Paul VI, by which the discipline of first tonsure, minor orders and subdiaconate in the Latin Church is reformed,” to be very significant. The full significance, however, was not the elimination of those minor orders, which were deemed obsolete. If that was all the document did, then it would have had an impact only for men in the seminary. The document did much more. It opened the reception of the two remaining ministries to lay Catholic men.

Thus these two ministries were no longer reserved to candidates for the sacrament of orders, even though the two ministries still remain necessary steps to the diaconate and priesthood. In his document, Pope Paul VI pointed out that “the norms laid down by the Council for the general ordering and renewal of the liturgy apply also to ministries in the liturgical assembly, to the end that the very arrangement of the celebration will show the Church constituted in its different orders and ministries.”

Accordingly, the document refers to the “office of the reader” and the “office of acolyte” and notes what is “proper” to each of these ministries. In regard to the office of lector the document explains: “The lector should be mindful of the office he has undertaken and should do all in his power to acquire increasingly that sweet and living love and knowledge of the Scriptures that will make him a more perfect disciple of the Lord.” Concerning the acolyte, we read: “Since an acolyte is especially destined for the service of the altar, he should familiarize himself with everything which pertains to divine worship and should endeavor to understand its spirit and its inner meaning. He will thus be able to offer himself entirely to God and in church will be an example of gravity and reverence to all. He will also have a sincere love for the mystical body of Christ, the people of God, especially the weak and the sick.”

The notion of an office in the Church is quite distinct from the notion of a function. If the roles of reader and extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the context of the Sacred Liturgy are viewed exclusively as “functions,” as merely something that is done, then it makes no difference who does them as long as they are functionally “capable.” The Church, however, recognizes and teaches that these are more than “functions”; they are “offices,” which are to be entrusted to the laity in an ordered fashion. The idea of promoting a Sacred Liturgy, properly ordered, with each office holder fulfilling his ministry and each lay person fulfilling his or her assigned duties sounds very attractive. Sacred Liturgy needs to be properly ordered. I do not think very many people would object to this. The perceived problem with this document, the reason why it was never fully implemented in accord with the mind of the Church, is found in the fact that these “offices,” these official ministries, are limited to men. The document notes: “The offices of lector and acolyte are reserved to men, in keeping with the venerable tradition of the Church.” Clearly the “functions” associated with these ministries are routinely fulfilled by both men and women, but the ministries themselves, the “offices” are reserved. When the Church makes distinctions between men and women, a charge of discrimination is never far behind.

The reason for this explanation at this time is that I have once more traveled to Baker City, conducted a class for lectors and acolytes and officially instituted another group of more than 30 men into the office, the ministry, of either lector or acolyte. It was a marvelously joyful and rewarding experience. Another reason is the fact that there has been some opposition to and misunderstanding of my implementation of this official church document. We hear a lot of talk about the need to implement more fully that which Vatican II intended. Yet when Vatican II is implemented in a fashion clearly consistent with the theology of Vatican II and with the mind of the Holy Father, then such an implementation is described “as a giant leap backward” intended only to “eliminate all women from the ministries.” This was never my intention, and it is not my intention now. It appears that those who claim to want an implementation of Vatican II prefer the pre-Vatican scenario which restricted these official ministries to those preparing for priesthood while allowing the laity to exercise the “function” but not possess the “office.” In their view, the fact that the “offices” are restricted to lay men means that offering them is backward and regressive. In my view, the fact that these esteemed “offices” and not only the “functions” are, since 1973, open and available to lay men, is a marvelous step forward in the full and orderly implementation of the Second Vatican Council.

One would be inclined to believe, in light of the opposition to this implementation, that some in the Church truly do not desire an implementation of the Second Vatican Council but rather only an incomplete, politically correct, implementation of what they believe should be implemented and any other “interpretation” is simply rejected as a “giant leap backward.”