External Evaluation
of the
Diocesan Ministry Formation Program
(DMFP)
Prepared by:
Ad hoc Evaluation CommitteeFr. Owen Connolly, St. Peter’s Parish, Dartmouth, Archdiocese of Halifax
Dr. Leona English, Adult Education, St. Francis Xavier University
Dr. Charles MacDonald, Theology, University College of Cape Breton (Retired)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Terms of Reference 1
2 Within the Context of Lay Education Programs 1
2.1 National and International Ministerial Education 1
2.2 Education Within the Diocese 3
3 Theology of Laity Undergirding Our Report 3
4 Evaluation Methodology and Data Collection Techniques 5
4.1 Methodology 5
4.2 Data Collection Techniques 5
5 Basic Description of this Program 7
6 Points of Discussion Arising From the Data 9
6.1 Faith Formation and Education 9
6.2. The Isolation of this Program Within the Larger
Diocesan Structure 11
6.3. Theology of Laity out of Which this Program Arose
and Operated 12
6.4 Expectation and Disappointments 12
6.5 Preparation of Priests and Parishes for Laity 15
6.6 Questions of Leadership 15
7 Recommendations 16
7.1 General Recommendation 16
7.2 Program Recommendations 16
7.3 Organizational Recommendations 17
7.4 Diocesan Recommendations 17
8 Concluding Remarks 18
9. References and Suggestions for Further Reading 19
Tables
Table 1: Basic Statistics on the Program 7
Table 2: Goals and Format of the Program 8
Table 3: Presenters in the Program 14
Appendices
Appendix A. Pastoral Leadership and Service in the Diocese of Antigonish: A Blueprint for Pastoral Planning and Change as We Enter the Third Millennium
Appendix B. Diocesan Ministry Formation Program
Section 1
Terms of Reference
We were invited by Bishop Lahey to provide an external evaluation for the Diocesan Ministry Formation Program (DMFP). The Bishop gave support to the evaluation and noted that it was intended to complement the existing internal evaluation(s) of the program.
Section 2
Within the Context of Lay Education Programs
2.1 National and International Ministerial Education
The DMFP operates not only within the context of the church in Antigonish Diocese, but within the larger context of other lay ministry initiatives in Canada and US. There are at least 35 lay ministry education programs in Canada, which is evidence that considerable resources have been allocated for offering programs and diplomas in continuing education for lay ministry (see English, 2000). Program providers include various combinations of universities, continuing education departments, dioceses, seminaries and schools of theology. The umbrella organization, the Canadian Association for Ministerial Programs (CAMP) (personal communication with Susan Campbell, president, 1999), was organized by the members as a professional organization that would represent their interest and include a range of Christian traditions, although most members are Roman Catholic. CAMP members meet yearly for a general meeting and for their own continuing professional education. The program under review in this evaluation is one of those represented in CAMP and it shares many of the same challenges and successes.
In 2000, there were 3293 graduates of these diploma in ministry programs and 974 students then enrolled (English, 2000). Data collected from the 35 leaders of these programs indicated that most did not feel supported by the laity in the parishes nor by local clergy. Some 70% of directors within CAMP had little or no hope for meaningful inclusion of the laity in parishes. A further 82% said the church had a long way to go in accepting lay people as full and active participation in the life of the church.
Some 32% felt that they received little or no support from local congregations. This is significant since the premise of lay ministry is working at the local level to build up the church. Also, support from clergy was not strong. While 91% felt little or no risk of being fired for holding non-conformist views, a full 17% have been attacked by clergy since beginning their positions. One respondent, indicating that he/she had been attacked by clergy, suggests these leaders are not always free to do their jobs.
The reluctance to accept meaningful lay participation in ministry is not unknown in the church. It is reflected in the recent pronouncements of Pope John II (1997) who decreed that "it is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as 'pastor', 'chaplain', 'coordinator', 'moderator' or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest" (p. 19).
The National Association of Lay Ministries (NALM) in the US is the approximate counterpart of CAMP, though NALM has a much larger mandate than providing an organization ministerial education. The section of NALM that serves as a "forum" for directors of ministry formation programs would be roughly equivalent to CAMP (personal communication with the Amy M. Hoey, Lay Ministry Project Coordinator, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). Challenges to lay involvement in parishes, frustration over the outcomes of diploma programs, and conflicting visions of church are also found among NALM members. Yet, the movement to provide education for laity in nonformal and accessible ways seems to be gaining momentum in Canada and the US.
The American NCCB's (1999) Committee on the Laity has focused directly on lay ministry education programs, noting discrepancies of education for laity and clergy; whereas there are standards for clergy there are none for laity. This Committee is concerned about the emergence of diploma programs (in 1998, there were 183 programs, p. 29) and urges the bishops to take leadership on this (p. 26). They query whether the growth of these lay ministry programs "may be helpful for meeting the needs of the Church, or [if] it may unnecessarily duplicate or overextend existing resources" (p. 26) such as those used in schools of theology or seminaries. So, questions about lay ministry programs are seemingly common, regardless of jurisdiction.
One of the issues that has arisen frequently within the CAMP is the purpose and intended outcomes of lay ministry education. This confusion or lack of cohesion is reflected in the variety of names ascribed to various programs and the corresponding expectations that attend such names. Names of Canadian programs vary from faith formation, to lay ministry formation, adult faith, diocesan ministry formation, pastoral formation, lay formation, Christian training program, parish ministry formation, diploma in theology and ministry, diocesan lay formation program, pastoral leadership certificate program, preparation program for cross-cultural mission, compassionate leadership program, diploma in ministry, and leadership training for aboriginal leaders (in the English, 2000 study only 2 of the 35 programs had the same title). Of the CAMP members surveyed in 2000 most (77%) expressed confidence in their program and what it had to offer. Yet, only 9% felt that the purpose of their program was clear.
Given the multiplicity of names that exist, it is not clear if the intention of the programs was to address the needs of laity for faith formation, to provide ministerial preparation, or to provide leadership training. This raises questions about the purpose, intent and outcome of these programs. A report of an evaluation done by an external consultant (Warren, 1998) in another Atlantic Canada diocese shows that there was similar confusion among program participants about the purpose and intended outcomes of their program. Whereas the program documentation was clear on the matter, this was not communicated successfully to candidates.
2.2 Education Within the Diocese
Although they are outside the purview of the present report, it is important to recognize some of the initiatives in adult faith formation that predated the program under review. After the close of the Second Vatican Council there was a need to educate the laity and the clergy about conciliar thinking, especially the intellectual background to the changes that came about as a result of the Council. Within the diocese, this initiative was carried out in many ways. One example was the Diploma Program in Religious Education that had its beginnings in the early 1970s at the Sydney Campus of St. Francis Xavier University. Forty-two students enrolled in the first year of the program. After 3 years of study the graduates received a diploma. The goal of the program was to share university-level theological thinking with the students. For over 20 years the program was offered under the aegis of the Diocesan Office for Religious Education.
According to Father Francis Abbass, who initiated the diploma program, the program focused on lay faith formation. It was not intended to train people for specific forms of ministry, although some of the graduates of the program went into leadership positions, especially in the areas of religious education and catechetics. Two of the graduates –Sister Joan Fultz and Sis MacNeil –became directors of the Office of Religious Education. A third –the late Marjorie MacDonald of New Waterford—went on to complete a B.A. in Theology as well as a master’s degree. Marjorie became the coordinator of religious education in her home parish of St. Agnes and an instructor in the diploma program.
Another example of diocesan lay formation, albeit a short lived initiative, was the Lay Presiders Program, under the direction of Sis MacNeil, and Fathers Bedford Doucette and Anthony O’Connor. What is remarkable about this program is that it drew about 150 candidates, with sessions being held in Sydney, Mabou, and Port Hawkesbury. Although the program began with the encouragement of the bishop and the high expectations of the students and the directors, it lasted just one year. It seems that the program suffered from confusion about the types of leadership that the bishop was prepared to support for the members of the program.
Section 3
Theology of Laity Undergirding Our Report
the faithful, who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ and integrated into the People of God, are made sharers in their particular way in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, and have their own part to play in the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the World."[430] Catechism of the Catholic Church
Through their baptism and confirmation lay people are an integral part of the building up of the church. They are called to be active disciples in the work of the church; they are not filler or replacement workers; theirs is a real and active engagement with the Christian mission to establish the kinship of God. Lay people may indeed be called
in different ways to more immediate cooperation in the apostolate of the hierarchy, like those men and women who helped the apostle Paul in the Gospel, working hard in the Lord (see. Phil. 4-3; Rom. 16:3 ff.) They may, moreover, be appointed by the hierarchy to certain ecclesiastical offices which have a spiritual aim. Lumen Gentium #33
Mindful of our church’s teaching then, we approached this lay ministry program evaluation as a necessary and integral part of the mission of the church. We realized that we were working with the bishop in fulfilling his responsibilities, since the
formation of the lay faithful must be placed among the priorities of a diocese. 'It ought to be so placed within the plan of pastoral action that the efforts of the whole community (clergy, lay faithful and religious) converge on this goal.' The fundamental objective of the formation of the lay faithful is an ever-clearer discovery of one's vocation and the ever-greater willingness to live it so as to fulfill one's mission. Christifideles Laici, 57-58.
Further to this, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has formally authorized bishops in Canada to proceed with the following, as indicated by the Code of Canon Law (Kokesch, 2001):
-“Give permission for the laity to preach to non-ordained (CCCB Decree #6/canon 766)
-Allow laity to solemnize marriages (CCCB decree #3/canon 1112). Canon law clearly sets the standards to be used in these areas and it is up to each bishop as pastor of his diocese to implement these standards, as he deems necessary.
-In the cases of baptism, marriage and funerals, the layperson empowered by the local bishop acts as a representative of the community. In baptism all believers have the innate capacity to baptize, in marriage the lay person witnesses the exchange of vows and blesses the marriage in the name of the church community (the sacrament takes place between the couple), and at funerals the lay person represents the community once again.
-However, when it comes to confirmation and the sacrament of the sick, these celebrations are reserved for bishops due to the innate nature of those sacraments. A bishop generally administers confirmation, but it can be delegated to a priest, and the sacrament of the sick involves the sacrament of reconciliation, which once again is reserved for priests. In the “sacrament of the sick,” even apart from those instances when it also involves the celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation and so include only the anointing of the sick, according to the Church teaching even the anointing must be performed by a priest since it is considered to involve absolution from sin and thus to be part of what the Church traditionally refers to as the power of orders.” (Kokesch, 2001, n. p.)
These ministries are in addition to well known and accepted ministries of the laity: marriage preparation, catechesis, RCIA leadership, lector, Eucharistic minister. According to theology and law of the church, there is a vast array of ministries open to the non-ordained. With these teachings in mind, we proceeded with our evaluation.
Section 4
Evaluation Methodology and Data Collection Techniques
4.1 Methodology
Patton (1997) defines program evaluation as the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make judgments about the program, improve program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about future programming. We concur with this definition because it allows us to go beyond determining worth, merit, or value, to increasing knowledge and understanding of the program, and to contributing to its improvement.
The specific form of evaluation that we chose is a utilization focused evaluation (UFE), one that is oriented from the beginning on providing practical and useful information to the stakeholders, all the while being aware of the ethical and political dimensions of evaluation (Patton, 1997). UFE highlights the potential benefits of evaluation processes--individual or organizational changes that occur among those involved in an evaluation process as a result of the learning that occurs.
Because this is UFE and is meant to be of use for people inside and outside the program, as well as for people thinking of coming into the program, we decided to move beyond the purpose of just finding out if the program worked and could be justified. This is sometimes called the accountability purpose of evaluation, which is used to find out if the program should be funded again (Galluzzo & Craig, 1990). We also wanted to contribute to internal improvement of the educational program by looking at evaluation for improvement or focusing on the activities and experiences of the education program with a view to improving them. We also wanted to increase knowledge of this program since so little is known externally about how ministry programs work. Finally we wanted all those internal to the educational program to understand a little more about the internal dynamics of program.
4.2 Data Collection Techniques
Our job was to consult all the people involved about their hopes, dreams and experiences, to determine their "theory of action." This helped us in our attempt to focus the evaluation on important issues such as goals and expectations and to provide suggestions for improvement. As with all UFE’s, we chose the data collection methods “most likely to work.” Having in hand the collated data from the three surveys that had already been done internally, we thought that qualitative data, collected through individual and group interviews would be useful. We also knew the participant likely would resist completing another questionnaire since they had reached a saturation point.
We also were aware that this diploma program had low impact in the diocese. The program participants (43 in total) were much too small a group in relation to the size of the diocese for us to collect any useful data from parishes, parish councils, or others living in the diocese. Instead we concentrated on a purposeful sample of those directly involved for our individual and group interviews.
A. Document Analysis: We describe the various documents that we have referred to including the
- Pastoral Leadership and Service in the Diocese of Antigonish: A Blueprint for Pastoral Planning and Change as We Enter the Third Millennium (Diocesan Pastoral Planning Committee, February, 1996). This document contained 18 recommendations, including several concerning the initiation of the program under review. We refer to this document as the Pastoral Leadership and Service Document. (A copy is provided in Appendix A.)
- the initial document developed to initiate this program: Diocesan Ministry Formation Program: A Five Year Project (1998-2003) to Form Three Groups of Diocesan Personnel for Ministry in Parishes, Deaneries and Diocese (n.d.). This document includes a letter of introduction from Bishop Campbell, a letter of welcome from Father Doucette, as well as an outline of the program. We refer to this document as the DMFP document. (A copy is provided in Appendix B.)
- data from three internal evaluations:
Evaluation of the implementation (report dated July 25, 2003)
Evaluation of content/ process of program (report dated January 28, 2004)
Evaluation of content of program (report dated January 28, 2004)
- curriculum for this program, which includes the St. Francis Xavier University Diploma in Ministry program materials.
B. Open ended interviews with 15 students distributed across the three years (total 43). Our questions concerned: (a) successes or highlights of the program, (b) problems or challenges with the program, (c) recommendations for the program.
C. Open-ended interviews with 5 facilitators, 5 board members, and 8 priests in the diocese. Questions also centered around (a) successes or highlights of the program, (b) problems or challenges with the program, (c) recommendations for the program.
D. A group interview with 8 members of the board of the diploma in ministry program at a regular scheduled meeting in Port Hawkesbury.
Section 5
Basic Description of this Program
This program began when Bishop Campbell received a report in 1996 from the Diocesan Pastoral Planning Committee (the Pastoral Leadership and Service document) which had 18 recommendations. A subsequent committee was formed to assess this report, though their assessment was not available to us. Father Bedford Doucette then implemented recommendations 5 and 6 of the document. Both recommendations pertained to the establishment of a school to educate laity. Father Doucette was appointed Director of the Lay Ministry program and asked to start a school. He was given a 5- year project to graduate three classes. The specific directions were to form individuals to be lay ministers who would go back to their parishes and work with their pastors “to figure out what it meant to be lay ministers in each parish situation.” Some of the program participants were already active in their parishes, although many were not.
Father Doucette formed an advisory group to assist him. This group was representative of the various constituencies in the diocese including the French community. They met for 2 years before they started the program. He also traveled to consult with and study other programs in Canada. To promote the program locally, Father Doucette visited all deaneries as well as pastoral councils and parish meetings.
The students selected for this program were expected to have a strong recommendation from their pastor and hold a Grade 12 graduation certificate or equivalent, so that they were capable of doing university work. The program was a combination of diocesan content together with the St Francis Xavier University Diploma in Ministry Program. The combined program meant that candidates would receive a certificate of completion from the diocese, as well as a diploma from St. Francis Xavier University.
Table 1: Basic Statistics on the Program
Year 1 1998-2001
27 students
Fr. Bedford Doucette
Bernadette MacDonald
30 weekends/10 per year (last one was retreat)
Year 2 1999-2002
11 students
Fr. Gerald Campbell
Sr. Florence McNeil
30 weekends/10 per year (last one was retreat)
Year 3 2000-2003
5 students
Fr. Gerald Campbell
Sr. Florence McNeil
30 weekends/10 per year (last one was retreat)
There are 128 parishes in this diocese, with 33,265 families and 113,300 individuals so the number of participants is low (figures provided by the Chancery Office). The largest parish in the diocese has 8000 parishioners, 2300 families, and has 1 person registered in the program.
Table 2: Goals and Format of the Program
Goals of program:
to have graduates who were familiar with diocesan structures, church history, Vatican II teaching, moral theology, parish administration, canon law, liturgy, community building, ministry in the diocese, St. Francis Xavier University curriculum.
Typical Outline
Friday pm
- night prayer
- various courses
Saturday am
- morning prayer
- St. Francis Xavier University course (with a course facilitator)
Lunch
pm – Ministries in the diocese (usually with guest facilitators)
Supper
evening--continuation of course in the day
Evening Prayer
Social
Sunday am
· theological component (usually with guest facilitators)
Lunch
Sunday pm
· integration for ministry
· Eucharistic celebration
Section 6
Points of Discussion Arising From the Data
The overlapping nature of categories makes it difficult to list these points separately but for reader clarity we try. We supplement each discussion with data from the interviews and our observations as a committee.
6.1 Faith Formation
This program has met tremendous success. There is unanimous agreement that it has contributed greatly to faith formation and education for participants and leaders. From a programmatic stance, the program was well designed, implemented and carried out. The program was built on an extensive consultation and discussion process and very significant and capable people were involved in coordinating and teaching the program. Participants, as indicated in each of the three internal evaluations, and in this committees’ evaluation, indicated an increase in knowledge, prayer life and to some degree, skills. There were some minor criticisms indicated about the program but, by and large, the program was seen to provide a wonderful education for lay people. Suggestions included: a stronger skills component so participants could gain more practice; a stronger integration component that looked more closely with applying the learning to your life, questions about the workshops, and the gender questions.
This is a representative sample of the comments received relative to the actual program design and delivery:
- “The group was great. Couldn’t have done it without them. It was a chance to be challenged and supported, especially the last year when the group was small. Chance to get away was great. I miss the weekends now. Instructors were great.”
- “There were good things like the training of laity, good program content; 10 weekends a year.”
- “I wanted to educate myself and I enjoyed program. … it opened my mind, caused me to question my religion, and it strengthened my church involvement.”
- “Friendship was another positive dimension. Helped me love the Catholic church and be more ecumenical.”
- “I came to understand that priests like Bedford were human.”
- “Everyone involved had previous lay ministry experience so this was a good chance to come together.”
- “The caliber of teachers was superb.”
- “Father Bedford is a gifted and enthusiastic man. He did not stay ‘in the box’. He tried to pick best things he could from other programs across Canada.”
- “This program contributed to my work. It gave me confidence and credibility in parish, CWL had invitations to get me more involved and to lead them. The [local] cluster invited me to do things for them.”
- “I like the group effect (the first 2 years we got together with the group).”
- “Very fortunate to have an opportunity to verbalize our thoughts and ideas.”
- “I was amazed to find out that there was so much talent and so many programs in diocese – they came to us for presentations, various diocesan programs.”
- “Things were presented objectively.”
- “Diocese and St. FX programs were combined together; Group effect was good; Professors were great; All very accessible; Looked forward to weekend.”
- “The program was great. Wish others could learn what I learned; Liked spiritual direction.”
The perception of the priests who were interviewed was that this was a good program, that it was structurally sound, well organized and well delivered. They appear to have confidence in the presenters and the content. It was suggested that this was a very effective adult faith formation program and that it provided good ongoing formation for those already involved in ministry such as catechists, RCIA directors, pastoral care workers, and those in social ministry. Respondents noted that the program does have definite possibilities for adult faith development and lay education in the diocese. Yet, this is at odds with the fact that few people were registered in the program and that most participants reported reticence on the part of their priest when they went back to their parish.
An issue that arises is whether programs such as this one should be offered if their main goal is personal or faith development. Many opportunities exist in the diocese for on-going faith formation, including retreats, courses offered at the local universities, and educational events provided through parishes. Our understanding is that the lay ministry program under review was intended for educating the non-ordained for ministry. There are indications that this objective was not accomplished.
6.2. The Isolation of this Program Within the Larger Diocesan Structure
The diocesan report on which this program was developed, the Pastoral Leadership and Service document (1996), had 18 recommendations. Of these 18, it would seem that only #’s 5 and 6 were implemented— both of these were related to the lay ministry program. Placing diocesan renewal at the feet of a lay ministry program was a mistake. Yet, to its credit, the DMFP flourished.
The DMFP lacked a support structure and was expected to fill a vacuum that it could not do on its own. This lack of attention to the larger need for renewal in the diocese resulted in undue pressure being put on this program. Individual members of the board and the group interview, as well as an examination of the documents, make it clear that this recommendation was implemented in isolation from the many others that were recommended for the diocese. In the absence of a more pronounced attempt to initiate change in the diocese, this program stood on its own.
Related to this issue of isolation is the larger issue of where this program was intended to fit within the larger vision of the diocese for renewal. Some dioceses have developed lay education programs as a legitimate response to the teaching that lay people are called by baptism to full participation in the ministry of the church. Others have developed lay programs because of the shortage of priests. There are others who are resisting full involvement of the laity. One of the issues is that there is no vision of where the diocese wants to be, to the point where it did not fully implement its own Pastoral Leadership and Service document (1996).
The development of this program seemed like a natural beginning for the implementation of this document. However, there does not appear to have been any clear and shared vision as to what the ministry might look like once people had been prepared. It is possible that the board of the DMFP had a vision but it is unclear as to whether this was shared by the bishop and the presbyterate. Hence, people began to apply for admission to a program that prepared them for a ministry that doesn’t seem to have had a structure in the diocese.
It seems that everyone, including the bishop, priests and all pastoral workers, needs to work together and prepare a very clear vision as to where they want their Church to go, what kinds of ministries are needed to fulfill the mandate of the Church in this postmodern world and who the people might be who could work in these ministries. There does not appear to have been a clear distinction made between those who would need just good adult faith development, those who would be more formally involved in ministry and those who would be taking leadership in the future church. These and other issues need to be clearly identified and clarified, with plans made for the clear recruitment and educational formation of the kinds of ministers needed.
Recruitment was an issue, as seen in the declining number of students in the third year. We understand this decline to be caused by a number of factors including the lack of a fulltime director, as well as the low level of support from priests and parishioners.
6.3. Theology of Laity out of Which this Program Arose and Operated
In the absence of a clear vision and strong church leadership, the lay ministry program proceeded. This absence of a strong foundation led to a lack of consensus on the theology of lay ministry operative in the diocese, in the program, among participants, and in the parishes. The data tell the tale clearly.
The Pastoral Leadership and Service document (1996), from which this program sprang, provides a confusing mixture of reasons for the need to educate laity. Although it does acknowledge the baptism of all believers (Ephesians 1:5, 1:13) the document then quickly confuses/collates this with the “transition to increased lay involvement” (p. 8) and the “precipitous decline in the number of ordained clergy” (p. 8), suggesting that a program could be implemented to train people to make up for the shortage of clergy, rather than provide for the formation of the laity as people of God. This mixture set the groundwork for endless confusions and conflicts over who was being trained for what.
This mixture of theologies of the laity (by baptism versus by default) was evident in the delivery of the program, as well as in the local church culture in which the program was asked to operate. Despite the best efforts of the facilitators, board members, and director to clarify this theology, many participants believed they were being prepared for a more significant ministerial role than they were. Of course this ignores the fact that Roman Catholic schools of theology and seminaries offer graduate degrees in divinity to prepare candidates for professional parish leadership. No diploma program, diocesan or otherwise, ought to be duplicating the work of institutions of higher education.
A further complication was the letter sent by Bishop Campbell to participants at the beginning of the program (letter included in the DMFP document). “Your ministry is to help him [the priest] and to strengthen the Eucharistic community, not to diminish it in any way.” It is a credit to the program director and his associates that the program did as well as it did in the presence of such warnings.
6.4 Expectation and Disappointments
Participants in the program were disappointed about the end product. They were unable to answer the key political question that must be asked of all continuing education programs (Cervero, 2001, p. 25): Education for what? Is lay ministry education intended to be education for faith formation or personal development? Is it structured as preparation for leadership in the church? Is it intended to be training to fill-in for the shortage of priests? The variety of answers given by respondents in this study would indicate that there are conflicting visions of what the education was intended for. This is a serious problem that indicates a certain lack of leadership and vision, a problem made more serious by the fact that considerable resources, financial and otherwise, have been dedicated to these programs. In the letter that inaugurates the program the bishop tells them “you will be working with priests. Your goal is not to replace priests” (letter included in the DMPF Document).
They did not, for the most part, go into the program for adult formation only. Most expected a more meaningful role in their parish. Some expected paid work but most wanted to be in a stronger position of leadership such as directing a marriage encounter program. Indeed, in his welcoming letter to the program, the then bishop (letter included in the DMFP document) tells the new participants to the program that they are to be “formed to be lay leaders.” The initial materials sent out to candidates by the director tell candidates that they are “to become part-time or full time pastoral assistant/associates in parishes” (DMFP document, p. 1). That document informs the candidates that a “lay Pastoral Assistant is a lay person (including religious) who is professionally qualified, either through formation or experience, to assist the pastor with the daily care of the faithful” (DMFP document, p. 23). The DMFP document also uses the language of “Lay Pastoral Ministers” (p. 26) and tells candidates that there is an intention of developing a program of training in shared leadership. These statements might well lead someone to think they were being prepared for full and active participation in the ministry of the church.
A crisis arose in the middle of the program about whether participants would be commissioned by the bishop at the end. The bishop said he would bless them but not commission them. At issue was why they were being educated: were they being sent out to do ministerial work or were they to do the same as before? This issue involves factors such as dashed hopes, clerical control, and conflicted purposes.
These hopes for meaningful participation by laity were not achieved. The candidates were expecting, if not a paid role, a more significant role in the life of the church. The documents suggest that this program was intended to prepare people for meaningful work and engagement in parish life. Clearly, most (not all) graduates are disappointed that they were not accepted or encouraged to participate more fully in their parish. Fairly typical comments of graduates with regard to how their church involvement has changed as a result of the program are:
- “I am disappointed that I am not being used more; Still a lector and was before.”
- “I am a retired teacher…. I did a workshop on confirmation but not a lot else.”
- “The priests in my parish did not always receive me well. The first priest since the program started was supportive; let me do evening prayer; the second priest didn’t ask me, nor did the third.”
- “Learned a lot from program but what’s the point?”
- “The program should be offered again, but the question is why? Need to have a rationale. I am doing same things now as before.”
- “I am curious why nobody is asking me to lead.”
- “We are disappointed that graduates of the program were not used more. As graduates we wanted more responsibility. We now have 40 people who are doing nothing.”
- “I am in less and less. Our priest changed and the new one is awful.”
- “Evidence is there that nothing happened. If the participants were involved in their parishes they are still involved in their parishes. Few doing more than before.”
- “Nothing. There was no point to the program. We are not being used.”
- “Lot of people thought it was training not jobs. We understood that the purpose of the program was to be educated and to give to the parish; in that sense the program worked.”
- “However, there was miscommunication so there should be clear advertising.”
One of the factors that might have contributed to the confused and conflicted theologies of laity was the gender and lay representation in leadership and facilitation. As seen in the figure below, only 23% of those who led or facilitated the program were laity.
Table 3: Presenters in the Program
Portion of the program
Total # of presenters
# of priests
Number of religious
Number of other laity
Number of women
Number of men
Diploma in Ministry Portion
6
6
0
6
Diocesan Semester Courses
15
12
1
2
2
13
Ministry Workshops
44
14
17
13
27
17
Total numbers
65
32 (49%)
18 (28%)
15 (23%)
29 (45%)
36 (55%)
A significant issue raised was that of male gender bias in the program. Only 45% of presenters were women, and most of these women were members of religious orders. While all comments on the individuals were positive, the makeup of the presenters’ roster (65 members) was problematic for some of our interview participants. We should point out, however, that the team who led Year 1 (Father Bedford Doucette and Bernadette MacDonald) and Years 2 and 3 (Father Gerald Campbell and Sr. Florence McNeil) were gender balanced. The other imbalances could be remedied by inviting co-led presentations by clergy and laity, bringing in guests from outside the diocese, and making a more deliberate effort to include women and active lay ministers.
Obviously the transition back to the parish did not work well in most cases. Sometimes priests were transferred and the candidate was left with no support. In other cases, the priest was hostile, but in most cases the priest did not know what to do.
6. 5 Preparation of Priests and Parishes for Laity
Obviously there was a lack of preparation for the meaningful inclusion of laity in the parishes during or after this program. This lack of readiness seems to be created by inattention to preparing everyone, or involving them.
Comments from participants included:
- “Priests are not ready, nor are parishioners (for the most part).”
- “Wouldn’t feel comfortable because parishioners don’t want lay people leading.” “There is a lot of leadership needed from priests to prepare people.”
- “The program should continue with simultaneous education in parishes.”
- “Leadership needs to come from the bishop. Let’s get ready for parishes where there are no priests. Let’s start planning now. We need a program that is clear.”
- “Need priests onboard and they are not; Painful priest.”
- “Potential problem is with the priests. Lay people will follow priests if they say laity works.”
- “I thought that we would be pastoral assistants. But the clergy didn’t accept us. I am not in a busy parish. What is necessary is leadership from the bishop to accept laity. I wonder why they spent money on me.”
Energy has to be put into educating clergy and parishioners about the role of the laity. There is much to be done to strengthen continuing education for everyone in this diocese and to work with the leaders of this program so that they are supported in their work. Specifically, attention needs to be given to encouraging people in local congregations to take a more active role in sponsoring the programs and to further educating clergy about the full participation of laity in the life of the church.
6.6 Questions of Leadership
There has been a lack of leadership in the diocese in creating conditions for lay ministry to be accepted. Supportive activity might have included the bishop speaking at eucharistic celebrations, to having priest days on lay ministry, to having a fulltime director whose duties include educating priests and parishioners. Direct quotations about leadership included:
- “Bishop Campbell had too much control. Bishop was approving presenters and not approving others.”
- “In some cases the priest was the only one in the parish approving candidates.”
- “The person who is the director needs to have very strong credibility and the priests need to respect him/her in the role.”
- “The bishop has to affirm and send people forward.”
- “Leadership needs to come from the bishop. Let’s get ready for parishes where there are no priests. Let’s start planning now. We need a program —that is clear.”
The candidates and the priests both call for strong active leadership on the part of their bishop and their priests. They see this as an integral component of a comprehensive and successful education for ministry.
Section 7
Recommendations
Based on our review of the program, we offer this set of recommendations.
7.1 General Recommendation
Recommendation #1 - All stakeholders, including the bishop, clergy and lay representatives, should work together to prepare a very clear vision of the future of lay formation in the diocese. This should include the kinds of ministries needed to fulfill the mandate of the Church, selection methods for candidates to be accepted into a diocesan formation program, and general expectations of graduates.
7.2 Program Recommendations
Recommendation #2 - Our primary recommendation is that this program ought to be continued.
Recommendation #3 - We recommend that the curriculum be streamlined so there is sustained inquiry into subject areas and fewer workshops. There also needs to be more attention to integration at the end of each weekend so that candidates spend time thinking critically about the program and its implications for their lives.
Recommendation #4 - We recommend that the third year of the program be used as a specialized training program for particular parish ministries. The diocese ought to establish early on the ministries that it will train people for. If the third year is more directly aimed toward people who will have a more formal involvement in ministry then this could involve a commissioning by the bishop.
Recommendation #5 - There should be a practicum for all students to give them opportunities to practice and build stronger links in their parishes. All students in the lay education program should complete a practicum in their parish. This practicum must be well organized and implemented.
Recommendation #6 - Effort must be made to attain gender equity and increased lay participation in leadership and facilitation of any lay education program.
7.3 Organizational Recommendations
Recommendation #7 - A fulltime director ought to be appointed who is attentive to not only the program but the preparation of the diocese, parishioners, and the priests for the lay faithful. This director will also have responsibility for recruitment of participants.
Recommendation #8 - There is a definite public relations aspect to the director’s position and therefore the director must be one who has considerable credibility and can actually bring the pastors on side.
Recommendation #9 - There must be a definite process of identification of candidates at the parish level, and a follow-up discernment process of at least 6 months attached to the program. This should be done before candidates enter the program so that they are ready and capable of moving on to specialized ministry training in Year 3. Here the parish has a definite stake and must share with the diocese in the training of such people.
Recommendation #10 - An organizational arrangement has to be made so that a parish sponsors a person to attend this program and agrees to have the person engage in some specific ministry in the parish when finished.
7. 4 Diocesan Recommendations
Recommendation #11 - The bishop has to show leadership by assisting priests and parishioners to understand lay ministry and its theology. He needs to verbally support it, become familiar with the program, and work with priests so they can understand it and send candidates to the program.
Recommendation #12 - Either the diocesan report of 1996 (the Pastoral Leadership and Service) has to be re-addressed or other initiatives taken to implement change in other parts of the diocese. This lay education program cannot work in a vacuum.
Section 8
Concluding Remarks
This program suffers the same successes and challenges as its counterparts in other jurisdictions (see English, 2000; Warren, 1998). Many committed and faithful Christians attend the programs to deepen their faith, become more knowledgeable about the church’s scripture and tradition, and to become better prepared for active ministry in their parish. While the first two aspirations are achieved the third is elusive. The bridge to active parish ministry needs more attention through education of clergy, support of the bishop, clearer guidelines for the program, and a parish-based practicum that can educate the parishioners, the priests, and the participants and increase the chances of a more active engagement of our church.
This evaluation was intended to meet the needs of all stakeholders and to provide useful information on the program (Patton, 1997). We believe we have been moderately successful in listening and representing the views of those who were involved in the program. In retrospect, our evaluation was successful in answering the basic questions of program impact (Kirkpatrick, 1995):
Level 1 Reaction: Did you like the program?
Level 2 Learning: Did you learn anything?
Level 3 Behavior: Did you change how you did your ministry as a result?
Level 4 Organizational change: Did the Church change as a result?
We believe this program accomplished levels 1-2 but not levels 3 or 4: there was no change or if there was one, it was minimal. The current church culture and structure in which the program existed worked against success in the last two levels. We think that any future program needs to build-in evaluation at the beginning and use it all the way through so that attention to process is given all along the way. As with most evaluations, the data that is collected serves as a needs assessment in the next stage of the planning process. We wish you well in planning.
Section 9
References And Suggestions For Further Reading
Apps, J. (1989). Providers of adult and continuing education: A framework. In S. B. Merriam & P. M. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 275-286). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cervero, R. M. (2001). Continuing professional education in transition 1981-2000. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20 (1/2), 16-30.
Diocesan Ministry Formation Program: A Five Year Project (1998-2003) to form three groups of diocesan personnel for ministry in parishes, deaneries and diocese. (1998). Report available from Rev Bedford Doucette, Director of the program.
English, L. M. (2000). Continuing education for lay ministry: Providers, beliefs, issues, and programs. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 28 (1), 11-30.
Fox, Z. (1997). New ecclesial ministry: Lay professionals serving the church. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward.
Galluzzo. G. R., & Craig, J. R. (1990). Evaluation of Preservice Teacher Education Programs. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, W. R. Houston (Ed.) New York: Macmillan.
Gillen, M. A., & Taylor, M. C. (Eds.).(1995). Adult religious education: A journey of faith development. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Houle, C. (1980). Continuing learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
John Paul II, Pope.(1992). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
John Paul II. (1997). Instruction on certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of the priest. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Kirkpatrick, Donald L (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Kokesch, W. (2001). What the CCCB has to say. In Catholic New Times. 25 (2), p. 1.
Moody, L. A. (1998). Priests, pastors, prophets, preachers and professors of religion: Women in ecclesia and academia. Journal of Women and Religion, 16, 80-97.
Mott, V., & Daley, B J. (Eds.). (2000). Charting a course for continuing professional education: Reframing professional practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, #86.
Murnion, P. J., & DeLambo, D. (1999). Parishes and parish ministers: A study of parish lay ministry. New York: National Pastoral Life Center.
Murnion, P. J., et al. (1992). New parish ministers. New York: National Pastoral Life Center.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops. (1999). Lay ecclesial ministry: The state of the questions: A report of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops Subcommittee on Lay Ministry Committee on the Laity. Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.usccb.org/laity/laymin/layecclesial.htm
Pastoral Leadership and Service in the Diocese of Antigonish: A Blueprint for Pastoral Planning and Change as We Enter the Third Millennium (Diocesan Pastoral Planning Committee, February, 1996).
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California and London: Sage.7
Reber, R.E., & Roberts, D. B. (Eds.). (2000). A lifelong call to learn: Approaches to continuing education for church leaders. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Vogel, L. J. (1991). Teaching and learning in communities of faith: Empowering adults through religious education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Warren & Associates (1998). Final Report: Evaluation of the Pastoral Ministries Formation Program. Diocese of St. George’s, Corner Brook, NL.
Zeph, C. P. (2000). The spiritual dimensions of lay ministry programs. In L. M. English & M. A. Gillen (Eds.), Addressing the spiritual dimensions of adult learning (pp. 77-84). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, # 85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.