Recently there was a lively dialogue on this topic on the Corpus-N list on the internet, and the views expressed there by four members of Corpus Canada are reproduced here in a slightly abbreviated form.  The topic is one that was treated briefly in the last issue (Jan-Feb) of The Journal in the article "Comments on a 'New Model of Church,'" and in an extensive story in Catholic New Times (Jan 28) entitled "Embracing a decades-old 'new model' of church". 

Many of the views of the participants are based on personal experience, and are expressed in a lively personal tone. They coincide in tone and topic with an article published in the American publication Around the Table in September 1994. It was
written by Dennis Becker, a pastor in the New Ulm, Minnesota diocese, and entitled "Pastor depicts church dilemma".

The dialogue on the net began with some questions and a challenge from Joan Lang, sparked by her reading the article in Catholic New Times:

"I am intrigued by this article in today's issue of CNT, the most respected Catholic newspaper in Canada, and I would like to generate some dialogue with Canadian married priests about whatthis article means to them. 

"My questions are: 
Is this an invitation to you to serve? It does not say that this new vision is for deacons, ordained or otherwise. What do you think? Is there someone in a location where a parish has closed, is closing, or about to close, willing to ask your Bishop if you might serve (if that is what you wish to do) and if so, to state under what conditions you would be willing to do so? Regardless, I would be interested in your thoughts." 

Joan's challenge was taken up by François Brassard, who replied: 

"I would like to propose a win-win strategy for introducing MP's into priestly leadership roles in parishes that have no resident priest, that are closing, or that are being consolidated. I have tried this strategy myself and was unsuccessful with it at the time, both because the lay parish council president was conservative ("we want a 'real' priest") and because I went about it the wrong way. 

"The Catholic New Times article provides greater credibility for this strategy. The article states: 'Last month, the Archdiocese of Ottawa appointed a group of pastoral coordinators, lay people and women religious, to oversee administration of some parishes and, in cases where a priest is not available, perform marriages, baptisms and funerals.' 

"The strategy would be to approach bishops who are seriously concerned about the priest shortage and who are open to listening to a possible solution, whether short term or long term. The first step is to show them how many bishops (especially in Quebec) are appointing lay pastoral coordinators to lessen the
pressure of the priest shortage. The second step is to convince them to appoint lay married priests as parish pastoral coordinators. The presentation would include all the reasons why lay MP's would be ideal candidates for the position. A third step would provide a response to possible objections:

1. The MP would be presented as a lay person, not as a priest. It presumes the MP in question has a rescript 'reducing him to the lay state.' The MP would do everything that any other lay parish pastoral coordinator does, including presiding at Communion Services.
2. If the bishop were to indicate that he couldn't appoint a lay MP because of the exclusionary conditions found in the rescript (that makes the MP less of a lay person than those non-ordained lay pastoral coordinators), one would need to respond authoritatively from Canon Law why such exclusions are invalid.
If I'm not mistaken, Jim Harris of CITI had comments to this effect. 

"Now it is possible that some MP's might have objections to this proposal. I would think the most serious objection might be that an MP would not want to accept a position that does not recognize their priesthood. For me that is not a problem, because a priest (according to a renewed theology of priesthood), in essence, is not a provider of the sacraments. The priest is rather a servant leader who gathers the people (physically, emotionally, spiritually), who focuses their attention on the Person and Gospel of Jesus Christ, and who motivates them to live that focus in their individual and communal lives. In fulfillment of the role of servant leaders, it is normal, but not necessary, that the priest preside at the celebration of the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist, since traditionally this is the context in which the people gather). In my view, the parish pastoral coordinator fulfills in essence the priestly role. Of course, once an MP parish pastoral coordinator has won over the hearts of the parish community, he could also celebrate in time excluded sacraments, if requested by the community, in accordance with Canon Law. 

"Another advantage of this strategy for the MP in question is the liberating fact that he remains a lay person and not a member of the clergy with all the restrictions connected to it. 

"Despite the shortcomings of this strategy (which time and discussion will reveal), if it works, it allows us to accomplish an important goal, namely, to give the parish community the experience of a married priest as pastoral leader. 

"Happily, parish communities are already enjoying the experience of women in what is essentially a priestly role. This is an opportunity to establish a new custom in the Church of a renewed priesthood of men and women, single and married, gay and straight, rich and poor, and in rainbow skin tones. The priest
shortage aside, the health of the Church is in dire need of such expressions of a renewed priesthood."

To this  broad overview, Chris Diamond replied with some questions and some caveats of his own: 

"It might be useful if we knew : 
1. Who and how many bishops anywhere are open to giving any nonclerical priest a meaningful service in the diocese? This is a matter of choice for any bishop which I believe some bishops exercise. But who, and where? 
2. What functions and administrations are given to the lay priest?

"When the Toronto chancery called me in and told me I had permission to marry (and I told them I would come back when I found someone who wanted to marry me!), I was given nothing to sign nor did I ever read a document or hear one read to me. 

"I would find nothing objectionable to serving in a parish, even if the bishop calls me a 'layman'. That's his problem. I don't buy his language and I don't restrict my responsibilities. Lay/clergy don't belong in our vocabulary. I choose as I know you do to celebrate with any believer who asks." 

Jim Noonan entered the debate with some further reflections: 

"I expressed some of my thoughts on this subject in the Jan-Feb issue of The Journal, and in a slightly different form in letters to The Ottawa Citizen (Jan. 7) and in Catholic New Times (Feb.11). The use of MPs as pastoral coordinators is one issue I didn't envision in these publications. I saw the use of lay people in this capacity as a band-aid solution to the shortage of priests, and I would see the use of MPs in this role in a similar way if it were limited only to this. It would however be a large step for the Church in the recognition of MPs as leaders of the Catholic community, and as using their talents and training in the service of that community. 

"But to shop short of allowing them to preside at the Eucharist would, in the eyes of the Catholic community, be branding them as second-class citizens, trained and willing to serve the community in this way, but not allowed to do so. It would be a step in their repatriation within the Church, but I suspect it would be
unsatisfactory to many MPs. They would feel the way many women feel now in being excluded from the priesthood. They would be deemed unworthy to serve in the central role of presiding at the Eucharist, no matter what other "worship services" they presided at. 

"True, they might fully preside at a Eucharist when the need arose, and they would be justified in doing so if one wanted support from Canon Law as well as from the community. But it seems to me the need for them to preside at the Eucharist is already there in appointing them pastoral coordinators able to
preside at "worship services" but not at the full Eucharist. Having MPs as pastoral coordinators would be a first, and an important step, in their full participation in the ministry for which they have been trained. But it would be demeaning if it were the last step. Even taking this first step would be difficult, and met by some clergy and laity with hostility and suspicion. 

"But let us pray that the groundwork can be laid for making this first step smooth and satisfying for everyone involved - the people, the MPs, and those already appointed as leaders of the people." 

This is where the dialogue ended, and there are obviously many other questions to be asked. Are readers of The Journal willing to go further in this debate and help us all see who should be pastoral coordinators in the Church today, and what role married priests can take in this "new model of church"?