More on 'Lay Vicars'

Please note that in my comments about 'Lay Vicars' in the Diocese of Texas, I have not claimed or implied that Bishop Wimberly is up to something nefarious. I'm am simply noting that this approach, lacking definition and accountability, is clearly open to misuse and abuse. I further note that the canons that define and govern licensed lay ministries definitely cover the ministry needs of the congregations that cannot afford even a part-time Priest-in-charge. (It is worth reiterating that the term 'Vicar' does not occur in the National C&C at all; that the term "Vicar" occurs in our Dio of Texas canons once, at Canon 12, where it clearly equates to "Priest-in-charge," also used in diocesan canon 12; and that the term "Lay Vicar" occurs in our diocesan canons twice only with regard to participation at Council but with no definition of ministry, accountability, process for training, or procedure for deployment.)


The National Church C&C Title 3, CANON 4: Of Licensed Ministries, reads as follows: "Sec. 1 (a) A confirmed communicant in good standing or, in extraordinary circumstances, subject to guidelines established by the Bishop, a communicant in good standing, may be licensed by the Ecclesiastical Authority to serve as Pastoral Leader, Worship Leader, Preacher, Eucharistic Minister, Eucharistic Visitor, or Catechist. Requirements and guidelines for the selection, training, continuing education, and deployment of such persons, and the duration of licenses shall be established by the Bishop in consultation with the Commission on Ministry."

In contrast to the "Lay Vicar," Licensed Lay Ministers exercise ministry in accordance with the canonically defined category of lay ministers who and are quite capable of serving congregations with the benefit of canonical integrity on a part-time basis without needing to receive a stipend from the congregation or the diocese. Obviously particular situations may be negotiated individually, but all Lay Ministries and all Lay Ministers are then subject to and covered and guided by canon. "Lay Vicar" is apparently an invention born of convenience but it ignores both the canonical categories of licensed lay ministry and the need for canonical integrity and accountability of the Church's ministers, lay and ordained. As such, it the diocese, perhaps only the bishop, would seem to be extraordinarily exposed in being responsible for the placement of these persons in positions of responsibility in contradiction to the canons of the Church. It rather surprises me that no one has considered the fact that the diocese is far less exposure by simply following the canons rather than inventing its own category of minister. In any case, Licensed Lay Ministers can clearly provide every benefit to the struggling congregation that is apparently provided by the "Lay Vicar." The advantage of doing so canonically should not be underestimated, particularly in a hierarchical Church such as our own.

Please note also, that the catalyst for our finally paying attention to this non-canonical innovation is proposal to alter our diocesan C&C at Article 2. This change would formalize the apparent intention (or current practice?) of the diocesan bishop here in the Diocese of Texas to place "Lay Vicars" as heads of parish congregations. The problem with this is that, by definition, a parish congregation is headed by a rector, not by a Vicar, much less someone given the title "Lay Vicar." If money is the issue, then the congregation needs to accept ,and be designated, the status of mission congregation, with the consequent reduction in number of voting delegates, per our own diocesan canons. As long as we observe our own diocesan canons, there there is no need to try to amend Article 2 of our diocesan Constitution to enable the seating at Council of "Lay Vicars who are heads of parishes." The desire to formally acknowledge the placement of "Lay Vicars" to be in charge of parish congregations suggests that there may be more at work here than simply lack of money in poor rural congregations.

The plan fact is that parishes should not have their search processes circumvented by the placing by a bishop of Vicar much less a "Lay Vicar." They should be required to enter the process, since it is highly beneficial for the parishes self-understanding and spiritual growth. And no parish should be denied full access to the canonical search process simply in the name of expediency. The plain fact is that canonical licensed lay ministers are fully capable of providing the needed ministry to struggling mission congregations. There is no reason to avoid correcting this situation, and indeed every reason to correct it as soon as possible.

Jim +