The history of words is a bit like the history of peoples and institutions: the word clergy would be a good way to show you an example of this. In the letter of St. Peter (1 Pt 5:3) the apostle says to the heads of the communities “Non dominantes in cleris”. One would spontaneously translate it as “Do not be dominating with the clerics” (the clergy). But instead, in context, it turns out that the meaning is quite the opposite. The exhortation, in fact, is addressed to the “presbyters”, that is, to the priests, and he is asking them not to be dominating “with the faithful”. A curious turn of events!...

But now let us look at the word “Laico”. This word is derived from the Greek “laòs”, which means “people”. In the Greek Bible, however, the word “laòs” (people) is usually used to mean “the people of God”, the people of the alliance. To indicate the other people they use the Hebrew term “goim”. In Greek there is the word “ethne” (from which derived “ethnics”), and in Latin there is the word “gentes” (from which derived “gentiles” or “pagans”).

But the derived form “laity” is not present, either in the Old Testament, where the faithful are described as “God fearing people”, or in the New Testament, where they are called faithful, or brethren, or even Christians.

The word “laity” in the Church appears at the end of the 1st century, in the Letter of St. Clement, in a negative and provocative context. It was used to indicate those in the Church who had no power of government, since this power was reserved for the clerics (cf. 1 Clem 40-44).

This “negative” emphasis subsequently became quite common. In particular the monk GRAZIANO, a great jurist, wrote (in about the year 1000) Duo sunt genera christianorum: there are two species, two categories of Christians: the clergy, who look after what is sacred (in the Church); and the laity, who look after that which is of the world. Within the Church all subsequent history is marked by this dualistic view, as a result of which the faithful laity, although being part of the one Church, could not look after that which is of the Church. The road to reach a more ministerial understanding of the entire Church has been long and difficult.

Just think that as late as 1839 the pro-nunzio of the Holy See to Belgium wrote anxiously to the Secretary of State: “We are unfortunately in an epoch in which everyone considers himself called to the apostolate” (cf. AA. VV., Consigli pastorali, associazioni e gruppi [Pastoral Councils, Associations and Groups], AVE, Rome 1973, 86-87). And, still into the XIX century, Cardinal Newmann himself was reproved by the Holy See for having expressed himself publicly on the problem of Catholic Schools.

All through the first half of the XX century one of the prominent themes on the agenda was to be the active role of the laity in the Church. At the beginning of the century, in the 1907 encyclical “Pascendi” which condemned modernism, Pope Pius X wrote: “We are living in times in which there are theologians who actually presume to affirm that the laity has an active role in the Church”. And again, in 1930, the two young lay people Silvio Riva and Gesualdo Nosengo were denied the sacraments because they had dared to speak and write of catechesis. Silvio Riva, a schoolmaster who then became a priest and a professor of catechesis in the Lateran, remembers this fact for us, recalling that it was due to this event that he owed his vocation to the priesthood: in order to be able to speak and write about catechesis!

A reversal of this tendency was begun, from the beginning of the 19th century onwards, with great difficulties by certain laity movements for voluntary work: first with initiatives of charity and of defending the Church and the Pope against the attacks on the part of the laity (the St. Vincent de Paul Societies, the Cercles Catholiques in France, in Italy the Opera dei Congressi, etc.), and then other initiatives were officially recognized and promoted, such as Catholic Action, the JOC, etc., initiatives which came to be qualified as the “participation of the laity in the hierarchal apostolate”. The apostolate, in fact, was considered the exclusive prerogative of the clergy; the laity could be granted a certain amount of collaboration, but only “by delegation”, which allowed them to participate in a task which was considered to “really” be the responsibility of “the hierarchy”.

In the 50's various theologians intervened in order to acclaim the laity's full right to participate in the mission of the Church “by right of their baptism” and not only “by delegation” of the hierarchy. But we had to wait for the Second Vatican Council to definitively overcome this top level management mentality and rediscover the Church as a “mystery of communion”, by which all those who are baptized, both clergy and laity, take part by right (naturally each one according to his own capacity) in the life and in the mission of the entire Church.

Laity and Laicity in Politics

In the social political environment the words laity, laicity and “laicism” are used to indicate full independence from ecclesiastical authority in thought and in action. Often lay press or lay culture is spoken of, insofar as it is not “associated” with any religious “belief”, which, in addition, it says it respects. However, in spite of verbal declarations, the expression lay press retains a certain provocative connotation.

One of the authors who has best contributed to clarify the situation was certainly J. Maritain. In his “Integral Humanity”, published in 1936, he introduced his reflections on the new Christianity. In “Commitment in the World” he wrote: “The political party... is called to achieve the kingdom of man, that is, a community of citizens open to the values of the human person, and therefore also to safeguarding man's aspiration to the transcendent; while the task of the Church is to achieve the kingdom of God... The new Christianity will be born precisely from the awareness of the laicity of the State... which is such only if it is inspired by the commitment to promote the common good. The new Christianity will therefore be lay and religious together: lay because the commitment of the Christian in society will have to respect the autonomy of the temporal; religious because it will be up to the Christians to vivify temporal existence to the full”.

Therefore, if we free the expressions “lay state”, “lay school”, etc. from that negative or provocative aura which they have inherited from history, we discover in laicity certain values which are fundamental and inalienable for contemporary man. Some of them are listed below:

- The division and respect of roles and of tasks: in politics, a clear distinction between parliament which makes the laws, the government which applies them, and courts which make sure they are obeyed. Particularly important is the autonomy of the politician from religion, and of science from faith... as well as vice versa.

- Everyone being free in his own field, but also responsible: each person makes his choices on the basis of his professional competence, bringing full responsibility to the task..., choosing and operating autonomously without receiving or submitting to orders from outside centers of power. The opposite of this would be a situation in which the politicians received their orders from a bishop, from a powerful industrialist, or from an unscrupulous 'mafioso'...

- There must be, therefore, truth about men and about things; a truth which is researched laboriously and can always be verified; a truth, consequently, which is “proposed” but not imposed in the name of an undemonstrable ideology; a truth on which nobody has the monopoly, but towards which all are drawn through research, analysis, dialogue, confrontation... It is a truth which shows respect also to those who dissent from the decision that has been made.

- There must be, therefore, a laicity which functions according to the ethics of reason and of reciprocal respect, according to the ethics of the possible and of the “gradualness” of things... These ethics must be on the level of scientific research and of a high professionalism which knows how to profit even from hypotheses which are always capable of being reformed... and is capable of gathering together preferences by means of a consent which has been solicited and obtained democratically.

- This is a laicity close to what Vatican II called the “legitimate autonomy of earthly realities” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 369).

- This is a laicity which Voltaire expressed in these words: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Laity and Laicity in the Church

The starting point of the doctrine of the Church, in the past, was the juridical concept of a hierarchically constituted “society”. Within it, therefore, a clear allocation of tasks was anticipated: on one side the clergy, to whom was reserved all authority, teaching, and sacramental power; on the other side the practicing faithful, the Church followers, the laity, whose task was above all to listen and obey. Even in the parishes, the relationship between the laity and the priest was above all presented in terms of obedience. It was, in fact, obvious that only the priests were occupied with Church matters, while the field for lay activity was the profane, the “temporal” (family, work, trade, etc). Only after long discussions, with certain lay associations, such as Catholic Action, was it conceded that they might “collaborate in the hierarchal apostolate”, as it was depicted then. The apostolate, in fact, was considered to be a work reserved for the clergy, in such a way that the laity were admitted out of kindness or out of necessity, and only “by delegate” and with tasks which were only supplementary and always subordinate.

The determining contribution made towards overcoming this situation and establishing the basis for a precise “theology of the laity in the Church” came from Yvves Congar, who in 1953 published “Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat” (“Landmarks for a Theology of the Laity”). This was immediately followed by other authors like Chenu, Philips, Thils, Schillebeeckx, Pavan, Lercaro, Sartori, etc. The theme was then presented in a completely different way by means of the ecclesiology of Vatican II, and in an even more specific way in chapter IV of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium.

The development of this chapter, as well as of the whole constitution, was the result of long and patient research. In the preparatory draft (the first) the layman was defined as: 1. One who belongs to the Church (generic element); 2. One who is neither priest nor religious (negative element); 3. One who is engaged in temporal things, but as a Christian (specific data, but seen as a danger).

This definition was judged to be unsatisfactory by the councilor assembly because it characterized the laity only in the negative: one who is neither priest nor religious.

A second draft was prepared, one in which the laymen was defined as: 1. One who belonged to the Church; 2. One who carries out, in the world, the mission of the whole people of God; 3. One who energetically fights terrestrial desires...

The great new attitude towards the mission of the laity is the same as that of the entire people of God; but secularity is still seen as a “temptation” to be fought and not as a value to be taken up... It was necessary to have recourse to a third draft in order to also see secularity expressed in positive terms, by which it was recognized as a mission to be carried out, giving it a Christian meaning, and also as a specific element of lay spirituality. In fact, the Christian layman must sanctify himself not in spite of (meaning by fighting the secular), but by means of and through the secular, as it is interpreted and lived in the faith.

With lapidary style, Vatican II summarized the situation by saying that the laity are “faithful who, by Baptism are incorporated into Christ... to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world”. And it adds: “Their secular character is proper and peculiar to the laity” (Lumen gentium, 31).

In these few lines we find a very precise description of the identity of the laity. It is an identity which is defined by a double and simultaneous reference point (or element) which is: 1) the baptismal condition (adhesion to Christ); 2) the secular condition (membership in the society of men).

It is a question of a secular condition - lived in the faith, and a baptismal condition - lived in the secular. This is the laity's way of “being Church”. It is that which defines them as “believers”. It is a piece of datum which is sociological and, at the same time, theological and sacramental, which: 1) opens them to communion with God in the Church; 2) but also gives them the ability to operate in the world “as believers”, that is, of making the spirit of the Gospel incarnate in their living behavior.

Their mission becomes clear starting from their reality: it is a mission therefore which does not spring from any “ecclesiastical delegation” whatsoever; it springs from and is founded on the reality of their “being believing lay people”. They are believers and therefore they are Church; they are believers in the world, therefore they are secular in the style in which they live both their faith and their mission. And since they are fully Church this mission of theirs does not concern only temporal things, as was continuously reiterated before Vatican II (cf. document “Evangelizzatione e ministeri” (Evangelization and Ministries) by the CEI, §. 72), it concerns the entire compass of their activity.

The mission of the Church is single, and each baptized person participates in it in its entirety, be they lay or clergy. It is a mission which implies receiving the Word with faith, celebrating it in the liturgy, living it and bearing witness to it in charity. Naturally each one will do this in his or her own way and according to their capabilities. Everyone, that is, both clergy and laity, must feel themselves committed both towards “Church” and towards “society”. When speaking of the laity one must emphasize in particular, for them, the task of bringing into the Church the heart of the world and bringing into the world the heart of the Church.

The Church, People of God

A sign of the ecclesiological change of direction which has led to overcoming the rigid pyramid-like conception of the Church, inherited from the Middle Ages, has been the fact that what was previously the third chapter of Lumen gentium on the “people of God” was moved up to second, and therefore placed before the chapter dealing with the hierarchical constitution of the Church. In this way there was expressed the conviction that in order to understand the true nature of the Church, one must start from the category “people of God”. Since this category includes all those who are baptized (clergy, religious and laity), it means all baptized people make up the “subject” of the triple function - prophetic, priestly and regal - which characterizes the people of God.

In this written definition, repeated subsequently in all the following chapters (on bishops, priests, deacons, laity...), it was easy to place also that theology of the laity which had been maturing in the immediately preceding decades. And the frequent acceptance of these definitions on the part of the Council appeared to more than a few as a sign of serene and tranquil legitimization.

“In this sense, chapter 4 of LG and the decree on The Apostolate of the Laity truly give the impression of expressing obvious things and of repeating things which are already well known... And thus was made clear one of the reasons for which, some years later, a certain fall in interest was noted in the theology of the laity: having reached the objective there seemed no reason why one should go on fighting” (L. Sartori, in S. Dianich, ed., “Dossier sui laici” (Dossier on the Laity), 1987, p.42).

But the Council did not just stop at chapter 4 of LG. Their words allowed the opening of many other perspectives, and today the favored theme of the laity is woven into the fabric of the new lines of thought which are emerging, and is doing so from a viewpoint of wholeness and fullness. In fact one must ask oneself what the Dei Verbum (the Bible put into the hands of every believer) signifies for the whole people of God, and therefore also for the laity. The same goes for the constitution on the sacred Liturgy (the Chalice too put into the hands of all Christians), in support of the doctrine that the “subject” of the Eucharist is the whole celebrating assembly (naturally with due respect to the various ministries, and among these the most important: that of those people in charge). Thus the theological and sapiential research of recent years is gradually unveiling the hidden potentiality in these two decisions which have restored “bible and altar” to the whole people of God. The result has been a commitment by all on all fronts. Therefore, theology is now for everyone; as is also the hermeneutics of the faith, which interprets history and the signs of the times: all now belongs to and involves everybody, therefore everybody is also responsible for bearing witness to charity and for carrying on the mission of the Church.

Another meaningful area for theological and pastoral research was opened by the decision to reinstate the deaconate as a distinct grade within the sacrament of ordination. From the order of the deaconate, in fact, one has progressed to the global deaconia of the Church itself, and from this to the multiform charisms and ministries which the Spirit of Christ distributes abundantly in the heart of all the people of God.

With the permanent deaconate reinstated the next step was the re-formulation of the “permanent ministries”, unfortunately from which women are precluded. And then, not being able to stop half way, there has also been the recognizing of the expression: “de facto ministries”, that is, ministries in the Church brought about by the ever varied and unpredictable action of the Holy Spirit, but not necessarily linked to the sacramental structure of the Church.

In the document by the Italian bishops dedicated to this theme, the term “de facto ministries” is given to “ministries which, without official titles, perform consistent and constant public services to the Church within the procedure of the pastoral” (document “Evangelizzazione e ministeri” (Evangelization and Ministries), 1977, n.67). And it is interesting to note that this document on the ministries was published at the end of a series of other documents dedicated to the individual sacraments; almost as if indicating, comments the theologian L. Sartori, that the basic structure of the Church is precisely that of being charismatic and ministerial.

A Church for the World

The most lively and interesting debate on the laity in the Church took place therefore in relation to mission. And here we cannot fail to quote the great themes of evangelization (AG), of dialogue (UR and NA), of culture, peace, charity, etc. (GS), which represent the endless field in which there is room for the charisms and the creativity of all the baptized.

The rediscovery of the mission is presented in lapidary style in section one of LG itself. It is a declaration which serves as an introduction not only to the constitution on the Church but indeed to the entire council when it affirms that the Church is “sacrament”, that is, sign and instrument of the union of men with God and among mankind. It is a Church set between Christ and the people, in view of the communion... not only of men among men but also and above all of men with God.

We thus have a Church which defines itself no longer only as a community of the saved, but rather as a community which is both saved and saving, that is, a community of people who recognize themselves as saved in Christ but, at the same time, as being also committed to act in such a way so that the gift of salvation is brought to all. This is an immense responsibility which involves all the members of the Church, since all, without distinction, must recognize themselves as saved, and also as being called on to collaborate so that the evangelical message of salvation can reach all men and all peoples.

In this context the laity, understood as a portion of the Church alongside the clergy and the religious, can no longer be considered only as a “receptive Church”, that is, of believers who are called and equipped only with a view to their own salvation.

The Church is by vocation and by its nature “missionary”. “Evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize.... The Church is born of the evangelizing activity of Jesus and the Twelve... Having been born consequently out of being sent the Church in her turn is sent... The Christian community is never closed in upon itself...this intimate life only acquires its full meaning when it becomes a witness, when it evokes admiration and conversion, and when it becomes the preaching and proclamation of the Good News. Thus it is the whole Church that receives the mission to evangelize, and the work of each individual member is important for the whole” (“Evangelii nuntiandi”, 1975, nn.14 and 15, passim).

This discourse, which in the EN of Paul VI is addressed to the entire Church, in John Paul II's exhortation “Christifideles Laici” refers, instead, directly to the faithful laity who “belongs to that part of the People of God which might be likened to the laborers in the vineyard... You go...too”, specifies the Pope. “The call is a concern not only of pastors, clergy and men and women religious. The call is addressed to everyone: lay people as well are personally called by the Lord”. And quoting from the council he states “The Council then makes an earnest plea that all lay people give a glad, generous and prompt response to the voice of Christ...”, He then proceeds, emphasizing that “the basic meaning” of the synod on the laity was “the hearkening to the call of Christ the Lord to work in His vineyard, to take an active, conscientious and responsible part in the mission of the Church in this great moment in history... A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle” (CfL, 1988, nn 1-3).

But the discourse on mission cannot be detached from the theme of dialogue, either ecumenical or religious. The Church, precisely because it is inhabited by the Spirit, must feel itself “part” (even if central) of a more vast design of the presence and the action of the Trinity in history. God's design, in fact, includes, within a single history, both the spaces and the times of the Church of Christ, and those resulting from the action of other entities: non-Christian religions, the cultures and the humanities of other peoples (cf. “Dialogo e annuncio” (Dialogue and Proclamation), 1991, nn.26-29).

Regarding the theme of dialogue in general we can say that we are in substantial agreement. This, along with our style of relationships and attitudes, attests to our readiness to also receive and not only to give. And on this front, that which the laity brings can become a determining factor. The concrete applications of historic hope in the various sectors of human existence is in fact today a particular subject of research. Problems such as faith and culture, faith and politics, Christian solidarity and hunger in the world, social justice and the globalization of the economy, etc. are being thought about. Turning the pages of the last chapters of Gaudium et Spes, one can note that the list of themes making reference to the theology of the laity could continue. It is as if all the members of the people of God are currently being stirred precisely because of our vast spectrum of the themes of mission: proclamation, dialogue, the inculturation of the message and its incarnation in living behavior, etc.

Summary: also the Laity are co-responsible in the Church

The Church is in the world for the life of the world: that is its mission. And one cannot be associated with the life of the Church without also being associated with its mission. In the past there was much emphasis on the difference between the mission of the hierarchy: to teach and to direct; and the mission of the laity: to listen and to obey. The most that one could do was to speak of “the collaboration of the laity in the hierarchical apostolate”. Vatican II, while re-affirming a substantial difference between ordained priesthood and baptismal priesthood, insists on the fact that the whole people of God are, at the same time, a prophetic, priestly and regal people. Hence every baptized person, to the extent in which he participates in the life of Christ, participates to the same degree also in his/her triple function: prophetic priestly and regal.

The communion of life and of grace thus becomes a communion of mission and co-responsibility. There is no clerical problem which is not in some way a problem also for the laity and vice versa. Naturally, this cannot be taken in the sense of meaning that everyone has the same level of competence, but that everyone has the right and the duty to bring his personal contribution towards finding and realizing a more appropriate solution of the problem in question.

The fact that everyone has the right to have their say about each and every problem concerning the life and the mission of the community does not mean that everyone is equally sensitive and competent, or that everyone in the community has the same power to propose and decide. It is understandable then how important it is to establish and respect specific competencies and above all to remember that the Spirit of the Lord never aims at opposition or division but always and only at reconciliation and peace.

The theology of the laity and the action of the laity are also set within this single subject which makes up the Church community. Here one finds many charisms and ministries, yet they all descend from a single God and Lord, and that must all be directed to the growth of the Church in charity.

Within this argument some theologians have recently pointed out that if laicity has a value, it is intrinsic to the Christian faith and it is common to all the people of God; it is common to every believer, be they clergy or laity. From this point of view, therefore, laicity adds nothing to the believer, asks nothing more of him nor different from that which is the commitment of faith: authentic only if it is incarnate in life and is spent for the life of the world in charity. And this is valid for every Christian, simple laymen, or priest, or bishop, as they may be; and this is valid for the Church itself. If this is the fundamental condition of the Christian, one can deduce that laicity must mark the entire existence of every baptized person, whatever their role and their juridical configuration may be. Thus we must say that it is precisely this characteristic of laicity - that is, feeling oneself to be “a living part”, even in the problems and the dramas of history - that permits the Church to operate in various sectors (civil, social, political...) with the kind of freedom that is an essential attribute of contingent action, and without the onus of having to continually call a presumed certainty of faith into question.

If laicity must also, like every other authentic value, be common to every believer and to the entire Church, this does not mean opting for the return to zero regarding the theology of the laity; and, in the same way, the fact that “consecration” is the specific effect of baptism, does not prevent the promotion of a theology of the “consecrated life”. The fact that laicity must be common to the entire Church emphasizes even further the importance which must be given to this value by those who choose it as the distinguishing characteristic of their life of faith; for example, a member of the consecrated laity.

Everyone today is convinced of the importance of the action of the laity in the life and in the mission of the Church. Their presence and their action, as one can read in the A.A. Decree of Vatican II, are so necessary that without them there would be no Church; and the action of the ministers, without them, would be ineffective (cf. A.A., n.10).

But it is necessary that the laity reach the point of committing themselves to the active presence required to play a leading part. They must do so, not only to give the bishop a plentiful assistance, but to contribute to the construction of a Christian community with a more lay, and therefore more credible, face. And if we look around at the quality of many of our communities and associations present in the Church, we must recognize that there is still a lot to be done to help the lay Christians grow in maturity so they may have a true and deep feeling of laicity, and they may be able to bear meaningful witness to it. Laicity must be understood as capability, as responsible autonomy, as being consistent with the truth of faith, but also with the truth of things, without being led either into ideology or into a servile attitude. Only if they live the problems and the dramas of the contemporary world with true competence and profound participation, will they be able to also make the Christian community more sensitive to humanity's problems and sufferings, as well as its joys and hopes.