| Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library |
| P. Fabio Ciardi, OMI Consecrated life, “school of communion”… IntraText CT - Text |
2. The ecclesiological “choice” of the laity
At the end of the ‘80s, collaboration with the laity becomes a positive choice for the running of
activities. Ecclesiologically we are more attentive to respecting the variety of vocations and their complementarity in view of witness. It is stated that the laity can enrich the spiritual life of the community, and be enriched regarding the spiritual and apostolic charism of a founder and thus collaborate more deeply with the congregation in specific activities.
Progressively we are convinced that for the theology of laicism, the “care of the world” entrusted to the laity does not concern only management roles, but also educational roles (formators, teachers, animators) and that the role of religious is identified above all in a witness of spirituality, in tending to personal relationships, spiritual formation and animation.
But that is still not very much present in common sensitivity and, moreover, there is significant distrust that too great an openness to laity calls into question (?threatens) the identity of religious life.
This phase is expressed well in the questions that the superior general of the Josephites asks, still in 1987: “Do we really consider the laity subjects (agents) of the apostolate, with whom we can and must collaborate, and Christians who respond to their own baptismal vocation; or, instead do we consider them only our helpers, and the sustainers of our works? Is their insertion seen as an ecclesial duty, and characteristic of our charism and therefore enrichment; or instead as a need dictated by insufficient personnel or other external demands? Sometimes we find them spiritually and culturally unprepared or inconstant, or invasive. But on the other hand, it is also true that our laity are sometimes themselves displeased in observing that one of us is less open than they are to the spirit of the Council, and does not commit himself to that ongoing formation for which many of them, on the other hand, feel a strong need.”4