A Catholic Priest of the Accra Archdiocese currently studying in Rome has stated that with the appointment of two Auxiliary Bishops, Accra still remains one Archdiocese under one Archbishop in the person of the Most Rev. John Bonaventure Kwofie, CSSPs.

In an answer to question in a  Whatsapp group immediately after the announcement of Msgr. John Louis and Msgr. Anthony Asare as Auxiliary Bishops of Accra on February 14, Rev. Fr. Anthony Agnes Adu-Mensah, a former Secretary to the Archbishop of Accra said  the divisions they make are only for internal running of the Archdiocese.

He added that “But on paper, the Archdiocese remains one….under one leader, the Archbishop. And since the Auxiliary Bishop is a full Bishop, it also means he can represent the Archbishop in all the duties that a bishop can do.”

Enumerating some of the roles of  an Auxiliary Bishop, Fr. Adu-Mensah said “With new Auxiliary Bishops, usually the Archbishop will meet with them and among them they make a plan on how to manage the Archdiocese,” he said, pointing out “They may decide to give some of the deaneries to one of the auxiliaries to manage directly…and then report to the Archbishop who remains the one in charge of all the Archdiocese.”

“Remember the main work of the Auxiliary Bishop is to help the main Archbishop in his work as Chief Shepherd of the Archdiocese of Accra,” he emphasised.

The Accra Omega Lions Club, has pledged to construct a kitchen facility at the Weija Leprosarium to ensure that cured lepers at the leprosarium have one hot meal a day.

The pledge was made by Lion Hector Delali Avornyotse, the Charter President of the Accra Omega Lions Club on behalf of the group at a ceremony to mark World Leprosy Day at the Weija Leprosarium. A meal pack was also shared to the cured lepers which also marks the month of feeding the hungry on the Lions Clubs International calendar.

Lion Avornyotse, explaining the rationale for their pledge stated that “when the Accra Omega Lions club was chartered, we are supposed to do a project, so we started scouting, which brought us to the Weija Leprosarium, and when we came, we saw some of the cured lepers cooking, meanwhile they had difficulties to do so because they did not have fingers.”

He said the sight of this challenge touched the club and so they approached Rev. Fr. Andrew Campbell, S.V.D. who leaves with the cured lepers at the Leprosarium, and asked how the club could assist with the situation. Fr. Campbell informed the club that among all the support needed at the Leprosarium, kitchen facility to cook one hot meal for the inmates is a priority. Getting resources has been a challenge. Accra Omega Lions Club as part of their maiden project decided to support in building the kitchen facility.

The Lion Clubs International is an international association of individuals from different professions and backgrounds whose main function is to provide humanitarian services and ensure that the less privileged in society have some dignity.

Lion Avornyotse encouraged all to donate and support the less privileged ones in our society because there is fulfillment in giving.

Lions!… We Serve!. Together!, We Serve Better!

Source: Radio Angelus

The President of the Republic, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has urged the international community to send a clear message to coup plotters that coups have never been, and will never be durable solutions to Africa’s political, economic and security challenges.

According to President Akufo-Addo, “Statements condemning coups alone without corresponding action will, however, achieve little or nothing, as witnessed in recent times. This problem requires collective agreement, effective deterrence, bold action and, equally important, adequate preventive measures.”

Delivering the keynote address at a side-event organised by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, in Munich, Germany, on Friday, 17th February 2024, the President stated that “there are those who still hanker after authoritarian, personal rule, because they claim Africa is underdeveloped and democracy is cumbersome, and we need to get things done in a hurry.”

Quoting from the 2019 Annual Risk of Coup Report, he indicated that Africa has experienced more coup d’états than any other continent, which, he said, is “an unsavoury statistic”.

Citing the case of Ghana, President Akufo-Addo noted that political instability described much of the early decades of the nation’s life as an independent nation, and Ghana became notorious for sampling every and any type of political experiment.

“The one-party-state of the First Republic was overthrown in our first military coup, and the Second and Third Republics, which were practicing democratic governance, were also overthrown by coup d’états. My father, President of the 2nd Republic, was overthrown some fifty-one (51) years ago, on 13th January 1972. Kutu Acheampong’s coup brought his stay in office to an end,” he said.

The President continued, “the instability instigated the collapse of the economy, and led to the exodus from the country of many citizens and professionals. We have probably not still recovered from the tendency to want to leave the country as the answer to difficult situations.”

He noted, however, that for the past thirty (30) years of our 4th Republic, Ghana has enjoyed political stability under a multi-party constitution, and the longest period of stable, constitutional governance in our hitherto tumultuous history.

The President told the gathering that the separation of powers is now a real phenomenon in Ghanaian life, promoting accountable governance. Efficient public services are now within reach.

“We have, in this period, experienced, through the ballot box, the transfer of power from one ruling political party to another on three (3) occasions in conditions of peace and stability, without threatening the foundations of the state. The Ghanaian people have manifested in this era their deep attachment to the principles of democratic accountability, respect for individual liberties, human rights and the rule of law. It has also brought with it more or less systematic economic growth, and boosted immensely our self-confidence,” he added.

Condemn all Coups
The reappearance of coups in Africa, the President stated, in all its forms and manifestations must be condemned by all, since it seriously undermines “our collective bid to rid the continent of the menace of instability and unconstitutional changes in government, as currently defined by the frameworks enshrined in the Lomé Declaration, the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, and other important regional and continental instruments”.

In as much as drivers of unconstitutional changes are largely domestic, President Akufo-Addo noted that the international dimension cannot be overlooked.

“Foreign involvement in fomenting unconstitutional changes, often in favour of repressive governments, foreign economic interests and other would-be geo-political benefits, are contributory factors. Some foreign entities regard coups in African countries as a means of enhancing their regional ambitions,” he said.

He continued, “As such, they engage in all sorts of disinformation campaigns in a bid to disparage the authority of democratically elected governments and instigate opposition protests against incumbents.”

In implementing existing continental and regional instruments and protocols, the President noted that defaulting Member States are condemned and suspended from the activities of continental and regional bodies, and individual coup-makers are sanctioned.

“However, the reality is, these sanctions have not been applied uniformly. Whilst we are quick to sanction military coup leaders, civilians, who achieve similar ends via the manipulation of constitutions to remain in power, for example, go without sanctions, although their actions are clearly prohibited in our legal instruments. This means that the existing frameworks need to be strengthened to capture such infractions,” he added.

Source: Flagstaff House

Introduction

Christianity is rooted in the primacy of grace and poverty of spirit. It is a religion whose fundamental mark is ‘thanksgiving’. One of the main ways Christians express their gratitude is through ‘singing’ the praise of God. We sing and proclaim the mighty acts of God who created us and has called us out of the darkness of sin into his marvellous light to be a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people (cf. 1 Pet 2:9).

Liturgical Singing

As a Church, our utmost occasion for singing and praising God is the liturgy.

We sing (ecclesia cantans) for creation, redemption and sanctification: Grace of Christ, Love of God, and Communion of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 13:13). Through musical instruments – the organ, guitar, trumpet, lute, harp, tambourine, strings and pipe and clashing cymbals – we sing and praise God for his mighty deeds and his surpassing greatness (cf. Ps 150).

We have public, official and communal ritual worship involving songs. Called ‘liturgy’, it is the Church’s celebration of her redemption by offering due glory to God and receiving his sanctification. Hence, liturgical singing aims at animating the faithful and promoting their full, conscious and active participation in divine worship as “the singing Church”.

Therefore, during the unfolding of the liturgical actions, the Church often relies on a competent Choir. She has high expectations of the choristers as good singing helps the Church achieve acceptable divine glorification. Moreover, as proper liturgical singing has capacity to evangelize people, liturgical singing must meet the triple criterion of beauty, genuineness and pastoral efficacy.

 Beautiful Singing

So that singing touches the heart of the singer and listener, it must be harmonious and beautiful. The words of the music can attract listeners if they are beautiful. However, this attraction is heightened when the words are accorded sweet and harmonious melody. Therefore, Choirs will render invaluable service to the liturgy as they sing beautifully.

Descent liturgical space, materials, and participants express the dignity, honour, beauty of the mysteries of Christ. Similarly, beautiful music is a decoration in songs and hymns for the unfolding liturgical celebration. The Fathers of Vatican II noted this value of music:

The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy. It adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites (SC n. 112).

Genuine Singing

Genuineness in liturgical singing is judged by how the songs express the mood of the Church for the seasons, actual days or theme of scripture readings. The Choirs must not only ensure the beauty of songs, but importantly choirmasters are earnestly required to select genuine ones. Genuine-beautiful singing stirs up and rouses faith and piety, hence the Church stated:

Composers…should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures. The texts to be sung must always conform to Catholic doctrine and inspired mainly by sacred Scripture and liturgical sources (SC n. 121)

Pastoral Singing

Singing must nourish the faith and raise our minds to God and offer Him our rational service and more abundantly receive His grace (cf. SC 33). The Choir must facilitate an encounter of the congregation with the Lord. Therefore, Choirs must exercise singing leadership and for active participation and avoid rendering some participants passive spectators (cf. SC # 48).

Pastoral singing by the Choir is reflected in its service and direction. This means that apart from their specific songs, the Choir must lead in the congregational singing, dictating the appropriate musical pace and rhythms. In this way the congregation can be brought up to singing and doing so well. The Choir links up with the priest and takes responsibility of the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei).

Conclusion

Besides integration and the establishment of interpersonal relationships, music is an integral part of community worship. It purifies, elevates and saves from selfishness to turn toward universal horizons. The challenge to all—musician, presider, each member of the assembly—is how to get all to sing, how to sustain our singing and how to improve the singing.

We must nurture an attitude of thankfulness in each and in all believers. Though music is not constitutive of the liturgy, singing truly enhances it. For choristers, music unites minds and hearts in love and voices and attires in identity. Choirs play a ministerial role, and choristers must be trained, imbued with the spirit of the liturgy so that with sincere piety and decorum, they sing can beautifully, genuinely and orderly (cf. SC n. 29).

Sources consulted:

Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, Editio typica, Liberia Editrice Vaiticana, 1992. English Translation, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1994.

Guardini, Romano, The Spirit of the Liturgy (transl.) Joanne M. Pierce, Von Geist der Liturgie, Sheed & Ward, London 1997

Lang, Jovian, OFM, Dictionary of the Liturgy, Catholic Book Publishing Company, New York 1989.

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Catholic Truth Society, London 1966.

Vatican Council II, ‘Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy’, Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) in The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (ed.), Austin Flannery, OP, Dominican Publications, Dublin 1992.

Source: Rev. Fr. Prosper Abotsi

The Bishop of Konongo-Mampong Diocese, the Most Rev. Joseph Osei-Bonsu has given detailed explanations to the roles of Auxiliary.

His explanation was in response to questions asked by two Ghanaian Catholics, Cornelius Dordunu and Joshua Elikplim.

On February 14, Pope Francis appointed two Auxiliary Bishops for the Catholic Archdiocese of Accra, Msgr. John Kobina Louis and Msgr. Anthony Narh Asare.

Until their appointments, Msgr. Louis was the Vicar General of Accra Archdiocese and Msgr. Asare was the Parish Priest of Ss. Anne and Joachim at Teshie, Accra.

Below are the questions and answers by Bishop Osei-Bonsu

Question by Cornelius Dordunu: My Lord, what are the duties and powers of auxiliary bishops? How do auxiliary bishops differ from coadjutor bishops?

Question by Joshua Elikplim: My Lord Bishop, today, 14th February 2023, His Holiness Pope Francis appointed two Auxiliary Bishops for the Catholic Archdiocese of Accra, namely, Very Rev. John Kobina Louis and Very Rev. Anthony Narh Asare.  A lot of questions are being asked:  what are the implications of these appointments? Will Fr. John Kobina Louis still remain the Vicar General? Why are they assigned to Titular Sees? What are Titular Sees? Will the Archdiocese of Accra be divided into two or three? I shall be grateful for your detailed response to these questions.

Answer:

Since both questions deal primarily with auxiliary bishops and their roles, I will begin by discussing who auxiliary bishops are.

According to Canon 403.1, when the pastoral needs of a diocese require it, one or more auxiliary bishops may be appointed at the request of the diocesan bishop. In other words, auxiliary bishops are named when a diocesan bishop finds that the needs of his diocese are too great for him to handle alone.  An auxiliary bishop, therefore, is and does exactly what his title indicates: he is a bishop who assists the diocesan bishop.  The word “auxiliary” comes from a Latin word meaning “one who helps”.

Indeed, many bishops can manage their dioceses by themselves, but there are some dioceses that are too large, or have too much activity, for one person to handle! There are also instances of diocesan bishops with health problems which limit their ability to oversee every aspect of their dioceses.  In such cases, the diocesan bishop can ask the Holy Father for an auxiliary bishop to assist him.  Sometimes dioceses are so big that it is necessary for the diocesan bishop to have a number of auxiliaries.  The Archdiocese of New York and the Archdiocese of Cologne are typical examples.

Sacramentally speaking, an auxiliary bishop is truly a bishop, for he receives episcopal consecration just like the diocesan bishop.  An auxiliary bishop, therefore, has the power validly to ordain priests, to confirm, and to consecrate other bishops.  However, the jurisdiction, or governing authority, of an auxiliary bishop is another matter. Within a given diocese, the diocesan bishop alone has full responsibility for the entire diocese which the Pope has entrusted to his care (cf. c. 381.1).  An auxiliary bishop, therefore, is not to be seen as a co-leader of a diocese, as he does not have full authority over that diocese; only the diocesan bishop himself does.

Auxiliary bishops can be given governing power, but it is generally limited to certain geographic sections of the diocese, or to certain aspects of it.  For example, an auxiliary bishop might be given particular authority over all the Catholic schools of the diocese, or he might be entrusted specifically with the spiritual care of an especially large immigrant community.  Irrespective of an auxiliary bishop’s duties, however, the diocesan bishop retains ultimate authority.

Speaking of authority, canon 403.2 addresses a specific type of auxiliary bishop: an auxiliary with special faculties. The Pope may decide that in a particular diocese, he will appoint an auxiliary bishop who has more specific authority—and the Holy Father will specify exactly what the nature of that authority is.  It should be noted that this type of auxiliary bishop is not necessarily appointed at the request of the diocesan bishop (although he might be). Let us imagine, for example, a situation where a diocesan bishop has demonstrated a particular incompetence in handling financial matters. The Pope might decide to give such a bishop an auxiliary bishop with power to make monetary decisions that ordinarily could only be made by the diocesan bishop himself.

We can see the general nature of an auxiliary bishop’s powers and duties. What, then, is the difference between an auxiliary bishop and a coadjutor bishop?  A coadjutor bishop, as described in canon 403.3, also is given special faculties. In this sense, he is much like the auxiliary bishop with special faculties, but there is one big difference: when the diocesan bishop retires or dies, a coadjutor bishop immediately becomes his successor (c. 409.1). The presence of a coadjutor bishop, therefore, ensures that there is no period during which the episcopal see is vacant.  Under this arrangement, the transfer of authority to a new diocesan bishop from his predecessor is as seamless as possible.

In the Catholic Church’s understanding of the office of bishop, it is important for a bishop to be attached to the People of God in a given place, even if he does not live there.  So when bishops are ordained for a purpose other than serving as the diocesan bishop, they are given the title of one of ancient dioceses that no longer exist.  These are known as titular sees.  Those bishops who receive titular sees in the Church today function in one of the following capacities: cardinals or bishops who are nominated as bishops to serve in the Roman Curia without having been attached to another diocese, nuncios, apostolic delegates and other dignitaries of the Curia, coadjutors and auxiliary bishops.

Canon 407 specifically notes that the diocesan bishop and his auxiliary or coadjutor bishop(s) are to consult with each other on important diocesan matters, and that the auxiliary/coadjutor should exercise his office in such a way that he acts and thinks in accord with the diocesan bishop.  All have a significant role to play in the spiritual wellbeing of the diocese to which they are assigned, and are expected to work together for the good of the Church.

Let us now come to the specific case of the appointment of Very Rev. Fr. John Kobina Louis and Very Rev. Fr. Anthony Narh Asare as Auxiliary Bishops of the Catholic Archdiocese of Accra.  The decree appointing them states that they have been assigned the Titular Sees of Fessei (Fesseitanus) and Castello di Numidai (Cestellanus in Numidia), pr. Numidia respectively.  As we have seen above, it is in line with the Church’s practice to attach them to titular sees or dioceses.  Their sees were ancient dioceses located in Numidia. This was the ancient kingdom of the Numidians located in northwest Africa, initially comprising the territory that now makes up modern-day Algeria, but later expanding across what is today known as Tunisia, Libya, and some parts of Morocco.

The Accra Archdiocese remains undivided and its Archbishop is and remains Archbishop John Bonaventure Kwofie, CSSp. The decree appointing the two auxiliary bishops does not mention or imply the division of the Archdiocese of Accra.  The two auxiliaries are auxiliary bishops for the Accra Archdiocese but they are not bishops of the Accra Archdiocese.  There is only one bishop (archbishop) of the Accra Archdiocese and that is Most Rev. John Bonaventure Kwofie.  They are auxiliary bishops of the Titular Sees of Fessei and Castello di Numidai in Numidia.

As to whether Msgr. John Kobina Louis will be the Vicar General or not is a question that only Archbishop John Bonaventure Kwofie can answer.  As we saw above, it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop or archbishop to assign certain duties to the auxiliary or auxiliaries, depending on the pastoral needs of the diocese or archdiocese.

For further explanations or enquiries, you may contact the author, Most Rev. Joseph Osei-Bonsu, Catholic Bishop of Konongo-Mampong, on this number: 0244488904, or on WhatsApp (with the same number).  Email: bishop@kmdiocese.org

YES, the rosary is one of the boring prayers for some Catholics. Many times, as you pray either you start day dreaming or you start sleeping. Some will actually advice you to pray the Rosary when you have insomnia.

Yet, it is one of the powerful prayers for us Catholics beside the celebration of the Eucharist.

Yes, the most important reason of the power of the rosary resides in the fact that it is a prayer – God comes to us revealing the mystery of His love to us and we who choose to go to Him in trying to understand and welcome His secrets of love and life.

It aims and leads us to a true and Living Encounter with God, through Jesus in the Spirit. The Most Holy Trinity is present.

Mary is there because she is revealing to us with all clarity what God has done in her life and what He want to do in our life too. This is why she invites us: “Do whatever He tells you.”

Reasons Why the Rosary Is So Powerful

One of the reasons that makes praying the Rosary special and powerful is because praying the Holy Rosary is based on the Sacred Scriptures in the same way the celebration of the Holy Eucharist is founded on the word of God.

The Pater is Biblical

The Ave Maria is Biblical. The words of the Angel combined with the one of Elisabeth at the visitation. The only thing that we add to the prayer is “pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death”

The rosary is therefore biblical. And by praying the rosary, we utter the word of God. We only repeat the words of the Holy Scripture

What happens when you pray the Rosary?

When we pray the Rosary, we put ourselves and our intentions into God’s hands. As we pray, we can let go of any worries we may have and we can choose to completely trust in God, knowing that He is listening to our prayers and that He wants the best for us and those we pray for.

The focus is always on Jesus. But since the Virgin Mary, as the Mother of Jesus, had (and continues to have) a special relationship with Christ, the Rosary is designed to help us contemplate Christ and His love for humanity through His Mother — and Our Mother – on whom He has lavished so much love

The rosary is more than a prayer. It symbolizes our destiny in and with God according to Mary’s example. To live up to this destiny, we need faith in God’s marvellous deeds for us, perseverance in his ways (hope) and a practical attitude toward living our faith that is charity.

The Rosary is a powerful weapon against evil. But have you stopped to figure out why?

Here are reasons why the Rosary prayer is the most powerful and how you can use it most fully.

1. It Engages Your Will. The human will is powerful because it is a sharing in God’s power. He gives us the will to choose to do good or to do evil — and that will, in and of itself, is a powerful weapon in the spiritual realm. That’s why Satan seeks to enslave us and incapacitate our will through addictions. When our will is joined with God’s will through prayer, we literally tap into God’s own power source.
2. It is Physical. God has given us bodies and souls. Angels — and this includes demons — are purely spiritual creatures. They have no physical form and are therefore inferior to us. When we pray the Rosary we use our bodies. We hold the rosary beads with a crucifix. If possible, we should adopt an intentionally physical posture for prayer – either walking, kneeling or sitting attentively. If possible we should also use other physical sacramentals like blessed candles, holy water, maybe some incense and holy pictures or statues. When we use the physical aspects of prayer we are using tools that we have and which Satan does not have.
3. It Engages our Linguistic Functions. God has not only given us bodies — he has given us physical speech. We have tongues to praise him. We have vocal chords and breath to speak and sing. Satan does not have the means of physical speech. Animals do not have physical speech. Humans do. Therefore we should pray the Rosary out loud, moving our lips. This engages our physical bodies and our intellect through which we are able to produce speech.
4. It Involves Our Imagination. The non-verbal part of our mind communicates through imagery. We not only think with language, but we think in pictures. Satan likes to captivate our imagination through sinful images. These images can be communicated through internet, television or any visual stimulus, but he also wants our imagination to dwell in images that are destructive. So our imagination can be used for lustful fantasies, violent imaginations against our enemies or indulging in negative memories. When we meditate on the mysteries of the Rosary we engage that channel of our mind in a positive and purifying way. Meditating on the mysteries therefore cleanses our imagination and engages and uses the imagination to promote God’s will rather than evil.
5. The Rosary Occupies the Language Facility. In order to allow the imagination to be properly cleansed through meditation it helps to switch into imagination mode. Unfortunately our minds usually function in a linguistic mode — using speech and speech concepts to think through problems, think about the future, plan what comes next, etc. By praying the Rosary this channel of our mind is occupied and the doors can open to the imagination and what I call the “sub-linguistic” parts of our being.
6. Much of our soul work takes place in the realm of emotions. Emotions are not linguistic nor are they imaginative. They are just raw emotions. We feel angry. We feel rage. We feel lust. We feel bliss. We feel peace. True emotions are irrational and unexplainable. The emotional area of the soul is also the area where we have our foundational experiences. In the mother’s womb and in the pre-linguistic stages of life we experience life in an irrational and emotional way. As we pray the Rosary and the linguistic channel is occupied and the imaginative channel is occupied the Holy Spirit can access the sub-linguistic, deep down, raw experiences of our earliest days. If there are wounds and bad emotional memories there, Mother Mary can heal them. And we can experience Peace and Joy
7. The Healing Mysteries are Applied. As we pray the Rosary, the mysteries of Christ’s birth, ministry, passion and glory are opened up and the Holy Spirit applies them to our own inner needs. Where there are impurities, they are purged. Where there are bad memories, they are healed. Where there are wounds, Doctor Jesus and Nurse Mary minister to our needs. And we know that when emotional and psychological healing take place, the physical healing doesn’t last.
8. Spiritual Warfare is Engaged. Satan hates the Rosary. He hates Mary. He hates the gospel. He hates God. He hates Christ the Lord. He hates the Lord’s Prayer. He hates the Hail Mary. He hates you. Every time you pray the Rosary, because of what I outlined above, you are entering the territory that he wants to claim as his own. He wants control over your will — you take that from him. He wants control over your speech — you take that from him. He wants control over your imagination — you take that from him. He wants control over your emotions and your early life — you take that from him.
9. The Battle Against Evil in the Word in Opened.  Here I can say that in many ways the mysteries of the gospel bring alive Christ’s victory over Satan, and by praying the Rosary we can apply those victories against Satan’s work in the world.
10. It is Accessible and Easy for All. The fantastically amazing thing about the Rosary is that God does this very deep healing work in individual lives and in the world in this most accessible and easy way. Ordinary men, women and boys and girls can simply pray the Rosary. All these good things happen even when they are unaware that these deep aspect of praying the Rosary are taking place. It doesn’t matter who — an old peasant woman or a smart college professor, a little child or a busy mom. Billions of Catholics. All can pray the Rosary.

So get busy praying!

Benefits of the Rosary

• It gradually gives us a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ.
• It purifies our souls, washing away sin.
• It gives us victory over all our enemies.
• It makes it easy for us to practice virtue.
• It sets us on fire with love of Our Lord.
• It enriches us with graces and merits.
• It supplies us with what is needed to pay all our debts to God and to our fellow men; and finally, it obtains all kinds of graces for us from Almighty God.

Source: Rev. Fr. Bonaventure Gnaha, MCCJ

Some few months ago, I was talking with some friends, all of whom are committed to their local churches and also work for Christian organisations. In our conversation, one of them shared a situation in her work place where an obviously unfair situation was not being dealt with. She expressed worry and her frustration about how it was being permitted to continue. The example of her story led to similar examples coming from the others. In fact, it was all depressingly familiar to me.

Over the past 10years I have served as a church Pastor, and now as a member of the Inter-Congregational Justice and Peace and Integrity of Creation. I have consistently heard and seen the same picture here and there, we have to be honest about this that too often churches manage their staff or employees badly. Reality is liberating and the truth will set us free as the Holy Book says. Of course such bad management can occur and do occur elsewhere. Nevertheless, I think there are some common symptoms which are manifested in Christian culture which are worth examining.

It is common to find that majority of the workers Churches employ either have very little or no knowledge at all about labour laws. If we closely observe, one would realize that, there are two categories of workers who are engaged by the various church institutions: voluntary workers and those who are “officially” employed.

But what does the Law say about who an employee is? “An employee is a worker who performs services for the employer, and the employer controls how and what the employee will do” (Fair Labor Standard Act). In other words, “employee means to be permitted to work for an employer who pays you not less than a minimum wage” Voluntary workers on the other hand, are also people who out of sentiments or for fear of God, offer help to their church on daily or regular bases.

Voluntarism is a good spirit, but where do we draw the line? When practically, the individual seems to be doing exactly what labor law describe as employment or what others see as normal work, except that they are not officially permitted and are not paid. Labour laws of the State do not permit us to engage or treat people this way and God equally frown on such acts.

As Christians, we should not take undue advantage of such kind and generous people. In reality, these voluntary workers engage themselves for the number of hours a normal employee works and for years; to a point that everyone turns to think the person is a normal worker. Unfortunately, when such a person does not show up for work or the said work is not done properly, the person gets queried (sometimes even insulted) by some members of the church for not coming to do his or her duty. Some of the treatment these poor volunteers get from church members and Religious Leaders is un-Christ-like. In most cases, you may even have these volunteers doing an enormous chunk of the work around as compared to the “officially” employed ones.

The other category of workers in the church and religious setting are the “officially employed employees”. If we examine the conditions under which they serve, some do not have their employment status regularized, some are paid below the minimum wage and their employers get away with the fact that it is a religious institution, others do not get their Social Security paid as well. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that there are a few workers in religious communities and churches who generously, give some incentives besides their pay.

However, it is sad that there are some instances, where workers are engaged to do more than what they have been employed for; they worked more than the stipulated hours (over time) and even report to work on days they are not supposed to be working. Most times, church authorities do not consider these as abuses of the rights of workers. Beside these, there are other domestic abuses that are meted out to these workers, particularly, the female workers: sometimes they are sexually abused, employers speak disrespectfully and impolitely to these workers and do not be surprised if some are assaulted.

Quite often than not, Church Leaders mostly take it for granted that their workers know it is God’s work so the workers would not react to the bad treatment they receive. On the flip side, some of the workers also swallow these bitter treatments from some church members and pastors because they probably do not have any other option or they respect their employers because they are men and women of God (for it is written: touch not the anointed).

Jesus, in Mark’s Gospel chapter 12:17 said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”. The Church and State are not two opposing entities but rather complement each other. Paying according to State laws and for that matter labor laws is not optional but mandatory. Treating our workers with dignity, respect and as equal as humans are Christian values, which should be adhered to by every Christian and for that matter every Christian institution.  It is absurd for anyone to even perceive that the worst offenders of employment laws would be Churches and other Religious Institutions; the worse form of treatment coming from people impacting the word of God to others.

Yes, it is true some workers can be nuisance: cunny, disrespectful and sometimes think nobody can tell them what to do. Yet, that does not exonerate anyone from the treatment meted out to them. Some react the way they do because they might feel fed-up. Therefore, it may not be wrong to say such attitudes may be described as outbursts. And so, when it comes to the best treatment of workers most church authorities are quite lacks and defaulters.

Again, concerning volunteering, it would be proper for their employers (church authorities) to sit with such a person(s) and let them understand the intricacies of what it means to be volunteering on regular basis. As much as you do not want to discourage such free and generous acts, do not also involve yourself in acts which will make you default as much as human rights are concern. The voluntary workers should not be encouraged to engage on daily bases.

The number of hours is a factor that needs to be looked at; a voluntary worker(s) should not be seen doing the number of hours a normal employee is engaged. As followers of the compassionate Christ we need to be mindful of the workload voluntary workers are engaged in; it should be minimal as compared to a normal worker. On the other hand, church leaders should be encouraged to give regular incentives to their workers at their own discretion; giving of such tokens would serve as a motivation.

Honestly speaking, the picture is not so bleak everywhere. In that, there are some sensitive and compassionate pastors and Religious Institutions or Communities, who would occasionally give these volunteers a token or some “handout”. There are also a couple of cases where some Religious Authorities helped paid school fees or took care of other basic needs of such people. Otherwise, these volunteers labor unnoticed by some church authorities and members.

It is very important that a normal employee, after the probationary period (6 months at least) the worker is either made to continue as full worker or he or she is made to discontinue; probationary period should be strictly adhered to. Workers should be paid not less than the minimum wage. Social Security of all workers should be paid. Employer-employee relationship must be good and exemplary after the life of Christ. However, it is very vital not be carried away by the euphoria of such relationships. Create a clear boundary line between work and pleasure (especially female workers).  Treat all workers with love, dignity and respect as you would have others treat you. When workers do more than they are required, compensate them to inspire them. It is imperative that we do not lord it over our workers in any way.

On the other side, if workers disrespect, disobey or behave unprofessionally they should be treated with love unlike the secular employment, and as it is deemed fit according to the severity of the situation, they should be served a written query and if this persists they should be suspended and consequently dismissed.

About The Author

Nicholas Nibetol Aazine, SVD

(Coordinator for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation, Ghana-Liberia Province)

Divine Word Missionaries: A Catholic Missionary Society

justiceandpeaceint@gmail.com or nicholasbetol@gmail.com

It is my understanding that this conversation is part of ongoing lay formation through peer-learning without making claims to the teaching office of the Church which rightly belong to Bishops. The Catholic Church function in the political order, guided by the Pope as Spiritual Leader, Head of the Holy See, and ruler of the Vatican City. (Francis X. Murphy, in JSTOR: 1974). As leader of the Universal Church, a Pope must direct his ministry in both the ways traditionally described in the Latin terms “ad intra” and “ad extra” – inwardly to the Church itself, and outwardly to the rest of the world. (Francis X. Rocca: 2014)

The fundamental framework for governance in the Catholic Church (ad intra) emanate from the Code of Canon Law. Part II of the Code of Canon Law deals with “The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church” which is detailed in Canon 330 to 430.

In its 2000 years of history, changes have been made by popes through the instruments of Motu Proprio as for example “Mitis Judex Dominus Iesus” on appointment of Judges in Church Tribunals. Other instruments have been used to effect changes such as the 1981 Commission on the reform of Canon Law which gave birth to the current 1983 Code of Canon Law. In very recent time, we have heard about the New Constitution – “Praedicate Evangelium” which is expected to bring about even more radical reforms that may see more Lay people, Women and Religious heading Dicasteries (Ministries). The Church has also used Special Councils and or Synods; such as the one in progress now, to engage in broader listening and consultation that have settled vexed issues or likely to reform governance.

Highlights on How the Code of Canon Law sets out Governance in the Church

1. The Supreme Authority of the Church – The Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops. In Canon 330, The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles are united together in one in Church governance.
2. In Canon 331, The Pope, who is the Bishop of the Church in Rome, is Head of the College of Bishops by virtue of his office. He has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church; and he can always freely exercise this power. There is however a caveat in Canon 332 to the effect that he acquires power when lawfully elected and he has accepted the election. This is important because no one can just proclaim himself or made pope by some other unapproved processes and act as such.
3. Other governance structures and bodies. Canon 336 provide for the College of ALL Bishops where the Pope is Head, Convener and responsible for determining the Agenda. The Pope can convene all the bishops of the world in an Ecumenical Council to discuss a SPECIFIC AGENDA determined and published by him; so on a lighter note, there is no room for the conventional “any other business”. In Canon 342, the Pope can also convene a Synod of Bishops; distinguished by the fact it is not ALL Bishops but selected representatives of Regions and Territories. Canon 349 provide for the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who constitute a Special College with the prerogative to elect the Roman Pontiff. Now, we do know that they can also be convened for other purposes, as for example, Pope Francis has announced his intention to convene a Consistory of the Cardinals to “create 21 new cardinals” on 27^th August; one of which will be Ghana’s third Cardinal in the person of Cardinal-Elect Most Rev. Richard K. Baawobr. Let me just mention in passing that the Cardinals are according ranks and designations; as in Cardinal Deacons/Priests, Cardinal Deans and Cardinals of the Eastern Patriarchs.
4. Canon 360 provide for the Roman Curia. The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the business of the Universal Church through the Roman Curia, which acts in his name and with his authority. These are the appointees of the Supreme Pontiff, as in Ministers of State in secular governments. Together with the Roman Pontiff, they form what is often called the Apostolic See or Holy See.
5. Canons 362 and 363 provide for the Papal Legates who are appointed, recalled or transferred by the Supreme Pontiff, as his representatives to Governmental Bodies, Special events to which he is not attending himself, etc. The Apostolic Nuncios effectively fall under this category.

Governance in Particular Churches

One important area of governance in the Church is the Particular (Local) Churches. Canon 368 provides as follows: “Particular Churches, in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exist, are principally dioceses” In simple language, the Diocese is the administrative structure of the Local Church. They may exist in one of the following forms: a Territorial Prelature, a Territorial Abbacy, a Vicariate Apostolic, a Prefecture Apostolic, or a permanently established Apostolic Administration.

A Diocese is a portion of the people of God, which is entrusted to a Bishop to be nurtured by him, in such a way that, remaining close to its pastor and gathered by him through the Gospel and the Eucharist in the Holy Spirit, it constitutes a Particular Church. (Canon 369).

It is within the competence of the Supreme Authority alone to establish Particular Churches; once they are lawfully established, the law itself gives them juridical personality. Juridical personality, in common language, means a Body Corporate. If so, does this mean that the Laws of Ghana should automatically recognize our Dioceses as such or they have to take steps to regularize this?  This question must be answered by our Professional Catholic Lawyers and Canonist since it has serious implications on litigations on Diocesan properties, especially lands. Also, let our Lay Faithful desist from blaming particular Bishops for not creating new Dioceses or having created Dioceses along certain territorial lands.

Each diocese or other particular church is to be divided into distinct parts or parishes. (Canons 373 & 374). To foster pastoral care by means of common action, several neighboring parishes can be joined together in a special group, such as Deaneries.

The Bishops / Local Ordinaries

In Canon 375, the bishops are constituted pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the Priests of sacred worship and the Ministers of governance. Bishops to whom the care of a given diocese is entrusted are called Diocesan Bishops; the others are called Titular Bishops.

The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those lawfully elected. Canon Law also provides that, at least every three years, the Bishops of an Ecclesiastical Province or, if circumstances suggest it, of an Episcopal Conference, are to draw up, by common accord and in secrete, a list of Priests, even of members of institutes of consecrated life, who are suitable for the episcopate; they are to send this list to the Apostolic See. (Canon 377). Individual Bishops still have the right to do so also. A diocesan Bishop who judges that his diocese requires an auxiliary Bishop, is to propose to the Apostolic See a list of the names of at least three Priests suitable for this office. Canon Law also provide some basic requirements/attitudes as qualification for the episcopacy. Also, there are guidelines to take possession of a diocese.

The diocesan Bishop governs the particular Church (diocese) entrusted to him with Legislative, Executive and Judicial power, in accordance with the Law. Note that the conventional criterion of separation of powers is not applicable, neither is it a requirement of good governance in Church context. There is a caveat however in Canon Law! The bishop exercises Legislative power himself! He exercises Executive power either personally or through Vicars general or Episcopal Vicars, in accordance with the Law. He exercises Judicial power either personally or through a Judicial Vicar and Judges, in accordance with the Law. Note that the emphasis on “in accordance with the Law” is a warning against arbitrariness and capricious use of power. Another check or restraint on bishops is in Canon 395: The Diocesan Bishop is bound by the Law of personal residence in his diocese, even if he has a coadjutor or auxiliary Bishop.

Groupings of Particular Churches to Ecclesiastical Provinces and Ecclesiastical Regions.

This is now a requirement under Canon 431 without any exemption. The Provincial Council and the Metropolitan have authority over the Ecclesiastical Province; in accordance with the Law. By virtue of the Law, an Ecclesiastical province has juridical personality (a Body Corporate). The Holy See can join a number of provinces to form an Ecclesiastical Region. An Ecclesiastical Province is presided over by a Metropolitan, who is Archbishop of his own diocese. The authority of the Metropolitan (the Pallium) is limited ONLY to his Province. Thus, he requires a new one if transferred and he CANNOT and MUST NOT wear it in any Church outside his Province (Canon 437). A national Episcopal Conference, like the Ghana Catholic Bishops’ Conference (GCBC), is also formed according to canonical provisions as set out in Canon 447. Another baffling question is why the GCBC is not a recognized legal entity in Ghana but rather their National Catholic Secretariat (NCS) which is duly registered?

Is the Catholic Church open to changes in its Governance?

1. We Catholics believe that Jesus instituted the Papacy as a center of unity. But no one claims that Jesus established unchangeable election rules. Election of popes and bishops have changed over time. Fr. Michael J. Sheeran, SJ, President of Regis University of Denver, Colorado, has written extensively on this subject which is available online for reference.
2. During its almost two thousand years, the Church has been rather nimble in adjusting its mechanisms for selecting popes and bishops, and changing the scope of authority of Papal and Diocesan offices in response to changing secular realities.
3. Praedicate Evangelium, as major revolution? Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, SJ, Emeritus Professor of Canon Law, has suggested that the New Constitution will regulate the life of the Roman Curia for coming decades. The Praedicate Evangelium posit that the power of governance in the Roman Curia “does not come from the sacrament of Holy Orders” but from the “Canonical mission” given by the Pope. Simply put, the Pope has prerogative to appoint any person among the Faithful for any service not requiring ordination.

When the new Constitution, Praedicate Evangelium comes to force this June, 2022, “anyone of the faithful can preside over a Dicastery or other organism of the Roman Curia, depending on the specific competence, power of governance and functions of these entities”. Some Canonist and Theologians have argued that this is consistent and builds upon Pope John Paul II’s reform of the Roman Curia in 1988 in Pastor Bonus #8  on the “vicarious character of Roman Curia”. Meaning, it receives its power from the Roman Pontiff and exercises it within its own essential and innate dependence on the Pontiff.

Signs of the times and Implications

• The August Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals. As I explained earlier, there are two types of Consistories of Cardinals: Ordinary and Extraordinary. An Extraordinary Consistory is celebrated in particular cases and ALL the world’s Cardinals are called to take part.  An Ordinary Consistory takes place when the Pope needs the Cardinals’ counsel on some important (though routine) issue, or to give solemnity to a Papal decision such as the approval of canonizations. The last time that Pope Francis summoned the Cardinals to an Extraordinary Consistory was on February 12 – 13, 2015. Now that the New Constitution has been published, the Pope is once again calling the Cardinals to Rome for an Extraordinary Consistory. This is going to take place immediately after the Pope would have created 21 new Cardinals. It has been calculated that about 62% of the 132 Cardinals who would gather for the 29 – 30 August Consistory would be those created by Pope Francis. It is most probable that they may never have met or known one another! So, tongues are wagging! Is this likely to be a game plan by Pope Francis? If Yes, then what is the game plan?

The Unprecedented ongoing Synod. We begin with its unconventional theme; “For a Synodal Church, Communion, Participation and Mission”. Whose participation and how? It has already sparked both positive and negative reactions across the world and in Africa, we do know that some Clergy and Bishops are very apprehensive about it even if they retain a certain safe degree of reticence. A few of the Diocesan Reponses (Outcome Reports) that I have sighted, does show that some Lay people were quite vociferous in expressing their discontentment about some areas of Church governance. Will this trend reflect in the national report by the Ghana Catholic Bishops’ Conference? Also, what will be the likely impact of the Synod Deliberations in 2023 on Church governance?

Are there lessons to be learned by Church Organizations from the Synodal process, especially the desirable attitudes proposed? I would leave this to each one’s own guesses, conjectures and expectations. Whatever your view point, be reminded that all are invited to not only listen but also to speak with courage and parrhesia which is underpinned by freedom, truth and charity.

Who is Pope Francis making Cardinals and where are they headed to? We note, as in the case of Ghana, that Diocesan Bishops and sometimes Priests are being elevated to Cardinals. Even though this is not unprecedented, Pope Francis’ style and preference has given it much visibility and preponderance. Does Pope Francis intend that Cardinals remain in their Dioceses or the common practice of they either being Metropolitans or Heads of national Conferences will apply?

For example, after 27^th August, Most Rev. Richard K Baawobr will be the second most Senior Prelate in Ghana next to His Eminence Peter Cardinal Turkson, and will be addressed as such; His Eminence, Richard K. Cardinal Baawobr. All the Senior positions in the Holy See are, for the moment, filled up. He possibly will remain in Ghana and in his Diocese of Wa, at least for the time being. But Wa remains a suffragan Diocese of Tamale Ecclesiastical Province with its current Metropolitan and Archbishop. Only time will tell the fullness of these dynamics of governance in the Church under Pope Francis. Let us wait and see while praying at all times, that the Holy Spirit takes control and give direction to Holy Mother the Catholic Church.

A Presentation by Mr. Samuel Zan Akologo under the National Catholic Laity Council’s Faith Conversations Series

There are two accomplishments of Vatican II that, in my view, were never implemented fully, and perhaps in the one case, never implemented at all. The latter is the theology of revelation we find in Dei Verbum. The former is the ecclesiology, the theology of the Church, set out in Lumen Gentium and other documents. To bring up the topic of “co-responsibility for the being and mission of the Church” as Pope Benedict has done, is to invoke this ecclesiology as an arrested development, a vision never fulfilled, a task never completed.

That Benedict was doing this is clear from the context he sets for the idea in the major address in which it comes up, his 2009 Address to the Pastoral Convention of the Diocese of Rome, speaking as the local bishop in his cathedral, the Lateran Basilica of St. John, with the title, “Co-responsible for the Church’s Being and Action,” and the subtitle “Church Membership and Pastoral Co-responsibility.” The context of the speech is the Diocese of Rome’s renewed commitment to the priority of pastoral work in the local parishes. Benedict remarks that,

This commitment . . . must be based on a renewed awareness of our being Church and of the pastoral co-responsibility which, in Christ’s name, we are all called to exercise. And it is precisely on this aspect that I would like to reflect now.

“The Church,” he says,

Which originates in the Trinitarian God, is a mystery of communion. As communion, the Church is not merely a spiritual reality but lives in history, so to speak, in flesh and blood. The Second Vatican Council describes her “in the nature of sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men” (LG §1.1). This communion is captured under the twin images of the “People of God” and the “Body of Christ,” where “People of God” expresses the continuity of the Church’s history, [and] “Body of Christ” expresses the universality inaugurated in the Cross and in the Lord’s Resurrection.”

Continuing with Benedict’s Address just a little farther, he ponders further the mystery of the Church as carried in these twin images, and shows how they converge in, and are an effect of, the Eucharist:

Risen, Christ unites us all in the Sacrament to make us one Body. Thus the concept “People of God” and “Body of Christ” complete one another: in Christ we really become the People of God. “People of God” therefore means “all,” from the Pope to the most recently baptized child.

Within this one People,

The First Eucharistic Prayer . . . distinguishes between servants “we, your servants” and “plebs tua sancta”; therefore should one wish to make a distinction, one should speak of servants and plebs sancta, while the term People of God’ expresses the Church all together in their common being.

The discussion of “co-responsibility” which follows is thus set up as a discussion about the relationship of two categories of people to the mission of the Church and to each other. Specifically, the hierarchy is ordered toward serving the plebs. This relationship needs to be examined in the light of the fact that, as Benedict says,

The reawakening of spiritual and pastoral energies that has been happening in recent years has not always produced the desired growth and development. In fact it must be noted that in certain ecclesial communities, the period of fervour and initiative has given way to a time of weakening commitment, a situation of weariness, at times almost a stalemate.

To Benedict, this indicates that the ecclesial vision of the Council was never fully implemented: “This fact,” he says, “tells us that the luminous pages which the Council dedicated to the laity were not yet sufficiently adapted to or impressed on the minds of Catholics or in pastoral procedures.” He continues,

On the one hand there is still a tendency to identify the Church unilaterally with the hierarchy, forgetting the common responsibility, the common mission of the People of God, which, in Christ we all share.

On the other hand, he says,

The tendency still persists to identify the People of God unilaterally, . . . in accordance with a merely sociological or political concept, forgetting the newness and specificity of that people, which becomes a people solely through communion with Christ.

In other words, he is saying, to think of the Church as merely in history, a secular organization essentially, rather than a mystery of communion which is both visibly in history, as visible as, say, Amtrak, but, unlike Amtrak, transcends history. That is why the Church is an article of faith and not simply a matter of observation.

It is precisely at this point in the speech that the idea of co-responsibility is raised: “Dear brothers and sisters, it is now time to ask ourselves what point our Diocese of Rome has reached. To what extent is the pastoral co-responsibility of all, and particularly of the laity, recognized and encouraged?” Recalling past centuries, in which “thanks to the generous witness of all the baptized who spent their life educating the new generations in the faith, healing the sick and going to the aid of the poor, the Christian community proclaimed the Gospel to the inhabitants of Rome.” It is this same mission of proclamation and evangelization that Benedict highlights as the object of co-responsibility for the being and acting of the Church.

One of the fruits of the Diocese of Rome’s heightened attention to the pastoral work of the parishes, he says, was that it:

Helped to develop in the parishes, religious communities, associations and movements a consciousness of belonging to the one People of God which, as the Apostle Peter said, God made his own: “that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him”(1 Pt 2: 9).

To cite this verse is to invoke the People of God as a royal priesthood, with each member sharing, on the basis of his or her baptism, in the priesthood of Christ: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” The theology of co-responsibility begins by invoking Vatican II’s rediscovery of the priesthood of the baptized, the mystery of the People of God as a royal priesthood, with each member ordered towards the prophetic, royal and priestly vocation to “declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light,” that is, to mission, to evangelisation.

Benedict comments wryly, “There is still a long way to go . . . Compared to the number of inhabitants in each parish, the lay people who are ready to work in the various apostolic fields . . . are still few and far between.” In other words, where are the lay leaders in the mission of the Church, the lay-led projects, the lay-led initiatives, the work of the “sancta plebs,” as served by the hierarchy? What is needed to foster it?

In the first place, he says, we have to improve everyone’s formation so that it is “more attentive and focused on the vision of the Church,” and this goes for everyone, “on the part of priests as well as of religious and lay people to understand ever better what this Church is, this People of God in the Body of Christ.” Note the necessity of a deeper contemplation and reception of the mystery of the Church, without which this formation is not possible. But given that necessity, it also implies another, namely, “to improve pastoral structures in such a way that the co-responsibility of all the members of the People of God in their entirety is gradually promoted, with respect for vocations and for the respective roles of the consecrated and of lay people.”

So, co-responsibility is not just about lay people. Yet, the way we think about lay people in relation to the mission of the Church is a crucial piece of the puzzle. This needed improvement of pastoral structures, Benedict says,

Demands a change in mindset, particularly concerning lay people. They must no longer be viewed as “collaborators” of the clergy but truly recognized as “co-responsible” for the Church’s being and action, thereby fostering the consolidation of a mature and committed laity.

The question of co-responsibility of lay people is a key part of the overall question of leadership in the mission of the Church because it is a function of the larger question not simply of lay people, but of the relationship between the priesthood of the baptized, conferred by baptism, and the priesthood, “different by essence and not just by degree,” of the ordained minister.

We can see this from the very next sentence of Benedict’s speech that the theology of co-responsibility really resolves itself into a theology of the relationship between the royal priesthood of the baptized and that of the priesthood not derived from baptism but from the sacrament of Orders:

This common awareness of being Church of all the baptized in no way diminishes the responsibility of parish priests. It is precisely your task, dear parish priests, to nurture the spiritual and apostolic growth of those who are already committed to working hard in the parishes. They form the core of the community that will act as a leaven for the others.

There is an image of lay leadership here. Benedict singles out true leaders in the mission of the Church, non-ordained, members of the “holy plebs” who are served by the ordained in the servant leadership proper to the exercise of their (ordained) priesthood. There is a leadership role, intrinsic to the royal priesthood of the baptized, and thus applicable to lay people and religious, and there is a leadership role, intrinsic to Holy Orders, which is ordered toward the service of the leadership of the “plebs.” That, in a nutshell, is the ecclesiology from which the idea of “co-responsibility” is developed, rooted in the recovery of the priesthood of the baptized and a corresponding renewed appreciation of the ordained priesthood in relation to it, from Lumen Gentium.

Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium is basically this very same vision on steroids. The Address of Benedict emphasizes throughout a focus on evangelization, and Francis takes this over with spirit and power. He reiterates that evangelization is the “’first task’” of the Church (EG §15, citing John Paul II). Further, just as Benedict did, Francis insists that the task of evangelization belongs to the whole Church: “Evangelization is the task of the Church” (EG §111), and he goes on to echo Benedict in saying the Church is a “mystery rooted in the Trinity,” and yet existing “concretely in history is a people of pilgrims and evangelizers, transcending any institutional expression, however necessary” (ibid.). Here is the same balance we observed in Benedict—the Church as a mystery of communion visible as an empirical historical reality but not, like Amtrak, reducible to it. The Church exists for love of the world—for God so loved the world (Jn. 3.16)—and so it must be in the world, yet for that very reason, as Benedict had explained, it is not reducible to a socio-political organization, essentially a secular power structure.

Evangelisation has as its priority, Francis says, the “‘primacy of the proclamation of Jesus Christ’” (EG §110). This very primacy means at the same time our proclamation involves a call to a mystery of communion, expressed in time and space, in other words, a call to be a member of the Church, for, Francis reminds us, citing Lumen Gentium, “‘God has chosen to call [human beings] together as a people and not as isolated individuals,’” and “the people which God has chosen and called is the Church” (EG §113).

The ecclesial character of evangelization, as Francis explains it, comes from the grace (NB, §112, citing Benedict on the primacy of grace) of Baptism. The commission to evangelize is intrinsic to the Church as communion in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, that is, it is intrinsic to Baptism: “In all the baptized, from first to last, the sanctifying power of the Spirit is at work, impelling us to evangelization.” Continuing, he says that “the people of God is holy thanks to this anointing” (EG §119), and in an allusion to 1 Pet. 2.9, he emphasizes that:

In virtue of their baptism, all the members of the People of God have become missionary disciples (cf. Mt. 28.19). All the baptized, whatever their position in the Church or their level of instruction in the faith, are agents of evangelization, and it would be insufficient to envisage a plan of evangelization to be carried out by professionals while the rest of the faithful would simply be passive recipients (EG §120).

This is a vision of leadership, and it arises not from participation in the specific ministry of the ordained and not as a function of Holy Orders, but from Baptism. Leadership in the “first task” of the Church, an ecclesial task, is not limited to a class of “professionals” within the Church. “Every Christian is challenged, here and now, to be actively engaged in evangelization; indeed, anyone who has truly experienced God’s saving love does not need much time or lengthy training to go out and proclaim that love” (EG §120). I find this incredibly refreshing. It seems to re-center the center of gravity in the Church away from the hierarchy, as the Church par excellence, to the baptized, called to evangelize, though not by setting up their own Church—for that would not be evangelization—but by inviting people into an encounter with Jesus Christ in and through ecclesial communion. For the grace of Baptism is not an absolute, stand-alone, self-referential gift. It is a configuration to the Paschal Mystery and hence to the sacrifice of Christ which is what constitutes the communion of the Church. Baptism is therefore intrinsically ordered towards Eucharistic communion.

Further echoing Benedict’s Address, Francis pays particular attention to lay people, who, he says, “are, put simply, the vast majority of the People of God. The minority—ordained ministers—are at their service” (EG 102). This is almost a direct echo of the “servant” / “plebs” distinction Benedict invokes, though “plebs” includes more than lay people, religious for example, even if the laity are a kind of synecdoche for it. Francis calls attention to the “responsibility of the laity, grounded in their baptism and confirmation,” and also echoing Benedict, he says that this responsibility has been very unevenly received and unevenly formed, due to various reasons. “In some cases,” he says, “it is because lay persons have not been given the formation needed to take on important responsibilities,” while in others, it is “due to an excessive clericalism” (EG §102). An “excessive clericalism” is, I take it, a description of the situation where, in people’s minds, both in and outside of the Church, “the Church” means the hierarchy.

What, then, is the theological and especially the ecclesiological foundation for a theory of co-responsibility? We already have the outlines of it from our consideration of the remarks of the two most recent Popes, but they have only based themselves on the documents of Vatican II. Lumen Gentium, in the chapter on the People of God, describes two priesthoods in the Church:

Though they differ from one another in essence and not merely in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood by receiving the sacraments, by prayer and thanksgiving, by the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity (LG §10).

There is a leadership associated with the hierarchical priesthood, that of pastoral governance, authoritative teaching, and sanctification, and that is clearly stated here. But it is important to note what is not stated. The hierarchical priesthood is not “more” of the same priesthood that the baptized have. It is not a super-priesthood, somehow completing, displacing or superceding the common priesthood. You cannot get “more” priestly than the priesthood which marks the whole Church. For that would be to imply that there is an inner Church of super-Christians, the hierarchy, and that, it seems, is the essence of clericalism. To say then, that the two participations in the priesthood of Christ differ in essence, that the difference is not a mere difference of degree, is important.

Ironically, perhaps, it is the Council’s documentation on the priesthood that offers the most promising resources for grounding and articulating our theory of co-responsibility. Presbyterorum Ordinis, the Vatican II Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, begins with inviting the reader to consider the mystery of the whole Church as a priestly body:

The Lord Jesus, “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” (John 10.36) gave his whole mystical body a share in the anointing of the Spirit with which he was anointed. In that body, all the faithful are made a holy and kingly priesthood. They offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ, and they proclaim the mighty acts of him who has called them out of darkness into his admirable light (see: 1 Peter 2:5, 9).

It turns out that Benedict and Francis start in the same place, an invocation of the mystery of the whole Church, because they are following Presbyterorum Ordinis. In this document, it follows directly from the above that “There is therefore no such thing as a member who does not have a share in the mission of the whole body. Rather, all of the members ought to reverence Jesus in their hearts (see: 1 Pet 3.15) and by the spirit of prophecy give testimony to Jesus,” thus justifying the priority that Benedict and Francis have given to evangelization as the first task of the Church in which all have a share. Benedict and Francis have carried this vision forward.

To support and indeed to build up the royal, priestly people and all of its members in their mission, such that its spiritual sacrifices are indeed made “through Christ,” another participation in the one priesthood of Christ, differing not in degree but in type from that conferred in baptism, is conferred by its own sacrament, the document continues, echoing but also amplifying Lumen Gentium:

The priesthood of presbyters, while presupposing the sacraments of initiation, is conferred by a special sacrament which, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, puts a special stamp on them and so conforms them to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the head (PO §2).

This is, among other reasons, because “no Christian community is built up which does not grow from and hinge on the celebration of the most holy Eucharist” (PO §6), and in the Eucharist, Christ Himself acts, in the person of the ordained priest. The Church is a “sacrament—a sign and instrument of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race” only “in Christ” (LG §1), and not on the basis of her own—our own—works or virtues. The Church is not held together by our works or virtues, but by the sacrifice of Christ, and that sacrifice is made present efficaciously in the Eucharist and in that way “makes” the Church (CCC 1396, cf. 1325), makes the One People of God. The sacrament of orders makes it so that the priest does not mediate himself, in his own person, as “head” of the community, but Christ, such that the presence of Christ is purely a function of Christ’s promise to be with us until the “close of the age” (Matt 28.20), a function of grace, and not in the first instance a human works or merit, which would make the Church a communion of our own making.

In perhaps the most sublime passage of PO, the Eucharist is described as the “source and summit of all preaching of the Gospel” (PO §5). In fact,

The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate are bound up with the Eucharist and are directed towards it. For in the most blessed Eucharist is contained the entire spiritual wealth of the Church, namely Christ himself our Pasch and our living bread.

The building up of the Church is not just adding numbers to a humanly formed group through preaching—that is, proselytizing—but instead, preaching is directed towards incorporating people into the one Body—Christ’s Body not our “body”—into the one People of God—not “our” people—through their reception of the sacraments of initiation, ordered toward the Eucharist, by which people are fully incorporated (see CCC 1396) into the Body of Christ and his royal priesthood.

In other words, the ordained ministry is not ordered towards itself, but rather it is the priestly people towards which the ordained priesthood is ordered, and that priesthood retains its fundamental character as the share in Christ’s priesthood, which constitutes the Church. On the other hand, when the baptized exercise their royal priesthood in evangelization, it is not just to spread knowledge of the Word of God dislocated from its ecclesial home, for then it is not really a priesthood, since the communion of the Church is communion in Christ’s sacrifice. Evangelization is intended to bring people to the encounter with the Risen Lord which is incorporation into the Eucharistic body through configuration to Christ’s sacrifice.

The priesthood of the baptized, as a priesthood, flows from the one sacrifice of Christ and its exercise is thus intrinsically ordered towards it. That means it cannot be exercised fully apart from the ministry of the ordained, nor is it truly exercised if it tends toward the rupture of communion instead of towards building communion. This would include evangelizing activity that rejected the authoritative teaching of the magisterium, or undertaken in defiance of legitimate hierarchical authority. At the same time, it does not mean permission is necessary: “there is no need of a supplementary mandate from the hierarchy” to exercise the duty to proclaim Christ which comes “by virtue of the grace of baptism” (Torrell, 130). The two priesthoods are mutually inter-related, and thus we have co-responsibility for the being and acting of the Church.

On the one hand:

The best way to situate the priestly ministry within [the Church] as the wholly priestly people is . . . to emphasize that its service consists in making the royal or spiritual priesthood grow in such a way that, to speak like St. Augustine, the entire holy City of God may become a spiritual sacrifice agreeable to God through Jesus Christ (Torrell, 126).

The royal priesthood remains primary as the end towards which the ministerial priesthood is ordered: “The Christian minister is not defined uniquely in relation to the Eucharistic body, but also, by this very fact, to its mystical Body, of which he is put in charge at his own level of responsibility” (ibid.). On the other hand, the exercise of the baptismal priesthood is always to promote the spiritual sacrifice to which all people are called, and thus is ordered towards the communion of the Church, effected only through the sacramental ministry of priests. Torrell points out that “The Eucharist is presented not only as the center of the whole sacramental organism, but also as ‘the source and apex of all the work of preaching the gospel,’” as we have seen. “What this means,” he comments later, “is that evangelization is not only ‘launched’ from the celebration of Eucharistic worship, whence it has its fecundity, but that it ‘lands’ there, because it is only by the Eucharist that the full insertion of believers into the Body of Christ is achieved” (ibid. 181).

Developing the teaching of Presbyterorum Ordinis, John Paul II’s Pastores Dabo Vobis notes, it is “for the sake of the universal priesthood of the new covenant” (§14) that the ordained priesthood exists. Again, the “role and task [of priests] within the Church do not replace but promote the baptismal priesthood of the entire people of God” (PDV §17 citing PO §10). John Paul II goes on to comment that “today the pressing pastoral task of the new evangelization calls for the involvement of the entire People of God, and requires a new fervor, new methods and a new expression for the announcing and witnessing of the Gospel,” and here we recognize the roots of Benedict’s call to co-responsibility and Francis’s call to universal missionary discipleship. Further, this new task, John Paul II says, “demands priests who are deeply and fully immersed in the mystery of Christ and capable of embodying a new style of pastoral life . . . fostering the different roles, charisms and ministries present within the ecclesial community” (PDV §18). This is the theory of co-responsibility in advance of the expression. It is a call for lay leadership and lay initiative in evangelization, and for priests who will form, foster and nurture their leadership through their own mediation, appropriate to their degree of ordination, of Christ the teacher, sanctifier and pastor.

We can see again that it is a mistake to reserve the word “priestly” to the ministry of the ordained, as though the ordained had a “priestly” responsibility and the rest of the faithful did not. To think this way is to think, in effect, that the priestly character and vocation of the whole royal priesthood can be surpassed or relativized by another priesthood. The priesthood common to all the baptized is the primary priesthood in the Church. It is “unsurpassable” (see Torrell, 185). Leadership in evangelization is centered in the exercise of this priesthood. “It is a mistake to believe” that the ordained participation in the one priesthood of Christ is “superior to the first” kind, the baptismal priesthood (Torrell, 56), nor is the ordained priesthood the source of the baptismal priesthood. The two priesthoods are “mutually related” according to Lumen Gentium (§10): “it clearly does not follow that there is a subordinate relation of the royal priesthood to the ministerial priesthood” (Torrell, 141). The ordained priesthood is not “more” priestly, as though it were an augment to the universal priesthood.

This is the point, again, of saying that the ordained priesthood is a different mode of participation in Christ’s priesthood, and not a difference of degree. Precisely the fact that it is not difference in degree means it is not an augmented, more priestly, version of the baptismal priesthood. There is therefore no zero-sum game here, that is, that the more “priesthood” the ordained have, the “less” the rest of the faithful have. That way of thinking contributes to the clericalism, which ends up centering the Church on the ordained, as though in effect, and for all intents and purposes, they were “the Church.” The opposite is true, in the sense that the ordained priesthood is called to the building up, to the augmenting if you will, of the royal priesthood and not of itself. Co-responsibility is therefore not based on a difference in degree of priestly character, but in two interrelated modes of participation in it, the one (ordained) ordered to the other (baptismal). The baptismal priesthood remains the principal way in which the Church is and acts in the world. I do not think we have even remotely begun to appreciate this reality.

I wonder if one thing that has blocked our imagination in effecting this reality is, ironically, the concept of “lay ecclesial ministry.” Notice that I said “the concept,” not the persons who are presently called “lay ecclesial ministers,” or the fact of such people working in the Church. The McGrath Institute for Church Life, along with our Department of Theology here at Notre Dame, train lay ecclesial ministers and we need to strengthen the position of such people working in the Church and not weaken it. But the theology behind the phrase “lay ecclesial minister” is, I think, problematic, and problematic ideas beget problematic practical consequences. We have seen that, according to the USCCB’s Co-workers in the Vineyard of the Lord, “the ministry of priests is entirely on behalf of the Church; it aims at promoting the exercise of the common priesthood of the entire people of God” (quoting PDV §16), that is, the evangelizing work of lay people, among other things. If the word “ministry” is used for the exercise of the priesthood of the baptized, we must still remember that there is a “primary distinction between the ministry of the lay faithful and the ministry of the ordained, which is a special apostolic calling,” even if, “in its broadest sense,” Co-Workers tells us, “ministry is to be understood as service (diakonia) and is the means for accomplishing mission in the communion of the Church. It is a participation in and expression of Christ’s ministry.” But here there is already slippage in the use of the word “ministry” because this “broadest” sense is generic and vague. Even as it calls for distinctions, it implies that there is one common source for “ministry” in the Church, which in one sense is true, but in another, is false. There are two ways of participating in the priestly mission of Christ, one which has its source in the sacrament of Baptism, and one in the sacrament of Holy Orders. There is no generic participation in the “ministry” of Christ unless it is that which all Christians share in Baptism.

The language of this document, exacerbated by the frequent use of the equally generic phrase “Church ministry” (as, e.g. at Co-Workers pp. 12 and 15), invites us to smudge these together even while saying we should not because it provides a category which embraces both and in which the distinctions are rendered invisible and so fluid. Another way of putting this is to say that a “lay ecclesial minister” is someone who exercises the “ministry” appropriate to the common priesthood by collaborating in the “ministry” appropriate to the ordained, in “[c]lose mutual collaboration with the pastoral ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons” (Co-Workers). In fact it is just this sense of “collaboration” that Benedict contrasted with “co-responsibility.”

But is this usage of the word “ministry” actually sustainable? It uses the same word, “ministry,” which must be heard simultaneously in two different senses, the sense appropriate to an exercise of the baptismal priesthood, and the sense appropriate only to the exercise of the ordained priesthood, and yet to refer at one and the same time to the same shared work. Is it realistic, over time, to sustain this usage? Or, does it tend to collapse the two “ministries” together, such that the word “ministry” is, in this phrase, heard in the “broadest” or generic sense that the document encourages, such that the distinction between the two is for all practical purposes erased? Can we really expect most people to use the phrase and make the instant mental adjustments and distinctions needed to “hear” the phrase properly? I doubt it.

My main worry is the way the use of the word “ministry” could occlude, not the ministry of the priest, but the exercise of the common priesthood, the “ministry” of the laity, which lay ecclesial ministry, defined as a participation in the ministry of the ordained, is intended to serve along with the ordained. Despite the intentions of the document, can the use of the phrase “lay ecclesial minister” to reflect a professional class of lay ministers cause us to forget the way in which all the baptized, all lay persons, are called to evangelize, to proclaim the Gospel in word and deed, and to take responsibility for the mission of the Church, without any specific mandate or authorization by the hierarchy? We are all missionary disciples and, as Pope Francis notes, “it would be insufficient to envisage a plan of evangelization to be carried out by professionals while the rest of the faithful would simply be passive recipients” (EG §120). Co-Workers itself explicitly warns against “foster[ing] an elitism that places lay ecclesial ministers above or outside the laity,” a kind of clericalized version of the laity.

I wonder then if in the long run this balancing act can be sustained without having the effect of making us forget that “lay ministry” and “lay leadership” in the Church are not—should not—be coinciding sets. It seems to limit lay leadership to a “profession” that, yes, arises from baptism but is “configured to” ordained ministry. But no less than Pius XII, quoted by John Paul II, stated, “the faithful, more precisely, the lay faithful, find themselves on the front lines of the Church’s life.”

It is in this spirit that Pope Benedict also said that the Church “needs a change of mindset particularly concerning lay people. They must no longer be seen as collaborators of the clergy, but truly recognized as ‘co-responsible’ for the Church’s being and action.” Just as we are implementing more robust roles for laity in the Church, are we actually, through “lay ecclesial ministry,” in the long run making some of the laity more “churchy” instead of expanding our notion of Church? Where will the front lines of the Church be if they are drawn into an internal structure meant to serve the front lines of the Church, not to replace them? “Lay ecclesial ministry” as a paradigm for the involvement of the laity in the mission of evangelization is actually a return to a pre-Vatican II model, where the priesthood of the baptized was understood as only a metaphorical priesthood, in fact a participation in the only “real” priesthood, that of the ordained. Though it is cloaked in the language of Vatican II, the idea of “lay ecclesial ministry” is actually a return, at least in effect, to an older ecclesiology and to the clericalism that it supported and continues to support. In this model, the leadership of lay people is always a subordinate participation in a leadership that is not actually theirs. The center of gravity of the Church remains unaffected.

The confusion of the two priesthoods thus tends to flatten both of them out into one thing. Those exercising the baptismal priesthood in ministry are intrinsically subordinated to the ministry in which they are collaborating, while the ordained priesthood tends to be flattened into a merely augmented version of the priesthood of the baptized, a difference of degree, as though the priest were a layperson “plus.” Consider, for example, the findings of the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry study on the priesthood, “To Serve the People of God,” which examines in particular the relationship between priests and the lay ecclesial ministers with whom they collaborate. The study identified and highlighted “five essential characteristics for effective priestly ministry,” as follows:

1. the capacity to preach the word of God in ways that nurture the faith, hope, and love of the disciples of Christ;
2. the ability to lead the Christian community in life-enhancing prayer and worship;
3. the willingness and aptitude to be a collaborative leader among lay ecclesial ministers and the whole people of God;
4. the disposition to lead an exemplary life of discipleship within the ecclesial community;
5. the commitment to practice pastoral charity in service of the Gospel.

Notice anything about this list? I, as a non-ordained member of the faithful, can do any one of these. I can preach, and I can “lead the Christian community in life-enhancing prayer and worship” in any number of ways, from starting class with a prayer to leading charismatic revivals. What I cannot do is not listed, namely, acting in persona Christi capitis and in nomine ecclesiae by presiding at the Eucharist (among other things). The “five essential characteristics” leave out the most essential. It leaves behind the vision of the Church as a Eucharistic communion flowing from the life of the Trinity, with which both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict begin.

We are losing here the basis for any true “co-responsibility for the being and acting of the Church” in favor of a flattening of ministry to that which flows from Baptism, with the ordained as an advanced participation in it, an augment, and it is that, as we have argued above, which is the essence of clericalism. Because if there is only a difference of degree, then there is only a difference of status within the “broadest” or generic understanding of ministry advocated by Co-Workers. This represents the renunciation of, rather than the fulfillment of, the ecclesiology of Vatican II.

Pope John Paul II frequently expressed the regret, as Aidan Nichols put it,

That the Second Vatican Council was not subsequently exemplified in the lives of outstanding, paradigmatic priestly saints—such as, in the wake of the Council of Trent, St. Vincent de Paul. Such exemplary persons, living classics, embody a theological vision of the priesthood . . . better than any text.

The point is not that there have been no saintly priests since Vatican II, but none that have captured and embodied the essence of its ecclesiology. This is another way of saying that a priest whose priestly ministry is obviously and visibly ordered toward the building up of the leadership of the laity in the mission and acting of the Church, and not necessarily towards running it, administering it, organizing it, and supervising it and subordinating it to its own ministry. It also means recognizing it (cf. Nichols, 154).

Such an ordained ministry implies its co-responsible complement, too. The true exercise of the baptismal priesthood is not free lancing independent of the ecclesial community or its communion in the Eucharist for which it is dependent on the ordained minister. Nor is it exercised independent of the authoritative teaching of those in apostolic succession. There is no true exercise of the baptismal priesthood independent of leadership proper to Holy Orders. The two kinds of leadership are co-responsibly related. We can see models of this in some of the heroic leaders leading up to the Council. Dorothy Day, for instance, led a whole new movement in evangelization, completely on her own initiative. Her partnerships with various priests, and Fr. Pacifique Roy, were studies in co-responsibility for the mission and being of the Church, for she centered her movement’s life around the Eucharist and thus the ordained priesthood, and, though she did not ask Cardinal Spellman for permission to operate, she never defied him on matters pertaining to his teaching and pastoral authority, and fostered, rather than broke, communion.

A Church in which the center of gravity has, as it were, shifted, in which the co-responsible leadership of those exercising the priesthood of the baptized was the norm, would be a Church we seem not to have really imagined yet. We have since Vatican II operated with a mindset that has not absorbed its major insights in ecclesiology because, I think, we have decided to analyze the call for lay participation as a call for increased “power” of the laity but in a structure that is essentially intact, one that is excessively clericalized and thus ironically secularized, reduced thereby to a power structure conceived independently of its ordering towards a “mystery of communion.” Instead we should use the Vatican II vision to “re-center” the Church around a mystery of communion that does not displace or render irrelevant the hierarchy or its leadership, but finds the fruits of that leadership precisely in the leadership of the baptized when, in their own proper sphere and in projects of their own devising, they “declare the deeds of Him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

Source: John Cavadini