We Stand or Fall Together: A Century on Co-Responsibility (2024)

The concept of “co-responsibility,” introduced by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009[1] and elaborated in 2012,[2] recently took a step onto center stage with the synthesis document from the first session of the Synod on Synodality. Notably, no established theology of co-responsibility yet exists. It is simultaneously an ecclesiological concept and a current pastoral reality, yet it distinctly lacks a carefully composed theology to fill the space between the ivory tower and the pew. More than humility confirms that I am not the person to pen that theology. However, my corner of the vineyard (graduate ministerial formation) affords a privileged post for collecting fragments that together may form a potential start in pursuit of a theology of co-responsibility.

What good are fragments? Individually, perhaps not all that good; collectively, potentially illuminating. Providentially, excellent teacher-colleagues introduced me to a literary genre that can hold such a disparate group of thoughts—the century.

The century is a form developed by ancient monastic authors, who strung together wisdom, insights, and observations so that, while incomplete in isolation, their proximity to one another might prove synergistic. These strings of thoughts often numbered one hundred, hence the term “century.” This style does not attempt to find or impose a systematic argument as much as hold many things in common and articulate helpful guiderails.

The following is a simple collection of pertinent insights on co-responsibility to date. More materialize each day.

1. Co-responsibility demands a change in mindset especially concerning the role of lay people in the Church. They should not be regarded as “collaborators” of the clergy, but, rather, as people who are really “co-responsible” for the Church’s being and acting. It is therefore important that a mature and committed laity be consolidated, which can make its own specific contribution to the ecclesial mission with respect for the ministries and tasks that each one has in the life of the Church and always in cordial communion with the bishops.[3]

2. The topic of co-responsibility does not describe identity within the Church, but rather the appropriate functioning of the Church. So while the word “co-responsibility” is itself a noun, it serves as a massive umbrella term for the abundance of verbs and adverbs its sweeping execution entails.[4]

3. It answers the question: “How do we Church?” Or more grammatically sensitively, “How do we operate as a Church, the Body of Christ?” . . . Answer: co-responsibly.

4. It follows therefore that we can put aside concerns related to states of life and admissions to orders. Rather we get to take up and focus upon the question of function within the Body of Christ. How do the many parts relate to one another? How were we created to be in harmony? How do we serve, support, and augment one another?[5]

5. Co-responsibility relies on an anthropology that asserts our capacity to function “Trinitarian-ly”—but we have a word for that: perichoretically. Co-responsibility depends on our internal ecclesial communion.

6. An ecclesiology of communion looks upon different gifts and functions not as adversarial but as enriching and complementary. In the broadest sense, ministry is understood as service (diakonia). Within this broad understanding of ministry, distinctions are necessary. They illuminate the nature of the Church as an organic and ordered communion[6]—something the word “hierarchy” accomplishes beautifully in its etymology,[7] but stumbles colloquially due to historical accumulation of baggage.

7. This life of communion makes the Church synodal, a Church marked by reciprocal listening, whereby everyone has something to learn.[8]

8. The reservation of the priesthood to males . . . is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness.” The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favor the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others.” Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops.[9]

9. Lay people are, put simply, the vast majority of the People of God. The minority—ordained ministers—are at their service. There has been a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the laity in the Church. Many lay persons have a deeply-rooted sense of community and great fidelity to the tasks of charity, catechesis, and the celebration of the faith. At the same time, a clear awareness of this responsibility of the laity, grounded in their baptism and confirmation, does not appear in the same way in all places. In some cases, it is because laypersons have not been given the formation needed to take on important responsibilities. In others, it is because in their particular churches room has not been made for them to speak and to act, due to an excessive clericalism which keeps them away from decision-making.[10]

10. Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction. Lay members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this same power according to the norm of the law.[11]

11. According to Benedict XVI, persevering generously in service to the Church and living the fullness of lay charism consists in taking on the apostolic aim of the Church in its entirety—a fruitful balance between the universal Church and the local Church, and working in a spirituality of close union with the Successor of Peter and active co-responsibility with our own pastors.[12]

12. A lay ecclesial minister/pastoral worker/lay professional minister/catechist (to use language from around the world) is someone who exercises the ministry appropriate to the common priesthood and also collaborates in the ministry appropriate to the ordained in close mutual collaboration with the pastoral ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons. Benedict XVI contrasts this sense of “collaboration” with “co-responsibility.”[13]

13. Co-responsibility could be confused with collaboration, but they are distinctive in the character of their power and authority.

14. The prefix “co-” possesses an abundance of meaning in and of itself.

15. “Co-” means with, together, jointly, shared, mutual, such as in “co-operate.” Cooperentur, work together, was one of the keywords in the vocabulary special to Vatican II.[14]

16. “Co-” means a fellow or partner such as in “co-worker.”

17. Thus, co-working implies working alongside one another perhaps for the same end or mission. This may imply integration of work, but it could also refer to siloed work in separate, discrete tasks.

18. “Co-” means a partner having usually a lesser share in duty or responsibility, an alternate such as in “collaborator.”

19. Thus, collaboration implies participation in a superior’s power. One works “for” someone else, slotting into existing roles. The power and authority is not one’s own, but belongs to another. Thus one has the ability to distance oneself from the work and potentially even the mission.

20. “Co-” means in or to the same degree such as in “co-responsible.”

21. Thus, co-responsibility implies that all parties share power and authority, with each possessing the fullness of power in and of themselves (not delegated) for the tasks at hand, vested with shared mission. They work “with” each other. While we may slot into existing roles, in co-responsibility there is room for appropriate autonomy.

22. In co-responsibility personal initiative has a role to play.

23. When we speak of lay professional ministry we are properly discussing collaborative ministry in the Name of the Church.[15] Sacred ministries are in fact properly the purview of the ordained and lay faithful only take on aspects of sacred ministries as a participation in the power and authority of the ordained. “Collaboration with” is not “substitution for,” but it is “participation in” another’s power or authority.

24. When we speak of the priesthood of the baptized we are discussing a co-responsible relationship within the Body of Christ.

25. Responsibility means reliability, trustworthiness, and accountability. So co-responsibility for the mission of the Church is the laity and ordained together, jointly, mutually, to the same degree, exercising their respective priesthoods (baptismal and ministerial) reliably, trustworthily, and accountably.

26. Ministerial priests exercise their priestly office (munus sanctificandi) in the Church by carrying out the sacred functions of baptism, reconciliation, anointing of the sick, and especially divine worship. Acting in the person of Christ during the celebration of the Eucharist, the priest unites the sacrifices of the faithful to Christ’s own. By praying the divine office, the priest sanctifies the day, offering it up to God.[16]

27. Ministerial priests exercise their prophetic office (munus docendi) in the Church by proclaiming the Gospel and preaching. They instruct the people of God on teaching and morality, prayer and sacraments, and how to fulfill their duties in their various states of life.[17] They serve as educators in the faith and lead the faithful to fruitful vocations.[18] In their lives, their commitment to the evangelical counsels of celibacy, poverty, and obedience bears witness to holiness and the eschatological reality of the heavenly kingdom.

28. Ministerial priests exercise their kingly or shepherding office (munus regendi) in the Church by imitating Christ who washed the disciples’ feet, leading as a servant. He shepherds the faithful toward Christian perfection by recognizing and calling forth the gifts and talents of members of his parish. He administers, leads, and manages the operations of his parish and other religious institutions (e.g. schools) wisely using Church resources for the local community. He makes the universal Church visible in his own locality through leadership and service.[19]

29. The lay faithful exercise their priestly munus in the world through prayer, apostolic endeavors (making disciples), daily labor (consecrating/sanctifying it), mental and physical relaxation (praise to God for our createdness), and through the hardships of life, patiently borne. All of this is carried out in the Spirit, making it a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God. Liturgically the faithful enact this munus sanctificandi in their active participation at the table of the Word and table of the Eucharist; in their whole-hearted responses to prayers, and in the offertory when they physically and spiritually bring forward the work of their hands to become an offering pleasing to our Creator.[20] They exercise it when they—like Veronica wiping Jesus’ face—tend the wounds of the Body of Christ brought on through abuse.

30. The lay faithful exercise their prophetic munus in the world when they read the Gospel, accept it, and know it; when they proclaim the Gospel in word and in deed; when they identify and denounce evil, not remaining silent in the face of observed malfeasance; when they allow the Gospel to shine in family and social life; and when they both express the contradictions of the present age and express hope for the future.[21]

31. The lay faithful exercise their royal munus in the world through spiritual combat, overcoming sin in ourselves; through the gift of self to serve in justice and charity; through using their power to restore creation to its original value;[22] and through putting their professional competence at the service of the institutional church and her apostolates.[23]

32. Religious and laity offer two forms of witness to living the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Lay witness to religious that all vocations are for the salvation of the world. Religious witness to the laity we are all called to the inner form of love in the evangelical counsels.[24]

33. From baptism the laity receive their foundational dignity and identity for carrying out the mission of the Church. This foundation is shared with members of the ordained clergy. Because the laity go where the ordained often do not, and encounter people they often do not, it is the laity’s responsibility to bring Christ to them.[25]

34. Even those who are not working in an especially ecclesial environment still embody the Body of Christ no matter where they are. What is the extent of their formation needs? The laity have an equal (co-)responsibility for the mission of the Church, and thus they have an equal right and responsibility to be formed for that mission.

35. In preparation for the recent synod session, the USCCB wrote, “Synodal consultations made clear the importance of evangelization as we continue to live out the Church’s mission which requires stronger formation. Participants of every age and demographic group spoke of the need for lifelong formation.”[26]

36. Indeed in 2013 Pope Francis wrote, “The formation of the laity and the evangelization of professional and intellectual life represent a significant pastoral challenge.”[27]

37. To the extent of their knowledge, competence or authority the laity are entitled, and indeed sometimes duty-bound, to express their opinion on matters which concern the good of the Church. Sacred pastors should recognize and promote the dignity and responsibility of the laity in the Church. They should willingly use their prudent advice and confidently assign offices to them in the service of the Church, leaving them freedom and scope for activity. Indeed they should encourage them to take on work on their own initiative. Many benefits for the Church are to be expected from this familiar relationship between the laity and the pastors.[28]

38. When Lumen Gentium and the Code of Canon Law assert that “laity are entitled, and indeed sometimes duty-bound to express their opinion,” they notably qualify the statement by referencing the laity’s appropriate limitations to action, and specifically their limitations of “knowledge, competence, or authority.”

39. Knowledge, competence, and authority are accomplished through explicit formation intellectually, humanly, spiritually, pastorally, and communally.

40. Lay persons who permanently or temporarily devote themselves to special service of the Church are obliged to acquire the appropriate formation required to fulfill their function properly and to carry out this function conscientiously, eagerly, and diligently. Lay persons have the right to decent remuneration appropriate to their condition so that they are able to provide decently for their own needs and those of their family. They also have a right for their social provision, social security, and health benefits to be duly provided.[29]

41. Formation is essential not only for professional ministers but also any laity who take their role of co-responsibility seriously, because “we are not starting from scratch.”[30] There exists a corpus of which we are all stewards. Dangerous are those who think they can or should make an impact ignorant of what has come before them. Tradition is alive, but not changing.[31]

42. The hierarchy should continuously provide opportunities to receive proper human, spiritual, and doctrinal formation, that laity may not only become knowledgeable in matters of doctrine but also be able to discern their gifts and in return offer them for the service of their local church, priest, and community.[32]

43. Deserving of special respect and praise in the Church are the laity who permanently or for a time put their professional competence at the service of institutions and their activities. Pastors are to welcome these laypersons with joy and gratitude. They will see to it that their conditions satisfy as perfectly as possible the requirements of justice, equity, and charity, chiefly in the matter of resources necessary for the maintenance of themselves and their families. They should also be provided with the necessary training and with spiritual comfort and encouragement.[33]

44. Pastors demonstrate their commitment to co-responsibility when they advocate for the skill and formation of their staffs.

45. I take it that co-responsibility means that lay people do not have a responsibility for mission that is limited to participating in a governance structure already fully intact, in which they are then slotted into subordinate roles. But if the responsibility of lay people for the being and acting of the Church is no longer limited to “collaboration” (a subordinate role), then it re-contextualizes not just the discussion of what lay leadership is in the Church, but the discussion of what leadership is in the Church pure and simple. It is that dramatic.[34]

46. Leadership can be defined as a process of social interaction to maximize the efforts of others toward common goals and shared mission.[35] This articulation emphasizes how heavily the very nature of leadership rests in interpersonal relationship.

47. Power is the ability to influence events or outcomes. Some unhelpfully understand power as the ability to control others. The model of Jesus rejects the use of power that dominates or promotes oneself over others in favor of power that serves others by empowering them. In the crucifixion, the power of domination is raging out of control—yet the very success of this power is its own subversion.[36]

48. Authority is the legitimate use of power.

49. De facto authority is personal. It derives from and depends upon one’s personality, prominence, influence, personal gifts/charism. A scholar, or a mother, or a prophet has this type of authority.

50. As a lay woman or man in the Church, if you surrender your de facto authority, people are not prone to hand it back to you.

51. De jure authority is juridical. It derives from the law or an office. Police, supervisors, presidents have this type of authority.

52. De facto authority gives all the baptized equal capacity and responsibility to respond to the needs of the Church. De jure authority, however, may cause the laity to believe they do not have any authority to help the mission of the Church, instead perceiving themselves only as “collaborators” possessing derivative, delegated authority rather than proper authority.

53. In calling for a Synod on Synodality, Pope Francis is using his de jure authority to activate the de facto authority of all the baptized. It also raises the question: do the laity have de jure authority in the Church?[37]

54. The language of co-responsibility for the mission of the Church is incomplete if it does not refer to the way in which the two priesthoods (ministerial and common) are different and are ordered towards each other in the building up of the one body.[38]

55. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical,” it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members.” Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life.[39]

56. There is an authority of governing inherent in Holy Orders. The bishop possesses the fullness of this authority and all others (priests and laity) properly participate in that authority only through delegation and invitation. However, primary emphasis on the source of authority over and against the fitting opportunities for shared power in implementation minimizes and diminishes the essential role of the laity’s responsibility for the mission and ministry of our Church. The body is not breathing at full capacity and the head is deprived of oxygen if the ordained govern in isolation.

57. The beauty of de facto and de jure authority in the Church is that they have both always been present in ever-evolving, often complementary, and sometimes corrective, ways. In as much as we are each co-creators of God’s Kingdom on earth, they hold together the creative tension between remaining careful stewards, rooted in Tradition, with the call to a lively faith responsive to the signs of the times.

58. Once we believe that everything depends on human effort as channeled by ecclesial rules and structures, we unconsciously complicate the Gospel and become enslaved to a blueprint that leaves few openings for the working of grace.[40]

59. To bring up the topic of “co-responsibility for the being and mission of the Church,” as Pope Benedict XVI did in 2009, is to invoke the ecclesiology of Vatican II as an arrested development, a vision never fulfilled, a task never completed.[41] The current synod is attempting to move this task closer to completion.

60. “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” (Lumen Gentium §10).

61. The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful, participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered to one another,” they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace—a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit—the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ builds up and leads his Church.[42]

62. 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 Body. 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.[43]

63. Co-responsibility is 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.[44]

64. The true exercise of the baptismal priesthood is not freelancing independent of the ecclesial community or its communion, and neither is it exercised independently 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. One heroic model of this is Dorothy Day. She did not ask permission from Cardinal Spellman to operate, nor did she defy him on matters pertaining to his teaching and pastoral authority. She fostered rather than broke communion.[45]

65. Six hundred years earlier, Catherine of Siena acted as the conscience of her bishop and the pope, writing for a return to communion.

66. John Henry Newman asserted the position that in the life of the Church the consent of the faithful has an essential function. The episcopate defines the doctrine, the tradition, but these are also testified by the living faith of the people.[46]

67. If leadership is all about relationship, then, where relationship does not exist, leadership can and will falter under stress. In such a case, we default to personal and institutional power instead of internal communion.

68. Cultivating authentic relationships necessitates that one understand one’s own possession and sources of power and authority, so that one might use one’s capacity to influence to empower—rather than exploit—others, foster trust, and fulfill the mission of Christ.[47] Power used rightly is life-giving, we might even say (co-)creative.

69. The result of intimate association is a certain fusion of individualities in a common whole, so that one’s very self, for many purposes at least, is the common life and purpose of the group. Perhaps the simplest way of describing the wholeness is by saying that it is a “we”; it involves the sort of sympathy and mutual identification for which “we” is the natural expression.[48]

70. A “we” implies sympathy and mutual identification. The Church has ritualized this understanding liturgically: “We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory.”

71. In Catherine of Siena’s dialogue with God, the Lord says to her: “I have appointed them (holy ministers) to you to be angels on earth . . . When they are less than that, you ought to pray for them. But you are not to judge them. Leave the judging to me, and I, because of your prayer and my own desire, will be merciful to them.”[49]

72. Co-responsibility re-centers us around a mystery of communion, neither displacing nor rendering the hierarchy irrelevant. As Dulles writes, “mystical communion is at once inward and outward; horizontal and vertical; earthly and heavenly; human and divine.”[50] These are the natures of Christ and of his Body, the Church.

73. The first draft of propositions following the Synod on the Laity in 1987 recognized the power of episcopal conferences to establish lay ministries within the limits set by canon law. This provision was cancelled in the second and final drafts. Instead the statement reads: “The Church has need of the participation of a greater number of laity in parochial activities so that a process of evangelization suited to present-day circ*mstances may be put into effect. Such lay tasks do not require sacred orders.’[51]

74. Thirty-five years later, in the summer of 2022, Pope Francis formally opened the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte to women and added the new role of catechist to the list of instituted ministries by changing the code of canon law.[52]

75. Lumen Gentium describes the function of the laity “gathered together in the People of God and making up the Body of Christ. . . . They are called upon, as living members, to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church and its continuous sanctification, since this very energy is a gift of the Creator.”[53]

76. Every activity of the mystical body of the Church that has in view spreading Christ’s kingdom throughout the world to the glory of God, sharing in the saving work of redemption so that the entire world may be truly directed towards Christ, goes by the name “apostolate.”[54]

77. Part of the way in which we understand our unique roles and responsibilities in the Church is through our vocational state’s relationship to the Eucharist.

78. Liturgy is the source toward which activity of the Church is directed, and the summit from which all its (the Church’s) power flows.[55]

79. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Church significantly limited the laity’s participation in the Church’s mission. Sacrosanctum Concilium began to rectify this by amending the laity’s participation in the liturgy. The document exhorted the Church to ensure the laity’s active participation at Mass. Two years later in Apostolicam Actuositatem the Council fathers reminded the Catholic Church that it is Jesus himself, not the Catholic Church, that calls the laity to action, and bestows upon them the authority to do so.[56]

80. There are ecclesial structures which can hamper efforts at evangelization, yet even good structures are only helpful when there is a life constantly driving, sustaining, and assessing them. Without new life and an authentic evangelical spirit, without the Church’s “fidelity to her own calling,” any new structure will soon prove ineffective.[57]

81. The ministerial priesthood and the baptismal priesthood are responsible to and for one another. We stand or fall together.[58]

82. Power is an important topic in seminary formation. It is important to simultaneously destigmatize it and help future ministers fully recognize and appropriate their own sources of power. We destigmatize it by explaining that power is like money; it has no moral/ethical value until it is used. It is therefore neutral, neither positive nor negative in and of itself. Its helpful or hurtful valence entirely depends on the one using it.

83. “Where there is great power there is great responsibility, where there is less power there is less responsibility, and where there is no power there can, I think, be no responsibility,” Winston Churchill once said.[59]

84. Power comes in three general forms. Personal power relates to one’s person—size, personality, attractiveness, courtesy, trendiness, humor, tact—or one’s office. Expert power comes from one’s credentials and experience. Referent power is based on one’s relationships and past positions one may have held (this is the power of a wife to influence her husband; or a past chair advising a new chair, etc.).

85. The Wedding at Cana serves as a helpful Scriptural paradigm for co-responsibility. The primary actors in the story are Mary and Jesus. Notably, in our theology, the Church itself is modeled both as the Body of Christ and takes Mary as a model of discipleship. In the passage, Jesus acts in the sacramental role “confecting” wine out of water. Mary acts as a lay person in right relationship to the sacramental authority. Immersed in the quotidian interests of the world around them, she calls to mind what needs attention and sanctification. Having fulfilled her role, she trusts in him to fulfill his.

86. Applying the lens of power to the wedding at Cana, Mary exercises significantly more power than Jesus, even if his is the more spectacular. She uses expert power in her assessment and attentiveness to the situation—they are going to run out of wine and that would be egregious for a wedding feast. She uses her referent power—approaching her son so that he might act. In the same moment, she uses her personal power—she knows her son, she knows how to approach him, she knows what to say, and what not to say. Finally, she uses her personal power as an invited guest in her own right when she tells the stewards to do as her son says. Jesus then uses his personal power over the created order to change water into wine.

87. In the New Testament early Christian communities were not afraid of critiquing their leaders. They saw them clearly and transparently and named what was fitting and unfitting . . . the seeds of synodality.

88. Metaphors for co-responsibility may be helpful. We can look at co-responsibility for the mission of the Church distributed the way it might be with a sports team. The owner of the team would be God the creator. Jesus, the God-man, entrusts the game plan (The Way and the Church) to the Apostles, who ultimately coach the team (Peter is the dugout coach and Paul is a recruiter/trainer). The captains of the team would be the clergy, selected from among the members, spending dedicated time with the coaches and responsible for elevating the play of each of their teammates. Players are all the faithful, filling their roles and positions to work toward one shared goal—sanctification of the world. For fun, we can continue with the metaphor and notice how saints might be All-Stars or MVPs. We can apply trendy team mottos such as “One Team, One Heartbeat” and see resonance with Scripture, “with the same love, united in heart” (Phil 2:2). But above all, we notice, it is essential that everyone buys into and takes ownership of the game plan. It has real effects on execution—in this case our being and doing in the world.

89. In line with St. Paul (Phil 2:25 and Philemon 1:2), we could also use the military as a metaphor for co-responsibility. In this case the officers are the hierarchical organs of the body. They outrank all the enlisted that are not officers (“differing in essence not only degree”). However, in the military, impact does not exclusively correspond to rank. In pursuit of a shared mission, substantial contributions come from all quarters and are welcome, and respected. “Mission first, people always.”[60]

90. We can look at co-responsibility like a rowing crew. It is no stretch for us to see the shell (the boat) as an image of the local Church, making her way across the waters of the secular temporal plane, the river. The bishop resembles the coxswain whose number one responsibility is the (spiritual) safety of the rowers. As the eyes and ears and voice of the crew, the cox calls out instructions, offers minor (and sometimes major) adjustments to individuals or the crew at large, and steers the shell between the shores. While to the average eye rowers may all seem similar, each seat in the crew has specialized skill and fills a particular role (“essence and not degree”). The eighth seat, the “stroke,” sitting closest to the cox in the back of the boat, can receive direct instruction, keeps the pace, and acts as the engine room of the crew setting both the physical and emotional tone, like our priests and especially our pastors.

91. Perhaps the view of co-responsible leadership in the Church is counter-cultural in that it does not come with the worldly view of power. Like Jesus on the cross, it subverts the dominating view of power. In the fullness of co-responsibility, power used rightly becomes less about influence and control and more about co-creativity with common buy-in and shared, complementary mission.

92. What does co-responsibility for the Church feel like? It feels like one does not need to prove one’s love of the Church. There exists an essential nature of trust between and among those involved.

93. It feels like when a congregation or choir are so tuned into one another as they sing, they not only listen for one another, but begin to breathe together. Inhale. Exhale. One Body.

94. “Missions move at the speed of trust.” In addition to trust, co-responsible leadership requires all parties possess a healthy dose of humility and that they are practiced at flexibility.

95. Lively faith, rootedness in Tradition, competence, and creative fidelity[61] are the coin of the realm. Continual conversion of the Church to the Gospel demands that all leadership—lay and ordained alike—deal in this currency.

96. A Synod on Synodality invites the Church to examine the foundations of who can speak and how we speak as a Church. It also surfaces the questions: “who is speaking to whom?”[62] and, “who is listening?” Synodality cannot be successful without the proper use of one’s power in conjunction with the power of others.[63]

97. A culture of accountability is an integral part of a synodal Church that promotes co-responsibility, as well as a possible safeguard against abuse. There is a call for making the Episcopal Council and diocesan pastoral council mandatory and for making diocesan bodies of co-responsibility more operational.[64]

98. The exercise of co-responsibility is essential for synodality and is necessary at all levels of the Church. Every Christian is a mission in this world. If mission is a grace that engages the whole Church, the lay faithful contribute in a vital way. It is they above all who make the Church present and proclaim the Gospel in the culture.[65]

99. Do most folks in the pews have a fixed mindset about what their role in the life and mission of the Church is? Perhaps then, synodality is about moving the church, and all of us, into a growth mindset.

100. Synodality and co-responsibility are about having a growth mindset toward sanctification, evangelization, and governance. Synodality makes room for voices. Co-responsibility makes clear we all have voices and perspectives on how to encounter the signs of the times and meet them, creating encounters of love that witness to Jesus Christ.[66]