The case of the boundary hoppers

Three Challenges to the Pastoral Council

Case 1: Youth vs. Elders

Father Gomez has been saving money to add another staff position to St. Albertus Magnus Church. For a long time, he has felt that the parish needed a second youth minister. He has asked the pastoral council to help him plan for the establishment of such a ministry and the hiring of a youth minister.

Recently, some senior citizens in the parish have heard about Father Gomez’s plan. They feel that he is paying more attention to the youth than to the elderly. They petition him to establish an outreach for the elderly and to hire an eldercare director. How should the pastor resolve the problem?

Case 2: The Liturgist

Father Gagliardi has hired a new Director of Liturgy and Music. She is a renowned choral conductor who has taught at the university level. Arriving at the parish, she informed Father Gagliardi that the parish’s musical repertoire needed to grow. She began to introduce unfamiliar hymns (despite the grumbling of parishioners) and wanted to double the size of the parish’s music library.

The other staff members were pleased to add such an accomplished person to their team, but the finance council was wary of the budget increase. How can the pastoral council help Father Gagliardi discover how the parish will receive the proposed liturgical changes?

Case 3: The Parish Hall

For five years, Father Hehir (in concert with the parish business manager and the pastoral and finance councils) has been raising money to build a parish hall. Then Bishop O’Reilley, presiding at the parish Confirmation, advised Father Hehir not to build a hall at all. The bishop said that he would prefer Father Hehir to renovate the existing church.

This put Father Hehir in a quandary. If he were to obey the bishop, he would run the risk of offending the parishioners who had contributed expressly to build a hall. But if he were to pursue the original plan for the hall, Father Hehir might offend the bishop and not secure a diocesan loan.
The business manager urges Father Hehir to honor the bishop’s wish. The pastoral council chairperson wants to put the matter on his agenda. The finance council chairperson says that it is a matter exclusively for his council, whose job is to aid the pastor in the administration of parish goods. To whom should Father Hehir listen?

Intergroup Disagreement and Power

Personal Power

1. 
   Expert Power. What can a native Spanish speaker do when the parish deacon does not feel comfortable ministering to Spanish speakers, and so avoids Spanish-speaking ministry?
   

2. 
   Information Power. The liturgy committee begins to plan a bi-lingual celebration of the Easter vigil. What can a seminarian who knows the liturgy thoroughly do in this situation?
   

3. 
   Referent Power. The ushers are willing to learn a few phrases in Spanish to welcome people to their seats, but will not substitute pan dulce for donuts. What can a seminarian do when the pastor is unhappy about this situation?
   

Position Power

4. 
   Legitimate Power. The adult education committee and the social justice committee have conflicting ideas about ministry to the immigrants. If the pastor asks the associate to mediate their conflict, what can the associate do?
   

5. 
   Reward Power. The parents of the parochial school do not care to get involved in the issue of Spanish-language ministry, so long as the tuition does not change. How can the pastor introduce bilingual liturgies for the school?
   

6. 
   Connection Power. Some of the ministers of communion dislike the presence of poor immigrants at Mass, but nevertheless continue to distribute the Hosts at the pastor’s request. At an evening of reflection, what can the associate pastor do to influence the ministers of communion?
   

7. 
   Coercion Power. The parish secretary is rude to those who speak no English, and refuses to change. What can the pastor do?
   

Basic Orientation to Conflict Management

By Rev. Richard Conboy, Ph.D., Diocese of Pittsburgh (July 2, 1997)
Introduction

Conflict occurs within a context of interdependence. The game of poker provides an example. The gains of one party are directly related to the losses of the other. If conflicting parties did not depend on one another, and if the actions of one did not have consequence for the other, conflict would probably not occur. This explains our fear of conflict. Conflict disrupts order. It may lead to the dismemberment and destruction of the system. Interdependence also offers hope, however, for constructive resolution. If the system has value for all, interdependence may lead people to create an acceptable solution of the conflict. This may even improve the system.

The resolution of conflict may also increase the level of trust between conflicting parties. But conflict management should not be attempted unless parties are willing to get to know and understand each other better. Conflict is usually about one of the following issues:
Needs Conflicts

1. Needs conflicts arise regarding the control over scarce resources, such as space, property, money, power, prestige, food, etc., where two or more parties seek exclusive possession of, or sue for control over, a given part of the resource.

2. Needs conflicts also arise over the nature of the relationship between two or more parties, where the parties have opposing views and desires about the relationship.
Values Conflicts

3. Values conflicts arise when two or more parties disagree on what “should be.” It is not the value per se that leads to the conflict but rather the claim that one value should dominate or be applied generally even by those who hold different values.

4. Values conflicts also arise over Beliefs. Parties may disagree over what “is” such as facts, information, knowledge, or beliefs about reality.

5. Values conflicts arise over preferences, where the tastes of two or more parties impinge on each other’s preferences, sensitivities, or sensibilities.

In general, needs conflicts are best solved through a distributive approach and values conflicts through an integrative approach. An example of a distributive approach would be compromise or negotiation. An example of an integrative approach would be collaboration.
There are several behavioral patterns that can be observed to distinguish between distributive and integrative approaches or situations. Several persons working together on a parlor jig-saw puzzle is an integrative situation. They are persons integrating their resources toward a common task. A buyer’s interaction with a used-car dealer in an effort to arrive at the purchase price of a used car will be primarily distributive bargaining.

Your Conflict Style

Most people find a way of dealing with conflict in their own lives. They tend to use this way to deal with every conflict because they are comfortable with it. But different situations and sources of conflict require different approaches to resolution.

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann have developed a theory about various conflict management styles. We can look at their work as a way to understand our own usual style and to expand awareness of when and how it is appropriately used. Thomas and Kilmann describe five conflict styles based on the degrees of active listening and assertion they involve. These five styles can be shown as follows.

Avoiding (low listening/low assertion) is appropriate when issues are trivial, when there is no chance to let people cool off, or when others can solve the problem more effectively.
Accommodating (high listening/low assertion) is appropriate when you realize you are wrong, when harmony is especially crucial, when the issue is much more important to the other than it is to you, or to build up “social credits.”
Compromising (medium listening and assertion) is appropriate when those of equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals, to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues, or to expedite solution when time is short.
Competing (low listening/high assertion) is appropriate when quick action is vital (e.g., in an emergency) or when unpopular ideas have to be implemented (e.g., cost cutting or disciplinary measures).
Collaborating (high listening/high assertion) is appropriate when learning is important, to merge insights from people with various perspectives, or to find a mutually acceptable solution when issues are too important to be compromised.