A Tour of Duty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter malta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

malta

Guest
I recently read an article by Fr. Andrew Greeley in Commonweal about priests being allowed the opportunity to step down honorably from active ministry. Priesthood would operate like military service.

Priests would sign on for five years at a time, every five years the priest and the diocese would have the option of continuing for another five or either one could choose not to renew. If the priest chose to not continue he would be a member in good standing , free to marry etc. But forbidden to operate as a priest except in case of emergency.

And don’t give me the "priest forever " business. This would not deny the eternal nature of the priesthood. It would simply be a matter of priest and bishop making a prudential decision about whether the Church is best served by a particular priest remaining in active ministry.

We could maintain a celibate clergy. Attract many young men who would be willing to give 5 or 10 years of their life to the church with the option of leaving honorably. It would also give bishops a way of getting rid of problem priests.

What do you think?:yup: or :nope: ?
 
40.png
malta:
I recently read an article by Fr. Andrew Greeley in Commonweal about priests being allowed the opportunity to step down honorably from active ministry. Priesthood would operate like military service.

Priests would sign on for five years at a time, every five years the priest and the diocese would have the option of continuing for another five or either one could choose not to renew. If the priest chose to not continue he would be a member in good standing , free to marry etc. But forbidden to operate as a priest except in case of emergency.

And don’t give me the "priest forever " business. This would not deny the eternal nature of the priesthood. It would simply be a matter of priest and bishop making a prudential decision about whether the Church is best served by a particular priest remaining in active ministry.

We could maintain a celibate clergy. Attract many young men who would be willing to give 5 or 10 years of their life to the church with the option of leaving honorably. It would also give bishops a way of getting rid of problem priests.

What do you think?:yup: or :nope: ?
Click to expand...
i would rather have a man who wants to devote his life to the cause… I personally think the way were (or Rome for that matter) are doing it now… i don’t believe requesting less is the way to go. It’s a calling not a job… 👍
 
40.png
malta:
And don’t give me the "priest forever " business. This would not deny the eternal nature of the priesthood. It would simply be a matter of priest and bishop making a prudential decision about whether the Church is best served by a particular priest remaining in active ministry.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you here.

It would deny the eternal nature of the priesthood.

It would destroy the sacred nature of it. It would make it so it is no longer a vocation.

It would become nothing more than a career choice.
 
Here’s a reference from a Commonweal book review on Father Greeley’s book Priests A Calling in Crisis, reviewed by Thomas Baker:
Greeley’s own prescriptions for change start with his claim that priests themselves, for whatever reason, are not asking young men around them to consider the priesthood. That may be true. But the fact is that the current job requirements to be a priest are a difficult package deal-celibate, full-time, lifelong, and all-male, with perhaps an uninspiring boss thrown in for good measure-that simply isn’t bringing in candidates. The permanent diaconate has made remarkable progress in the past thirty-five years by tinkering with one or two of these requirements, and, says Greeley, it’s only a failure of imagination and courage that prevents us from experimenting in the priesthood as well.
Click to expand...
Near the end of this short, highly readable book, Greeley proposes something he’s suggested before: a “priest corps” of young ordained recruits who sign up for a ten-year hitch and then, at age thirty-something, decide whether to reenlist or retire with honor. I’m sure there are many reasons why this might not work-but there are very few better proposals that have any chance of being tried. As always, Andrew Greeley is a source of common sense, creative thinking, and passion about a vocation that, sadly for the rest of us, seems to have run out of all of them.
Click to expand...
Here’s the link to the whole review: Review

John
 
40.png
malta:
I recently read an article by Fr. Andrew Greeley in Commonweal about priests being allowed the opportunity to step down honorably from active ministry. Priesthood would operate like military service.

Priests would sign on for five years at a time, every five years the priest and the diocese would have the option of continuing for another five or either one could choose not to renew. If the priest chose to not continue he would be a member in good standing , free to marry etc. But forbidden to operate as a priest except in case of emergency.

And don’t give me the "priest forever " business. This would not deny the eternal nature of the priesthood. It would simply be a matter of priest and bishop making a prudential decision about whether the Church is best served by a particular priest remaining in active ministry.

We could maintain a celibate clergy. Attract many young men who would be willing to give 5 or 10 years of their life to the church with the option of leaving honorably. It would also give bishops a way of getting rid of problem priests.

What do you think?:yup: or :nope: ?
Click to expand...
I think he’s out of his gourd. God doesn’t call us for five years at a clip. We each have our own vocation and it lasts a lifetime.
 
Yes, I agree, that the priesthood should be like the military, and if a priest commits an abuse, either liturgical or sexual, he should go to the brig!

I love a pope, forget his name. He ordered priests to leave their girlfriends, if they didn’t, he sent them to the gallies. (row boats).
 
40.png
malta:
And don’t give me the "priest forever " business.
Click to expand...
:nope: The “priest forever business” can’t be put aside. The nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders is like that of Baptism and Confirmation - it confers a character on the soul that cannot be removed. This is by divine fiat, not by the rules of men. It’s a spiritual reality, not a discipline.

Betsy
 
The priesthood is a vocation, a call from God as to how to spend your life. So is marriage or singlehood. What kind of message would this send to those of us who answered “yes” to the vocation of marriage? That we can review our options after 5 or 10 years?

Seminaries doing a better job, maybe over a longer period of time at helping with dicernment and formation is a much better option.
 
Thanks for the responses, but I don’t think you guys are being very honest about the complexity of living out a sacred calling. The truth is a person’s vocation can change over time. The church’s history is filled with people(some of them saints) who had “late” or “second” vocations. Many entered the priesthood, the monastery or convent after the death of a spouse. Some married couples actually chose to separate and both parties entered religous life. Sounds like they “reveiwed their options” and made a choice that was supported by the Church.

Baltobetsy makes the best point, the Sacrament of Holy Orders like baptism and confirmation impresses the soul with a permanent character and one certainly wouldn’t want to be relesed from one’s baptismal vows or confirmation responsibilities, because that would mean one is no longer a christian. However bishops often remove the faculties of problem priests, so it is possible for one to be a priest without functioning as a priest. For those of us who have endured the “leadership” and seen the damage wrought by priests who have given up on their vocations it sometimes seems like not a bad idea.
 
I can only agree with pretty much everybody who said it sounds like a bad idea. I would elaborate but I think everybody else is saying everything that I would.

So in conclusion,

:nope:
 
An opinion coming from a “priest” who calls God a MOTHER, writes soft core porn ,thinks women should be ordained and thinks catholics can vote for pro murder presidential candidates… :rolleyes:

Tour of duty? NOPE…if a priest goes bad and cant be turned, then why should he be allowed to “honorably” step down…that has abuse written all over it…DEFROCK him …yeah…DEFROCK…I am ALL FOR THAT if he doesnt wanna live up to his calling.
 
40.png
malta:
I recently read an article by Fr. Andrew Greeley in Commonweal about priests being allowed the opportunity to step down honorably from active ministry. Priesthood would operate like military service.

Priests would sign on for five years at a time, every five years the priest and the diocese would have the option of continuing for another five or either one could choose not to renew. If the priest chose to not continue he would be a member in good standing , free to marry etc. But forbidden to operate as a priest except in case of emergency.

And don’t give me the "priest forever " business. This would not deny the eternal nature of the priesthood. It would simply be a matter of priest and bishop making a prudential decision about whether the Church is best served by a particular priest remaining in active ministry.

We could maintain a celibate clergy. Attract many young men who would be willing to give 5 or 10 years of their life to the church with the option of leaving honorably. It would also give bishops a way of getting rid of problem priests.

What do you think?:yup: or :nope: ?
Click to expand...
Hey, that’s just right! After all that is what Christ does isn’t it. Doesn’t Christ re-up every 5 years? Hey man kewl. God, too. Hey, Paul did it that way. Peter was a Pope for 5 and then re-upped again. Didn’t they? Sure, why should our priests be any different, especially after only 2,000 years of tradition? I mean, you know! We are the enlightened ones. Especially Fr. Greeley if the quote is correct.

Quit being stupid…
Whit
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
An opinion coming from a “priest” who calls God a MOTHER, writes soft core porn ,thinks women should be ordained and thinks catholics can vote for pro murder presidential candidates… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Let me go on record stating that I think Andrew Greely is an idiot and Commonweal possibly the lamest magazine in existence but ad hominen attacks are not logical arguments. Can’t we all agree that we would be better off if Andrew Greeley had stepped down after five years? :rolleyes:
Tour of duty? NOPE…if a priest goes bad and cant be turned, then why should he be allowed to “honorably” step down…that has abuse written all over it…DEFROCK him …yeah…DEFROCK…I am ALL FOR THAT if he doesnt wanna live up to his calling.
Click to expand...
But isn’t this what we should be trying to avoid? You want to wait until a crime is committed or heresy promulgated or the man becomes a drunkard before anything is done about it? It is the very priests we want, happy, commited and hard working who will stay and the very priests we don’t want who will be most likely to leave.
 
Quit being stupid…
Whit
Click to expand...
Thanks for the unnecessary insult… And thanks as well for a new argument. The earthly ministry of Jesus was only 3 years long, yet Jesus lived to be 33. The church has always taught that the years between 12 and 30 constitute the hidden life of Jesus. He lived quietly at Nazareth for 18 years working as a carpenter. Why? He knew his vocation. Was he dragging his feet? Wouldn’t 20 years of preaching and healing be better than 3? Yet Jesus chose to be active on earth for only 3.

I don’t pretend to know the answer but the gospels make it clear that Jesus was concerned that his public ministry take place at the right time, that it not begin too soon or end too quickly. The gospels are sprinkled with the phrase: " My hour has not yet come". “My time is not yet.” Jesus was aware that he had to operate within a certain window of time. He did what he needed to do in 3 years and then “It is finished.”

Assuming that not everyone is called to be a martyr, then isn’t it possible that one might fulfill a certain calling in a limited window of time and then move on to another one?

Or perhaps we should get rid of priests at the end of five years because if they haven’t gotten themselves martyred in that amount of time they are’nt doing their jobs… :rotfl: Just kidding on that last bit.
 
This sounds like our union contract at work. Every four years we negotiate, and work out a new contract. I can see what would happen with priests. They would say, "Well, I’ll sign for another 5 years, but here’s a few things that need to be corrected. Let’s negotiate! How about more pay? At better parish? More vacation? I know you are short of priests, so you can’t afford a strike. (Just kidding about all of the above, but I think they should leave things the way they are.) Pray for more vocations.
 
The Sacrament of Holy Orders places an indelible mark on the soul of a recipient. It doesn’t expire in 5 years. Also the main characteristic of the priesthood is who the priest is, not what he does.
 
Personally I think this “tour of duty” idea is a terrible one. Imagine applying the same logic to a marriage! “Well, honey, the last five years have sure been fun, but really I need to find myself and move on, so, we’re done. Oh hey, and thanks for the three kiddos. Later”

Please.

Priesthood is a calling. Ordination places an indelible mark on a man’s soul. I cannot let you “leave behind” the “priest forever” business because it is TRUE. Personally, I’d far rather have three thousand priests in the entire country who are totally devoted to God than thirty three thousand who are “in it for now.”

Ad hominem arguments aside, Greeley is not exactly someone whose ideas I would consider small “o” orthodox.
 
Poor analogy trying to tie in Jesus 3 years with a 5 year tour of duty for priests…The “TOD” presupposes that a Priest no longer has any obligation cause he is either burnt out, lost faith, fell in love, etc… After 3 years, Chirst didnt STOP his OBLIGATION to (US) MANKIND…he remains an ETERNAL PRIEST, working tirelessly for our salvations…he even went so far as to be BEATEN, SCOURGED, SPIT UPON, and NAILED to a CROSS after his “earthly tour of duty”…he didnt have the luxury ( to just step down) and neither should a Priest…you no longer want your obligation?..due to whatever…DEFROCK him I say…if the Church allows for reconversion and readmittance…fine…Christ didnt step down and neither should a priest…this fits into the same kind of false argument when people say, its not right for Priests to remain celebate or not to marry…what then…should we use the “3 year Jesus rule”? "Well…Chirst only lived to 33, or ministered for only 3 years…that was MUCH easier in that short time to stay single and/or celebate than to expect a man to go 60-70 years without having sex or being married. :rolleyes:
 
The term defrock does not appear in the Code of Canon Law. What penalties would this include?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top