"administrator"

[G_S]

There are some valid reasons for appointing priest administrators. Some of these have already been cited. However, I suspect that they are often so appointed nowadays in order to bypass the term system. A pastor cannot be moved by his bishop – barring some horrendous situation. He is appointed for life (to age 75, actually) or for a term that has been determined as a matter of diocesan policy. What with the shortage of priests, which has been particularly acute in your diocese, some bishops choose to appoint priests as administrators which does not give them the protection from arbitrary moves that canon law tries to prevent. The letter of the canon is followed and the spirit is violated. Unfortunately, the priest’s role then becomes one of function, of personnel, of finding someone who can consecrate, anoint, and absolve. He is no longer a Father to his people, for what kind of family has rotating fathers? What kind of father is temporary? We are creating a new crisis whose implications are too dreadful to contemplate.

 

[lak611]

There are some valid reasons for appointing priest administrators. Some of these have already been cited. However, I suspect that they are often so appointed nowadays in order to bypass the term system. A pastor cannot be moved by his bishop – barring some horrendous situation. He is appointed for life (to age 75, actually) or for a term that has been determined as a matter of diocesan policy.

It is not unusual for a priest to be a pastor at one parish and then leave to be pastor at another parish. One of the former pastors of my parish is now pastor at another parish in the diocese. He is not retired, nor will he retire any time soon. He was pastor at my parish for 7 years, then got transferred to be pastor of another parish.

 

[G_S]

It is not unusual for a priest to be a pastor at one parish and then leave to be pastor at another parish. One of the former pastors of my parish is now pastor at another parish in the diocese. He is not retired, nor will he retire any time soon. He was pastor at my parish for 7 years, then got transferred to be pastor of another parish.

This can occur under two circumstances: 1. Your diocese has a term system which just might be seven years. 2. The priest asks for a transfer prior to the conclusion of his term or accedes to the bishop’s request to move. A bishop cannot move a pastor without his consent if his term is not completed or he has not reached retirement age. The bishop cannot have different length term for different pastors. If there is a six or seven year term, the pastor cannot be moved without his consent during that time. (We’re excluding extreme situations such as moral turpitude, stealing parish funds, mental breakdowns.) If a pastor was appointed prior to the diocese adopting a term system, he may remain in his pastorate for life but must offer his retirement to the bishop at age seventy-five.

 

[NickNicosia]

What exactly is a “pastoral administrator”? Does it have to be a priest? Does it entail a certain amount of education?

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

There are some valid reasons for appointing priest administrators. Some of these have already been cited. However, I suspect that they are often so appointed nowadays in order to bypass the term system. A pastor cannot be moved by his bishop – barring some horrendous situation. He is appointed for life (to age 75, actually) or for a term that has been determined as a matter of diocesan policy. What with the shortage of priests, which has been particularly acute in your diocese, some bishops choose to appoint priests as administrators which does not give them the protection from arbitrary moves that canon law tries to prevent. The letter of the canon is followed and the spirit is violated. Unfortunately, the priest’s role then becomes one of function, of personnel, of finding someone who can consecrate, anoint, and absolve. He is no longer a Father to his people, for what kind of family has rotating fathers? What kind of father is temporary? We are creating a new crisis whose implications are too dreadful to contemplate.

The “spirit” of the canon doesn’t matter. The “letter” is what matters.

At least thats what I hear in reference to Vatican II.

 

[NetNuncio]

The “spirit” of the canon doesn’t matter. The “letter” is what matters.

At least thats what I hear in reference to Vatican II.

There is a huge difference between the spirit in which a canon is written and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II”.

Violating the spirit in which a canon was written is to find a loophole around what the canon actually says and violate the REASON it was written.

The “Spirit of Vatican II” is actually a violation of the ACTUAL spirit of the Second Vatican Council. For example, using “The Spirit of Vatican II” to justify changing the words to the Liturgy is actually violating the TRUE spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Using a time of communal change in the Church in order to do whatever you want and then saying you are doing it in “the Spirit of Vatican II” is simply intellectual dishonesty and arrogance. The Second Vatican Council did not have the spirit of doing whatever you want. The Second Vatican Council didn’t intend to eliminate Latin, it didn’t intend to give the priest the authority to change the words of the Sacred Liturgies, it didn’t intend to give “liturgy committees” the authority to make up rituals, it did intend to make mock-clerics out of members of the laity. Doing these things in the “Spirit of Vatican II” shows either total ignorance of the reasons for Vatican II or the fruition of the highest level of arrogance.

 

[Holland]

Unfortunately, there are some priests who prefer what you are suggesting. The local priest here, has given more than one homily about how priests should not be “set apart” from the community. He also prefers to be addressed by his first name and not “Father”.

 

[lak611]

I am really confused about “administrator” now. There is a parish that had a pastor who became ill, they appointed another priest as administrator. He was administrator for over 5 years, then he left due to illness. The parish has yet another administrator. They have not had a pastor for over 10 years. Why would there not be an actual pastor at this parish for such a long time?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The use of term limits for pastors is actually, IIRC, supposed to be the “exception” to the rule: i.e., pastors are supposed to be appointed for an indefinite period of time, but it has been allowed to set a term limit for the first appointment to a place. I believe, though, and Dcn. Cameron can correct this, that if a pastor’s assignment is “renewed” at the end of that first term, it is supposed to then be for an indefinite time as the law prefers.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Sadly, we have no new priests here in the Albany diocese so these are all transfers, none are being sent to their first parish. I guess it makes sense if this title makes it easier to reassign a priest because right now we are going thru a lot of parish closings and consolidations.

Part of what bugs me is seeing on parish bulletins:
Fr. John Smith, Administrator
Mary Jones, Assistant Administrator

which seems to imply a near-equality Fr. Smith & Ms. (in some cases Sr.) Jones.

Here in the Greensburg Diocese the priests that serve two or more parishes are considered administrators at their non-primary parish. Also if the assignment is temporary they are also considered administrators till the final decision is made on the assignment.

 

[lak611]

I am really confused about “administrator” now. There is a parish that had a pastor who became ill, they appointed another priest as administrator. He was administrator for over 5 years, then he left due to illness. The parish has yet another administrator. They have not had a pastor for over 10 years. Why would there not be an actual pastor at this parish for such a long time?

I e-mailed the Diocese of Cleveland with my question. I’ll post their response when I hear from them.