Cardinal under fire for new monsignors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beau_Ouiville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Beau_Ouiville

Guest
I’m of two minds on this. Do we any other way to honor priests for their years of service?

"A clerical title rarely bestowed on Chicago priests since Vatican II has been revived and conferred on 20 priests in the Chicago Archdiocese, much to the dismay of some clergy who oppose the honorary distinction.

Earlier this year, Cardinal Francis George submitted the 20 priests to be named monsignors by Pope Benedict XVI after some priests reportedly cautioned him against the gesture.

Although the list includes priests serving in positions historically designated for monsignors — the rector of Mundelein Seminary, the CEO of Chicago’s Catholic Charities and the pastor of Holy Name Cathedral, the seat of the Chicago Archdiocese — it also includes 11 retired priests from a wide spectrum of ministries, including one who has served in the archdiocese for 75 years.

“Each of them deserves to be honored by the pope and the rest of us, but each of them also stands for brother archdiocesan priests who have served the church in various ministries, here and elsewhere, for many years,” George wrote in an introduction of the monsignors in the Catholic New World, the archdiocese newspaper."

chicagotribune.com/news/religion/ct-x-monsignor-0910-20100910,0,3921753.story
 
We have lots of Monsignors here in the St. Louis Archdiocese. My (new) pastor is one (before coming to us, he was the Rector of the seminary, but I don’t know if that’s why he was made a Monsignor or not). I had no idea it was controversial? :confused:

In Christ,

Ellen
 
Okay, I will admit to ignorance but I was under the impression that the granting of the title of Monsignor never went away.
the article:
In Chicago, a stigma has been attached to the title of monsignor since Cardinal John Cody took the helm of the local church in 1967. Priests at that time asked Cody to refrain from asking the pope to confer the title to avoid creating a caste system among the clergy. Nearly three decades later, his immediate successor, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, continued the moratorium after many priests, including Mayall, voted against reviving the honorific.
Click to expand...
Is this just a Chicago thing, or is it more global?
 
Dale_M said:
Okay, I will admit to ignorance but I was under the impression that the granting of the title of Monsignor never went away.
Click to expand...
After Vatican II, it was generally considered passe. * Priests* are the ones who complained about the practice. As noted in the news story, the practice had the effect of creating a caste among priests.

The moratorium has been in effect in many dioceses. Look, the title literally means “my lord”. Isn’t that sort of medieval?
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
After Vatican II, it was generally considered passe. * Priests* are the ones who complained about the practice. As noted in the news story, the practice had the effect of creating a caste among priests.

The moratorium has been in effect in many dioceses. Look, the title literally means “my lord”. Isn’t that sort of medieval?
Click to expand...
That’s also what they call (male) judges in England. Are they medieval? And what’s up with bringing up the sex abuse scandal as a reason not to do it? How is that remotely related? Can the Church do NOTHING but sit around in ashes and sackcloth until the last victim dies? We probably shouldn’t be celebrating Mass, that’s too joyful an event, also , in light of the sex abuse crisis :rolleyes:

In Christ,

Ellen
 
The rector of the Cathedral parish here is a monsignor and he is by no means “old” being in his fifties. I have seen a bunch of other monsignors here, mostly retired or helping out, but the pastor at the basilica is also a monsignor.

I am a little skeptical of the “caste” argument, because isn’t a bishop another “caste” of priest, or a pastor/rector versus a parochial vicar/assistant, etc. The Church is hierarchical after all. 🤷
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
After Vatican II, it was generally considered passe. * Priests* are the ones who complained about the practice. As noted in the news story, the practice had the effect of creating a caste among priests.

The moratorium has been in effect in many dioceses. Look, the title literally means “my lord”. Isn’t that sort of medieval?
Click to expand...
Ah, the rebellion against all things medieval.

Yes, it is medieval. It’s absolutely wonderful. You know, Abraham lived back during the Bronze Age I suppose.

In the Catholic Church, we look backwards and forwards at the same time.
 
ALLGIRLS said:
That’s also what they call (male) judges in England. Are they medieval?
Click to expand...
They wear wigs, too. Only some judges on some levels are referred to a ‘my lord’. Highly medieval and anachronistic.
ALLGIRLS said:
And what’s up with bringing up the sex abuse scandal as a reason not to do it? How is that remotely related?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is related at all.
 
It will create a caste system? Gimme a break! Likewise for it being medieval.
Besides, there’s always a caste system, the priests probably just don’t want the bishop doling out any honors.

There’s nothing wrong with honoring priests for long or distinguished service – I might question the ones that go automatically to the Rector of Mundelein Seminary, pastor of the Cathedral, &c.
 
Call me naive, but I always assumed that Monsignor was awarded to priests who were known to be rather successful in their ministry. They were known to be more holy, they were known to be more successful in managing their parishes. They were esteemed by all who knew them, including fellow priests.

I always thought that Monsignors were those priests that were more likely to be selected to be Bishop someday although most do not become bishops.

To publically say someone is more successful is NOT to say others are not. What is the ratio - say 10% of priests are designated Monsignors?

But I would also think that there may be more priests who are recognized as Saints in Heaven than there are Monsignors. Does any one know that statistic?
 
Complaining about men being made monsignors has no more justification than complaining that some people get prizes or awards. Give the pulitzer prize to someone? Giving a student an award for good work? What good reason is there for complaining about such things.
 
I believe in the Archdiocese of Chicago, the priests who would have been made Monsignor were given the honorary title of Emeritus instead.
 
bear in mind such an honor belongs to the entire priesthood, and the entire diocese, not just a personal distinction for the man who receives it.
 
From what I’ve seen, priests are very divided on the issue of Monsignors. It is a nice way to recognize priests who have gone “above and beyond.” But it also can become a sort of political game which is not good. It all depends on how the Bishop uses it. He can use it as a sort of special recognition or he can use it to play political favorites. I think most Bishops are aware enough to spread out the honorific title amongst a wide variety of priests and ministries.
 
I have not even heard of this “controversy” about whether or not to give the title “Monsignor” to a priest in the Rockford diocese (and I have met at least one I would swear was in his 40s - though I am a terrible judge of age). Monsignor or not, I have yet to hear about a priest who is NOT loved by the flock. Heck, even our pediatrician, who doesn’t attend our church and lives on the border of the Rockford/Joliet diocese knows our pastor (who never has been a priest at any of the parishes even near her). Maybe it’s because we are a small diocese, but I have yet to hear about egos or hurt pride among the priests. The only thing I have heard is that our bishop rules with an iron fist (which causes nothing but consistent teaching throughout the diocese from the pulpit). 👍
 
I always thought that the rank or title monsignor was one step below a bishop.
I don’t understand what the problem with the title is, since it is I guess honaray
 
Dale_M said:
Okay, I will admit to ignorance but I was under the impression that the granting of the title of Monsignor never went away.

Is this just a Chicago thing, or is it more global?
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure this is a “Chicago thing,” While it might also exist in other geographic pockets, it not a global suppression of the title, nor is it generally passe. I have lived in about a dozen diocese since Vatican II and there have always been Monsignors named.

It sounds like Cardinal Geoge is just trying to get Chicago back on the same page as the rest of the Church in the US. 👍
 
Corki said:
I am pretty sure this is a “Chicago thing,”

It sounds like Cardinal Geoge is just trying to get Chicago back on the same page as the rest of the Church in the US. 👍
Click to expand...
While the Chicago presbyterate is more likely than others to be openly hostile, its not alone in having mixed reactions about the making of Monsignors. I know of one bishop who was shocked to find out that several of his newly named Monsignors refused the title. And in every dicoese there’s always some grumbling frrom some about who got the title and who got passed over. However like I said, unlike Chicago, 99% of priests would never publicly criticise the bishop or the newly named Monsignors. We save that for our cocktail parties. LOL.
 
Here in the adjacent Rockford Diocese, the system seems to work smartly. I’ve so far only encountered two priests honored with the Monsignor title and both have made extraordinary priestly achievements, as should be the case.

I can see why there would be concerns in a diocese as large as Chicago where the bishop cannot possibly have enough of a personal relationship with all of his priests and thus fairly evaluate holiness and achievement. Perhaps that is more an argument for busting up megadioceses into smaller ones rather than an argument against the Monsignor title…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top