Freelance Priests

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A deacon can not do “almost everything a priest does” as the only Sacraments a Deacon my preside at are Baptism and Marriage in the Latin Catholic Church. I do not get where it is only “three” that he can not do.

I see now, sorry about that but the pneumonia with fever I am suffering right now has addled my mind.

I see what you mean by “only three sacraments” but that still does not mean a deacon in the Latin Church can do “almost everything a priest does” as a marriage presided over by a deacon is only outside of the Mass or a priest celebrates the Mass with the deacon doing the marriage portion but this is not common, it is usually only done when the couple has some deep connection with the deacon.

 

[curlycool89]

But you can have both!

I’d actually rather eat dirt. But thanks for asking.

Plenty of diocesan priests work only a few hours a day, go golfing, take their vacation time, retire as soon as they can, etc. They just have to do it within all this annoying and needless bureaucracy and institutionalism which makes it very unappealing for independent or creative leader types of personalities.

No. Just no. We have enough “independent” or “creative” priest already who decide to “change things up” without the permission or even right to do so. What we need is faithful obedient priests.

The priesthood is for life. It has been the teaching of the Church for a long time that the sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the persons soul. That alone makes them different. That alone makes the priesthood more than just another job. It’s not like being an engineer or a politician leaves an indelible mark on your soul (the schooling for engineering might drive you insane and ruin your life though ).

And our point is that, in practice, celibate permanent deacons do almost everything a priest does except those three sacraments. Why they require all this added bureaucracy and institutionalism, is beyond me.

Read anywhere on this forum and you will get a unanimous response that a deacon is a totally separate vocation from a priest. Remember, a vocation is a calling from God, not just something you decide to do.

By the way, what’s with all the rage against the “bureaucracy” and “institutionalism”? Sounds like libertarian propaganda to me. I don’t know about you, but I live in a country where we enjoy our bureaucracy and the benefits of it.

 

[Newborn]

Read anywhere on this forum and you will get a unanimous response that a deacon is a totally separate vocation from a priest.

You need to study more on what the diaconate is and how it differs from the priesthood.

This shows the grave misunderstanding of all the Sacraments not just Holy Orders.

It seems you are stuck with the notion that a deacon is a junior priest.

Not at all. My concerns have nothing to do with the differences between the two vocations, they have to do with* why* those differences require all the institutional dynamics that come with the priesthood but not the diaconate. What about the priesthood, specifically, justifies or requires all that when the diaconate, apparently, doesn’t need it?

What is the connection between the highly bureaucratic and institutionalized environment a priest has to deal with in seminary especially, but also afterward to a certain degree…and the difference between priests and deacons? I just don’t see it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What is the connection between the highly bureaucratic and institutionalized environment a priest has to deal with in seminary especially, but also afterward to a certain degree…and the difference between priests and deacons? I just don’t see it.

While I just don’t see this “highly bureaucratic and institutionalized environment” you keep speaking of, I see the Church.

Again, which do you object to in the Seminary, the academics or the formation?

 

[philippaul]

This person may be more interested in becoming a deacon or lay minister instead of a priest possibly.

 

[Rachel_1]

IMHO If you think this - then you know little…and just furthers my case for theology courses…and instruction.

** You ** can…but I have to warn you…I’m a kid…and I can see the wrongness in your proposal.

Well…just like your irreverent friend…I wouldn’t go to them for Sacraments

Sooo…one more added to…equates to good?

You know what… I agree.
I’m in RCIA and just learning about my faith, even just learning, I’m extremely troubled by the lack of reverence in the OP’s posts and that of his friend. Like seriously.
I get the mental image of a production line filled with different Sacraments and robot priests from these posts …

 

[Newborn]

Again, which do you object to in the Seminary, the academics or the formation?

The formation. Specifically the so-called “human formation”.

The academics, no problem. If I could attend all those theology, pastoral, liturgical, etc classes as a day-commuter, or however married permanent deacons do it (night-school, weekends, summers), or living on like a university campus, fine.

Now, I don’t think priests really need all that theology to do what they do. The parts where that knowledge is useful are in preaching, teaching, and counseling…but permanent deacons preach, teach, and counsel too, so I don’t exactly understand why priests’ standards are higher in that area. But, I personally certainly wouldn’t mind the academics at all.

And I’ve got no problem meeting with a spiritual director, going on retreats, being evaluated, praying the Office, attending *some *social functions, etc.

It’s some of the things put in under the umbrella of so-called “human formation” that the PPF started talking about. That starts to creep me out. The way seminarians, adult men mind you, have a curfew, can’t leave campus without permission, have a “bed-time” at some places, are expected to be at all the meals, etc etc etc. (At some places it is even worse, reading your mail, searching your rooms, no internet or phone contact, etc.) But even the more lenient places restrict your motion even during otherwise “free” time in a way I find disturbing.

If they go to class, and keep their appointments with their spiritual director, and complete all their work and liturgical prayer…adults should be able to do what they want with the rest of their time. That sort of rigid structuring of time isn’t a very good way to teach people about independent prudent decision making, and is especially unhealthy considering that, once these men get put in a parish, they’re going to suddenly have all sorts of unstructured time on their hands with no one coddling them anymore telling them what to do with it.

It all sounds nice and lofty in their description of its purposes and means…but then I realize…I already know plenty of adult men who are perfectly well-adjusted and “humanly formed”…who didn’t need to live in community under a strict schedule for 5 years to achieve it! Permanent deacons among them. And, on the other hand, it’s not like most priests I’ve met are all that different from other men in those qualities, so it doesn’t seem to be making them all that spectacularly better in those regards.

The way the PPF talks, it almost sounds like they expect the type of man who comes to seminary to be deficient in those areas, and so needing to be “brought up to par”. Something they apparently don’t think a married permanent deacon will need as much of, even though he also is going to be expected to interact with people, comfort them, preach, counsel, spiritually direct, teach, etc…

So I’m not seeing the connection. The roles and tasks requiring “human formation” would seem to equally apply to priests AND permanent deacons. And yet, those studying for the priesthood are kept on such a tighter leash compared to deacons in that regard.

So what is it about the priesthood specifically, contrasted with the diaconate, that requires all that extra institutional re-socialization? Considering that deacons also minister to people, comfort them, preach, counsel, spiritually direct, teach, etc? I just don’t buy it. The things that distinguish a priest’s role from that of a deacon, do not seem to me to justify the huge differences in formation.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I’d actually rather eat dirt. But thanks for asking.

What is wrong with a little geophagy?

 

[Young_Thinker]

The bit about “being willing to wear the collar” - most priests I’ve ever met couldn’t WAIT to wear the collar. This isn’t a favor you’d be doing us - it’s supposed to be an incredible calling - something you are called to do by God, and you respond out of love for God and pursue the priesthood. It’s not this idea that you’d be “willing to do it IF…”

I agree; entering the priesthood is a great privilege! To the original poster:you always become a actual priest and join a teaching order. If you are not too impatient, you earn a doctorate and perhaps become a cassocked professor.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The formation. Specifically the so-called “human formation”.

So you do not believe you need any spiritual formation or “human” formation? You feel that you are perfect as you are and can not be helped to live a celibate life?

The academics, no problem. If I could attend all those theology, pastoral, liturgical, etc classes as a day-commuter, or however married permanent deacons do it (night-school, weekends, summers), or living on like a university campus, fine.

You can do so as a lay person. Well except for the liturgical practicum classes.

Now, I don’t think priests really need all that theology to do what they do. The parts where that knowledge is useful are in preaching, teaching, and counseling…but permanent deacons preach, teach, and counsel too, so I don’t exactly understand why priests’ standards are higher in that area. But, I personally certainly wouldn’t mind the academics at all.

You don’t think, here is a problem with authority. Permanent Deacon programs a pretty long and they get a number of theology classes, but they are not expected to be at the level of the priest as they are not junior priests.

And I’ve got no problem meeting with a spiritual director, going on retreats, being evaluated, praying the Office, attending *some *social functions, etc.

So social functions are okay but actual formation ones are not? Strange priorities.

It’s some of the things put in under the umbrella of so-called “human formation” that the PPF started talking about. That starts to creep me out. The way seminarians, adult men mind you, have a curfew, can’t leave campus without permission, have a “bed-time” at some places, are expected to be at all the meals, etc etc etc. (At some places it is even worse, reading your mail, searching your rooms, no internet or phone contact, etc.) But even the more lenient places restrict your motion even during otherwise “free” time in a way I find disturbing.

Those very extreme things seem to be at only the most “Traditionalist” Seminaries. Most Seminaries I know might have a time when you need to be back on the campus of the Seminary, say a curfew but they do not tell you what time you need to be in bed nor do they cut the internet access or the other things you state. You must also be there for community prayer unless excused and the same for community meals. Those are community things and help the candidates in building the feeling of community, which they will need to do when alone in a parish.

If they go to class, and keep their appointments with their spiritual director, and complete all their work and liturgical prayer…adults should be able to do what they want with the rest of their time. That sort of rigid structuring of time isn’t a very good way to teach people about independent prudent decision making, and is especially unhealthy considering that, once these men get put in a parish, they’re going to suddenly have all sorts of unstructured time on their hands with no one coddling them anymore telling them what to do with it.

I believe it is giving them the skills that they will need when they leave the Seminary. And do not forget that their summers are very different when they are actually assigned by their bishops to work in parishes.

It all sounds nice and lofty in their description of its purposes and means…but then I realize…I already know plenty of adult men who are perfectly well-adjusted and “humanly formed”…who didn’t need to live in community under a strict schedule for 5 years to achieve it! Permanent deacons among them. And, on the other hand, it’s not like most priests I’ve met are all that different from other men in those qualities, so it doesn’t seem to be making them all that spectacularly better in those regards.

Again, the diaconate is not the priesthood.

The way the PPF talks, it almost sounds like they expect the type of man who comes to seminary to be deficient in those areas, and so needing to be “brought up to par”. Something they apparently don’t think a married permanent deacon will need as much of, even though he also is going to be expected to interact with people, comfort them, preach, counsel, spiritually direct, teach, etc…

We can all use help in those areas, some more than others. And from my experience those who resist the most are the ones who need it the most.

So I’m not seeing the connection. The roles and tasks requiring “human formation” would seem to equally apply to priests AND permanent deacons. And yet, those studying for the priesthood are kept on such a tighter leash compared to deacons in that regard.

Because they are different vocations, and the diaconate does get aspects of the “human formation” but most candidates for the permanent diaconate are married so it is different.

[continued in next post]

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So what is it about the priesthood specifically, contrasted with the diaconate, that requires all that extra institutional re-socialization? Considering that deacons also minister to people, comfort them, preach, counsel, spiritually direct, teach, etc? I just don’t buy it. The things that distinguish a priest’s role from that of a deacon, do not seem to me to justify the huge differences in formation.

This post of yours, and the rest in this thread, tell me that you are not called in anyway to the priesthood. You want it on your terms, you think you do not need anything they have to offer. You show a grave deficiency in the understanding of the Sacraments and even in authority and obedience.

I believe that any vocation director and any spiritual director (a good spiritual director) will tell you the same thing. No bishop is going to accept you or any others with these thoughts as a candidate. He would have to worry greatly about what would happen when he needed to move you all the way across the diocese to run a rural parish and you refused because of your life in the city.

Seems very immature and I do believe the “human formation” could help you greatly, that is if you were open to it.

You want your life as you want it with maybe the priesthood on the side, that is not how it goes.

This is the last I will post to this thread as it is really a waste of time to go any further.

Thank you for answer my questions.

I will pray for you

 

[kimmielittle]

You know what… I agree.
I’m in RCIA and just learning about my faith, even just learning, I’m extremely troubled by the lack of reverence in the OP’s posts and that of his friend. Like seriously.
I get the mental image of a production line filled with different Sacraments and robot priests from these posts …

:clapping::clapping:

 

[kimmielittle]

This post of yours, and the rest in this thread, tell me that you are not called in anyway to the priesthood. You want it on your terms, you think you do not need anything they have to offer. You show a grave deficiency in the understanding of the Sacraments and even in authority and obedience.

I believe that any vocation director and any spiritual director (a good spiritual director) will tell you the same thing. No bishop is going to accept you or any others with these thoughts as a candidate. He would have to worry greatly about what would happen when he needed to move you all the way across the diocese to run a rural parish and you refused because of your life in the city.

Seems very immature and I do believe the “human formation” could help you greatly, that is if you were open to it.

You want your life as you want it with maybe the priesthood on the side, that is not how it goes.

This is the last I will post to this thread as it is really a waste of time to go any further.

Thank you for answer my questions.

I will pray for you

 

[Newborn]

Permanent Deacon programs a pretty long and they get a number of theology classes, but they are not expected to be at the level of the priest

Okay, but you are avoiding the question.

Given that the tasks in which this knowledge and human-formation is used (preaching, teaching, counseling) are COMMON to priests AND deacons…what is it about those things that specifically distinguish a priest from a deacon, that require so much more knowledge or such a different model of formation?

Don’t just say “you don’t understand the priesthood,” explain it to me.

Given that the intimate human interaction for priests and deacons is largely the same (spiritually directing, comforting, explaining the faith, ministering, etc)…what is it about those things that make a priest different that justifies such an elevated concern over their competency in those areas compared to deacons? To me, those things would seem to equally apply to deacons and priests. Why don’t they?

He would have to worry greatly about what would happen when he needed to move you all the way across the diocese to run a rural parish and you refused because of your life in the city.

So he’d rather just have one less person anywhere? That’s specious reasoning. Beggars can’t be choosers; better a priest in the city than no priest in either place. And though you may balk at the idea, I’m sure there are bishops who, at this point, are at their wits-end with the old model and willing to experiment.

So you do not believe you need any spiritual formation or “human” formation? You feel that you are perfect as you are and can not be helped to live a celibate life?

Spiritual formation, surely I need, we all. But that doesn’t require living in community for 5 years. This other idea of “human” formation, though, I really think is better served by independent life experience rather than coddling regimented living. I know plenty of single men who are chaste and well-balanced individuals who didn’t have to go through seminary to achieve it. And plenty of priests who don’t seem all that well-adjusted even though they did.

Again, you keep attacking straw-men. I don’t deny the need for spiritual or even “human” formation. I deny that there is any essential connection between that and institutional living in a seminary.

Lot’s of people get spiritually and humanly formed just fine without ever having to board at a seminary for 5 years.

We can all use help in those areas, some more than others

We all can. And yet they don’t make us all go to a live-in seminary for 5 years. There are other ways to get that experience and formation than institutional living.

The part of the PPF about older men with life experience potentially not being “susceptible to formation” really creeped me out. I mean, they actually used the word “susceptible”! That made the whole thing sound like a brainwashing…

 

[curlycool89]

So he’d rather just have one less person anywhere? That’s specious reasoning. Beggars can’t be choosers; better a priest in the city than no priest in either place. And though you may balk at the idea, I’m sure there are bishops who, at this point, are at their wits-end with the old model and willing to experiment.

That just scares me. I don’t care if it means less priests, I want bishops be be as picky and exclusive as they can be. Being a priest is not a right for anyone, but a privilege only for those who have been called by God. And even if they are called by God, if they are not willing to accept 100% of what it takes to be a priest (especially obedience and humility) then they should not be accepted. That is the bishop’s prerogative, and I they should and will use it to the fullest extent.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That just scares me. I don’t care if it means less priests, I want bishops be be as picky and exclusive as they can be. Being a priest is not a right for anyone, but a privilege only for those who have been called by God. And even if they are called by God, if they are not willing to accept 100% of what it takes to be a priest (especially obedience and humility) then they should not be accepted. That is the bishop’s prerogative, and I they should and will use it to the fullest extent.

Amen! You got it 100% right.

A secular priest who will not follow his promise of obedience is one of the worst kinds of priests we could have, such a bad example sets up scandal and turns those with a true call away from it.

I don’t believe this individual posting here or those who he says agree with him truly believe that a priest is called by God. Again, its all about them, very immature and egotistic.

 

[curlycool89]

I don’t believe this individual posting here or those who he says agree with him truly believe that a priest is called by God. Again, its all about them, very immature and egotistic.

I would assume that most, if not all, candidates for the priesthood are very outwardly centered. They want to know “what can I do to help” or “what can I sacrifice for the sake of others”. A priests life is one of sacrifice and it’s not easy, and it’s not suppose to be easy (neither is the Church, some of the precepts are not easy and a life of struggle and being different than the greater society is what may await you).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would assume that most, if not all, candidates for the priesthood are very outwardly centered. They want to know “what can I do to help” or “what can I sacrifice for the sake of others”. A priests life is one of sacrifice and it’s not easy, and it’s not suppose to be easy (neither is the Church, some of the precepts are not easy and a life of struggle and being different than the greater society is what may await you).

Actually studies have shown that most who enter religious life, and I believe that many who enter the secular priesthood, test out as introverts.

I know it is counter intuitive but those are the latest studies I have heard of.

 

[curlycool89]

Actually studies have shown that most who enter religious life, and I believe that many who enter the secular priesthood, test out as introverts.

I know it is counter intuitive but those are the latest studies I have heard of.

That doesn’t actually surprise me actually.

But what I meant above about being priests being “outwardly centered” (I really should have said “other centered”) was as opposed to be self centered.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That doesn’t actually surprise me actually.

But what I meant above about being priests being “outwardly centered” (I really should have said “other centered”) was as opposed to be self centered.

I understand now and totally agree!