Freelance Priests

[CDNowak]

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 think the word you’re looking for is ‘mature’.

That I think is the biggest problem with the posters proposing this idea, I think I have a better idea, so I’ll play if we play my way.

Like I’ve said, I think, to a degree they are right about seminary formation (although, ironically, they haven’t done enough research to know that). But the fact that it is all about their freedom is troubling, correctable if pride allows, but troubling nonetheless.

 

[Newborn]

But the fact that it is all about their freedom is troubling, correctable if pride allows, but troubling nonetheless.

It’s not about “my” freedom. It’s about what I consider a healthy environment. About letting adults make adult decisions about their lives rather than trying to institutionalize them.

It’s not about our freedom or “self-will,” it’s about our sanity.

A suffocating environment like that drives (and rightly so) a lot of well-adjusted people batty, and not necessarily because of pride but just because they aren’t ants or zombies. My friend has a phrase, “suffocation tends to be fatal”.

That I think is the biggest problem with the posters proposing this idea, I think I have a better idea, so I’ll play if we play my way.

You frame this in a strangely negative and self-centered sounding tone.

But, really, I totally agree with you:** if** the current system is the* only *way, then I’m clearly not meant to be a priest. I’d be the first one to admit that, because I definitely *won’t *go through seminary under the current system, it would drive me insane.

Which is exactly the sort of weeding-out that you think the current system should accomplish, so I don’t see what your problem is then.

You seem to be implying that I should just accept the rules and play. But really, if they can’t change to something that would allow me to maintain my sanity, I’ll just accept them and not play, concluding I wasn’t meant to. There is nothing wrong with that, it’s just discernment. So why speak like it is negative?

But, that being said, I’m not so quick to dismiss the idea that other models are possible, and I’m willing to look a little harder to see if God might not be leading us in the direction of finding such an arrangement somewhere. I’m willing to “knock more than once,” to use the Monastic analogy.

Like I’ve said, I think, to a degree they are right about seminary formation (although, ironically, they haven’t done enough research to know that).

You don’t know what research I’ve done. Surely many of us feel so strongly about this because of witnessing things concretely in person, not simply from abstract knowledge or descriptions of seminary life (which are always presented as very rosy and in positive terms).

What JReducation has said in the other post about priests with side jobs has greatly reassured me. That secular priests may turn down assignments (though that means they forgo pay), work another job instead of an assignment, or alongside his assignment, cannot be compelled to give money, etc. That is all very reassuring about the life of secular priests and the independence and adult rights and respect they get once they’re ordained.

Though it would seem to contradict the romantic notions many people have put forth in this thread that elevate the *secular *priesthood to essentially religious life…

But assuming that what JReducation says is true, then, as you say, it seems the main thing to concentrate on is the question of formation.

If other arrangements can’t be made, then I’d be the first to accept that this means I’m not called. But I’m not one to make such a conclusion after only “one knock” at the door. To say, “well, the current system is would be extremely stifling and emotionally exhausting to me, it must mean it isnt meant to be” when I still do have the desire, the zeal, etc. I’m willing to look a little harder.

I just have this feeling that other arrangements can and will end up being made, and at the very least we are willing to try to pursue this possibility.

Surely there is nothing wrong with asking? Ask and you shall receive.

And if we don’t after trying and trying, then we’ll know it isn’t God’s will, and that we’re not called to be priests, no hard feelings. But why condemn us for even trying, for even asking?

This way people here seem to assume a priori that God’s will is the status quo, and that it is wrong to even try to arrange something else (going through legitimate channels), is a dangerously quietist or even fatalistic attitude among Catholics. And yet, unfortunately, the very one I fear is being inculcated in seminaries…

Perhaps some of our language was too harsh, though you know we are VERY disturbed by what we’ve seen, so strong feelings about it are inevitable. And you may think we’ve spoken to flippantly about the priesthood, but when I’m speaking about** practical questions, I’m going to speak pragmatically. I’m not going to couch such discussions in lofty rose-colored terminology. I accept the lofty position of the priest in abstract theory, but I also know that in practice many priests are dumpy dull men who work a few hours a day and go home and watch TV like anyone else, and that many seminarians have struck me as borderline autistic. I’m a realist (which doesn’t exclude idealism), but I’m not going to romanticize or lie about my perceptions, and if you consider that a sin, I don’t know what else I can say.

 

[JReducation]

What JReducation has said in the other post about priests with side jobs has greatly reassured me. That secular priests may turn down assignments (though that means they forgo pay), work another job instead of an assignment, or alongside his assignment, cannot be compelled to give money, etc. That is all very reassuring about the life of secular priests and the independence and adult rights and respect they get once they’re ordained.

Just for the sake of clarity here, let me assert again, that even though there are no absolutes regarding what work a diocesan priest may or may not do, there are diocesan policies established by the bishop. Because the priest promises to obey his bishop, he must abide by those policies.

The difference between a priest who is diocesan or secular, wich ever term you prefer and the priest who is a consecrated religious is that in the case of a diocesan priest, bishops come and bishops go. Therefore, policies are fluid. In a religious order, the rule and constitutions don’t change because you elect a new superior. In a diocese the rules regarding assignments and work can change without having to convoke a general chapter and rewrite the constitutions. There is no rule of life and there are no constitutions to interpret the rule of life in the priesthood. The rules or policies are made by the bishop. Only those rules that are proper to the Sacrament of Holy Orders are absolute and fixed. Assignments and work is not one of them. A simple example would help here.

In many dioceses, usually larger ones, the assignments are confirmed by the bishop, not made by the bishop. Larger dioceses have personell offices and priests apply for assignments and posts, just like any other large company. When the agreement is reached between the priest and the personell director, it is sent to the bishop for his confirmation. You have a structure with a personell officer and a President (let’s let the Pope be the CEO).

Though it would seem to contradict the romantic notions many people have put forth in this thread that elevate the *secular *priesthood to essentially religious life…

Elevating is not the word that I would use. Religious life and Holy Orders are not superior or inferior to each other. They are not in the same column. They are very different. Therefore, you cannot try to mold priests into religious any more than you can mold religious into priests. A male can be both, but that’s not the same thing as moving up or down on a ladder.

But assuming that what JReducation says is true, then, as you say, it seems the main thing to concentrate on is the question of formation.

The formation of diocesan priests has been an issue for centuries. In fact, many religious orders and priestly societies were founded for the purpose of forming diocesan priests. One that comes to mind are the Sulpicians (Society of St. Sulpice).

It has always been a problem, because you need to form these men, not only in theology, but also help them grow in the spiritual life. At the same time, you do not want to confine them into one particular school of spirituality, one way of life, because then you’re creating an order. That’s where the term Religious Order comes from. It’s a way of life that is structured according to a particular spirituality and charism. We must avoid forming secular priests according to one spirituality or charism.

The temptation has been to use the Benedictine model for many years, especially in the USA. Many diocesan seminaries functioned like monasteries. Another model that has often been used has been the Jesuit model, even forcing seminarians to go through the exercises of St. Ignatius. That is wrong. They are not Jesuits or Benedictines.

The formation program of a secular cleric (this includes deacons too), must expose him to the broad spectrum of spiritual traditions, forms of prayer and spiritual exercises that are found in the Church and allow him the freedom to select whatever works for him, just as you would do for any other secular person. You don’t force them into a mold.

Even in religious life, we do not force our members into molds. If you enter my community you either fit the mold or you don’t. The formation team does not turn you into a Franciscan Brother of Penance… You have what it takes to become one and we show you how to use your gifts or you don’t have what you need and we show you the door.

The same applies to secular seminarians. The difference is that secular seminarians will select the spirituality that fits their personalities and gifts individually. They don’t have to share the same spirituality, as do the members of a religious community. Therefore, the secular seminary community is like a typical family where the father may be more Augustinian, the mother more Franciscan, the daughter more Carmelite and the son more ecclectic. They live and work well together, while walking down their different spiritual paths.

This is the problem with formation programs in secular seminaries. The weak link is in the area of spirituality. Most secular semianries do not require seminarians to study spiritual theology. It’s an elective. The spirituality is determined by the rector and the formation team and imposed from above or there is little or no guidance. It often goes from too much to too little.

Seminaries that impress me are St. Vincent de Paul in FL and Mt. St. Mary’s in MD. They seem to have struck a balance between guiding the spiritual growth of their seminarians without imposing a rule of life on them. I’m sure there are others that are equally good. But I have been impressed by the deacons and priests whom I met that graduated from those two schools. They are very spiritual men, but they are not “honorary religious”. And they are rightfully offended if you compare them to religious or expect them to be like religious. They have a right to be offended. When you do this, you may sound as if you’re trying to fit them into a mold to which they have not been called. These men have a very strong secular spirituality. And yes, there is a secular spirituality. Read Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales. It was written for the secular man and woman. Though it doesn’t hurt religious to read it either. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Newborn]

Another wonderful post, Brother. Thank you!

 

[angelic06]

(remove)

 

[Young_Thinker]

An interesting issue, though, that I think is relevant: can one belong to a “stricter” order and actually own clothing(provided that it is not immodest), or would that be going against the vow of poverty?

 

[Diaconia]

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

I can assure you this man would never be accepted to a seminary, nor to a program of formation for the diaconate.

And we certainly don’t want men in the diaconate who do not understand sacred orders or sacramental theology.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders at ANY level (diaconal, presbyteral or episcopal) is first and foremost one of humility before God, and submission of the will to the Church. If you don’t understand that, it’s a 100% certainty that Jesus is not calling you to sacred orders.

“I came not to be served, but to serve, and offer my life as a ransom for many.”

Regards,

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

An interesting issue, though, that I think is relevant: can one belong to a “stricter” order and actually own clothing(provided that it is not immodest), or would that be going against the vow of poverty?

Depends on the order.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Depends on the order.

Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

An interesting issue, though, that I think is relevant: can one belong to a “stricter” order and actually own clothing(provided that it is not immodest), or would that be going against the vow of poverty?

There are different customs and different constitutions. In some religious communities you wear a habit 24/7. Therefore, you do not need secular clothing For example: Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, Missionaries of Charity (the sisters), all reformed Franciscans.

Other communities wear a habit at specific times, such as community functions and liturgy; but they don’t travel in it or go to the dentist in a habit. They would have a few pieces of secular clothes. But there is a pretty consistent practice that you don’t have a walk-in closet full of clothing. That would not only be unreasonable, but also unnecessary.

Then there are communities that never had a habit such as : Marianists Brothers and Missionaries of Charity Brothers. Their mandate is to wear the clothing of the common lay person. They have a dress code and they have specific limitations on the amount of clothing that they have.

Then you have two variations of the vow of poverty. For example, in my community, poverty means that we own nothing in common or as individuals. We don’t have anything personal. We ask for everything that we need, including new underwear. We don’t just go out and buy it, because we have no money. If the superior has money, he’ll give it to you. Otherwise, you’re out of luck.

In some communities poverty means that the community can own property, but the individual cannot. He or she must still ask for permission to acquire things, including clothing or some communities give the individual religious a monthly allowance and they buy their clothing from that.

Finally, there are communities where the community can own property and so can the invidual religious, but within prudence. Simplicity must always be observed.

It’s not a matter of one order being stricter than another. It’s a matter of charism. In general all of the different Franciscan orders, the three groups of Missionaries of Charity and the Missionaries of the Poor are the most asutere when it comes to things such as clothing and individual posessions, because the three groups were founded under the title of “pauperitas”, meaning, poverty.

But you’re going to have communities such as the Dominicans, Jesuits, Marianists, Christian Brothers, Sisters of St. Joseph, and others who are not as strict on poverty, but are very demanding in the area of education and scholarship. They were founded to preach and teach. Whereas Franciscans have less scholars and theologians that the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

You see, each religious family was founded to meet a spiritual need in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

There are different customs and different constitutions. In some religious communities you wear a habit 24/7. Therefore, you do not need secular clothing For example: Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, Missionaries of Charity (the sisters), all reformed Franciscans.

Other communities wear a habit at specific times, such as community functions and liturgy; but they don’t travel in it or go to the dentist in a habit. They would have a few pieces of secular clothes. But there is a pretty consistent practice that you don’t have a walk-in closet full of clothing. That would not only be unreasonable, but also unnecessary.

Then there are communities that never had a habit such as : Marianists Brothers and Missionaries of Charity Brothers. Their mandate is to wear the clothing of the common lay person. They have a dress code and they have specific limitations on the amount of clothing that they have.

Then you have two variations of the vow of poverty. For example, in my community, poverty means that we own nothing in common or as individuals. We don’t have anything personal. We ask for everything that we need, including new underwear. We don’t just go out and buy it, because we have no money. If the superior has money, he’ll give it to you. Otherwise, you’re out of luck.

In some communities poverty means that the community can own property, but the individual cannot. He or she must still ask for permission to acquire things, including clothing or some communities give the individual religious a monthly allowance and they buy their clothing from that.

Finally, there are communities where the community can own property and so can the invidual religious, but within prudence. Simplicity must always be observed.

It’s not a matter of one order being stricter than another. It’s a matter of charism. In general all of the different Franciscan orders, the three groups of Missionaries of Charity and the Missionaries of the Poor are the most asutere when it comes to things such as clothing and individual posessions, because the three groups were founded under the title of “pauperitas”, meaning, poverty.

But you’re going to have communities such as the Dominicans, Jesuits, Marianists, Christian Brothers, Sisters of St. Joseph, and others who are not as strict on poverty, but are very demanding in the area of education and scholarship. They were founded to preach and teach. Whereas Franciscans have less scholars and theologians that the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

You see, each religious family was founded to meet a spiritual need in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am grateful for your information, Brother. I know that in the Servites’ constitution, one is not allowed to hold anything for anyone else(after, of course, having given up your own possessions). Is that typical, or does that suggest that the Servants of Mary are particularly austere? I hope that I am not leading this discussion “off-track.”

 

[Young_Thinker]

I am grateful for your information, Brother. I know that in the Servites’ constitution, one is not allowed to hold anything for anyone else(after, of course, having given up your own possessions). Is that typical, or does that suggest that the Servants of Mary are particularly austere? I hope that I am not leading this discussion “off-track.”

Well, by the very nature of friars’ poverty, I assume that that is the norm.

 

[JReducation]

I am grateful for your information, Brother. I know that in the Servites’ constitution, one is not allowed to hold anything for anyone else(after, of course, having given up your own possessions). Is that typical, or does that suggest that the Servants of Mary are particularly austere? I hope that I am not leading this discussion “off-track.”

The Servites were very influenced by the Franciscans, even though they are a few years older, not much. They adopted the same principle that St. Francis gave to his three orders. The brothers (friars) may not own anything in common, except what is given to them in trust for the diocese or for the Holy See, which is still observed today, except by the Conventuals. The Conventuals received an indult to own common property, hence the word “conventus”.

The friars, on the eve of their solemn profession, must renounce all ownership of personal property and all administrative power over anyone else’s property. For example, I’m a widower and I have two children. When I made solemn vows, I had to sign over everything that I was holding in trust for my two children. Even though it was a trust and I was simply the trustee, because it did not belong to me, the rule of poverty does not allow this. This creates conflicts of interests. For example, if my children were to die before me, those properties and assets would return to me. That is not allowed by the rule of poverty. That’s why Servites and Franciscans cannot hold anything for anyone, so as not to end up owning something that they have no right to own. I don’t know how many other communities have this rule, but I imagine there are many.

The Servites and the Franciscan orders follow the same procedure. You must sign a legal document that is notarized by the civil courts, renouncing all of your ownership and control over your property or that of anyone else: elderly parents, children, organization, etc. You must also include in that document that you will not accept any inheritence or earnings that can come your way. You must name a beneficiary. Let’s say that your father is Bill Gates, you give up your inheritence. You name a beneficiary who must be someone or some organization outside of the Catholic Church. You can’t even name the Church as your beneficiary. You can name Uncle Harry. If your dad doesn’t like Uncle Harry, he just writes you out of his will and your uncle doesn’t get anything.

Future income refers to things like salaries. Many friars are paid salaries, because they have secular jobs: university professors, high school teachers, military chaplaincies, hospital chaplaincies, healthcare etc. Many institutions and goverment organizations do not contract with religious communities. They actually make the check payable to you. In that case, you have to pay taxes. What you’re doing is signing away the right to claim that money. The check is given to you and you hand it over to your superior. If you leave the order, you can’t ask for it back, just because the check was made out to you. You signed away your right to all income. However, you still have to file with the IRS. Then you hand over your tax refund.

That’s what is meant by not owning anything individually nor holding anything for another. As I said, this began with the Franciscans. At least, St. Francis was the first to actually write this in his rule. It’s not in the Rules of St. Augustine, St. Albert or St. Benedict. But the Servites adopted this and included it into their constitutions. I believe they follow the Rule of St. Augustine, I could be mistaken. But as I said, I bet there are other religious communities that have a strict prohibition on personal ownerhsip and holding trusts for others. I would imagine that the Missionaries of Charity and the Missioanries of the Poor would have the same rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

The Servites were very influenced by the Franciscans, even though they are a few years older, not much. They adopted the same principle that St. Francis gave to his three orders. The brothers (friars) may not own anything in common, except what is given to them in trust for the diocese or for the Holy See, which is still observed today, except by the Conventuals. The Conventuals received an indult to own common property, hence the word “conventus”.

The friars, on the eve of their solemn profession, must renounce all ownership of personal property and all administrative power over anyone else’s property. For example, I’m a widower and I have two children. When I made solemn vows, I had to sign over everything that I was holding in trust for my two children. Even though it was a trust and I was simply the trustee, because it did not belong to me, the rule of poverty does not allow this. This creates conflicts of interests. For example, if my children were to die before me, those properties and assets would return to me. That is not allowed by the rule of poverty. That’s why Servites and Franciscans cannot hold anything for anyone, so as not to end up owning something that they have no right to own. I don’t know how many other communities have this rule, but I imagine there are many.

The Servites and the Franciscan orders follow the same procedure. You must sign a legal document that is notarized by the civil courts, renouncing all of your ownership and control over your property or that of anyone else: elderly parents, children, organization, etc. You must also include in that document that you will not accept any inheritence or earnings that can come your way. You must name a beneficiary. Let’s say that your father is Bill Gates, you give up your inheritence. You name a beneficiary who must be someone or some organization outside of the Catholic Church. You can’t even name the Church as your beneficiary. You can name Uncle Harry. If your dad doesn’t like Uncle Harry, he just writes you out of his will and your uncle doesn’t get anything.

Future income refers to things like salaries. Many friars are paid salaries, because they have secular jobs: university professors, high school teachers, military chaplaincies, hospital chaplaincies, healthcare etc. Many institutions and goverment organizations do not contract with religious communities. They actually make the check payable to you. In that case, you have to pay taxes. What you’re doing is signing away the right to claim that money. The check is given to you and you hand it over to your superior. If you leave the order, you can’t ask for it back, just because the check was made out to you. You signed away your right to all income. However, you still have to file with the IRS. Then you hand over your tax refund.

That’s what is meant by not owning anything individually nor holding anything for another. As I said, this began with the Franciscans. At least, St. Francis was the first to actually write this in his rule. It’s not in the Rules of St. Augustine, St. Albert or St. Benedict. But the Servites adopted this and included it into their constitutions. I believe they follow the Rule of St. Augustine, I could be mistaken. But as I said, I bet there are other religious communities that have a strict prohibition on personal ownerhsip and holding trusts for others. I would imagine that the Missionaries of Charity and the Missioanries of the Poor would have the same rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you.

 

[catholicgirlinp]

Dear Freelance,
A vocation to the priesthood is a calling from God to turn your life over to Him in a special way “Come follow Me”. Priests take a vow of poverty, chasity and obedience. If you are not willing to commit then most likely you really don’t have a true calling to a vocation of service in the Catholic priesthood. Formation must be strict to insure that future priests can handle this life of commitment to the Bride of Christ the Catholic Church. God bless our priest and semminerians.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear Freelance,
A vocation to the priesthood is a calling from God to turn your life over to Him in a special way “Come follow Me”. Priests take a vow of poverty, chasity and obedience. If you are not willing to commit then most likely you really don’t have a true calling to a vocation of service in the Catholic priesthood. Formation must be strict to insure that future priests can handle this life of commitment to the Bride of Christ the Catholic Church. God bless our priest and semminerians.

Only religious take the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. A secular priest makes promises of obedience and celibacy.

 

[BigRedpg51]

If a man cannot – or will not – submit himself to the authority and direction of his bishop, under whom he is encardinated, then he should not be willing to enter the priesthood – period!

Being a Catholic priest is not a ‘subjective’ career…where each priest can do whatever he sees fit. Where would the Catholic Church be if such were the case? I shudder to think of it!

Even though diocesan (secular) priests do not take the vows of poverty – as do many of the religious priestly orders – they DO take a vow of obedience (the “leash” to which you are referring).

There is a sweetness in obedience to your superior, no matter how much you may disagree with him personally on different issues. Unfortunately you don’t see that yet.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If a man cannot – or will not – submit himself to the authority and direction of his bishop, under whom he is encardinated, then he should not be willing to enter the priesthood – period!

Being a Catholic priest is not a ‘subjective’ career…where each priest can do whatever he sees fit. Where would the Catholic Church be if such were the case? I shudder to think of it!

Even though diocesan (secular) priests do not take the vows of poverty – as do many of the religious priestly orders – they DO take a vow of obedience (the “leash” to which you are referring).

There is a sweetness in obedience to your superior, no matter how much you may disagree with him personally on different issues. Unfortunately you don’t see that yet.

Technically it is a promise of obedince not a vow.

 

[JReducation]

If a man cannot – or will not – submit himself to the authority and direction of his bishop, under whom he is encardinated, then he should not be willing to enter the priesthood – period!

Being a Catholic priest is not a ‘subjective’ career…where each priest can do whatever he sees fit. Where would the Catholic Church be if such were the case? I shudder to think of it!

Even though diocesan (secular) priests do not take the vows of poverty – as do many of the religious priestly orders – they DO take a vow of obedience (the “leash” to which you are referring).

There is a sweetness in obedience to your superior, no matter how much you may disagree with him personally on different issues. Unfortunately you don’t see that yet.

A vow and a promise are not the same thing and do not have the same degree of moral culpability if you violate the one or the other. Violating a vow of obedience is always a grave sin. Violating a promise of obedience may be a grave sin, depending on the seriousness of the matter. In the case of religious, the seriousness of the matter does not enter into the picture. Once your superior or your rule or your constitutions have told you that you must do or not do something under obedience, you are bound to obey. If you do not obey, because it seems to be something silly to you, you are in a grave state of sin. The matter is not what was ordered. The matter is the vow.

In the case of a promise of obedience the matter is what has been ordered. A promise is seen as a contractual agreement between two parties. The bishop has duties toward the cleric and the cleric toward the bishop. I say cleric, because the promise is made when you become a deacon, not a priest. It is renewed at the ordination of the priesthood and at the ordination to the episcopal order.

Not all priests have to be incardinated into a diocese. If a priest belongs to a religious community he is not incardinated into the diocese. The bishop is not his superior. If a priest belongs to a society of secular priests such as the FSSP, the Maryknoll, the Institute of Christ the King, the SSPX, he is not incardinated. He is a secular priest, not a religious, but the bishop is not his superior.

What the bishop grants to every priest are faculties to hear confessions. To every deacon he grants faculties to preach and witness marriages. Since a priest does not cease to be a deacon, he gets the faculties to preach and witness marriages. But the bishop can restrict them. There are simplex priests who are only allowed to celebrate mass. These are very few. But the bishop may do this.

The only time that a priest does not need faculties to hear confessions is if the priest belongs to a religious community and the confession takes place in the religious house or a property that belongs to the religious community such as a college, retreat house, oratory and so forth. Even there, the bishop must be notified that this institution is in operation in his diocese and he must give permission for it, before it can function. No religious order and not society of priests can setup shop in a diocese without the permission of the local bishop. The diocese is an independent Church and the bishop is the head of that Church. Therefore, you cannot enter the territory of that Church and being a ministry without his approval. People have done this and have been in deep trouble for it, even very holy people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[I_Fortuna]

"Does it really take all sorts of extra years of theology to read words out loud out of a book, rub some oil on someone, or wave your hand over them?? I doubt it, that’s not rocket science. "

The fact that you have asked this question shows to me that you are not priest material.

As a parishioner and new Catholic (3 years) you appear not to take the priesthood seriously or with committment.

You sound immature and inexperienced in the ways of the world as it is. You are not someone I would want as a priest.

I converted to the Catholic church because I know I can depend on my priest to have a FULL committment to the church and to our community without any outside or worldly distractions. Yes, sometimes it is inconvenient that my priest does not know what it is like to have a family to take care of and be responsible for all the medical and household bills, however, it does not mean that someone like you would either.

Yours is a wishy washy view of the priesthood. It appears that you view the priesthood as something that should bend toward your convenience and glorify you as opposed to you serving the people of the parish.

I think you should look for another calling or occupation. I would not welcome such a “freelance” priest into my church. Your rebellion shows lack of obedience which is expected of all of us, clergy or lay.

When you get older you may understand. Right now, you make yourself look foolish to me.