If YOU could.change the Catholic Church

[DarkLight]

When it comes to historical, properties built many years ago, the options are to sell the properties or to ask “someone” to fund their upkeep. Those who choose these exceptional buildings for their wedding are evidently willing and able to pay, along with the multiple tens of thousands of dollars for wedding reception and honeymoon…Let me say that as a person who does not seek to make use of those historical buildings, I’m not really volunteering to contribute to their building upkeep. But others are prepared and able to do so, and as is plainly the case, Catholics are well able to be married without incurring such fees.

I noticed our downtown parish (which is a very beautiful historic building) charges $1000 if you’re not from the parish, and $300 if you are.

 

[Rau]

I noticed our downtown parish (which is a very beautiful historic building) charges $1000 if you’re not from the parish, and $300 if you are.

And that’s a rational approach. I can think of a few downtown (centrally located) parishes with very small numbers of parishioners. Not only would this parish be unable to maintain its historical church building from its parishioner base, but it cannot even fund its priest from the first collection.

 

[Rau]

you are permitted to supply your own cantor and musicians subject to approval.

This is routinely the case in parish churches in Australia. But of course this is not the case in St Mary’s Cathedral or some of the other more exceptional buildings. There’s a small number of approved organists and there are formal processes to approve what you propose. And if you want the Cathedral bells to be rung, you can’t just send 6 of your mates up the bell tower!

 

[Rau]

I’m really saddened to hear that the church doesn’t reduce fees for those in financial difficulty. My husband and I were happy to pay and we thought that our paying what we could would maybe help another couple with less money.

When you go see your local parish priest to be married in your parish, the matter of a “fee” may not even come up. That was the experience of my relative. If you want to pick a church in some other location, or an historical building, the situation may be different, and this is not unreasonable. The suggestion in this discussion that a person who has minimal financial resources will be compelled to put up $1000 to find a Church/priest is just not the reality.

 

[LittleFlower]

When you go see your local parish priest to be married in your parish, the matter of a “fee” may not even come up. That was the experience of my relative. If you want to pick a church in some other location, or an historical building, the situation may be different, and this is not unreasonable. The suggestion in this discussion that a person who has minimal financial resources will be compelled to put up $1000 to find a Church/priest is just not the reality.

This is incorrect.

I know of at least one couple who requested or enquired in their local non-historic parish and two others for a lowering of the fee and they were rejected at two, and the other one reduced the fee after many a meeting.

The others were requesting $1200-1400 for both the church and the priest, no added extras.

 

[Wandile]

This would definitely kill the priesthood for good.

 

[Rau]

The others were requesting $1200-1400 for both the church and the priest, no added extras.

What extras are there in a suburban Church??

In 2 mins, I found one counter example, by simply asking the last person I know who got married (she paid nothing) so that disproves your assertion that a person may be unable to marry unless that have $1000+. I recall my own marriage, which was not held in our local parish, but at another simple suburban parish, and even then, I recall we made a small donation - miniscule compared to your stories.

I am wondering why you are telling these stories and suggesting it is the norm.

 

[Duesenberg]

This would definitely kill the priesthood for good.

Not true. The Orthodox still have this sort of formation.

 

[Saxum]

I would produce a definitive interpretation of Vatican II.

In connection with the interpretation of Vatican II, I would issue a syllabus of errors and require all priests to sign and publicly recite it. This syllabus would denounce any calls for female ordination, married priests, lay led parishes.

I would require the Canon of the Mass to be said in Latin. I would prohibit communion in the hand. I would restore the prayers at the foot of the altar and the old offertory prayers. I’d also make ad orientem mandatory.

 

[Wandile]

Only over 50? Married? Those don’t go well with the Latin Church.

Secondly the Orthodox are a different tradition to us. Our church priesthood and traditions are built upon a celibate or continent ,at the very least, priesthood.

They are a smaller communion than us an require less priests. It’s part of the reason why they don’t have daily mass which a priest is required to do in the Latin Church. A married priest would struggle to meet he commitments of the Latin Church priests. Secondly over 50 only allowed for ordination pretty much means that such a priesthood would aged and have little longevity

 

[Duesenberg]

Only over 50? Married? Those don’t go well with the Latin Church.

Why not?

Secondly the Orthodox are a different tradition to us. Our church priesthood and traditions are built upon a celibate or continent ,at the very least, priesthood.

Not really. There are married priests not only in our Eastern Catholic churches, but also in the Western Church – mostly Protestant converts.

They are a smaller communion than us an require less priests.

Quite the opposite. They typically have a lot mot more smaller parishes – each requiring priests. In the West we have much larger churches…

It’s part of the reason why they don’t have daily mass which a priest is required to do in the Latin Church.

No. The tradition of celebrating Divine Liturgy only on Sundays is an ancient one.

A married priest would struggle to meet he commitments of the Latin Church priests.

Why? Especially if they were not pastors or administrators?

Secondly over 50 only allowed for ordination pretty much means that such a priesthood would aged and have little longevity

Why? The priest that celebrated Mass for us this morning is 81 and in fine health.

 

[Wandile]

Why not?

It’s demanding on a priest during a priest shortage no less. He needs to say daily mass as a priest first of all. Secondly needs to travel to multiple parishes saying masses on the weekend besides his normal job.

Not really. There are married priests not only in our Eastern Catholic churches, but also in the Western Church – mostly Protestant converts.

The Eastern Catholics are not latins. They have different traditions which are identical to their Orthodox counterparts so this is not a valid point.

Secondly Many is an overstatement. They are a fraction of a fraction. Our tradition has been built on a celibate clergy for the last 1000 years and a combination of celibate and continent clergy the previous two.

The liturgical requirements of a priest in the Latin Church are based on the idea that he has no spouse but God. Laxing these requirements would be a huge breach of tradition. The first to suffer would be daily mass if such a priesthood became the norm. Imagine the availability of other sacraments like confession. It would be disastrous.

Quite the opposite. They typically have a lot mot more smaller parishes – each requiring priests. In the West we have much larger churches…

Not the opposite at all. They have a smaller population hence the smaller parishes. The requirements of the Latin Church are vastly different to our eastern counterparts. We are talking about 1.1 billion vs a 250 million with 200 million of that in Russia alone. Thus their requirement everywhere else are very Minimal. The priest per laymen ratio is completely worlds apart.

 

[Wandile]

No. The tradition of celebrating Divine Liturgy only on Sundays is an ancient one.

Yes it’s ancient but they couldn’t even if they wanted to. Theirs priests can’t accomadate it. Hence many Eastern Catholics don’t have daily mass even though where the can they do have it. With a married priest (barring an exception here and there, it’s too much) even when there isn’t a priests shortage. Now imaging how difficult that would be in the current priest shortage. Practically unimaginable.

A married priest would struggle to meet he commitments of the Latin Church priests.

Why? Especially if they were not pastors or administrators?

Because the requirements to say daily mass alone and weekend masses to Multiple parishes already stretch celibate priests thin! A married priest would not cope and I wouldn’t expect them to because these requirements have been set out under the assumption that the Latin priest is celibate.

Why? The priest that celebrated Mass for us this morning is 81 and in fine health.

How many make it to that age? Not many. Secondly overworking and aged man is never a good idea. Now imagine overworking and aged married man who still has family commitments and a secular job. Let’s be real here

 

[Duesenberg]

It’s demanding on a priest during a priest shortage no less. He needs to say daily mass as a priest first of all. Secondly needs to travel to multiple parishes saying masses on the weekend besides his normal job.

So? While permanent deacons don’t celebrate Mass, many spend their time making house visits and hospital and jail calls, etc. while holding down jobs. No less taxing than celebrating the Mass.

The Eastern Catholics are not latins. They have different traditions which are identical to their Orthodox counterparts so this is not a valid point.

It’s very valid.

Secondly Many is an overstatement. They are a fraction of a fraction. Our tradition has been built on a celibate clergy for the last 1000 years and a combination of celibate and continent clergy the previous two.

“Many” is not an overstatement. Praxis-formed priests would not be a replacement for seminary-formed priests.

The liturgical requirements of a priest in the Latin Church are based on the idea that he has no spouse but God. Laxing these requirements would be a huge breach of tradition. The first to suffer would be daily mass if such a priesthood became the norm. Imagine the availability of other sacraments like confession. It would be disastrous.

You’re simply wrong about this. The first to benefit would be the daily Mass! As it is, there is a great priest shortage in many places. This would help.

Not the opposite at all. They have a smaller population hence the smaller parishes. The requirements of the Latin Church are vastly different to our eastern counterparts. We are talking about 1.1 billion vs a 250 million with 200 million of that in Russia alone. Thus their requirement everywhere else are very Minimal. The priest per laymen ratio is completely worlds apart.

That makes absolutely no difference at all at the local level. None. Like it or not, it would yield more priests.

 

[Duesenberg]

Yes it’s ancient but they couldn’t even if they wanted to. Theirs priests can’t accomadate it. Hence many Eastern Catholics don’t have daily mass even though where the can they do have it. With a married priest (barring an exception here and there, it’s too much) even when there isn’t a priests shortage. Now imaging how difficult that would be in the current priest shortage. Practically unimaginable.

Nope. My EC parish has a priest who could celebrate a daily DL (the former one used to) if it was their tradition to do so.

Because the requirements to say daily mass alone and weekend masses to Multiple parishes already stretch celibate priests thin! A married priest would not cope and I wouldn’t expect them to because these requirements have been set out under the assumption that the Latin priest is celibate.

There would be MORE PRIESTS! Married priests to augment the unmarried priests! Do you get that!?! No one is getting rid of the unmarried priests. These “requirements” exist due to a GRAVE SHORTAGE of priests.

How many make it to that age? Not many. Secondly overworking and aged man is never a good idea. Now imagine overworking and aged married man who still has family commitments and a secular job. Let’s be real here

MANY around here. Even if a priest retired at 75 that would be 25 years of service. 20 years of service at 70, etc.

 

[LittleFlower]

I am wondering why you are telling these stories and suggesting it is the norm.

Firstly, what we are both doing is sharing anecdotes. Neither of us is providing statistically relevant information. Secondly, saying what I am sharing is a story could be interpreted as it being fictional.

Lastly, I am saying that many do charge for weddings and I know at least one couple who nearly didn’t get married in the church because of the reluctance of priests to lower the amount at all.

Now, we can add all sorts of variables into the discussion (heritage listing, parish chosen, etc.). However, it doesn’t change the fact that such a set fee can be a deterrent especially if a registry office wedding costs $400. Being charitable doesn’t mean not having a fee at all, it means being open that some won’t be able to financially carry that burden and therefore might choose to get married in the registry office.

Many a thread here talks about the end of Christianity. We aren’t helping. Some who may be marginally attached to a parish and their faith, we could lose forever. Getting married in the church shouldn’t be seen as a luxury but for many it is becoming that way, at least mentally.

 

[Zenon]

I’d make it more frugal. A few years back, my mother, who runs a construction company, worked with our parish to build a “family life center.” The parish pretty much said to spare no expense, because they had the coffers of the Catholic Church at their disposal. My mother tried to encourage them to go for less-expensive options to save the parishoners’ tithe money, but the parish refused. She left the project and our family left the Church.

If the problem was just with that parish, we would’ve switched parishes. Instead, we found out more about how the archdiocese and the Church as a whole was run. They would rent entire high-end restaurants in a major city and send Bishops on month-long vacations to Rome, all on parishoners’ money. I know people personally who need to choose between purchasing their medication and giving to the Church. I’ve received handouts at Catholic churches giving helpful charts with their new expectations for giving based on income level or previous giving. Seeing things like “if you previously gave X, you should now start giving X*2” and graduated tithing charts starting at 10% was rather disheartening. Even at our parish, in the weeks leading up to the commencement of the building planning, the priest began every sermon with “Now, I have never come up here and asked you for money,” and then proceeded to preach a homily on how the week’s readings indicate we should give more.

 

[Rau]

Lastly, I am saying that many do charge for weddings and I know at least one couple who nearly didn’t get married in the church because of the reluctance of priests to lower the amount at all.

The first part is true and I’ve not heard an argument that it is inappropriate. The suggestion that the practice is so widespread throughout the suburban parishes of Australia, so onerous and so
‘commercial’ that it might prevent a person marrying in the Church is IMHO laughable.

Now, we can add all sorts of variables into the discussion (heritage listing, parish chosen, etc.). However, it doesn’t change the fact that such a set fee can be a deterrent especially if a registry office wedding costs $400.

It’s usually wise to incorporate the relevant factors - the fees are mostly about the building, and whether the parish is local. I’d be unwilling to utilise an historical (= costly to maintain) church building given the understandable need to contribute to the maintenance of the building. Church weddings in Australia at the local parish will likely involve less than $400.

 

[LittleFlower]

so onerous and so

’commercial’ that it might prevent a person marrying in the Church is IMHO laughable

Well you might find it laughable, but I’ve seen it nearly happen. Again, we are comparing our anecdotes.

Church weddings in Australia at the local parish will likely involve less than $400.

Again, my anecdote suggest this is not the case.

Let’s agree to disagree, as even though I accept your arguments and points, you are completely unwilling to engage with mine without belittling them. :wave:t2:

 

[Rau]

Well you might find it laughable, but I’ve seen it nearly happen. Again, we are comparing our anecdotes.

My “anecdotes” are personal experience, not hearsay, and consistent with the mission of the Church.

I accept your arguments and points, you are completely unwilling to engage with mine without belittling them.

I accept entirely that high fees are charged in some places where that is understandable. I’ve belittled nothing. I reject your claims that high fees are widely charged across local suburban parishes and priests send the poor packing when they can’t meet the “asking price”.

But yes, let’s leave the readers to judge the matter.