Lay woman named to lead Santa Clara parish with three priests on staff

[prettiefly]

“Some priests may choose not to become pastors”

Lay woman named to lead Santa Clara parish with three priests on staff

San Jose Bishop Patrick McGrath has named a lay “minister of parish life” to administer a large Santa Clara parish instead of appointing a new pastor – even though three priests are listed in the parish’s online staff directory.

The rest of the article:
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=30c13aef-83a6-4993-a7de-89d37b181f8f

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Not good, IMO.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This is an interesting area being explored for how women can hold positions in the church. Is there a canon law that says a priest has to lead the parish? Can a priest report to and work for a lay parish leader?

Could this take place in the vatican? For example could an archbishop report to a lay person in some vatican department?

Just asking, not expressing a volatile opinion

 

[Corki]

This is an interesting area being explored for how women can hold positions in the church. Is there a canon law that says a priest has to lead the parish? Can a priest report to and work for a lay parish leader?

Could this take place in the vatican? For example could an archbishop report to a lay person in some vatican department?

Just asking, not expressing a volatile opinion

That is an interesting question and I don’t know the answer so I am going to add some more questions.

I know a woman can be appointed to administer a parish but a woman cannot be a pastor. There are some decisions that are reserved to the pastor. When there is a woman head minister and non-pastor priests, who makes those reserved decisions?

Mary Ann Glendon, before becoming the ambassador to the Vatican was President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. While that’s not a curial office, she surely had priests reporting to her there.

 

[greenmoira]

I certainly hope that she is not considered the pastor. I think that the title of “Minister” should be reserved for the ordained. This can lead to a misunderstanding of Catholics and non-Catholics alike as to the proper role of women in the Church. If this woman is competent as an administrator, it may be all right if she has the Catholic sense of appropriateness. It should be a secondary position with the parish pastor in primary.

 

[Phemie]

That is an interesting question and I don’t know the answer so I am going to add some more questions.

I know a woman can be appointed to administer a parish but a woman cannot be a pastor. There are some decisions that are reserved to the pastor. When there is a woman head minister and non-pastor priests, who makes those reserved decisions?

I would think that if there is no Pastor then the Bishop is responsible for decisions that the administrator can’t make.

We’re in the position now of having no pastor, ours moved to a new parish across the country yesterday and there is no replacement in the wings. For now, the pastor of the native parish down the road is the administrator, against his will. There are certain decisions that will have to wait until a Pastor is appointed so for now the status quo is maintained. As administrator this guy makes a good plumber. He can’t handle money and his own parishes are broke. It’s only because of proximity that he got the position.

 

[dmorgan]

All of this current “minister of” stuff smacks of protestant church structure. They have a “minister of” for just about every conceivable group or situation. We are Catholics! We have a Pope, Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Nuns and Brothers. Do we really need to go any further down the protestant path and start assigning the “minister” title to everyone from the groundskeeper to the parish secretary? Do we really want a lay committee to decide how a parish operates? Do we really want our Priests to feel obliged to adhere to a lay persons idea of how to run a parish? If a parish is suffering from a shortage of Priests, an administrator is reasonable, but the Parish in this instance has three Priests assigned to it. Are we to believe that none of these Priests are capable of administering this parish? Something smells here and it aint incense!

Pax Christi

 

[Dale_M]

The article doesn’t say how old the priests are, or whether the priests have primary responsibilities outside the parish. I think those things are important to know before we evaluate this situation. Retired priests who are willing to assist at a parish, but don’t feel adequate to leading a parish, should be applauded for their dedication.

I read a commentary, a year or so ago, from a priest who was engaged in research. He was more than willing to assist in a parish, but couldn’t devote the time to be its pastor. He argued that the priest shortage was overblown…priests just need to be used more creatively.

 

[Phemie]

The article doesn’t say how old the priests are, or whether the priests have primary responsibilities outside the parish. I think those things are important to know before we evaluate this situation. Retired priests who are willing to assist at a parish, but don’t feel adequate to leading a parish, should be applauded for their dedication.

I read a commentary, a year or so ago, from a priest who was engaged in research. He was more than willing to assist in a parish, but couldn’t devote the time to be its pastor. He argued that the priest shortage was overblown…priests just need to be used more creatively.

Two of the priests are listed as ‘parochial vicars’. They may have not wanted to be pastors or had what it takes to become such, or been ordained long enough to have paid their dues before becoming Pastor of their own parish. The third is listed as ‘in residence’. This just means he’s living at the rectory. He could be retired, or a student doing a PHD (our former vicar is in just that position in California, he’s doing his PhD in missiology), or have a full-time job teaching. Not every priest is meant to be a pastor or a parish priest.

 

[Corki]

Two of the priests are listed as ‘parochial vicars’. They may have not wanted to be pastors or had what it takes to become such, or been ordained long enough to have paid their dues before becoming Pastor of their own parish. The third is listed as ‘in residence’. This just means he’s living at the rectory. He could be retired, or a student doing a PHD (our former vicar is in just that position in California, he’s doing his PhD in missiology), or have a full-time job teaching. Not every priest is meant to be a pastor or a parish priest.

Around here a parochial vicar is usually a retired pastor who is too close to retirement age to start a new parish rotation. I know two parishes with “in residence” priests. One is a priest who teaches at one of the Catholic universities and helps out at the parish when he can. The other is a priest without faculties.

If the parish in question has two parochial vicars and one priest-in-residence they may be using the lay position to gain some longer term continuity.

 

[KCT]

Interesting . . .years ago I heard a very solid, orthodox priest comment that if priests could get out of being ‘administrators’ they could go back to serving the people of the parish in ways they no longer have time to do. He hoped that one day parishes could afford to pay lay people to do all the administrative work so priests could be priests.

I work in a parish, and just today, the pastor had to make calls about street lights that are out, getting the school roof fixed, lights in the confessional and other mundane items. Yet, when a parishioner called the office about her sick mom getting a Communion and confession visit, the ladies in the front office were not sure how to manage it. There are lay people who do Communion calls, but they can’t hear confessions.

Maybe we need alternate titles for these parish managers, but if we can free priests to minister, I’m all for it.

 

[Brendan]

Interesting . . .years ago I heard a very solid, orthodox priest comment that if priests could get out of being ‘administrators’ they could go back to serving the people of the parish in ways they no longer have time to do. He hoped that one day parishes could afford to pay lay people to do all the administrative work so priests could be priests.

There is quite a lot to be said for that. The primary duties of a priest are always to say Mass, hear Confessions and Annoint the sick. Everything else is a far distant second.

Here in the Archdiocese of Detroit a ‘Pastoral Administrator’ must be at least an Ordained Deacon, per the Archbishop’s policy. So far, the Archdiocese has made good use of a lot of the managerial and finacial skills that Deacons who have retired from secular employment bring into their role.

So the situation described in the article could not happen here.

 

[irishpatrick]

All of this current “minister of” stuff smacks of protestant church structure. They have a “minister of” for just about every conceivable group or situation. We are Catholics! We have a Pope, Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Nuns and Brothers. Do we really need to go any further down the protestant path and start assigning the “minister” title to everyone from the groundskeeper to the parish secretary? Do we really want a lay committee to decide how a parish operates? Do we really want our Priests to feel obliged to adhere to a lay persons idea of how to run a parish? If a parish is suffering from a shortage of Priests, an administrator is reasonable, but the Parish in this instance has three Priests assigned to it. Are we to believe that none of these Priests are capable of administering this parish? Something smells here and it aint incense!

Pax Christi

I have said many times that rather than the Church going out and catechising the nation, it is the Protestants who are slowly catechising Catholics. All the “ministers of” stuff, indeed. Plus, the small armies that descend upon the altar during Communion, the minimizing of Confession, the elevation of Bible studies to near Sacrament level, the directors of this and that, etc.

 

[Tigg]

All of this current “minister of” stuff smacks of protestant church structure. They have a “minister of” for just about every conceivable group or situation. We are Catholics! We have a Pope, Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Nuns and Brothers. Do we really need to go any further down the protestant path and start assigning the “minister” title to everyone from the groundskeeper to the parish secretary? Do we really want a lay committee to decide how a parish operates? Do we really want our Priests to feel obliged to adhere to a lay persons idea of how to run a parish? If a parish is suffering from a shortage of Priests, an administrator is reasonable, but the Parish in this instance has three Priests assigned to it. Are we to believe that none of these Priests are capable of administering this parish? Something smells here and it aint incense!

Pax Christi

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Adding more to the brew of confusion and lack of boundaries between the ministerial and common priesthood.