- Status
N
nysacerdote
Guest
I know why the Pope made this decision and can respect him for it. Remember Pope Paul VI limited the appointment of Monsignors from the 14 different grades that where present then to three grades that many were accustom too. There were some dioceses were if the priest knew the answer to “1 + 1” then they were awarded with the title Monsignor. I exaggerate, but to prove a point.
However, the awarding of the title Monsignor was also used in the selection of bishops, and worked as a great out for the Holy See. If there was a priest working his tail off, but that would never be a bishop, the title Monsignor could be awarded.
But overall, I think Pope Francis’ main argument here about trying to eliminate clericalism (what title should a priest desire more than being called father?) is sound.
However, the awarding of the title Monsignor was also used in the selection of bishops, and worked as a great out for the Holy See. If there was a priest working his tail off, but that would never be a bishop, the title Monsignor could be awarded.
But overall, I think Pope Francis’ main argument here about trying to eliminate clericalism (what title should a priest desire more than being called father?) is sound.
L
L_Marshall
Guest
I agree with this. I think it’s a bit disappointing that many good priests who: 1) Were entirely deserving of the recognition and honor of the title; 2) Not seeking it for themselves, will go unrewarded because of a few bad apples.
I think, however, it’s important to realize that in any of the official Vatican statements the word “clericalism” isn’t used, but “careerism” is. The move was meant to stop priest for working for their own self gain and recognition.
M
malphono
Guest
While it’s true that there are those among the secular clergy who are clearly ambitious, the problem with the over-use of titles rests squarely with the bishops. No matter how ambitious, a secular priest does not petition Rome for an honorific title on his own behalf.
Not that I much care, but this move is disappointing in a number of other ways. In particular I don’t particularly care for the age restriction. Someone can be ordained bishop at 35 (canon 378 sub 3), but another who may deserve an honorific in recognition of service is denied until 65? Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
M
mymamamary
Guest
**I personally think that this is a great idea! Firstly, it eliminates envy and rivalry between Priests (It is all too common for a Priest to be awarded the title when suddenly the majority of the Priests in the diocese start talking about him)-I heard this myself. Secondly, in agreement with the above poster, why would any Priest want any other title other than Father? The Priest is exactly that, a father. He is assigned to a parish where he tends to his people like a Father would. In confession, the Priest acts as a Father who heals. In Baptism, the Priest acts as a Father who spiritually creates. At Mass, the Priest acts as a Father who feeds his children with heavenly food. In the anointing of the sick, the Priest acts as a Father who looks after his sick children. So after all this why need the title of monsignor, except in special exceptions? **
W
wcknight
Guest
It is also a huge cost saving move. Many priests are paid by their rank, Monsignors make more than regular priests. Our pastor says he is not concerned about the new ruling even though he has a very long way to go before age 65. He plans on skipping the monsignor title anyway. 
J
johnmann
Guest
I generally don’t like age restrictions for anything. Also keep in mind that this doesn’t prevent bishops from granting honors within their dioceses. But the title of monsignor was one granted by Rome. Reportedly, Pope Francis rejected a recent request by a single bishop to name 12 monsignors. That may have triggered this new policy.
M
maryjk
Guest
Our pastor is a monsignor. From what I can gather, he won’t lose that title.
Most people have no idea that he is a monsignor.
I use that title when I introduce him. John Doe, meet Monsignor Christian name, last name.
The priest offers his hand and says, "Please call me Father Nickname. (Nickname: think Bob, not Skippy.)
Last week, I got an interoffice memo from him. He signed it, “Father Nickname.”
It seems that, although he has the title, he doesn’t generally use it. So it certainly isn’t something he sees as better than the title of Father or Priest.
I knew him before he received the honor. He hasn’t changed. He is still the same person and he still acts the same as he has always done.
Most people have no idea that he is a monsignor.
I use that title when I introduce him. John Doe, meet Monsignor Christian name, last name.
The priest offers his hand and says, "Please call me Father Nickname. (Nickname: think Bob, not Skippy.)
Last week, I got an interoffice memo from him. He signed it, “Father Nickname.”
It seems that, although he has the title, he doesn’t generally use it. So it certainly isn’t something he sees as better than the title of Father or Priest.
I knew him before he received the honor. He hasn’t changed. He is still the same person and he still acts the same as he has always done.
L
L_Marshall
Guest
I’m not sure if you’re being serious, but this is not true. Priests are paid the same, regardless. Most of the time, bishops draw the exact same salary as every other priest in the diocese too.
C
choliks
Guest
I think it’s not retroactive, so he won’t lose the title.Our pastor is a monsignor. From what I can gather, he won’t lose that title.
Most people have no idea that he is a monsignor.
I use that title when I introduce him. John Doe, meet Monsignor Christian name, last name.
The priest offers his hand and says, "Please call me Father Nickname. (Nickname: think Bob, not Skippy.)
Last week, I got an interoffice memo from him. He signed it, “Father Nickname.”
It seems that, although he has the title, he doesn’t generally use it. So it certainly isn’t something he sees as better than the title of Father or Priest.
I knew him before he received the honor. He hasn’t changed. He is still the same person and he still acts the same as he has always done.
A
Aramis
Guest
That varies by diocese. Loaner priests are paid at a rate negotiated between the two dioceses, as well, and may be different for local incardinated priests. Pastors often are paid more. Many dioceses have pay rate increases for longevity.
Also note: the title Monsignor is also used for some other, non-papal, honors. In the Byzantine Catholic Church, mitered archpriests are routinely addressed as monsignor. Have been for nearly a century, making it Tradition. It also bears the written more Very Reverend n., but some used Right Reverend N..
This has, in the past, lead to a few oversights, Fr, Michael Artim, a Byzantine priest assigned to Anchorage, was nominated for “Chaplain to his Holiness” by the Roman Archbishop of Anchorage. This lead to the Byzantine bishops not realizing his 40 years of service hadn’t been rewarded with a miter (which is typically awarded between 20 and 30 years a priest…)… so at nearly 70, he got his miter.
M
malphono
Guest
The same true among the Melkites for Archmandrite. The AOC uses it in French, but I don’t know their custom in English. In the Syriac Churches, periodutes and chor-episkopoi also use the same title in both English and French. Of course, none of the above are “papal honorifics” either.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Please speculate: say a priest is awarded the title of monsignor at age 65–all other things being equal–what are the chances that he might become a bishop?
I guess what I’m really asking is how uncommon is it for a priest to be named bishop at age 65 or older? Does it ever happen? If it does would the title of monsignor make any difference?–I’m thinking that if a priest is named monsignor then he must have done something right–would that make it more or less probable that that priest might be named bishop?
I ask these questions because I converted to Catholicism Easter 2011. I don’t know the answer to these questions–I’m ignorant–I don’t have any axe to grind–just curious.
I guess what I’m really asking is how uncommon is it for a priest to be named bishop at age 65 or older? Does it ever happen? If it does would the title of monsignor make any difference?–I’m thinking that if a priest is named monsignor then he must have done something right–would that make it more or less probable that that priest might be named bishop?
I ask these questions because I converted to Catholicism Easter 2011. I don’t know the answer to these questions–I’m ignorant–I don’t have any axe to grind–just curious.
L
L_Marshall
Guest
Monsignori and bishops are different all together, and the titles have no relation to one another. One does not need to be a monsignor to be a bishop, and monsignori have no more privileges than an ordinary priest, aside from their honorary title, and use of purple trimming or a choir cassock.
That having been said, if the title of monsignor is being awarded for the right reason, and the priest continues his good work after he’s received the honor, he may be selected as a bishop not because he’s a monsignor, but because he’s devoted to the Church, and very good at serving her.
65 is not an uncommon age to be ordained a bishop. Bishop Deeley, who was just ordained an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Boston, and is now the Bishop of Portland, is around that age.
L
L_Marshall
Guest
One thing that I find extremely odd is that His Holiness has not reformed way the title of monsignor is awarded in the Roman Curia. What we’ve been reading has to do only with its implementation in dioceses. (From Vatican Radio)
As it stands, any priest over the age of 35 who has served in the Curia for five years is automatically awarded the title of monsignor (Chaplain of His Holiness). After another ten years, the Chaplain of His Holiness is automatically awarded the next level of monsignor: Honorary Prelate.
My question, is why are curial priests still being handed the award so young, and so frequently, when diocesan priests are being denied it?
As it stands, any priest over the age of 35 who has served in the Curia for five years is automatically awarded the title of monsignor (Chaplain of His Holiness). After another ten years, the Chaplain of His Holiness is automatically awarded the next level of monsignor: Honorary Prelate.
My question, is why are curial priests still being handed the award so young, and so frequently, when diocesan priests are being denied it?
E
ElectricMayhem
Guest
I like the Pope’s decision.
I have a family member that is a Monsignor- protonotary apostolic supernumerary. He doesn’t get paid more. In fact, HE had to pay a fee to get the title. We call him “super-duper.” He received it about 15 years ago. For him it has nothing to do clericalism or careerism. He actually doesn’t like the title because it appears as if he’s into clericalism- which he laughs at. Just a normal priest who’s really good at being a pastor.
I have a family member that is a Monsignor- protonotary apostolic supernumerary. He doesn’t get paid more. In fact, HE had to pay a fee to get the title. We call him “super-duper.” He received it about 15 years ago. For him it has nothing to do clericalism or careerism. He actually doesn’t like the title because it appears as if he’s into clericalism- which he laughs at. Just a normal priest who’s really good at being a pastor.
A
ajecphotos
Guest
I also like what the Pope is doing. Lots of changes needed and i am sure he will do a good job of it.
God bless him
God bless him
M
malphono
Guest
Considering the forced retirement age of 75, such is particularly common in cases where the intent is for a short-term bishop-Ordinary.
A
Aramis
Guest
not very likely. Most bishops are ordained in their late fifties, with a few in their forties, and some in their 60’s. The only ones I have seen ordaied after 65 were ordained by elections, but I don’t pay too close an attention.
Popes JP II & B XVI both wanted longer terms for continuity… 10 to 20 years of service. (allowing that JP II didn’t usually accept the pro-forma age 75 resignations.
- Status