Interesting that you say this. Obviously, we each only have our own personal experience to draw upon, but I myself have never seen any “careerism” in any of the Priests I have known. Other problems yes (theyre only human), but not careerism.Perhaps now Pope Francis will eradicate Mother Superior, Abbot, Abbess, etc., or, minimally, grant such titles on an age-restrictive basis like Monsignor. In my childhood parish of St. Mary’s in Painesville, OH, Monsignors Galena and Misich never struck me as careerists. They were nice old gentlemen who led the parish for years before their retirement, death, and final burial at St. Mary’s Cemetery. Apparently, careerism among those aspiring to Monsignor under age 65 has become a problem in today’s Church. Guess I missed the memo.
Even if it is new, what would be the real effect? The average age of a priest in the U.S. is about 63 years of age.No, this is a different story. The old story talks about Pope Francis simply choosing to end the conferring of the title. The new development is that he has abolished the title completely for anyone under the age of 65 (with those who hold the title currently grandfathered in). The first was simply a personal decision, but this new development actually has the force of law and makes it permanent.
I agree. A perfect example of “small ball”.Interesting that you say this. Obviously, we each only have our own personal experience to draw upon, but I myself have never seen any “careerism” in any of the Priests I have known. Other problems yes (theyre only human), but not careerism.
To me this would seem to be a pretty low priority problem.
I don’t think the Church ever was “concerned about” it!It is a move in line with his attitude to papal fripperies such as ermine-edged capelets… the bestowing of titles is hardly what the Church should be concerned about…the world needs servants of the poor, not princes of the Church.
But that is not the average age of priests worldwide. This applies to priests everywhere. There are places where being a priest is means a better life and there are ambitious men in the world who would like to move up in the diocesean or curial hierarchy.Even if it is new, what would be the real effect? The average age of a priest in the U.S. is about 63 years of age.
georgetown.edu/news/average-priest-age-now-nearly-20-years-older.html
I just read an article on this and need to revise my post… It looks like it is aimed directly at secular priests and the diocese. Still think it’s a good thing, but completely different than I originally thought.I think, as has been well publicized by the Cardinals before the conclave and many times before and since, this is probably directed more towards the central bureaucracy and Curia than to parish priests. Careerism has been cited as a serious problem in the Church, not just by Francis.
The older story reported a “freeze.” The current story reports the near-abolition.Several months old, at least.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11208465&highlight=monsignor#post11208465
If the Church hasn’t been “concerned” with such matters, why were there once 14 different levels of Monsignor?I don’t think the Church ever was “concerned about” it!
Not always. Many diocesan priests were made monsignors because of holding curial functions in their dioceses (i.e. the title came with the posting) and many others who never held curial posts were made monsignors in recognition of long and outstanding service. The break down between the types of honors has varied wildly over the decades from diocese to diocese – partly because of the changes in types of monsignor ranks (from 14 to three and to just one going forward) and how freely or rarely various bishops requested such titles for their priests.I don’t know how this will change any perceived “careerism”. Didn’t Monsignor indicate some Curial function?