Priests being moved

[Diaconia]

Well, as I said earlier, they generally follow, but make exceptions as they deem necessary.

And, in general, bishops utilize “pastoral reasons” to justify exceptions to the Law (and certainly not just in this area of pastoral terms). They are, in fact, the head Pastors of their dioceses.

I could give numerous other examples, but that’s not salient to this thread.

Deacon Christopher

 

[commenter]

A question I have is, why do the bishops of the US just routinely go against canon law in this matter? Do other countries also do this?
I understand that there are advantages to moving them around. I wonder if we had more priests in general, that would help with any deficiencies in any particular pastor.

It’s not going against canon law, it’s a permitted option. Pastoral needs differ from one country to the next. Does anyone know if other countries do this option?

My personal view is that trends since V2 require this option. There had been too many priests especially in the 1970s who were dissenters, who sometimes made their parish into a stronghold.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

My personal view is that trends since V2 require this option. There had been too many priests especially in the 1970s who were dissenters, who sometimes made their parish into a stronghold.

Well, they’re still doing that, as shown in the recent case of Fr. Mark White in Richmond. But there are a huge variety of reasons why the Bishop might wish to move a pastor, and also a huge variety of reason why a pastor might want a different assignment. Managing it in this way allows the pastor to gracefully leave without there needing to be some big explanation about why the pastor is leaving. He might not want to be sharing with his whole parish the fact that he is burned out, has some ailment, is struggling with some temptation, or is just tired of his assignment and would like to go somewhere else or do something else.

 

[dochawk]

When did the US Conference adopt this “norm”? Do other countries generally follow something like this?

I expect that the clergy and canon lawyers here could give a better answer as to when.

The universal norm is no terms. The US is one of the handful that took the option to have terms.

I suppose the 50 year Eastern pastor was appointed under the old rules

Rather, the rules of his church, not the old Roman rules.

I can’t speak for the rest, but the Pittsburgh metropolis doesn’t have terms.

The priests serve at the sole discretion of the Bishop; when he says it’s time to move, they move.

under the general rule, a priest has a right not to be moved without cause. Of course, the same bishop reassigning is the one that determines cause . . .

 

[Shasta-Rose]

This is happening at my church, too. A priest who came here a couple of years ago is being moved. I’m upset, because I really like him. I wrote him that I am sorry that he is moving and that I’ll miss him. He wrote back that he is very sorry to go. He doesn’t have long till retirement, and he loves our church and was counting on hanging with us for the next couple of years till his retirement. And then the bishop yanked him and is sending him on his way. And he won’t even have a reception, due to the virus constraints. Such a nice man. I really think that somebody that age has paid his dues and shouldn’t be moved around right before his retirement.

 

[tafan2]

Rarely has a modern American catholic practice be so universally accepted, yet completely wrong. 15 likes on a post , too bad there is not a dislike button so I could vote my disagreement.

Why don’t we just switch parents every few years. Change can act as a refresher for the oarents, kids, or both.

Note: I am referring to pastors, not priests in general.

 

[27lw]

Yes. When a parish gets a pastor that they maybe don’t like so well, people just think “oh, we just have to wait it out for a few years and then he’ll get moved along again”.
It seems strange that the entire country’s Catholic priests get moved around, so that it’s more convenient to move the problematic ones around discreetly.

 

[commenter]

Rarely has a modern American catholic practice be so universally accepted, yet completely wrong. 15 likes on a post , too bad there is not a dislike button so I could vote my disagreement.

Why don’t we just switch parents every few years. Change can act as a refresher for the oarents, kids, or both.

Note: I am referring to pastors, not priests in general.

Sadly the priest shortage is forcing many very tough decisions on bishops. In my Diocese we’ve had lots of suddenly vacant parishes, due to pastor scandal, suicide, psychiatric crisis, or other factors causing trauma for the parish.

Years ago most parishes had assistant pastors to provide continuity, now maybe 5 percent have an assistant. Years ago there were always some mature priests in administration or something who could step in as pastor. Today today there are no extra priests anywhere.

In my Rust Belt diocese there are still too many parishes, far below their former size, close to similar parishes. This means every year there’s some urgent holes to fill.

PRAYERS for priests and bishops!

 

[tafan2]

I do not see the priest shortage as the reason the US has adopted the idea of temporary pastors being the norm. I do think it is likely that the policy of always abrogating the norm expressed in 522 is one of the causes of our vocation crisis.

 

[commenter]

I do not see the priest shortage as the reason the US has adopted the idea of temporary pastors being the norm. I do think it is likely that the policy of always abrogating the norm expressed in 522 is one of the causes of our vocation crisis.

It may not have been the original reason, but the current shortage makes that policy necessary. The priest shortage began under the old system.

Religious orders have shrunk even faster than diocesan clergy.

 

[tafan2]

I do not understand why it is necessary. Of course there arises a good reason why a pastor has to be moved, but a general policy of 6 year assignments is not necessary just because of a shortage of priests.

 

[otjm]

There is a slight difference between priests and parents, and I won’t belabor the point. The problems which can develop with a priest - whether a not so great one or a stellar one - were laid out in at least one post herein, and they are relevant.

No one priest can be all things to all members of the parish; and no one priest has a complete repertoire of all that can be done to provide spiritual growth to all; in fact over-exposure can lead to spiritual complacency. Change is a natural part of growth, both for the priest and for the parishioners.

 

[tafan2]

First of all, I fully realize that my (strong) opinion on this matter is shared by very few, including priests and pastors in our country. What has become accepted and the norm, and accepted as a good thing, is wrong IMO.

There is a slight difference between priests and parents, and I won’t belabor the point.

I agree, there is a slight difference, and only a slight difference. Which makes my analogy quite appropriate.

Can. 529 §1. In order to fulfill his office diligently, a pastor is to strive to know the faithful entrusted to his care.

Therefore he is to visit families, sharing especially in the cares, anxieties, and griefs of the faithful, strengthening them in the Lord, and prudently correcting them if they are failing in certain areas. With generous love he is to help the sick, particularly those close to death, by refreshing them solicitously with the sacraments and commending their souls to God; with particular diligence he is to seek out the poor, the afflicted, the lonely, those exiled from their country, and similarly those weighed down by special difficulties. He is to work so that spouses and parents are supported in fulfilling their proper duties and is to foster growth of Christian life in the family.

What is common right now is that few people ever get to know their pastor or their pastor get to know them. And this is accepted as “ok”, even a good thing. It boggles my mind. The typical kid who graduates from high school who is a member of a family that attends mass every week has never had a priest visit his home for dinner, has no idea what priests are like. Indeed, they think priests are kind of weird. I know, I have toaught teenagers CCD enough to learn this. And we wonder why vocations are down.

We have a very good and sincere deacon who thinks a pastor can get too attached to people in his parish. He is their spiritual father. He needs to get attached to them.

Priests can and do occasionally get too attached to things and persons in a specific parish.

You believe that "One does not need to “know” the priest to be served by him in the sacraments and the liturgy. " This is contrary to the law of the church (as I posted above). Yes a pastor is responsible for our sacramental lives, but he is not just a dispenser of sacraments. He is our teacher, our guide to heaven.

tbd…

 

[tafan2]

cont…

What does the church have to say about it? I will submit to you some quotes from the excellent document “THE PRIEST, PASTOR AND LEADER OF THE PARISH COMMUNITY” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...gy_doc_20020804_istruzione-presbitero_en.html)

It cannot, however, be prudently overlooked that pastoral care in solidum, which can only be given to priests alone, can give rise to certain difficulties. It is natural for the faithful to identify with their own parish priest. The continuing rotation of priests among themselves can be confusing or misunderstood in the parish. The great value of the spiritual paternity of the parish priest in his parish is clearly evident. The role of sacramental “pater familias” played by the parish priest, and its consequent ties, is pastorally effective.

As the priest proper to the parish, he should make every effort to know the faithful entrusted to his care and avoid the danger of any form of functionalism. A parish priest is not a functionary fulfilling a role or providing services to those who request them. Rather, he exercises his ministry in an integral way as a man of God, seeking out the faithful, visiting their families, sharing in their needs and in their joys. He corrects with prudence, he cares for the aged, the weak, the abandoned, the sick, and the dying. He devotes particular care to the poor and the afflicted. He strives for the conversion of sinners and those in error. He encourages all in the fulfilment of the duties of their states of life and promotes the Christian life among familie

Finally, I will leave you with Canon 522:

Can. 522 A pastor must possess stability and therefore is to be appointed for an indefinite period of time. The diocesan bishop can appoint him only for a specific period if the conference of bishops has permitted this by a decree.

It is clear that the US bishops are within their legal rights to institute a 6 year term, but it is equally clear they are not following the guidance of the Holy See in doing so.

ETA: deleted the portion of my post that was unchariable and should not have been written. I apologize to all.

 

[Diaconia]

Something for you to ponder:

Who do you think knows best what is good for the clergy of their diocese — their father and shepherd the bishop, or a minority of the laity?

If your sense was right on this, more bishops would see it your way, and their national conference of bishops would do something else.

I assure you the bishops have the best interests of their priests in mind,
Deacon Christopher

 

[tafan2]

I can accept that, my last cynical paragraph was wrong to write. I apologize to all for that and I will delete it. I fully accept that at this point, they all think this is the best policy for parishes and priests. I think they are wrong, but I do believe they are doing what they think is best. I suspect it has become such the norm, none of them think to question it though. I might be just part of a “minority of laity”, but I have read all of the document I posted above, along with the intro by St JP II, and I feel that my position is more inline with the Church’s.

 

[Jen7]

I agree with everything you have written. There is a crisis of fatherhood in the world and I think it extends to the Church.

And nope, I don’t think “bishop knows best.” The bishops should not expect our default trust anyway. They should not be surprised to be questioned. After all the scandal?? They should have thought of how that would affect our ability to follow them blindly BEFORE they did their scandalous deeds / ignored others’ scandalous deeds. Now? They have to earn back my trust. I obey, but cautiously and with my eyes wide open. Sad, but true.

 

[commenter]

I don’t think “bishop knows best.” The bishops should not expect our default trust anyway.

The bishops don’t know everything best. I know more about social work. My brother knows more about engineering.

But they do know the bishop job better than I do. In terms of scandal, some bishops did badly, but a much higher percentage of laity did badly. (None of the US Bishops support legal abortion. How about the laity, maybe a third?)

The Church works best when each one does their own part. Fathers are different from mother’s, parents are different from children, teachers different from students, the priest should not dress, drink, swear like “one of the guys”, nuns should not use their convent for partisan political purposes, etc.

 

[27lw]

Are there countries currently where priests are appointed indefinitely?
How does it work for them?

 

[otjm]

What is common right now is that few people ever get to know their pastor or their pastor get to know them. And this is accepted as “ok”, even a good thing. It boggles my mind. The typical kid who graduates from high school who is a member of a family that attends mass every week has never had a priest visit his home for dinner, has no idea what priests are like. Indeed, they think priests are kind of weird. I know, I have taught teenagers CCD enough to learn this. And we wonder why vocations are down.

We had a pastor for something like 25 years, and there were a goodly number of parishioners who never “got to know him” - it was a sizable parish, and if you only show up on Sunday, walk out the door after Mass and don’t show up for another 7 days, it is more than a bit hard to “get to know” someone - for either side. I live near a parish of three thousand families (not people - families). In a parish with 400 families, there are going to be a number who would not think of inviting the priest to dinner.

And by the way, prior to my entering college, my parents had a priest over for dinner probably 8 or 10 times a year; maybe once the pastor, and never the assistant priests. we happened to know a lot of priests, including at least 3 who were relatives.

Vocations are down because the world, and all too many Catholics, are secularized. Having the priest over for dinner would make about zero impact on the issue of vocations; and the larger the parish, the less impact, if it is possible to go into negative numbers.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on how we could increase vocations. I would suggest that a parish with 24 hour perpetual adoration is more likely to accomplish that than having Father for dinner, and I base that on the parish I was in for @ 25 or more years: 3 priests, 2 deacons, one deacon candidate, 2 seminarians, and 2 women professed to orders of sisters. The pastor went to few homes for dinner.

The parish is only a microcosm of the Church; and the priest is not ordained to only a parish; he is ordained to the diocese. As to how long he stays in a parish, some can do so to the benefit of the parish, and many are benefited by being moved periodically, as there is seldom a parish of “one mind”. Cliques are in parishes just as much as anywhere else in life, and frankly, if I were a priest, I would welcome being able to start afresh after a move; putting up with the insidiousness of the petty politics which seem to be in every parish I have ever had significant contact with would drive a sane person bonkers.