Priests just blending in

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

While there may be no formal promise, I think that we can safely presume it ought to be somewhat expected, especially in our day and age. People want to see the priest not as a royal character with riches lavished upon him, but a servant of the servants of God. Living simply speaks this much louder that the understandable questioning which will be raised when one witnesses a priest who is perhaps functioning at level of greater wealth. Such can become an easy target for those who just see the Church as a self serving organization.

Actually no, I do not think that it can be “safely presumed” especially when so much is not taken care of for the priest.

Many dioceses treat them as nothing more than employees.

A priest who is incardinated to serve a particular diocese and it’s needs it often referred to as a “secular priest”. This is distinct from those priests who are members first and foremost of a religious order, thus being dubbed “religious priests”. Members of religious communities take additional vows beyond that which a secular priest is called to make. Their service might be parish based, but it is always in obedience to their religious superior. Often they have a vow of poverty, by which they own little or nothing of their own, save what the order provides. A secular priest, on the other hand, must provide out of his salary certain necessities for his ministry and personal matters.

Secular priests take no vows. Only religious members take vows and that is separate from their ordinations. They make the vows as brothers and are later ordained.

Secular priests make promises of celibacy and obedience to the bishop when they are ordained.

Religious make vows of celibacy, obedience, and poverty when they make their simple, and then later their final, vows. Some orders have other vows or replace one of these three, for example some Benedictines replace poverty with stability but in essence it means the same thing.

Sheeniac:

Can someone please explain the difference between the two types of priests? Aren’t they all religious?

Cluelessly, Juli

So Juli,
Chicago had it mostly correct.

Religious priests are members of religious orders and live a vowed life.

Secular priests are priests who are ordained to serve a bishop within a diocese.

Religious order priests are members of the order first and then priests second. This is something that was lost post-vatican II but the orders are now returning to this mindset. But that is a topic for another thread, if you (or anyone else) is interested in discussing this just start up a thread on it.

 

[rr1213]

They’re always off on golf tournaments, hunting trips or vacations in the tropics.

Can’t get married…gotta have fun somehow.

 

[Meggie]

may I point out that a dicoean priest would need to build up atleast 200,000 in the bank. They retire and they have helth care issues and so much else. A 200,000 dollar retirement of about 30 years (age 60-90) means around 6,500 a year, including food and medical bills, not to mention trips to visit family, etc. If they need a car, they have to buy it…etc. They don’t have a community, like religious, to live with. They may stay at a parish for moral support, but its a tough life.

 

[chicago]

Chicago had it mostly correct.

Say that again about me, please!

 

[ReginaNova]

Yes, in fact our former associate pastor gained some fame for a poster of himself in a cassock…

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j188/tobdrake/Fr.jpg

Wow, I haven’t seen a priest wear in cassock in ages! I can’t think of the last time I saw a priest in the U.S. in a cassock.

(Corvidae, I don’t understand why you needed to get so hostile in your response. I was trying to define “cassock” as I understood it. Sorry you were so offended.)

 

[ReginaNova]

Can’t get married…gotta have fun somehow.

I imagine you are mostly joking that priests need to “have fun somehow” because they can’t get married. I used to think that celibacy must be hard for priests so I remember being astounded to hear priests express RELIEF that they didn’t have to deal with wives and kids! (Not in an unkind way, but in a “I am not missing anything, thank you very much” way!) I had to wrap my mind around that sentiment at the time. But now that I am married and a mother, I can kind of see why a priest would feel that way.

 

[scapularkid8]

If I became a priest, I would definately choose the cassock. It just looks cool and preserves the tradition. I know an Australian priest who wears it and before I met him, I had never even seen one in real life before! Only on the movies. But anyway, that’s what I would choose. After all, how would the faithful around the community who don’t necessarily go to your parish know they could come to you if you didn’t show in some way that you’re a priest?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I imagine you are mostly joking that priests need to “have fun somehow” because they can’t get married. I used to think that celibacy must be hard for priests so I remember being astounded to hear priests express RELIEF that they didn’t have to deal with wives and kids! (Not in an unkind way, but in a “I am not missing anything, thank you very much” way!) I had to wrap my mind around that sentiment at the time. But now that I am married and a mother, I can kind of see why a priest would feel that way.

I know a parish priest who got a survey asking if he thought priests should be allowed to marry. His answer was tongue in cheek: "I answered ‘no’ and wrote in, “Only if they can use birth control, because I wouldn’t want to be the priest’s kid.”

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

We are “silently” having this same problem within our parish, unfortunately.

 

[tkdnick]

A question sort of connected to blending in…

What would you feel about a priest who wore the shirt and collar, but wore shorts instead of pants?

I’ve always thought if I was going to be a priest that that would be more my style.

 

[corvidae]

Wow, I haven’t seen a priest wear in cassock in ages! I can’t think of the last time I saw a priest in the U.S. in a cassock.

(Corvidae, I don’t understand why you needed to get so hostile in your response. I was trying to define “cassock” as I understood it. Sorry you were so offended.)

I apologize, I come from a very orthodox diocese, and am used to people telling what “all” diocese do or do not do.

Again, I apologize, I was a little bit offended, but that was because I misinterpreted your intent.

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
A lone Raven

 

[chicago]

A question sort of connected to blending in…

What would you feel about a priest who wore the shirt and collar, but wore shorts instead of pants?

I’ve always thought if I was going to be a priest that that would be more my style.

I would think he could wear brown instead of black and get a job at UPS!

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I still kind of wonder: When we in the laity are out in the world, who can tell we are Catholic? It seems to me that Jesus said his disciples should be recognizable, although he was speaking about that which goes way beyond dress. But that doesn’t mean dress isn’t a part of it. I know they set the example, but forget about the priests for a minute. Are we trying to “fly below radar”, too?

Which do you think the world would find more inspiring: if the priests were all easily recognizable, or if everyone in the whole Church was recognizable?

After all, we were given a priesthood at baptism. Do we live it visibly? Do we dress the part? For those of you who try to do that, how do you try to do that?

Who knows? If we all dressed the part, we might be much more believable if we decided to suggest that our priests to do so, too.

Just a thought. Comments?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I would think he could wear brown instead of black and get a job at UPS!

He could wear white instead of black and work on the Love Boat, too. With blue instead of black, he could work for the post office. With khaki instead of black, he could do a safari show on Animal Planet.

Color does make a huge difference.

 

[mrs_abbott]

I still kind of wonder: When we in the laity are out in the world, who can tell we are Catholic? It seems to me that Jesus said his disciples should be recognizable, although he was speaking about that which goes way beyond dress. But that doesn’t mean dress isn’t a part of it. I know they set the example, but forget about the priests for a minute. Are we trying to “fly below radar”, too?

Which do you think the world would find more inspiring: if the priests were all easily recognizable, or if everyone in the whole Church was recognizable?

After all, we were given a priesthood at baptism. Do we live it visibly? Do we dress the part? For those of you who try to do that, how do you try to do that?

Who knows? If we all dressed the part, we might be much more believable if we decided to suggest that our priests to do so, too.

Just a thought. Comments?

Since priests are supposed to “lead their flocks”, I’d follow by example. If the priests are hiding, that sends the congregation a message that it must be pretty bad out there if even the priests don’t want to be recognized.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Since priests are supposed to “lead their flocks”, I’d follow by example. If the priests are hiding, that sends the congregation a message that it must be pretty bad out there if even the priests don’t want to be recognized.

Thats part of the problem also.

Just seeing a man in clerics does not mean that he is a priest. He could be a deacon, he could be a seminarian or he could be an Episcopal priest or a Lutheran minister. I have even heard that some Methodist ministers wear clerics.

Cassocks are the same way, could be a priest or a seminarian, not to sure if many deacons wear them.

Or they could just be lay brothers.

This is why many seminarians and religious do not wear them or their habits (especially when the habit is a cassock) as they are approached as priests and then the laity get upset with them when they explain that they are not a priest and the lay person then lectures them as to why they shouldn’t dress that way when they are not a priest which, of course, that person is very wrong on.

Another fact has come to mind. When we see people out of their “work environment” we tend not to recognize them right away if at all. So how many of you can truely say that your priest always wears clerics/cassocks, I find that very hard to believe that very many do.

I will be wearing the habit (when I am vested in it, God Willing) when ever I am ministering but as I will only have one until the end of novitiate and they are expensive and need to be dry cleaned, I will not be wearing it all the time.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

Thats part of the problem also.

Just seeing a man in clerics does not mean that he is a priest. He could be a deacon, he could be a seminarian or he could be an Episcopal priest or a Lutheran minister. I have even heard that some Methodist ministers wear clerics.

Cassocks are the same way, could be a priest or a seminarian, not to sure if many deacons wear them.

Or they could just be lay brothers.

This is why many seminarians and religious do not wear them or their habits (especially when the habit is a cassock) as they are approached as priests and then the laity get upset with them when they explain that they are not a priest and the lay person then lectures them as to why they shouldn’t dress that way when they are not a priest which, of course, that person is very wrong on.

Another fact has come to mind. When we see people out of their “work environment” we tend not to recognize them right away if at all. So how many of you can truely say that your priest always wears clerics/cassocks, I find that very hard to believe that very many do.

I will be wearing the habit (when I am vested in it, God Willing) when ever I am ministering but as I will only have one until the end of novitiate and they are expensive and need to be dry cleaned, I will not be wearing it all the time.

ByzCath, I think the idea people are objecting to, yes is the fact that Priests are not looking like Priests…thats a problem, but the deeper issue is this…People are tired of seeing pastors of flocks “blend in” I don’t care if you have taken temporary vows permanent vows, whether your a secular priest or religious priest. They are supposed to be leaders, leaders don’t swim with the stream, they swim against it. Why wouldn’t the church perscribe that every individual in the Catholic church wear clerics? The obvious answer is, because they are not called to be ordained. If this is the case then, then why shouldn’t Priests be living up to the standard placed before them? A person mentioned Fr. Corapi earlier, being spat on because he wore clerics in public, GOD BLESS HIM!!! that is a cross to bear and he is bearing it quite well. If he can do it so can others!

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

I think BLB_Oregon has it right. Their is this concept of “flying under the radar” attitude. A priest should not fear being different from others. How terrible that a Priest should hide his identity, by wearing “regular” or “street” clothes, EMBRACE YOUR CROSS!!! Inspire others by your example and maybe…just maybe others will start following.

 

[Benedictus]

How many people who complain about priests not going everywhere in clerical garb really understand what it is like? As someone who puts on a uniform almost every day, I know that I wouldn’t to go everywhere in it. Comfort issues aside, it’s just not fun to attract that much attention to oneself. Sometimes you just want to be able to do your thing (shop, eat, etc.) without having everyone looking at you or wanting to talk to you.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think BLB_Oregon has it right. Their is this concept of “flying under the radar” attitude. A priest should not fear being different from others. How terrible that a Priest should hide his identity, by wearing “regular” or “street” clothes, EMBRACE YOUR CROSS!!! Inspire others by your example and maybe…just maybe others will start following.

I hear this alot. Who are you to tell me what my cross is to bear?

Who are we to call someone to a certain cross?

That is not ours to do.

Focus on your own cross, leave others to theirs.

Matthew 7
1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 "Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.