E
EasterJoy
Guest
That bit about “prosti…” was a blatantly offensive statement.
Jesus was criticized because the tax collectors and prostitutes flocked to him. Heaven forbid that happen to any of his most serious followers!
Should priests wear their clerics when out grocery shopping? Getting a haircut? Seeing a movie? Walking the dog? Away on vacation?
- Status
Jesus was criticized because the tax collectors and prostitutes flocked to him. Heaven forbid that happen to any of his most serious followers!
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
They flocked to Him. He did not go into the houses of perdition to look for them.That bit about “prosti…” was a blatantly offensive statement.
Jesus was criticized because the tax collectors and prostitutes flocked to him. Heaven forbid that happen to any of his most serious followers!
If you lye nearly naked on the beach you are prostituting yourself.
One thing is to go decently covered into a beach where there are none of those people and swim another is to join them in their sin.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I think you would be surprised that this is most likely not true. Many parishes are staffed by religious priests. Some Catholic schools have religious teaching.
The issue is that some religious that are at parishes have lost some of their idenity and appear the same as the diocesen clergy.
I think the was covered very well by JReducation but the truth of the matter is that there are two types of priests, religious priests and secular priests. Some secular priests are diocesen, some are not.
L
Lepanto
Guest
There are only about half as many religious priests as diocesan, and the fact that many are cloistered means that they are invisible to most people. Also, the trend is fewer religious in proportion to diocesan priests.
U.S. Priests
Year 1965------1975------1985------1995------2000------2005
Diocesan 35,925 36,005 35,052 32,349 30,607 28,375
Religious 22,707 22,904 22,265 16,705 15,092 14,137
I can’t get the numbers to line up, so please just see the source:
vocation.com/content-ahrk.htm
Actually, the point I was making was not addressed in JR’s response, i.e., I think that most diocesan priests would take offense if they were called “secular” priests (for reasons explained in my post).
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This does not change the fact that many dioceses have parishes that are staffed by religious priests.
This would be your opinion. In my experience it is not true. Secular just means that they are not religious priests. They do not take vows but make promises.
You can not call them diocesan priests because there are secular priests who are not diocesan priests. I guess you would have to make up some third category to cover them but the Church does not. They are know as secular priests.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Nonsense. They’ve all been to the seminary. They know what a secular priest is.
J
JReducation
Guest
Assuming that they take offense at the term, there is no canonical term for them other than secular. The two terms officially used by the Church to distinguish between clerics are secular and regular. Regular are those bound to a rule of life by the Evangelical Counsels. Secular are those who do not vow to live the Evangelical Counsels or follow a rule of life.
As already said by Brother David and I, you would have to create a third category for secular priests who are not diocesan such as FSSP, Vincentians, Maryknoll and others.
For example, the Constitutions of St. Vincent de Paul explictly refers to the members of the Congregation of the Mission as a society of secular priests bound to the common table, not to obedience.
A religious, whether he’s a priest or lay brother is a member of an Order bound to obedience and common table.
By common table we mean living in community. Many secular priests live in community, but they have no vows to tie them to the community. They make a promise to observe the statutes of the community as long as they belong to it.
Only those who are members of religious orders are consecrated men or women. A priest is an ordained member of the Church, not a consecrated member of the Church.
This sounds confusing and it is, but it’s the way that it is. Each state has its own graces, rights, privileges and obligations.
During my years of religious life I have never met a secular priest who is offended by the term secular priest when speaking about the difference between them and those who belong to Orders.
At this venture, it sounds like some lay people find this terminology more disturbing than the clergy.
In fact, most priests who belong to religious orders prefer to be identified as religious than as priests, especially those religious orders that have preserved their conventual life, such as Franciscans and Benedictines who place a greater emphasis on community than on ministry.
Fraternally,
JR
JR
T
Tsuwano
Guest
Good point! When I studied with a religious community the members of the community often refered to themselves as “religious” or by the name of their community (as in “I’m a Franciscan” or “I’m a Jesuit”), rather than as priests or as brothers, especially when communicating with those who were not members. Of course, within the community itself, members knew who the priests and brothers were, but this distinction (at least while I knew the community) was seldom acknowledged in daily communal life.Assuming that they take offense at the term, there is no canonical term for them other than secular. The two terms officially used by the Church to distinguish between clerics are secular and regular. Regular are those bound to a rule of life by the Evangelical Counsels. Secular are those who do not vow to live the Evangelical Counsels or follow a rule of life.
As already said by Brother David and I, you would have to create a third category for secular priests who are not diocesan such as FSSP, Vincentians, Maryknoll and others.
For example, the Constitutions of St. Vincent de Paul explictly refers to the members of the Congregation of the Mission as a society of secular priests bound to the common table, not to obedience.
A religious, whether he’s a priest or lay brother is a member of an Order bound to obedience and common table.
By common table we mean living in community. Many secular priests live in community, but they have no vows to tie them to the community. They make a promise to observe the statutes of the community as long as they belong to it.
Only those who are members of religious orders are consecrated men or women. A priest is an ordained member of the Church, not a consecrated member of the Church.
This sounds confusing and it is, but it’s the way that it is. Each state has its own graces, rights, privileges and obligations.
During my years of religious life I have never met a secular priest who is offended by the term secular priest when speaking about the difference between them and those who belong to Orders.
At this venture, it sounds like some lay people find this terminology more disturbing than the clergy.
In fact, most priests who belong to religious orders prefer to be identified as religious than as priests, especially those religious orders that have preserved their conventual life, such as Franciscans and Benedictines who place a greater emphasis on community than on ministry.
Fraternally,
JR
JR
E
ethelzguy
Guest
At 14 pages of posts, it is quite clear that no “one size fits all” with regard to clerical dress.
I would agree with previous posts, that for those who take issue with clerical dress…it appears to be more of a “control” issue than anything else…demanding that our clergy dress as WE deem fit.
I would agree with previous posts, that for those who take issue with clerical dress…it appears to be more of a “control” issue than anything else…demanding that our clergy dress as WE deem fit.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Of all the Catholics who may rightly be thankful that the Church is not a democracy, I could see where priests would be the foremost!
Z
zab
Guest
Although it is not necessary for priests to always wear their clerical garb out in public, like going to the grocery store, I’m glad that many priests particularly the younger ones have the desire to do so.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I know priests who say they hesitate to wear clerical garb in public because people so noticeably look at them and look away, or even feel a need to say something nasty, on account of the abuse scandals. This is behavior they don’t experience when they’re dressed like everyone else.
If you see a priest dressed as a priest out in public, then, give him a smile. In this day and age, openly dressing like a Catholic priest is a brave thing to do.
Z
zab
Guest
I have met some priests, too, that were hesitant to wear their collar on flights etc. for fear of being harrassed because of the abuse scandals. But it seems that more priests, in our area anyway, are choosing to wear their collars more often in public now. I think that is a good sign.
S
Samoana
Guest
I’m from Sydney, and ever since WYD so many Priests and Religious are wearing their habits etc. It’s such a beautiful witness. There is a large number of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists here. One of the Priests told me that just as they wear their religious clothes, and represent their religions, we as Catholics should do the same thing.
Pax et bonum.
Pax et bonum.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t understand why the laity on CAF finds it so difficult to remember that secular priests can BOLT from a parish or ministry. Unlike religious, they owe no obedience to the pastor or fidelity to the priests with whom they live. If they are pushed or feel that they are under the microscope of the laity they are free to leave a parish, even if it means not having another parish to go to. That’s why they are called secular. They do not have the bounds of community to keep them in a specific community. They can tell a bishop that an assignment is untenable and present a letter of resignation. At worse they will be assigned to another parish or not have a job for a while untile a position becomes available.
Secular priests work through a human resource department like any other corporate employee. There are plenty of jobs in dioceses and not enough secular priests. Therefore, finding another position is not going to be difficult.
My suggestion would be, if you have a good priest in your parish, take good care of him, regardless of what he wears. We do not have an abundance of secular priests.
As stated before, many religious orders have drawn the line in the sand. They want to return to their charism. We’ll be seeing less religious ordained to the priesthood and less religious priests in parishes.
As Francis of Assisi wrote to his friars, always treasure the secular clergy. Show them respect, obey them in all things that are not sinful, support them when they ask for it, and judge them not no matter how great their sin, because God has placed them above us in all things.
Fraternally,
JR
Secular priests work through a human resource department like any other corporate employee. There are plenty of jobs in dioceses and not enough secular priests. Therefore, finding another position is not going to be difficult.
My suggestion would be, if you have a good priest in your parish, take good care of him, regardless of what he wears. We do not have an abundance of secular priests.
As stated before, many religious orders have drawn the line in the sand. They want to return to their charism. We’ll be seeing less religious ordained to the priesthood and less religious priests in parishes.
As Francis of Assisi wrote to his friars, always treasure the secular clergy. Show them respect, obey them in all things that are not sinful, support them when they ask for it, and judge them not no matter how great their sin, because God has placed them above us in all things.
Fraternally,
JR
L
Lepanto
Guest
Your characterization of diocesan priests is inaccurate and unfair; your association with a religious community seems to be making you look down upon diocesan priests with condescension, as if they are inferior.
Diocesan priests make promises of obedience to their bishops, and any associate pastor is bound to obey his pastor by extension of this obedience. They can’t just “bolt” without breaking obedience, not to mention canon law.
Sure, they can break their promise of obedience and run off with the parish secretary, but so can a religious. And of course if a renegade diocesan priest did that and went to another diocese, the bishop there certainly would not incardinate him. Diocesan priests are bound to the diocese within which they are ordained (as a religious is with his community) unless the bishop releases him to another diocese (temporarily or permanently) – just as religious can transfer from one community to another with permission of their superior.
Moreover, diocesan priests can’t just resign, as if they’re making a career move to a better job. I know two of diocesan priests well over the age of 75 who are still working in parishes despite wanting to retire, but they can’t till their bishop lets them. Their situation is not rare. I know another diocesan priest who teaches full time in a Catholic high school. He wants to go back to the parish, but his bishop won’t let him.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
This quote here is music to my ears!!!
This is EXACTLY how I was seriously introduced to Catholicism.
I’m a bartender at a local restaurant. Every Thursday morning (early afternoon) these two priests would patronize our restaurant and though they wouldn’t drink, they sat at the bar in order to watch the TVs we have there. They are such friendly, down-to-earth folk that had it not been for their collars and black attire, I would have never thought to bring up religion in my “building rapport”.
Needless to say, our Thursday morning discussions became the highlight of my week and finally I took them up on a challenge to attend Mass.
I can honestly say that the HUGE paradigm shift in my life occurred at least indirectly due to their “wearing their spirituality on their sleeves” (so to speak).
I’m all for priests (as well as nuns) wearing their clerical attire in public.
J
JReducation
Guest
Whoa!!!
I’m not in any way being condescending toward diocesan priests. On the contrary, I’m protecting them. I’m not speaking about renegades. I’m talking about priest who for legitimate reasons present their resignation to the bishop because they find a situation untenable. No bishop will force a priest to remain in a parish situation that the priest finds untenable.
We’re not talking about a priest who asks for a transfer from a high school to a parish because he prefers to do parish work. We’re talkinga about a priest who presents cause to the bishop for a transfer because the parishioners are making his life impossible. This has happened and priests have resigned from parishes because of it.
Bishops understand the difference between a preference of one ministry or parish over another and a situation in which the parishioners are making the priests life difficult. No bishop wants that for his priests.
My position is that we must protect secular priests from this.
I have never said that secular priests are inferior either. I’m not sure what gave you that opinion. I have said that they do not have the ties that religious have. This is a fact, not a condescension. They don’t want those ties.
It is true that they make a promise of obedience to the bishop, but that does not carry over to the pastor and much less to the laity. I’ll give you a good example. In our diocese, secular priests apply for positions. There is a department of human resources. They meet with the priests and discuss with them possible assignments. While it is true that the letters of assignment come signed by the bishop, but the priests participate in the decision making process.
We have also had secular priests resign posts for reasons such as the one that is being discussed on this thread. The priests have presented their case to the Vicar General, who is usually their first stop. They have clearly stated that they cannot work with the laity in a certain ministry, because of difficulties with the laity and that such difficulties are unhealthy for their spiritual life. No bishop is going to leave a priest in a ministry where the priest’s spiritual life is in conflict.
That is not condescension. That is protection of our secular priests.
When I use the word bolt, I’m not talking about running away with the parish secretary. I’m talking about asking to be moved some place where they can live and work in peace. In other words, even though an assignment may be for three years, the priest has the right to ask for reassignment if he feels that he cannot function in a specific situation, before the term is up. He does not have to wait for the three years.
We’re not talking about moving to another diocese. I’m not sure how you got that idea either. There are many positions open in a diocese that a priest can fill. I never said that a priest will run off to another diocese because he can’t work with the laity in a parish.
I am saying is that given the fact that most of our future priests are coming from the secular clergy, it behooves the laity to treat them well and not try to regulate their lives to the point of trying to control even the way they dress.
I did not mention priests in religious orders, because the OP clarified that he was not thinking about them when he began this thread. But the same can be said about religious priests or brothers. They do not have to stay in a situation that they find untenable.
If the laity were to become too intrusive in the disciplines of religious in a parish, they can lose the entire community, not just one priest.
The point I was making was the opposite of how I may have come across. My point is that we have to back off and allow secular priests to do their job and be who they are, if we want more.
I go back to the question that I asked above. When are people going to realize that they cannot and should not interfere in the internal affairs of priests? The diocese does not want any priest in a situation where he finds that he cannot exercise his ministry without stress and without conflict?
You are right in the fact that a bishop does not have to accept a resignation. No one has said anything to the contrary. But the fact that a priest can resign from a post is his right as any other human being. Whether the bishop accepts it or not is a whole other question. The bishop may decided to deal with the problem more creatively.
Bishops do not want their priests harassed by the laity any more than they want their parishes poorly adminstered. Some are more tolerant and others not so tolerant.
I believe that many people on CAF have a sense of entitlement when it comes to their parish priests. I believe this is dangerous in a time when we need secular priests. If anyone reads this carefully, I’m not being condescending. I’m being protective of secular priests. They usually need more protection, because they are usually alone, unlike religious who have a big order behind them and many choices. This is important today more than ever when many religious orders are choosing to ordain less men and assign less to parishes and more to other ministires.
I hope this is clearer. I did not mean to sound condescending at all. I’m a strong protector of secular priests and their rights.
Fraternally,
JR
PS Please excuse the typos. My eyes are tired. Thanks.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
I have personally witnessed an example of this. About 15 years ago, on Palm Sunday weekend, the pastor of a neighboring church stood in front of the congregation and read his letter of resignation.
A week later, they had a new pastor, and the priest who resigned later turned up at another parish in the diocese.
The recent history of my own parish comes to mind as well. For years, we had a rather stubborn, staid, ultra-conservative pastor. The parishoners carped and moaned as to how they couldn’t wait until he retired and we got another priest.
It finally happened. But, the new priest was as far “left” as the old priest was “right”. Complaints abounded. It got to the point that the priest was posting critical letters he received on the bulletin board outside his office for all to read.
So, the bishop granted the wish of the congregation and the priest. He was transferred to another pastoral assignment, and we went without a priest for a year or so.
We do have a splendid priest now. But we were also taught a lesson. Congregations might not like their priest(s), but the sword swings both ways. Priests don’t necessarily like their congregations either. And, they can “ask out” without problem, because there is always another place to put them, where they will be welcomed with open arms.
What I see so much of here, is the apparent attitude that the laity has the right to dictate to the priests and bishops. It just isn’t so.
I suspect that a good number of “priestless parishes” are that way at the direction of the bishop, for a variety of reasons.
Remember, priests serve God and the Church, not the congregations themselves.
- Status