Should priests wear their clerics when out grocery shopping? Getting a haircut? Seeing a movie? Walking the dog? Away on vacation?

[Cobbfmly]

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.

His wording was not good, but he he made a valid point. If an assignment becomes unhealthy (physically or mentally), they can request to be re-assigned.

For example, our previous pastor was at our at our parish for 10 yrs when he started to burn out. Our parish is very demanding with 3000 family, a Preschool - 8th grade school, a cemetery and is the only parish in city that is the county seat (our parish serves the county jail, juvenile hall, city hospital and at least 6 nursing homes). In his last year at our parish, one of the priests assigned to our parish was deported because his immigration status changed after ordination and he wasn’t able to get a proper visa and the other priest developed diabetes that he was not able to control. So, our pastor was doing 11 Sunday masses each weekend (in addition to weddings, funerals, etc.). He ended up putting in a request for a transfer due to health reasons and received it. He is now in a small parish without a school.

I would not be surprised if a priest is being scrutinized by the laity to the point that it was affecting is mental health, he could request and receive a transfer. However, I would also expect the Bishop to investigate the parish to determine why the pastor was maltreated.

 

[EasterJoy]

I suspect that a good number of “priestless parishes” are that way at the direction of the bishop, for a variety of reasons.

I don’t think so. It is the smaller and more remote parishes that go without priests, not the big ones full of professional and business-owning people who think that because they call the shots at work that they were born to call the shots everywhere. These are people who give headaches to everybody, even the bishops!

I don’t mean to make that a blanket condemnation of the rich, the professional class, or the business owners. I’m not saying that people from other groups can’t be difficult by thinking they were born to run things. Far from it! Someone can be a stay-at-home mom for a lifetime and do the same thing. I’m saying that *parishes *with lots of people in those groups are parishes with lots of people who face that temptation. It isn’t a foregone conclusion, but simple statistics tend to make those difficult parishes. You won’t find one of them going without a priest very often.

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t think so. It is the smaller and more remote parishes that go without priests, not the big ones full of professional and business-owning people who think that because they call the shots at work that they were born to call the shots everywhere. These are people who give headaches to everybody, even the bishops!

I don’t mean to make that a blanket condemnation of the rich, the professional class, or the business owners. I’m not saying that people from other groups can’t be difficult by thinking they were born to run things. Far from it! Someone can be a stay-at-home mom for a lifetime and do the same thing. I’m saying that *parishes *with lots of people in those groups are parishes with lots of people who face that temptation. It isn’t a foregone conclusion, but simple statistics tend to make those difficult parishes. You won’t find one of them going without a priest very often.

True, one size doesn’t fit all. But our parish with a weekly attendance of around 1000 went a year without a priest.

 

[Eliza10]

"Originally Posted by Claire from DE

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I say yes except if they are swimming, playing tennis, skiing, etc. But if possible they should do so. Because they are priests. It’s not just a job. I’m a Catholic. I wear a miraculous medal all the time. If someone asks me about it, I can witness to them. If a priest can be identified, he can be approached by those who might not go to church but who need God.".

I agree! I wear my scapular all the time. And outwardly I wear a cross or medal that identifies me as Catholic.

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… had it not been for their collars and black attire, I would have never thought to bring up religion… 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)…

Wow, thats awesome.

I was a new Catholic in 2000, and a man walked up towards me at the start of the little town’s parade. I said hello and was startled to realize that he was our Priest! He was dressed neatly in every-man clothes. For a town parade! I was so surprised, and I realized, quite disappointed. I had never given it thought until that moment, but it made me so sad that he was going as himself, rather than going as a representative of the Catholic Church, particularly at a local public event.

Later, at a gathering for the presentation of the model for the new church building, I was there when he told two or three of us, “And I am happy not to have live on the Church property! I want to buy my OWN house!” When he said this, he looked at me defiantly, like he expected me to protest. But this was also something I had never thought of before. But his defiant look told me this was not a good thing, or a thing that came from a good motivation.

I hear he has his own house now. It makes me sad. But I am sure that both actions had the full approval of our bishop. But something is very wrong there too.

…
I’m all for priests (as well as nuns) wearing their clerical attire in public.

Me too! I only wish I saw it more often.

I searched google for a picture of a priest walking outside in his clerical attire. There were none of Roman Catholic priests in a place like our country. Its very sad. And most of the priest images accompanied stories of errant priests.

But I did find this touching photo of a woman greeting a Priest:

http://www.spraguephoto.com/stock/i...atholic priest Father Matta Manhari Minya.jpg

.*

 

[JReducation]

“And I am happy not to have live on the Church property! I want to buy my OWN house!” When he said this, he looked at me defiantly, like he expected me to protest. But this was also something I had never thought of before. But his defiant look told me this was not a good thing, or a thing that came from a good motivation.

I hear he has his own house now. It makes me sad. But I am sure that both actions had the full approval of our bishop. But something is very wrong there too.

This is where you have to distinguish between secular priests and religious. A secular priest does not make a vow of poverty. This is one of the many differences between him and priests who are religious.

Therefore, secular priests can and do own private property, including houses, boats, their own cars, stocks, bank accounts etc. In fact, Benedict XVI has his own house in Bavaria and a house in Rome that are his personal property, because he is a secular priest. John Paul II had his own car.

In many dioceses the bishops insist that the priests live in a rectory, but this does not imply that they can’t own their their homes. They can buy them or inherit them from their family. They can make use of them at any time when they’re not on duty at the parish, such as days off and vacations.

In other dioceses the bishops do not insist on priests living in a rectory, because it saves the parish money. If a parish owns a rectory, the priests who live in it are tenants. The parish is the landlord and responsible for the property as any landlord.

There is a new tendency in newer parish development to place the residence of the priests or religious off campus. Bishops have agreed to this to satisfy the requirements of religious congregations and religious orders. Some have made it a condition for helping a diocese by taking over a parish. The reason being that the religious life can be lived without the interference of parish activity.

In the traditional model where the residence is next door to the Church the religious found themselves functioning as priests 24/7. Religious orders and religious congregations suffered as a result of this, because these men got used to living as diocesan priests with all the freedom and lack of community life, lack of a cloister, very little in common with their confreres and spent most of their time with the laity of the parish. The problem has become so serious that many religious orders are having a difficult time reigning in their priests back to conventual living.

The idea of a residence off campus is a perfect solution for religious. When their hours at the office are over, they return to the community and they resume their duties and respective roles within the community. In our parish everyone is a Brother when they walk in the door. There is no Father inside the house. In my parish the religious live a looooooooong block away from the parish. They must return to the house for morning prayers, community lunch, evening prayer, evening meal, community recreation and to perform their chores: dishes, laundry, house keeping, shopping, etc. Each priest works in the office 6 hours that are split up in some way so that there is always someone on call. Their house is off limits to the parishioners. All conversation with the laity is in the parish office, never in the friary. Parishioners may never set foot inside the friary.

These are the advantages to having the residence off the parish campus.

As you can see there is a legal reason why your priest is able to purchase a home and live in it. Sometimes this is economically advantageous for the parish.

I don’t know your diocese, but in my diocese the policy is that the parishes are not owned by the diocese. They are legally independent corporations.

Parishes pay secular priests a salary as self-employed and religious congregations and religious orders a fee for services for the number of priests they need. The religious community can assign more priests and other religious to the parish, but may not receive more money than they contracted for. If they contracted for two priests and they place three priests and four brothers, as in my parish, they only get a fee for the two priests. The money is distributed to cover the expenses of the religious in the parish and to send back to the Motherhouse for other expenses of the community.

We have one parish within five miles that has no priest, but they have two Carmelite Friars who take care of its pastoral needs. There is a contract between the bishop and the Carmelites. The friars do not live in the parish. They leave at 3:30 and return to the Carmelite Priory. Usually they will come back in the evening if they need to do so. The priory is not diocesan or parish poperty. It belongs to the Carmelite Order. The bishop has no jurisdiction there or over them. The friars come only as a rental until the bishop can find priets.

This is complicated stuff. That why the topic of who should wear what and when gets complicated, because the legal relationships are complex. Therefore, the expectations of the laity cannot always be met. Often our expectations do not factor in all the legal matters that pertain to priests, bishops, dioceses and religious. Most lay people are not privy to this and need not be, because it really doesn’t involve the laity.

JR

 

[Cobbfmly]

This is where you have to distinguish between secular priests and religious. A secular priest does not make a vow of poverty. This is one of the many differences between him and priests who are religious.

Therefore, secular priests can and do own private property, including houses, boats, their own cars, stocks, bank accounts etc. In fact, Benedict XVI has his own house in Bavaria and a house in Rome that are his personal property, because he is a secular priest. John Paul II had his own car.

Our pastor owns a ranch which he purchased before becoming a secular priest and he purchased a Hummer a couple of year ago (he has a pension from his previous career). His ranch is quite a distance from the parish, so he only goes to it once a week, on his day off.

Our priests currently live in the rectory. When we sell off the church, rectory and hall to build our new church next to our school, the priests will be moving into a house donated by a parishioner.

 

[JReducation]

Someone once suggested that I may be out of my league in this discussion because I was raised with religious, educated by religious from K - PhD and became a Francisan. I don’t think so.

I’ve always had very good relations with secular priests, especially diocesan priests and Vincentians. I love them dearly. I have never had any bad experiences with them, in or out of their Roman collar.

I know that the experience of secular priests is somewhat similar to that of religious. The laity sometimes expects too much or expects all to be the same. This is not always reasonable.

The first time that I ever heard of Joseph Ratzinger he was as a theologian in Germany. The first picture I saw of him he was wearing a shirt and tie with a suit. When I was first assigned to Spain all theologians wore suits and ties. Only parish priests and religious brothers wore habits, cassocks or Roman collars. Priests, brothers and sisters in the armed forces wore the uniform of their branch of the armed forces. They still do. Theologians wore shirts and ties, they still do, while on campus, all over Europe and the USA. The only theologians that wear religious garb are religious. Those who belong to the congregations or are secular usually wear a shirt and tie. There are many reasons for this, among them is tradition.

The first men to wear habits were monks. After them were the friars and the canons regular. Secular priests did not wear a distinctive garb until much later in the history of the Church. These forms of dress surffaced at different times in different countries. Even then, there were variations. For example, in China the secular clergy wore organge cassocks. Religious wore the dress of the working class. I believe they were called coolies (sp?). There were no Roman collars.

The term “clerical” has nothing to do with the form of dress. Clerical refers to a person who is ordained a deacon, priest or bishop. The clothing that we have come to call clerical has been worn by many who are not priests, such as seminarians and religious brothers as well. There is no guarrantee that someone in a Roman Collar is a priest.

If you see a Franciscan in a Roman Collar, 4/10 times he is not a priest, since 40% of the friars are not priests.

Among the Marianists the number is even higher, since they only ordain as many men as they need for the use of their community, not for the universal Church. They are not allowed to ordain for the universal Church. Though many times they help out in parishes, because they run schools and they are free on weekends and evenings.

As we have seen with the matter regarding property, there are many legal and other complexities that enter the picture. The laity is not familar with all of the complexities.

I believe that often the laity will read a document or a statement made by the Pope on something such as dress and over generalize it. The Pope knows to whom he’s speaking. Among the clergy and the Orders we know to whom he’s speaking. But the laity usually doesn’t. This lends itself to over application. It’s not done with malice. It’s just a lack of information.

Continued next post

 

[JReducation]

Continuation

Allow me to give an example that has nothing to do with priests, but falls into the same category. Some posters on this thread have spoken negatively about religious sisters in secular dress. Here is another example of the laity not knowing what the Vatican is talking about.

The rules are complex. The Vatican has made statements about religious wearing religious garb. This is true.

On the other hand, there are communties of Pontifical Right. These communities must have their constitutions approved by the Holy See. Their highest superior is the Holy Father. When these communities write into their constitions their dress code and those constitutions are approved by the Holy See, then those statement regarding a habit does not apply to them, because the Holy See approved the daily use of secular dress. They presented it to the Holy See and justified the reasons for it. The Holy See approved it. Such statements by the Holy See regarding religious habits only apply to those communities that did not get permission to eliminate the religious habit, not to every religious community.

When the Holy See writes about clerics wearing clerical garb, that statement only applies to those clerics whose circumstances allow them to wear clerical garb or who do not belong to institutes, congregations or orders with other dress codes. Those statements are not meant to overrule the constitutions of Secular Institutes, the Rule of Life of an Exempt Religioius Order, or the policies of the local bishop. These statements speak to those who are within the jurisdiction or coverage of the law or the statement that comes from the Vatican, not those who are the exception.

The Holy See will rarely make a statement and address every exception.

One of the few times that I have seen a document from the Holy See speak to an exception is the recent Motu Proprio on the Extraordinary Form, where it does specifically mention that Major Superiors of religious still have the authority to determine whether the Extraordinary Form will be used in their community. Even if the Motu Proprio had not mentioned the Major Superiors of religious communities, it would have been understood by the Major Superiors that they retain the authority to decide for their communities, because Canon Law gives them the same status as bishops. They are Ordinaries, even if they are not priests. In addition, their Rules and Constitutions give them certain authority that has been approved by the Church, outside the view of the laity and often with the full intent of the Vatican to keep those rules out of the view of the laity to avoid confusion.

I’m not sure that always works, but that’s the intent.

For example, let’s go back to the Franciscans. The Rule of St. Francis says that all are to be called Brother. Francis speaks about the Brothers. The Constitutions that Pope Paul VI approved interpreting the Rule for the 20th century repeats the same thing. No friar may be called Father, even if he’s ordained, except for: St. Francis (who was not a priest) or the Major Superior (who need not be a priest). But to avoid confusing the laity the Superior General allows the friars to allow the laity to call them Father. However, they may not use the term among themselves or as their legal title. Any document they sign must say: Frater, Friar, or Brother. Fr. is also the abbreviation for Frater and Friar.

I bring up these examples not to derail the thread, but to point out how complicated these matters are.

We all want to see good and holy priests. We have thousands of good and holy priests, regular and secular. The Roman Collar does not make them holy. It doesn’t even make them priests, as we have already pointed out.

It behooves the laity to try to understand that many things are more complicated than they seem. We can’t just demand or expect something because it seems right to us. There are traditions that go back hundreds of years. One of those traditions is that secular priests dressed like secular men. The identifiable collar or robe crept in slowly in different countries.

Continued next post

In the USA the Council of Baltimore prohibited the cassock and religious habit for men. The prohibition was never lifted. It just faded away. It’s like one of those old laws that’s in the books, but no one knows it’s there because it’s not longer relevant. At the time, it was very relevant, because Catholics were a target population in the new nation.

We would do much better to pray for holy priests and to support the priests we have and reserve our opinions for issues that are more grave such as abortion, materialism, war, the unjust use of capital punishment, war on poverty, human rights (especially children, elderly and people with disabilities), family life, political corruption and immorality and the list is very long. The Church needs Catholics to speak up on these fronts and to bring the Gospel’s message to these situations. This is the role of the laity, not the clergy or religious orders.

I would suggest that we tone down this thread or even draw it to a close, because it does not serve the needs of the Church as much as our attention to Christ who thirsts for our love in the distressing disguise of the poor.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Lepanto]

Diocesan priests do not take vows of poverty, but they are supposed to live simply. Conspicuous consumption is not in the spirit of living simply. Where one draws the line is vague, but that’s where the virtue of prudence comes into play.

And if a diocesan parish priest does not live in a rectory at the church without sufficient cause, I would consider him a “day laborer” at best or an “absentee father” at worst. True fathers–both biological and spiritual–are always available for their children.

 

[ethelzguy]

Diocesan priests do not take vows of poverty, but they are supposed to live simply. Conspicuous consumption is not in the spirit of living simply. Where one draws the line is vague, but that’s where the virtue of prudence comes into play.

And if a diocesan parish priest does not live in a rectory at the church without sufficient cause, I would consider him a “day laborer” at best or an “absentee father” at worst. True fathers–both biological and spiritual–are always available for their children.

Upon what do you base your assertations? Living “simply” is a highly relative term. Extravagance to someone living in a village in the Dominican might not even constitute “decent” in another country.

The pastor of our neighboring parish hails from a small west Texas town known for it’s beautiful cathedral-like Church building.

He owns a home out there. It used to be the convent for his home parish. He has beautifully restored it.

About every other week, he heads out there on Wednesday evening, and returns Saturday afternoon. While there, he works on marriage tribunal cases and writes his homilies. Through technology (cell phone and email) he is in constant touch.

His restored home is his personal hobby. Why should he not enjoy a hobby like any of the rest of us? He certainly is no “day laborer”.

 

[Eliza10]

This is where you have to distinguish between secular priests and religious…

I thought the OP clarified already that his post concerned what is technically referred to as “secular” priest. In other words: the OP means to refer to the local diosean priest in this post - and I don’t think he is thinking of the exceptional cases of a tempory fill-in from a religious order, either.

…In other dioceses the bishops do not insist on priests living in a rectory, because it saves the parish money.

Yes, and a bishop’s “money-saving” ideas can be confusing sometimes. For example, our bishop saved money by closing a huge number of thriving diosean Catholic schools, while spending a huge amount on a hugely expensive new organ for the expensively re-vamped Cathedral (desite the protests of lowly lay persons) – even though some of the parishes he closed had new expensive organs too.

But, certainly, he could argue well that he “saved money”. These kind of arguments you see in grand scale budgets of governments and corporations all the time. Its nothing new.

There is a new tendency in newer parish development to place the residence of the priests or religious off campus. Bishops have agreed to this to satisfy the requirements of religious congregations and religious orders. Some have made it a condition for helping a diocese by taking over a parish. The reason being that the religious life can be lived without the interference of parish activity…

Well, in this case the priest here gave no religious reasons for wanting his own place. He just wanted his own place for independance’s sake. He described wanting to get away from it all.

As you can see there is a legal reason why your priest is able to purchase a home and live in it. Sometimes this is economically advantageous for the parish…

Oh, I had no doubt there are legal reasons to present. I am sure our bishop would not do anything he could not legally explain. Just as I am sure he can give explanations of the legal advantages for his choices. We have heard all these reasons here. They are always professionally presented.

…This is complicated stuff. That why the topic of who should wear what and when gets complicated, because the legal relationships are complex. …

Yes, it always comes out sounding so complicated. Yet, I expect it is all much simpler than it is presented to be. The truth usually is.

… Most lay people are not privy to this and need not be, because it really doesn’t involve the laity…

Certainly you don’t mean this to, but what you conclude here takes on a tone that is familiar around here. Its this: Diocean decisions are just too “heady” for the average lay person. The average lay person’s concerns about what the Diocese does are moot, because the lay person just can’t grasp what the diocesean elite are up against.

 

[Eliza10]

Wow! This from your previous post sounds very elitist! It really makes my point.:

…I believe that often the laity will read a document or a statement made by the Pope on something such as dress and over generalize it. … we know to whom he’s speaking. But the laity usually doesn’t. …

There you go. Thats EXACATLY the ELITIST atittude I am talking about. And its a real problem.

… Some posters on this thread have spoken negatively about religious sisters in secular dress. Here is another example of the laity not knowing what the Vatican is talking about…

No, no. I really think you need to consider the opinions of these simple lay posters on this thread. And read your Bible, and realize that the Lord often uses the simple and foolish to confound the wise.

…
The rules are complex. …

And yet the OP’s original post is not.

It behooves the laity to try to understand that many things are more complicated than they seem. We can’t just demand or expect something because it seems right to us…

And it behooves the diosean elite to know that things often aren’t as complicated as they are made out to be. And that considering yourselves to be among the in-the-know elite puts you in danger of overlooking the obvious simple truths that should always be in the fore. And that they lowly lay persons around you, when they have something to say, probably have a good reason because God has blessed them with their uncomplicated souls with His wisdom that confounds the proud.

We would do much better to pray for holy priests and to support the priests we have and reserve our opinions for issues that are more grave such as …[etc.etc.]. …This is the role of the laity…

Wow. I think you have moved so far from simplicity. The OP was so simple.

…I would suggest that we tone down this thread or even draw it to a close…

Honestly I think your posts derailed this simple thread.

 

[Eliza10]

Diocesan priests do not take vows of poverty, but they are supposed to live simply. Conspicuous consumption is not in the spirit of living simply. Where one draws the line is vague, but that’s where the virtue of prudence comes into play.

And if a diocesan parish priest does not live in a rectory at the church without sufficient cause, I would consider him a “day laborer” at best or an “absentee father” at worst. True fathers–both biological and spiritual–are always available for their children.

This is what it seems like. Its the plain simple truth.

I also acknowledge that a priest may have been encouraged by his bishop to have his own place so he is acting in obedience, or in diosean precident. So I do not judge the priest whose motives I can’t know; only God knows.

But it does look like what you say. It feels like “absentee father.” When he lives at the rectory, it is like “Father is home”. What an example.

 

[ethelzguy]

He described wanting to get away from it all.

And what is wrong with that? Is a priest to be at my beck and call 24/7/365 whenever I want him to be available for me?

Is a priest denied any sense of privacy and personal time?

Other examples exist, as well. At a neighboring parish, several years ago, the convent was torn down to make room for a church/school parking lot. The convent was almost in condemnable condition.

The nuns were moved into the rectory. The parish purchased two houses. One for the pastor in the northwest part of town. Another for the hispanic parochial vicar in a predominately hispanic neighborhood.

Does this mean “Father isn’t home”? Or, was the parish effectively dealing with a housing issue?

The nuns later retired to their motherhouse in Fort Worth. The pastor moved back into the rectory. The parochial vicar was transferred, and the off-site houses sold.

Everything isn’t as simple as it seems sometimes.

 

[Eliza10]

…Living “simply” is a highly relative term…

True. And yet, simple living is easy to identify when it is lived.

The pastor of our neighboring parish … owns a home… It used to be the convent … He has beautifully restored it…

Beautifully restored. I personally love beautiful restoration. But I doubt anyone would describe this as “simple living”, relative to anything.

About every other week, he heads out there on Wednesday evening, and returns Saturday afternoon. While there, he works on marriage tribunal cases and writes his homilies. Through technology (cell phone and email) he is in constant touch.

His restored home is his personal hobby. Why should he not enjoy a hobby like any of the rest of us? He certainly is no “day laborer” …

Well it sounds very comfortable and nice. Hopefully this nice set-up is fruitful to him and he does good things with it. Yet it doesn’t sound like anyone would be inspired to the Lord’s example and the example of so many holy saints of simple living by his lifestyle.

Lepanto says diocesan priests are supposed to live simply. I did not know this. I do know that I have seen some diocesan priests here who do live simply, and it truly is a holy inspiration.

As to what Lepanto says of the absentee father, I think of my son’s father. He moved to another state, 6 or 7 hours away. He faithfully comes back to spend time with his son for the required time - certain weekends and vacations. In between, he lives in the comfort at his girlfriend’s house, and he commutes to a job where he works hard and he also works hard to beautifully restore and upkeep her fine old home (which has nothing to do with his son’s life). And he make good use of cell phone and email to keep in touch regularly with his son from where he lives.

But in spite of commitment and dedication and hard work, he still is an absentee father. And he is not unusual in this day and age, is he?

I do see how the absentee father-priests mimic this cultural phenomena.

 

[Eliza10]

And what is wrong with that? Is a priest to be at my beck and call 24/7/365 whenever I want him to be available for me?

Is a priest denied any sense of privacy and personal time?.

Certainly we can’t judge, not knowing all the reasons for the choice. And we must not judge; these are difficult times and we only need to support the priests. In good times and bad! I just said that the defiant look on this priests face as he gave his reason (to a question which neither I nor anyone else in that conversation solicited) gave me pause.

In contrast, one holy priest I know shared with me and another how a stranger drove by one night that week, late, and seeing the rectory light on, knocked. Recognizing him as a priest when he answered the door (at home alone wearing his collar!) he asked if father would hear his confession. This priest expressed gratitude that he lived at the rectory - because what where would this soul have turned if there were no priest at the rectory?

This was told to me early in my walk as a Catholic, and it left a lasting impression of holiness and godly service. While the other priests words left me troubled.

Everything isn’t as simple as it seems sometimes.

And sometimes they are simpler than they seem.

 

[Eliza10]

Our pastor owns a ranch which he purchased before becoming a secular priest and he purchased a Hummer a couple of year ago (he has a pension from his previous career)… .

A Hummer? That is not simple livng by anyone’s standards. It must cause scandal.

Isn’t what Lempanto says true? That priests are supposed to live simply? If not, it sure seems like it would be a good rule.

 

[JReducation]

Everyone is talking about secular priests living simply. But we must keep in mind that they live in their communities, that is where they minister. They live by the standards of those communities. That’s where they shop, where they go to dinner, where they go see a movie, where they play sports or just take a walk.

A secular priest, especially a diocesan priest, has the same obligation as any other Christian to live within his means and to use his money wisely. If a priest were squandering money on frivolities that no one around him can afford or needs, then there may be a reason form concern. If a diocesan priest were living at a much higher economic standard than his parishioners, there is a conflict there that he has to resolve for his own spiritual peace.

But when a diocesan priest receives his salary and lives within those means, there is nothing to be scandalized about. If his parents died and left him a million dollars, that’s his right as their son to inherit that million dollars. We cannot deprive someone the right to get paid a salary, to own property or inherit money. Those are human rights of every man and woman. Because someone is a priest he does not forfeit his human rights.

As to there being a rule, there is a good reason there is not a rule. They are not religious. The Church does not have a tradition of imposing rules such as this on secular priests. It never has had such a tradition. Many secular priests in history have been very wealthy and very holy too.

As to living in the rectory, that depends on the bishop. Most bishops require it. Some do not. As to the rectory being on the parish campus, I already explained why the newer designs of parishes don’t always include a residence on campus. It was a request of religious orders who want their privacy and their distance from the parish so that the work of the parish does not interfere in their religious life.

Some bishops have allowed such designs with a distant residence, so that in the event that they need to invite a religious order to take over the parish it is more feasable. Sometimes it’s a matter of finances. Buying an existing house in the neighborhood may be cheaper than constructing a large parish complex.

When our parish was designed the priests who served in it were diocesan priests. The residence was deliberately located two streets away. The Bishop knew that he would need the help of religious because the pastor was very sick and there were not enough secular priests to take over. The pastor eventually passed away. Sure enough, a religious community was asked to take over the parish. The first condition that the major superior placed on the bishop was that the religious life would be lived without complications from parish ministry.

The parish is well cared for. There is a priest on call 24/7. Simply the religious do not live on the campus of the parish. Like this one we have four parishes in our town. The other three are staffed by secular priests. They each have one priest. Right now the hope of the bishop is that the Carmelite Friars will accept his invitation to take up one parish so that he can consolidate two secular priests in a parish that really needs two men.

This is not so complicated nor does it leave anyone out in the cold. In this community people love their parishes and they could care less if the priests live on campus or not as long as they can call the office and someone answers. There is always an answering service after office hours and a priest on call for emergencies.

Sometimes we ask priests to be all things to all men. That’s not possible or reasonable. Like every human being they have rights and they need rest, quiet, recreation, alone time and to get out and take care of their lives (dentist, visit mom, shop for clothes, etc).

I was visiting with a very holy diocesan priest tonight who lives 1/2 mile from the parish, wears a collar while at the office, but is always available to anyone who is in crisis. He is not available when it’s not an emergency. The time when he’s not available he spends on other things that are good for his spiritual, psychological and physical well-being. He’s one of the most spiritual men I know and a very good friend.

JR

 

[Lepanto]

I thought the OP clarified already that his post concerned what is technically referred to as “secular” priest. In other words: the OP means to refer to the local diosean priest in this post - and I don’t think he is thinking of the exceptional cases of a tempory fill-in from a religious order, either.

Eliza10,

You are correct. As explained on more than one occasion, this thread is supposed to be about diocesan priests – the kind of priests that most people are familiar with. The comparisons between religious priests and “secular” priests is a major off-topic diversion.

Thanks for helping to put the thread back on track with your cogent but concise replies.

 

[EasterJoy]

True, one size doesn’t fit all. But our parish with a weekly attendance of around 1000 went a year without a priest.

I think our archdiocese has some priests who are truly willing to suffer in this life, especially if the archbishops asks. I don’t say that tongue-in-cheek. The bishops can’t hog-tie priests into taking parishes that have already chewed up and spit out several others, so I’m willing to believe that it does happen.