F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This is because of the poor boundries set by the priests in question. There is no need for this and is the cause of burn-out and many priests leaving after only a couple of years of service.
- Status
C
Cristiano
Guest
When I was young my professor of Italian Literature in my public middle school was a priest. His work had nothing to do with religion, the only thing that gave him away as a priest was his cassock.
P
plato3
Guest
This priest is retiring this year after 47 years of service!
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
Historically, there have been 3 professions: the Church, medicine, and law. Currently, I am struggling between the former two(as for which I to pursue). If one joins a teaching order, one has, of course, the option of being an academic of some sort. Jesuits, in particular, encourage priests to have knowledge of “other” fields.
N
Newborn
Guest
I’d like to see how he managed that. If this could be arranged with one’s bishop, we’d have no problem as regards what we were discussing on the other thread. We’d even forgo the parish salary and simply live off the teaching (or whatever profession) salary, which would certainly help the church financially. But for some reason I get the sense that there is more lenience about this when it comes to* scholarly* professions more than others, which is something of a bias.
But still, I don’t see how what we’re talking about is any different than what JReducation has described, except that we’d also like the seminary formation to be less institutional and more independent like a permanent deacon’s.
Combine the two ideas (which individually they seem to have no objection to) and I don’t see a problem.
The question is will a diocese these days accept someone who says right from the start, “I don’t really want a pastoral assignment. I want to just be a resident helping with one Sunday Mass and occasional confessions, but then working some other job to support myself (and the Church) financially”??
Surely if we had a bunch of priests doing this, donating a certain percentage of their (outside job) income to the Church…it would solve both the financial problems of the Church and the Sunday Mass priest shortage…
S
SVP
Guest
I have known both Catholic and Orthodox priests who have somewhat regular 8 hour jobs. They were usually in small parishes that couldn’t afford to pay for the priest and his family. In the various cases, the employer understood that there might be casue for the priest/employee to take time off with short notice and were ok with that.
I too, have had similar arrangements with employers who knew that (as a cantor) I might be called on to sing a funeral during the week with short notice. Thankfully that didn’t happen often.
I too, have had similar arrangements with employers who knew that (as a cantor) I might be called on to sing a funeral during the week with short notice. Thankfully that didn’t happen often.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Usually when a priest has a side job and is assigned to a parish it is because the parish can not support him.
It is not because he has decided that he wants a side job.
Sometimes the side job is not really a side job but is working in the parish school.
It is not because he has decided that he wants a side job.
Sometimes the side job is not really a side job but is working in the parish school.
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s slow down here and not be too generous with someone else’s money. There are several rules that apply here.
- If a priest is a secular and has income from another source, it does not belong to the Church. It belongs to him and the Church cannot, in justice require him to donate it. That is up to him. The reason is that he is not a parishioner. Therefore he is not getting services from the parish or the diocese.
- If a man is a religious, be he a priest or brother, he makes no money. His community gets paid for his services. The community has no obligation to donate it to the Church. There is one catch here, some orders are not allowed to own property or have money. Only in those cases may the Church require that the order give over the funds to whomever the Holy See chooses. But only the Holy See can determine that. Other religious communities have a right to own property, this includes having money, even though the individuals may not have money.
The number of priests in parishes is dwindling because of the lower number of men entering, but also because of an increase in other ministries and the desire of religious communities not to assign priests to parishes. Many religious orders are choosing to assign their members to ministries that are in keeping with their charism. This is part of the renewal of religious life. These men are religious first.
In conclusion, whatever money, if any, they make from these other duties, does not go to the Church. It goes to the individual or to the religious community. We have to remember that diocesan priests are not taken care of when they retire. They are like any other secular man. They have to provide for their own retirement. They have no spouse or children to care for them if they become disabled and cannot work. Should this happen, they have no income from the diocese. Parishes have no financial obligation to provide for the reitirement or disability of their priests and deacons, if they are secular.
Every diocese has a different safety net. Some have pension plans and others have insurance plans. That’s why teaching is a good field for priests, because schools and colleges have these benefits that some parishes cannot afford to provide. Most priests can teach high school religion. They have enough theology to teach at that level, even though they don’t have enough to teach at the college level, unless they are Licentiates or Doctors. Some priests have a secular degreee, with which they can teach. We do have a shortage of teachers.
By the way, a diocesan priest does not have to accept an assignment. The only problem is that if the does not accept the assignment that the personell office has, he does not get paid. But most bishops do not demand that diocesan priests accept any assisgnment. They are offered, just like any other corporation does. Take it or leave it.
We get hung up on priesthood and forget the secular man part. They are not all religious. They do not all have to go where they are sent. Secular priests have choices. They just have to live with those choices. We tend to think that a priest must go where he’s sent. That’s not always the case for secular priests. They promise to obey the bishop. But they do not make a vow. There is a big difference between a promise and a vow. Only religious make a vow of obedience. Usually, there is a good relationship between the priests and their dioceses. Everything works out for the best. A secular priest can negotiate with his bishop and most bishops are very kind and will negotiate, if there is room. Sometimes there is no room, because of the needs of the diocese, like any other organization. The bishop has to look at the bigger picture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
Newborn
Guest
The Church can demand anything it wants, in obedience, especially from its clergy. At least that’s what I’m told by all the people arguing in favor of the current model on that other thread. This assertion of alleged “rights” of clerics to financial independence is self-willed…(I’m being sarcastic of course)…
But, I’m saying that priests could make just such an agreement from the start, take a “diocesan vow of poverty” to donate a specific percentage of their outside income to the dioceses, etc.
Don’t tell the people on the other thread this. It seems to go totally against their romantic notion of priests as “not contractors”.
If this is really the principle, it greatly reassures me. As that was the exact trade-off we were arguing should be made: a priest should be able to turn down an assignment and do some other job if he wants, as long as he, on his part, doesn’t expect the diocese to pay him.
I assume they still say their private Masses, volunteer at a parish on weekends (and summers for teachers) etc
Okay, thank you very much. If this is true, it is VERY reassuring. This is what I was trying to say all along, you’re just better at saying it in “neocon speak” without offending all the CAFers. But this is exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you for answering (albeit to someone else’s question) so informatively instead of going for the throat.
Now the only weird part is seminaries…
J
JReducation
Guest
Seminaries? Why seminaries? What’s so strange? Secular students attend seminaries. Religious do not. Religious are formed in their own houses of formation and study theology at univesities or theologates. When neither are available or affordable, then a religious superior will strike up a deal with a diocesan seminary to have his religious study theoloyg there. Usually they do not live at the seminary to avoid mixing the waters, so to speak. You don’t want your secular seminarians being turned into religious or your religious turned into seculars. This happened a lot in the past.
Many secular seminarians, also known as diocesan seminarians, only if they belonged to a diocese, frequently these poor guys were subjected to a routine that was an imitation of life in a religious house: common liturgy of the hours, community mass, community times for meals, community recreation, community property, no freedom to enter and leave the grounds without permission, no personal property such as cars, telephones, TVs, radios, stereos, etc. In other words, they were imitation friars. But the big problem came when they were released from the seminary and found themselves in a parish. They were not ready to be responsible for themelves or to live alone. The result: most of these priests left during the 1970s. They were miserable, lonely and had little independent living skills.
On the other hand, those religious who were subjected to living with diocesans often lost their religious vocation. They became very independent. They had no sense of community life, community prayer, poverty, obedience to a superior, and became very clerical. Their life revolved aroiund their priesthood. They often mis-identified themselves as priests instead of: Franciscan Friars, Carmelite Friars, Dominican Friars, Benedictine Monks. They suddently became Franciscan Fathers, etc. When they found themselves in a house governed by a friar who was not a priest, they became condescending and angry. How dare a non-priest govern them. When they were required to surrender their cars, TVs, stereos, money, freedom, time and submit to community schedules, community rules and give up some of their pastoral work to allow time for community life, they were uspet and miserable. They left in the thousands during the 1980s and 90s. But God has a way of turning something wrong into something good.
Even though the numbers of ordained priests, secular and religious, went down, the men that we lost were very unhappy, broken and would have hurt their dioceses or their religious communities more than they would have contributed to them. They need to find their place in the world and in the Church. On the other hand, dioceses and religious communities had to reasses how they formed their men and their charism.
We confused and blended religious life with secular priesthood and created chaos. In the chaos, we tried quick fixes, instead of stepping back and recovering what was good and leaving what did not work. No one wanted to take the fall. So everyone blamed it on Vatican II. Some said Vatican II did not go far enough and others said it went too far. It’s easy to blame a Council, because councils cannot call you on your mistakes.
All Vatican II said was that priests should be priests and religious should be religious. Duh, this was a novelty? Many lay people opposed and still oppose the distinction between religious life and priesthood. As long as the laity resists and tries to mold every priest into an imitation friar and every friar into a priest, they are going to get resistance. This is not modernism. It’s priests and religious fighting for their right to be the men that God called them to be, not the men that the laity wants them to be.
We have to learn to appreciate the difference between Holy Orders and religious life, if we’re going to benefit from the richness that comes from having both priesthood and religious life working together, while maintaining their separate identity and mission in the Church. The whole idea of imposing poverty on secular priests is imposing something that is not pat of the priesthood. Only religious are called to make a vow of poverty. A religious who becomes a priest, already has a vow of poverty.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
CDNowak
Guest
This has not altogether changed, nor is it altogether wrong. It is certainly easier to develop the habit of praying the Liturgy in community (as it is meant to be prayed). The restrictions of freedom and communication are problematic, however, for the reasons you noted. Unfortunately, the more rooted the spiritual and academic formation, the more this form of ‘human formation’ is still used, which is what Newborn finds weird.
I respectfully disagree. Vatican II certainly called for the religious to be religious first, but it also called secular priests to pursue the evangelical counsels and to develop a sense of common life with the other priests of the diocese. (Presbyterorum Ordinis). Now certainly this will have a different expression in the life of the secular priest and the life of the religious priest. However the difference between the way of life of a secular priest and religious should be less than the difference between the secular priest and the laity (I would say deacon, but it is conceivable that the role of the deacon could become more directly active in the Church.)
Yes. We do need the proper understanding of both, and the nature in which they are related. I agree that poverty is not imposed on secular priests, they are encouraged, however, to foster detachment and simplicity in their lives.
N
Newborn
Guest
I totally disagree. A secular priest should be more like a secular layman than like a religious priest (least of all should he be like a lay Religious). Especially when it comes to questions that really have more to do with the secular-religious distinction than with the priest-lay distinction.
Many of the things people try to peg as essential to priests are really qualities of religious life, not essential to the priesthood. The way a priest lives…should be more like a secular layman than like a religious in terms of the practical details.
Secular priests are not religious, and they are going to be living IN the world, among secular laymen as their flock. So it’s better for them to know how to function as a secular, not with these pseudo-Regular qualities attached to them.
C
CDNowak
Guest
Fine, but it is not me you are disagreeing with but the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m wondering, if the for the sake of clarity if would be better to outline in bullets what is proper to religious and to seculars (priests or lay). Maybe this would clear up the discussion a little. Let’s try.
*]Members of religious communities publically profess to live at least by the vow of obedience. Most religious communities profess all three evangelical counsels: obedience, poverty and chastity. Some religious have a fourth or even a fifth vow according to their constitutions.
*]Secular/diocesan clerics do not profess vows. At the time of ordination to the diaconate they PROMISE to obey the bishop and live a celibate life if they are single or after they are widowed, if they are already married. A promise is not a vow, because it is very specific. The promise of obedience made by a secular cleric is only to the bishop and only in legal matters. It is not binding in any other area of life or work. A legal matter is usually a pastoral matter such as an assignment. Though bishops rarely command an assignment, most have personnel offices that deal with placement and transfers, etc. Obedience is in matters of faith, morals, and administrative, not personal spiritual development, as is the case with religious.
*]Religious men vow obedience to: founder, rule (if the community has a rule), constitutions of the community, general chapter of the community, local chapter of the community, and the superior in that order.
*]Secular clerics promise celibacy. They do not make a vow of chastity. Everyone is bound to observe chastity. However, in religious life, chastity has a much broader meaning. The religious vows to make Christ the focal point of his life. Everyone should do this, but not everyone is bound to this by a vow. That very effort or lack thereof, in the case of a religious, carries moral weight, which is not the case in the secular cleric or lay person. Also, the religious gives up his biological family and his right to a biological family and surrenders to his religious brothers who become his family and for whom he is materially and morally responsible and to whom he is accountable. The brotherhood of which the Church speaks concerning secular clergy does not include either responsibility or accountability for the spiritual and material welfare of the other. It is a brotherhood of love, cooperation, sharing, respect and charity. A secular cleric is “not his brother’s keeper” to the extreme that a religious is. A religious has a moral obligation to contribute to the moral and spiritual growth of his brothers on an on-going basis through daily interaction and joint or parallel activities. Even hermits such as Carthusians, are in daily contact with each other as they do exactly he same thing, at the same time, with the same purpose each day. They must report to the community, concerning their observance, on a weekly basis. This is not required of any secular person, lay or cleric. In religious life, this is all part of the vow of chastity. It has all the qualities of a marriage, without being so.
*]Secular clerics and laity do not vow to give up ownership. Secular clerics may have salaries, bank accounts, property, cars, retirement plans, stocks, inheritances, homes, their own clothing, cell phones, TVs in their rooms, entertainment centers, their own furniture, pets, and anything else that any other single person living in a residence can have or fit into their room. In some instances, they are not required to live in the rectory. They can live in their own home and work at their ministry, whatever that may be. This is much more like the secular laity than the religious. When a secular cleric retires he is free to live anywhere, even outside of his own diocese.
*]Religious may not own a home, have money or any assets, many not have insurance policies or retirement funds. Religious never retire. They remain at their ministry until they are too sick to do the job. Then they are cared for by the brothers. There is not retirement age for religious. Though they may be too sick to do their job, they are not dispensed from all the other community obligations. They must participate in all community functions unless they are confined to a bed. If you can be wheeled in to a community chapter to vote or be elected, you’re morally bound to be there, regardless of your age or health. The other exception would be that you are mentally incompetent. This is the true meaning of religious poverty. It is the detachment from the material ownership as well as the detachment from owning your own will, time, skills, or even your life. You do as the community does. This is not applicable to secular clerics or secular laity.
*]Religious are not part of any diocese, whereas every secular person is part of a diocese. Religious may not make decisions on their own, except those that the constitution allows them to make or that the superior allows them to make. Secular clerics and secular lay people, take charge of their own decisions. They don’t have to ask to go to a movie, to have outside friends, to spend money, to travel, to sleep in late etc . Religious often have to ask for permission to leave the house. They may never have friends outside of the community without the knowledge of the superior and without the supervision of the superior. They may not go anywhere outside of their province without a letter of obedience.
*]Religious men who are priests, are first and foremost religious. Therefore, they can be subject to the authority of lay religious. A secular cleric is never subject to a lay authority. Big difference here.
*]Finally, religious have no choice in their assignments. Secular clerics can negotiate assignments with the personnel office. Religious have no personnel office. Most religious cannot decline an assignment. Secular clerics, like their secular counterparts can decline an assignment. They simply to do not get paid.
I hope this helps outline the differences that have to maintained.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
puzzleannie
Guest
most if not all the 80+ priests in this diocese have side jobs, working directly for the bishop-vicar general, chancellor, vicar for priests, for religious etc,; for the pastoral center–director of lay ministry formation, diaconate formation, seminary, vocations, chaplains etc; directors of other diocesan offices, except for catechesis, the administrative side and YM I can’t think of any other directors who are not priests. Plus communications, media other outreach. All of the priests who hold these offices also are pastors of parishes.
Most of those who don’t have an “official” side job are also chaplains for various lay organizations such as KofC, CUF, CDA, scouts etc., or advisors to apostolates such as ACTS team, Valley Interfaith and so forth. At least half the pastors also have sole responsibility for missions in their parish with a minimum of one Mass a week, plus catechesis, evangelization, sacraments etc. for the missions. It is not unusual for a priest here to put over 50M miles a year on a car and because of the layout of the parishes and missions in the northern and western tiers, ranchland, mileage and responsibility may be even more.
With all that there are pastors whose avocations or hobbies involve considerably community involvement–on is very active with the local birding set (a huge industry and tourist attraction in SoTex btw) and has a newspaper column and leads birding tours. Another has a music & evangelization ministry outside the parish, I know 2 who are volunteer firemen.
We have priests who are medical doctors, members of the bar, psychologists, social workers, teachers, college professors and have other professional qualifications and
Most of those who don’t have an “official” side job are also chaplains for various lay organizations such as KofC, CUF, CDA, scouts etc., or advisors to apostolates such as ACTS team, Valley Interfaith and so forth. At least half the pastors also have sole responsibility for missions in their parish with a minimum of one Mass a week, plus catechesis, evangelization, sacraments etc. for the missions. It is not unusual for a priest here to put over 50M miles a year on a car and because of the layout of the parishes and missions in the northern and western tiers, ranchland, mileage and responsibility may be even more.
With all that there are pastors whose avocations or hobbies involve considerably community involvement–on is very active with the local birding set (a huge industry and tourist attraction in SoTex btw) and has a newspaper column and leads birding tours. Another has a music & evangelization ministry outside the parish, I know 2 who are volunteer firemen.
We have priests who are medical doctors, members of the bar, psychologists, social workers, teachers, college professors and have other professional qualifications and
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Great post Br Jr but you know how I love playing the stick in the mud! 
JReducation;63700983. Religious men vow obedience to: founder said:
N
Newborn
Guest
No, not “the Church”. People invoke that too flippantly. If anything, it is disagreement with the current hierarchy on changeable prudential/disciplinary matters (and we may disagree with those things, just not disobey as long as the policy is in place).
However, even that I’m not sure. JReducation’s clarification is very helpful and very reassuring. And it that’s the official policy, it is very good. I just worry that, in practice, especially when it comes to Seminary, that distinction between seculars and religious…is extremely blurred still.
I know that I do not feel comfortable in a homogenous environment like a seminary. Where it’s all men like me, wearing the same clothes, being required to be at the same place at the same time all day, not able to make independent decisions about free time as much, being distanced from outside relationships.
I feel called to be out in the world, out among “the sinners,” out among a diverse crowd of men and women, Catholic and non-Catholic. The conformism of seminary life is just not appealing to me and at least several other young men I’ve spoken to now. Even though we’d like being priests, are willing to go through classes and spiritual direction, are even willing to be celibate.
It seems to me like they’re shooting themselves in the foot keeping a model that, according to Br JR’s description of the difference between secular and religious ways of living, is not at all essential to the secular priesthood. Which seems to be this attempt at pseudo-monastic life for seminarians.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Not every seminary is as “draconian” as you want to make them out to be. I know of many that allow their men to do what they want with their free time and allow them to have friends outside of the seminary.
It is important to remember though that you are in spiritual formation for something greater than what the laity is working for so there are times when you must be separated.
While it is true I feel I am called to community life I did explore the secular priesthood. What turned me off of where I was applying was the seminary as it was way to lax in its “rules”.
Also, I do not see why a seminarian would need to stay out all night or even past a reasonable hour (this is why most seminaries have curfews as to when all seminarians must be home by) because of the near occasion of sin and scandal.
N
Newborn
Guest
Then, please, name some. That’s all I’ve been asking, but people have been quick to condemn and (except for Brother JR), slow to help with anything concrete.
What seminary do you know of, specifically, where the men go to class, meet with their spiritual director, attend daily Mass, maybe a few Hours throughout the week (especially on Sunday)…but then can do whatever else they want, except maybe that they have to be back by eleven or midnight or something “reasonable” like that?
I just haven’t found it. Most expect men to be at every meal, “evening prayer” and “night prayer” communally, etc. In themselves, those things don’t take very long and I don’t really mind them in themselves…but that sort of mandatory attendance even at these little events throughout the day…has the practical effect of forcing you to stay on campus because you need to be back for them, so it really puts bullet-holes in the allegedly free time. You can only go out for an hour or two at a time, even though the event itself only takes 10 minutes, because you have to be back on campus for it.
It does limit your radius of motion. It’s not like you can say, “I only have one morning class today, I think I’ll take a day at the museum” or even see a movie or anything like that. Being “allowed” to have outside friends is one thing, but that becomes a lot more complicated when your day is punctuated like that and you have to be at meals (because the main way people socialize is “over lunch” or “over dinner”)…
The conformity of thought is also still disturbing. I was placed by God in 21st-century America, not medieval Christendom. I don’t like an environment of all good-little Catholic boys, all wearing the same clothes, having the same haircuts, doing everything together at the same times. I just need more interpersonal diversity than that.
- Status