Joy and Austin: Back in Arkansas?

[subsaharanafrica]

A practical reason I've heard a few times with regard to priests not marrying is the frequency with which they're reassigned.  IIRC the average amount of time a priest stays in one parish is 5 years.  We've been here a year and a half and are on our fourth priest--the first was sent to the US, the second to somewhere in Europe, and the 3rd to the Middle East.  When we were living on the East Coast of the US our parish preist was sent somewhere in the American Southwest.  When we were living in Prague the priest was from the Bronx and was sent to the Czech Republic after spending a decade or so in Poland.  

People with families are far less mobile than people without them, especially when it comes to multiple international moves.  Speaking from personal experience (as moving internationally every 2-5 years is something we happen to do) there aren't a lot of families who are cut out for it.  The issues just magnify once kids are in the picture.   In our world it's really not uncommon for one spouse to move on 6-8 weeks' notice and the other to stay with the kids for months until school is out.  Or for the other spouse and kids not to make the move at all.       

I have zero problems with priests marrying.  Just throwing that out there that when you're dealing with the logistics of relocating people it's a lot easier if they're unattached.

[SilverBeach]

10 hours ago, VeryNikeSeamstress said:

Well, he did spend most of his adult live hanging out with a group of 12 men (disciples). Perhaps Mary Magdalene was his beard?

Jesus had women disciples also, they have just been glossed over. It's unfortunate that none of the writings of his female students/apostles made it into canon/the bible, because of plain old sexism.

 

[singsingsing]

4 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Jesus had women disciples also, they have just been glossed over. It's unfortunate that none of the writings of his female students/apostles made it into canon/the bible, because of plain old sexism.

 

We don't know who wrote several parts of the New Testament. One or more of the authors may have been female. The majority of people were illiterate, and putting anything in written form was a lengthy and expensive process, so we don't have the writings of most of his students and apostles, male or female, for that reason.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

18 hours ago, crazysnark said:

I never got the view that Jesus believed in equality of men and women. As soon as he heals a woman she jumps up and starts "serving them" and in numerous places talked down to his biological mother. I don't think he was super sexist but I also don't believe he is the feminist a lot of liberal christians like to paint him out to be. I also do think Jesus was married. Even Peter who is supposed to be the first pope was married. His mother in law is mentioned in the bible. Priests not being able to be married only came about because of inheritance like someone already mentioned. It didn't have much  to do with religion itself. 

I don't think he was this feminist either.  I'm pretty liberal and I'm Christian, but I have no delusion that Christ was the modern 21st century man. This makes a lot of feminists skin crawl, but I have no problem with the man being the spiritual head of the family, but for many families that is the man leads prayers leads devotions, for a lot it also means that final family decisions come down to the man, for my husband and I that isn't how it works, he isn't a decision maker so I'm the one who ultimately makes all the decisions.  I'm of the opinion that feminism is women choosing the life they want, even if that means they allow their spouse to be the leader.  I've shared this opinion before other places and always get ripped for it.  

When I say the woman being "subservient" I don't mean Duggar subservient where they couldn't take care of themselves if their lives depended on it, I mean women who can and do have jobs, women who have carers who are doctors or lawyers or SAHM who choose a more traditional role at home.  Women who aren't raised to do only what their husband or father tells them, women who are allowed to make their own choices about pregnancy and birth control, but may aqueous to their husband on when to buy a car or how much money to spend in their monthly budget, but not an asshole about it In my opinion the true spiritual head of the family takes into account what his wife wants and doesn't just act like Derrick or Boob. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

3 hours ago, subsaharanafrica said:

A practical reason I've heard a few times with regard to priests not marrying is the frequency with which they're reassigned.  IIRC the average amount of time a priest stays in one parish is 5 years.  We've been here a year and a half and are on our fourth priest--the first was sent to the US, the second to somewhere in Europe, and the 3rd to the Middle East.  When we were living on the East Coast of the US our parish preist was sent somewhere in the American Southwest.

Makes zero sense. I grew up Methodist, and the preachers were regularly moved - generally every three years, kids or not.

[sunshine]

3 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Jesus had women disciples also, they have just been glossed over. It's unfortunate that none of the writings of his female students/apostles made it into canon/the bible, because of plain old sexism.

 

What about the Book of Ruth, Book of Esther and Debra and Hannah and Lydia for starters?

[Jana814]

17 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Makes zero sense. I grew up Methodist, and the preachers were regularly moved - generally every three years, kids or not.

I went to the first 3 years of elementary school with a girl who's father was a pastor.  Haven't seen or thought about her in almost 30 years. She moved mid-way through 2nd grade because her father got another church job. 

I'm Jewish and my temple's Rabbi and Cantor have been around since 1979.  So getting new clergy every few years is odd to me. 

[Greendoor]

29 minutes ago, sunshine said:

What about the Book of Ruth, Book of Esther and Debra and Hannah and Lydia for starters?

Ruth, Esther and Deborah, and Hannah are Old Testament.  

Ruth talks about the inclusion of non-Jews (converts).  Esther uses her wiles to out wit a bad king.  Deborah led them into battle I think.  And Hannah, she gave her one and only child to God.  

Lydia is a Greek that Paul admired. 

She started a church on a river bank if memory serves.

I think Jesus message was about how to live, especially if you are not in power - not giving way to fear, or deception, or anger.  How to Love.  I don't think he had a male/female agenda.  Men were more in public then, women were not out and about .

The Samaritan women - that was about deception, thinking we are different from each other.  He must have said not to be afraid a hundred times in the Gospels.  Turn the other cheek, forgive  70  (or 700) x 7.   I don't look for modern equality of opportunity or pressence in history.  Things have changed for the better over a long period. 

[xlurker]

I dont get this moving of clergy every few years...I am an Episcopalian.  The only way we had gotton a new reverand was when one retired!

 

[melon]

On 7/7/2017 at 4:28 PM, justoneoftwo said:

What problems does that cause?  Do you not have the same access?  Do they have an option to not have a primary?  Just curious how it all works for different people.  I assume H is the primary on all our accounts, but I have never had any problems because of it.

I can't get a new debit card or get a loan if necessary.He has to be the one to do,either one of those.

[Bad Wolf]

Military families are moved all the time.

[2manyKidzzz]

If priests were married and had children the parish would have to support families instead of individuals. Which has not been the situation forever. 

[louisa05]

10 hours ago, subsaharanafrica said:

A practical reason I've heard a few times with regard to priests not marrying is the frequency with which they're reassigned.  IIRC the average amount of time a priest stays in one parish is 5 years.  

The amount of time a priest stays in a parish can vary widely from diocese to diocese as each bishop is allowed to make their own determinations about it. In my diocese, senior pastors are assigned for 6 year terms and normally do not remain more than two terms in one parish. And sometimes are moved in less than twelve years. My in-laws' parish just got a new priest after 7 years. 

On the other hand, in the diocese down the road, they are basically allowed to request to stay in one place as long as they want. A friend's parish there just had a massive farewell to a priest leaving after 24 years in the parish. 

The majority of priests serving as parish pastors are diocesan priests who serve only in that diocese and have to have special permission to leave the diocese for any education or service. That permission may not be given if the diocese has need for him to serve a parish. Our priest had to cancel plans to pursue more education because he was needed. He had a hard time with that when he was initially assigned to our parish. Priests moving from country to country are usually priests with an order like the Jesuits or the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart. A relative of mine is a retired priest in the latter and served all over the world in both missions and parishes. Those priests tend to move more frequently than diocesan priests. 

Being a Catholic priest is not quite comparable to being a pastor in a mainline Protestant church. The biggest difference is that Catholic priests conduct services every single day (most will have one day a week off, but if the parish has an associate, there is still a mass that day). The availability of sacraments for the sick and dying is also vital; so they are essentially always on call for emergencies. While a mainline Protestant or evangelical patient may be content to see a non-denominational/interdenominational hospital chaplain if their pastor is not available, that person cannot give sacraments to a Catholic patient. 

Married priests with families would be a huge financial burden that parishes currently are not prepared to shoulder. Parishes in the U.S. house their priests. Our parish's current rectory consists of a sitting room, bedroom and bathroom, and small combined kitchen/dining area that is all housed in the same building as parish offices. The door of the main office is directly across the hall from the priest's bedroom door. The sitting room doubles as a lobby/waiting area for the offices. There is no way this could accommodate a family. (We are building a free standing rectory now, but it will only be a one level, two bedroom house--that again, could not accommodate a family).  Priests also are not paid a huge wage in most American parishes. Most priests I know have very few personal belongings--not much furniture and such.  Their salaries would not support a family. The Archdiocese provides group insurance for all employees. Parishes pay most of the premium for their priests. There is no way they could pay premiums for a family. When I left employment by the Archdiocese seven years ago, premiums for a family policy were nearing $1200 a month. 

Our parish runs the county food bank, keeps a fund to help with "community needs"--basically, money that is used at the priest's discretion (though overseen by the board) for families and individuals in need that come to the parish for help, has been instrumental in beginning and funding a backpack program in our public schools (Link: http://www.feedingamerica.org/our-work/hunger-relief-programs/backpack-program/?referrer=https://www.google.com/), has a "twin parish" program with a mission church in India where we help provide funds for education... We aren't spending money foolishly and are spending plenty on things that benefit the community. To be quite frank, priests with families would mean many parishes would have to give up doing these things in order to adequately pay and insure someone supporting a family. I honestly think that finances is a huge consideration at this point in whether or not there is a change. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

16 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Parishes in the U.S. house their priests. 

Traditionally, so do Methodist churches.

With the abundant riches of the Catholic Church, I don't know why this financial burden would/should fall on an individual parish. 

[louisa05]

Just now, SapphireSlytherin said:

Traditionally, so do Methodist churches.

With the abundant riches of the Catholic Church, I don't know why this financial burden would/should fall on an individual parish. 

The church is not as rich as people think. Unless you want us to sell the Sistine Chapel or St Patrick's Cathedral. And who would buy them and for what purpose? And, again, parishes are not typically spending money to create the Sistine Chapel Annex on their property. A substantial portion of our parish's money is spent on the charitable functions listed above. Also not on salaries and insurance. 

I grew up in mainline Protestant churches. Over the time I was growing up, most were abandoning the practice of providing homes for pastors and their families because it was not financially viable to continue. The Catholic parishes I have been part of have all had modest rectories consisting of a few rooms attached to the church itself. Married priests would mean no longer being able to accommodate them in terms of living quarters and would then necessitate much larger salaries. 

The Methodists in town don't fund the food bank. For the entire county. Just saying. 

[jqlgoblue]

I have a really hard time believing the Catholic church can't pay a priest enough to have a family. My parents go to a Unitarian Church and the salary of the reverend is payed by church dues and BTW people don't give a lot to Unitarian Churches b/c there is no threat of any sort of damnation if they don't. To be fair, most of our reverends have been single, or their spouse has worked and they haven't had huge families likely due to the cost on a minimal salary. However, given the size and scale of my local Catholic Church buildings and # of parishioners vs. my parent's tiny old 200 person UU church, I think it's silly to think they couldn't pay a person enough to have a family... even if they did have a few kids.

 

Also, sorry if I missed this b/c I skimmed thru but the original reason for priests not to marry was inheritance and land, especially with a lot of kids. The church was basically able to accumulate land by not allowing priests to marry vs. lose it to priest's children.

[subsaharanafrica]

 

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

 Priests moving from country to country are usually priests with an order like the Jesuits or the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart. A relative of mine is a retired priest in the latter and served all over the world in both missions and parishes. Those priests tend to move more frequently than diocesan priests. 

The priest from the Bronx is an Augustinian monk but none of the others belong to a specific order of which I am aware. Locally we have a rather large priest surplus so they tend to get moved to shore up shortages in dioceses elsewhere in he world, especially if their English is good. 

[louisa05]

23 minutes ago, jqlgoblue said:

I have a really hard time believing the Catholic church can't pay a priest enough to have a family. My parents go to a Unitarian Church and the salary of the reverend is payed by church dues and BTW people don't give a lot to Unitarian Churches b/c there is no threat of any sort of damnation if they don't. To be fair, most of our reverends have been single, or their spouse has worked and they haven't had huge families likely due to the cost on a minimal salary. However, given the size and scale of my local Catholic Church buildings and # of parishioners vs. my parent's tiny old 200 person UU church, I think it's silly to think they couldn't pay a person enough to have a family... even if they did have a few kids.

 

Also, sorry if I missed this b/c I skimmed thru but the original reason for priests not to marry was inheritance and land, especially with a lot of kids. The church was basically able to accumulate land by not allowing priests to marry vs. lose it to priest's children.

Speaking for my own parish, we could. We would have to give up funding the food bank in all likelihood. So, yeah, better to feed, house and insure one family than feed a lot of poor families in the county. Definitely. We should get right on that. 

[jqlgoblue]

 

7 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Speaking for my own parish, we could. We would have to give up funding the food bank in all likelihood. So, yeah, better to feed, house and insure one family than feed a lot of poor families in the county. Definitely. We should get right on that. 

I'm not saying you should... it's a very smart business decision not to! That business decision may have unintended consequences though.... I also think it is just sad that a religion that espouses family values wouldn't let the people who do the work for them have one, I also think it's unrealistic to expect people to be celibate, but that's just me.

 

And also, the churches where I live are freaking ostentatious... that $$ should go to help the poor too!! Also, despite paying for a full time minister, more people from my parent's church (200 ppl strong) show up to do homeless nights at the big churches in town (it rotates) than their own parishioners do (2,000+ strong)!

[Flippp]

@jqlgoblue my parents belong to a UU church as well. I believe UU churches have more funds because UU's tend to have a higher socioeconomic status as compared to Catholics. In general, UU's are more educated and have have smaller family's than most Catholics.

 

This is a generalization and this also depends on the location of these churches. 

[SilverBeach]

12 hours ago, singsingsing said:

We don't know who wrote several parts of the New Testament. One or more of the authors may have been female. The majority of people were illiterate, and putting anything in written form was a lengthy and expensive process, so we don't have the writings of most of his students and apostles, male or female, for that reason.

I know that authorship of many parts of the bible is questionable. Forgeries were common. My point was that women have not been attributed as authors of any documents now considered canon, for whatever reason. I think sexism is a big part of it, YMMV. 

I don't think Jesus was a feminist because there was no such thing back then. I also don't think he focused on people's genitalia instead of their souls and spirit. None of his direct teachings are gender specific. Which comports with his mission.

My understanding is that celibacy for priests eliminated the possibility of heirs acquiring any of the wealth of the church.

 

[SilverBeach]

10 hours ago, sunshine said:

What about the Book of Ruth, Book of Esther and Debra and Hannah and Lydia for starters?

Those are old testament writings. These women were not contemporaries of Jesus. So, not relevant to my point.

[SapphireSlytherin]

8 hours ago, louisa05 said:

The church is not as rich as people think. Unless you want us to sell the Sistine Chapel or St Patrick's Cathedral. And who would buy them and for what purpose? And, again, parishes are not typically spending money to create the Sistine Chapel Annex on their property.

$8 billion is pretty rich, if you ask me. I'm not talking about individual parishes, which is why I mentioned "the church" instead of "your church" (or Bill's church or Lisa's church or what-have-you). Funny you mention the Sistine Chapel, because it's available for rent for special functions, although the Vatican won't call it rent:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/index.html

Remember this? This guy...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/atlanta-archbishop-wilton-gregory-apologizes-for-22-million-mansion/  

 

8 hours ago, louisa05 said:

The Methodists in town don't fund the food bank. For the entire county. Just saying.

The Methodist Church I was raised in does. 

[Four is Enough]

9 hours ago, jqlgoblue said:

I have a really hard time believing the Catholic church can't pay a priest enough to have a family. My parents go to a Unitarian Church and the salary of the reverend is payed by church dues and BTW people don't give a lot to Unitarian Churches b/c there is no threat of any sort of damnation if they don't.

First of all, this cradle Catholic has never been pressured to give an amount rather than being threatened with damnation.

We have, however, had collections for:

school deficit fund. Catholic schools don't exist on tuition alone. Parishes help support schools. Not only that, but we contribute to archdiocesan funds for high school tuitions, which are astronomical.

food bank. both money and goods

clothing bank. ditto

archdiocesan charities, including Catholic Charities, encompassing alms, adoptions, crisis pregnancy care and post natal support, care for war torn countries, refugee support, and more

building maintenance fund. When my parish church was built, way back in the day, there was a copper roof.. parts of it were actually taken off and stolen once.. other than that, roofs leak, floors or carpets require replacement, pews need fixing, the AC or heat needs to be replaced.. parking lot lining, re coating.. snow removal, bus repairs, (for picking up homebound parishoners)

support of Eagle and Gold Scouting award projects, in money or goods.

and many many other things. I think supporting a priest's family would add a large burden.

 

 

[So-Virgin-It-Hurts]

On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:25 PM, melon said:

My grandmother was another opinionated person.She said that as a married woman,I should use Mrs.____ Melon...insert Mr.Melon's first name..both of our names start with the same initial so,I guess for the bills I mail and any letters I mail,I get around it.I have had problems t our bank,because he is considered the primary account holder,even though I have been on his account for 37 years.

 

Ha!  This is how my mother signed her name until she died at age 98:  Mrs. [dad's first name] [dad's last name].  Apparently, when a woman gets married she is suppose to lose all of her identity - name included!