www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Rotation of priests

I would like to throw this out and would like some thoughts

I would suggest that all priest spend a maximum of 5 years serving a parish. After that their names go into a hat and they would draw a new parish assignment.

The reason I say this, I have seen where a priest has harmed a vibrant parish. It would also prevent a priest feeling that a particular church was HIS church.

Yes, I realize that there are reasons why a priest could not move but these could be worked out on an individual basis.

Certainly it would be easier for a Byzantine priest with no family ties to move.
But even the Orthodox with their married priesthood could do this.

I good priest could revitalize a declining parish.

There is no theological reason not to do this but I say no because practically it would be too disruptive to the, yes, community.

Plus, Orthodox (and future Byzantine Catholic) priests who are married can't be moved around an eparchy like pins on a military map, like troops. It's been said by one former forum regular that some Catholic bishops want all celibate priests for that reason.

The corporate world uproots families every few years (what a horrible way for kids to live: like children of servicemen and -women) but at least those people are compensated financially for their troubles. Not so the barely-getting-by priest and his family — unless we want to cough up more dough.

http://oldworldrus.com

And what of the communities that are flourishing under long time leadership? I know many communities that complain that their priests are moved too frequently.

In the case(s) to which you refer, Little Green Coat, the bishops may need to be more attentive. Some priests aren't in the right situations and some priests ought not to be in the parish at all.

Nevertheless, longer tenures are usually best, I believe.

Dan Lauffer, former long time United Methodist pastor, moved too often by bishops.

LittleGreenCoat,

Your policy has gone by other names:

1. Turkey-dance: where a pedophile or scoundral priest is moved from one parish to the next after being discovered. During the series of parish jumps, each parish experiences problems the priest brings with him.

2. Promotion by Deportation: "trouble-makers" (read: those who simply disagree; doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong) are promoted to a place far, far away.

3. Musical Chairs: to prove that one is the bishop, priests feel the power at every game of musical chairs.

4. Social Uprooting: moving a priest's family or even a celibate priest can be harmful if there is no good reason for the move. Many parishes have wonderful pastors and a great relationship with them. It takes several years to establish an element of trust and cooperation. Why end that when such elements finally come together.


IMO, if a priest is a problem, deal with him; don't cause havoc because of one bad boy. Priests are humans too. They don't need to be treated like disposables. Such Russian Roulette parish assigning does not take into consideration health issues or their ability to contribute to the eparchy. If you have a good leader who gets things done (which is lacking most of the time) why send him to serve a community of a dozen people hundreds of miles from where his services can best be utilized.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches specifically prohibits this except for a very few specific instances and our particular law reinforces this.

Canon 284 - �3. The pastor possesses stability in his office, therefore he is not to be named for a determined period of time unless:

1� it concerns members of a religous institute or society of common life in the manner of religous;

2� a candidate agrees to this in writing;

3� it concerns a special case, in which case the consent of the college of consultors is required;

4� the particular law of his Church sui iuris permits it.

Our particular law does not permit it and only allows for 1�-3�.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

The policy of shuffling priests around on a schedule is something that is standard in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, a Syrian/Anglican medley of a church to which I currently belong in name only.

Priests are stationed in a parish, and then replaced, every four years, all over the Church. The current policy also states that a priest may only serve in America once in his ministry. This means that for the most part, priests will always be in India, and will always be on the move, along with their families. Furthermore, not everyone gets a chance at America...only those who have it good with a bishop have the chance...it's called church politics.

Now, while this has assured that bad priests don't wreak havoc in one parish over a long period, it assures that one priest will wreak short term havoc in a lot of parishes. It also means that the priest's wife and children constantly adjust to changing situations...rich parish, good conditions in one place, dirt poor in another. The people have a pastor who gets to know them and is a real shepherd and spiritual guide, but after his tour of duty, he leaves, and that delicate process happens all over again. These reasons are bad enough.

But the policy is also a deterrent to vocations. The big deal recently among the Marthomites was that an Indian-American boy, born and raised here, was ordained a priest. It's great news, but he is the only one ever ordained anything here. Clearly he can deal with the current policy, which states that he can stay here in the States for the first four years of his priesthood, and then for the rest of his life stay in India, where the language and everything else is secondary to how he grew up and who he is as an individual. Would not such a man have a great ministry to the American second generation of which he is a member? But the policy can't be changed for one young priest, and so he will move around, and so will any other indigenous vocations. So he has been the only American ordained a priest, and that's it...I haven't heard anything else about any other vocations. With good reason. Who wants to move around? Being a priest is probably hard enough as it is, and then to be a married priest, and then on top of that to move around.

Meanwhile, the Malankara Orthodox Church (not to mention the Malankara Syrian Orthodox here...) has about five young deacons (mostly in minor orders), ranging from 17 up. These don't mind the requirement that they spend a year in India in "apprenticeship" with a Metropolitan, following him around, seeing him do his thing, learning the hymns and services, etc. They know that afterwards, they can go to seminary here (some go to Saint Vladimir's, which is nearby), they can minister here, be ordained here, and be assigned here, in America, in one parish, for the rest of their lives. And vocations still come...in my parish alone, I know of two who want to at least become deacons, and I myself ponder--in addition to whether or not to go Orthodox or Catholic (yes, still pondering )--whether I'm called as others seem to think I am. 2-3 in one parish alone, not to mention the others that may be out there...

I must say, though...I think I'd rather apprentice in America...

I personally feel that this shuffling thing is the absolute wrong way to go, and I feel this way from experience.

St. Paul tells us: "A priest is a man chosen by God, to serve the people in the things that pertain to God."

Does this mean "people Universal", "people Archdiocese/Province", "people Diocese" or "people parish"?

I think it's parish.

A man can have a vocation while living in a particular community; he can serve as an acolyte, deacon or priest because the people want him to serve them. After all -- they KNOW the guy! Or they can tell him to take a hike. (Babas, you know!!!)

Sure, he can go elsewhere if he is both able and willing to do so. But if not, then should he be assigned or told to get laicized? This does not seem to be fair to the man. He is being transformed from a servant-of-God into a pawn or a 'soldier' in someone's service. That is NOT the kind of man I would want as a priest. I want someone who is part of the 'ekklesia', who is considered a normal guy who serves the community as priest, and who is acountable to the community for what he does. Although there are some who consider the priest to be merely the 'vicar' of the bishop, I think that this is just just bad Western theology of priesthood. Our priests are "us". And we must love, support, and interact with them as special persons who have been chosen by the community to serve US. They are our "kinfolk" and we must treat them like any other member of the family. Love 'em, respect 'em, kick 'em in the butt when they need it, and be ready to do whatever is necessary for their well-being.

Does it ever occur to folks that we treat our priests like baby Marines - ORDERS, SIR! -- and pay them less and respect them less than we do our military? And we expect them to just move around and do what they're told "for the love of Jesus", even if the "ORDERS, SIR!" is irrational. Anyone who serves our people(s) as a priest is enduring a living martyrdom -- the structures aren't set up to accommodate the priest. It's just: offer it up.

While suffering is a core element of the Christian life, there is no reason for us to inflict it on each other, and especially on our priests. Their lot is hard enough.

Rotation? Only for a reason. If the guy is screwing up, then get him both help and a new assignment. If he's doing well, encourage him, reward him and let him keep working. Just like marriage.

Blessings to our priests! May the Lord grant you all His peace and His presence. And forebearance for all the lunacy you must endure.

Blessings!

To Dr. John's prayer for priests,

AMEN!

May the Lord strengthen and console and bring Joy those whom he has called to spend their lives in daily service to our communities, clergy, religious, and the people of God.

May we treasure them all!

Dr . John writes: "St. Paul tells us: "A priest is a man chosen by God, to serve the people in the things that pertain to God."
Does this mean "people Universal", "people Archdiocese/Province", "people Diocese" or "people parish"?"

I believe it to be all three simultaneously. One must be prepared to serve the Church at all these levels or they should not accept ordination. Most will obviously serve at the parish level. A few will be called to serve at the eparchial/metropolitan/patriarchal level and a very few may be put in a position to serve many Churches or the entire Church in Rome.

I agree a priest is not just a vicar of the bishop. He truly is pastor of his community. Yet we must not think that the bishop is just a hierarchic formality with no real connection to the parish either. He is the first and chief pastor of every parish in his eparchy and sometimes the collective good of the eparchy must come before the preference of one parish. Hence pastors sometimes need to be moved.

I am glad however our Bishops specifically excluded mandated time periods as is popular with many Latin diocese. This idea is antithetical to the Eastern tradition that sees the priest as truly "Father" of his parish.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Thanks Lance, for pointing out that the Bishop is essentially the chief pastor for the diocese as a whole as well as for the individual parishes. Good bishops do a lot of "on the road" time; they're visiting the parishes and the priests and they can come to understand the particular workings of an 'ekklesia'.

The priest is there day to day. The bishop comes at least annually and more if it's possible. They both have the responsiblity to serve the people in community. And I pray that the Lord give both the priests and the bishop the strength to do what is necessary.

Blessings!

Although there are some who consider the priest to be merely the 'vicar' of the bishop, I think that this is just just bad Western theology of priesthood.

Although I see you and Lance have clarified this point, I wouldn't let this sit without comment. Lance of course is right. It is basic Orthodox ecclesiology, not "bad Western theology', that the priest is, as I like to say, the bishop's deputy (vicar means the same thing). Remember, only in postapostolic times did the presbyterate became distinct* from the episkopoi as local Churches — what we now would call eparchies or dioceses — became too big for the episkopos to serve Eucharist to in person every week. Although the Orthodox faith also says the Church in its fullness is present wherever the local community celebrates the Eucharist, at the same time remember the priest celebrant is always acting in loco episcopi. Orthodoxy is very clear on this — no mandate from the bishop, represented physically by the signed antimension he gives his priest, no exercise of priesthood. (Incardination — canonical residence in a diocese — and the bishop granting "faculties' to priests both have the same significance in Latin Catholicism.) There is no such thing as a wildcat Orthodox priest not under any bishop's omophor as we say. Moreoever, the bishop must be in communion with other Orthodox bishops for his episkope to be in the Church and thus be guaranteed of grace.

Bad or caricature Western theology produces aberrations like the "lines of succession' game played by some Anglicans and vagantes, using St Augustine's charity to those ordained in schism or even heresy to posit the "validity' of orders outside the context, yes, community, of the Church, reducing them to what you call the magic zap. Another variation on this has been found among Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, who often treated their Anglican bishop like a magic ordination machine, ignoring the facts that he did not share their Catholic opinions and often forbade their practices. No matter — once a man is zapped he can run off and do whatever he wants! You sometimes see this error today among Roman traditionalists when wildcat priests set up chapels when they aren't under any bishop in the Catholic communion.

Getting back on topic, I repeat I don't think the mandatory rotation of priests is a good idea. Edwin also brought up the real and disgraceful practice of the turkey dance — the clerical old-boy network covering their a**es (from lawsuits and bad press) by moving child-molesting, womanizing, gay, alcoholic or embezzling priests (all of whom are a tiny minority of clergy) from church to church. This really gets my journalistic sense fired up — when all responsible for the dance get caught, they deserve what's coming to them. And their collars or подрясники wouldn't guilt this reporter, who believes 100% in the Cathodox doctrines about the apostolic ministry, into hushing up.

*And as you can see in Acts, the diaconate emerged before the presbyterate, in the person of St Stephen, whom we on the Julian calendar remembered yesterday and whom Latin Catholics remember Dec. 26 ( as mentioned in the song "Good King Wenceslaus' ).

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Interesting points. I know of one person who claims valid "Old Catholic" orders. And although he'd like to chaplain-ize for this or that group, he has no parish and to my knowledge no real bishop. He was not happy when I rejected assistance from him since he wasn't a priest -- and he then started the litany of "knee-bone, connected to the shin-bone, shin-bone connected to the ankle-bone, ... now, hear the word of the Lord. Dem bones, dem bones..."

This "zap" crap really annoys me. For me: no bishop, no 'parish' = no orders.

Regarding pedophile problems in the clergy, by the by, see today's Boston Globe. (boston.com) Major articles on apologies by Cardinal Law -- front page. He also was not wearing episcopal regalia but a simple black cassock. A fact noted by the reporters.)

Blessings!

I think that moving a priest is quite damaging to the parish as he is the spiritual father. How would you like it if you had a different father every five years? Just as you get to know him he is ripped from you.
If there is a problematic priest destroying a parish, the bishop should do his fatherly duty and solve the situation.

On another note, I don't understand your use of the words byzantine and catholic. We are (uniates) all Orthodox in communion with the see of Rome, having married Priests.

Ilya

I think a priest should be moved not because of taking owbership of a parish but because its essential for a priest to get a new view of the Church and his resposibilities