So, as I was looking over the BBC RSS feed I get, this was listed:Priests to face ‘sex drive tests’. I could say that this is a good thing, on the face of it, it seems like a rational approach to eliminating a very humiliating and predatory practice that takes place in the Roman Catholic Priesthood in relatively rare instances. That would be most prominently, the abuse of children by priests. Unfortunately, I think this doesn’t quite address the problem that the Roman Catholic church has, and that is the (in my opinion) harsh celibacy requirement.
I am of the opinion that it is unreasonable to ask a man (or woman for that matter, but we’re talking about priests not nuns) to be celibate just because he (or she) wishes to serve in the church. Belief and practicality don’t always go hand in hand, and this is one of those instances where it just seems a little brain dead. Ministers are allowed to have wives. I have an acquaintance that ministers at a church (I do not know what denomination that is, maybe it’s Lutheran?) who is married. He seems as normal as any other Christian and believes just as strongly as any other Christian, so it’s not a matter of one’s level of faith. Color me confused.
In a completely unrelated note, I’ve not had time to post this for a little over a week. Whoopsie daisy! Also, FallOut 3 is the hotness. It is however, not on the same level of ‘feel good’ as Mirror’s Edge, that game actually makes me smile as I pull off stuff. I think because it’s not post apocalyptic? I’m not sure.
I’m with you on relaxing the priest’s restrictions, although I think a lot of the predators weren’t driven to it by celibacy, I think they already had the urge and chose to join an organization that would feed them victims and offer legal protection. Besides, I don’t know how many take their vows seriously anyway. The cardinal of the Chicago diocese lives in a 15 million dollar home that looks like a castle. I want to take that vow of poverty.
[Translate]
A 15 million dollar home? Damn. I kind of want that kind of poverty as well. Jeez.
You make a good point, it certainly seems logical that the humans in question already had the urge. I don’t think (I’m not a psychologist though) it’s something that just kind of jumps up at you one day out of the blue. It seems likely to be something that one harbors.
I don’t think that the celibacy issue helps at all if one is attempting to forgo that line of life style.
On the other hand, that’s something that always bothered me about the Roman Catholic church. In what way do they follow that poverty vow? Look at their places of worship. They don’t pay taxes (which I think they should) they live in what I would consider a really nice home (much nicer than what I live in currently in every instance I have encountered), how does that work exactly? How does a priest live on par or better than me?
[Translate]
I am not a Catholic, but I do have some knowledge of the organization. I am in no way defending the examples you mentioned (15 million dollar houses, etc.) I would suggest that those are very atypical examples however. I have come across members of the Catholic church that serve in very ornate churches that live in very humble quarters. Plus, you also have to consider the very large number of priests, nuns, etc., who serve in underdeveloped countries who’s quality of life mirror that of those they serve. It is my belief that if you did research and looked at the average (median?) compensation of a full time catholic minister, you would find it not something attractive, especially when you consider the conditions that many of them live under. When considering such things, I always find it help to look at the average, not the outlier.
[Translate]
Sorry, I responded to you earlier, but there was a loss of connectivity as SBC is doing maintenance in my area. This means an intermittent drop in speed or loss of uplink entirely. Yay me!
Any how, generally speaking, yes a 15 million dollar house (that’s the give away right there, it’s a house) is highly atypical to my limited knowledge. I went to catholic schools from k-9 and then 11 and 12. So I’m fairly familiar with the organization. Priests live pretty well in my city. They were living much better than me as a child and teenager, I do know that much.
I was inside the living quarters of a priest once, twice actually once in high school and once in grade school (no I wasn’t being abused, the whole class was there both times) and they had very decorative expensive items in there. Wooden everything (which in and of itself is expensive) that was well crafted. Brass and gold items and expensive looking silverware (I was 10 at the time, but I know real silverware when I see it lol). This isn’t an “omg they are evil” thing, it’s just an observation.
Regardless, what is interesting is that when people mention the vow of poverty, the first person I think of is Mother Theresa. When I was growing up everyone spoke about her in my schools. So, when the vow of poverty was explained and an example was needed they went straight to her. Apparently there were no priests or nuns following that vow of poverty in the US where we have plenty of impoverished individuals, that’s not an attack, just an observation.
I’m all for the clergy who take the vow of poverty living in the same general conditions as the populace in which they are helping; however, that seems to not be the case here. Again, that’s not an attack on the clergy, it’s just an observation. It’s a curious thing that I believe I’ll look into.
[Translate]
Another point might be to consider what you are defining as poverty. This is from a limited outsiders perspective, but to the best of my knowledge, while priests may be given use of homes or cars or whatever, in most cases the church retains possession of the property. Regardless of the state of their quarters, they do not own much of anything. Perhaps that has changed. I honestly do not know.
To me this kind of goes to the definition of wealth. To me, wealth is not defined by what a person makes, but what person spends. The classic, albeit atypical, example I use is that of a “bag lady” that I heard about in New York City. She was sleeping on the street and eating out of trash cans, but she carried around a bag with $80,000 in cash. She was living in poverty, yet had more available money than most of us.
In a somewhat reverse fashion, it may very well be that the priests you mention appear to live a fine lifestyle, yet when you get down to it they “own” nothing at all.
[Translate]
That’s a very good point. They don’t actually own anything at all the last I checked. That’s not (I don’t think?) true for some other denominations. I don’t actually know either.
[Translate]
FYI – Baptist ministers, at least in Southern Baptist Churches, are hired by the church which approves their salary and benefits package. In some cases it includes housing provided by the church, which is retained by the church when the minister moves on. At our church, the ministers pay for their housing out of their salaries and own the homes. There are lots of different combinations. There is no central authority that runs the ministry. Everything is dictated on a church-by-church basis.
[Translate]
So then here’s a question for you, do the ministers at your church live better than most of the congregation?
The national average (from the latest study I could find which was 2006?) appears to be almost 50,000USD (48USD shy of it actually) for salary and housing. The average pay which includes insurance and retirement benefits is almost 60,000USD.
That puts them slightly ahead of the average income I think. The median income in the United States in 2006 was 48,000USD (that’s net not gross).
Since it differs from church to church, DC and Texas both stand out as having really high averages compared to the national.
Question! Do you think that ministers should live below the median (but above poverty level) or should they live with an average income based on their congregation?
Just to put it out there, I don’t think church should pay. Churches should provide housing that is above poverty but not above the state average income. There should be a stipend that is equal to the state median income (not the congregation median income because that would make those in wealthy neighborhoods much better paid than those in poor neighborhoods). That’s just me though, I can’t see how any individual can say without having lived it that they understand what someone is going through unless they are in the same or similar boat.
That’s true for priests, ministers, nuns, and female ministers.
[Translate]
“Question! Do you think that ministers should live below the median (but above poverty level) or should they live with an average income based on their congregation?”
The arrangement at our church could accurately be called “market based.” The salary is negotiated between the pastor and the church. The pastor is free to go elsewhere if he is unhappy with the compensation. The congregation is free to restrict compensation or fire the minister if they feel that the service is improper or inadequate.
Now you wrote:”There should be a stipend that is equal to the state median income”
The question that I have is “why?” It seems to me that by doing that, you assume that all pastors are providing equal service, which is demonstrably untrue. Also, by limiting their salary, by fixing it, doesn’t that also kill any incentive to do more or work more? You could make the claim that they are supposed to be doing it for God, not men, and that is true enough, but there is very ample scriptural support that better workers deserve more. Also, in other posts you have mentioned that you don’t feel it’s right for Catholics to require their ministers to be celibate. Is it any more correct for Baptists to require them to live with no chance of sending their children to college or to own a good place to retire?
Now, if you were a member of a congregation in a religious order, or any group for that matter, and wanted to set particular limits on compensation, you would have that right. No telling how many applicants you would get and who you would end up with, but it would definitely be your right. In the same way, these are the stipulations we have for our congregation. So it goes.
[Translate]
Oh I don’t intend to enforce my line of thought on any congregations of _any_ faith. That would be really out of line of me I think, it was just a thought. Kind of how one muses “if I were that pitcher, I’d have thrown a sinker rather than that fast ball in the 6th inning with 2 on and 2 outs”.
My pay gets done in a similar way, “market based”. Which can be both good and bad depending on the economy at the time of review.
Thanks for the insight. Very interesting information for me and anyone else that happens to read it. Thanks a bunch!
[Translate]
Jeez, apparently I’m stupid. Let me add for the “why?” question. My mother made approximately (give or take 2 thousand I believe) the state median income while raising my sister and myself. My sister managed to go to college via scholarships (academic) and grants. I don’t necessarily see how a minister would not be able to send their children to college if they so chose if they are making a stipend that is equal to the state median income.
On the other hand, college education has and is continuing to become increasingly expensive for various reasons and that definitely creates a barrier for those in the middle and low class.
To address this I believe some states (Missouri does at least) has a program that allows you to go to college (community) and you are put on a payment plan after your graduation date that is a percentage (I’d have to go look this up I don’t remember what it is anymore) of your pay. It’s a loan, not a grant.
This probably isn’t a nationwide sort of program. I think that higher education needs to cease being so much of a business and seek to become more of an pure education system.
I mean Harvard has a reserve of cash that is greater than the Gross National Income of some countries. Is that really necessary? That’s cash outside of their operating budget. Couldn’t that be used to lower the bar for student entry?
[Translate]
I know that some schools are lowering the “financial” bar as far as entry requirements in that they are using excess endowment funds to allow students to attend who would otherwise not be able to afford it. While I am all for that, I am unalterably opposed to lowering the academic bar for any student. I believe that the student should either meet the academic requirements or go elsewhere. They’ll get more out of it as will the students who remain in an appropriately challenging environment.
Again, educational policy is a very complex subject. I am very much in favor of the states running their own programs since I can find nothing in the Federal Constitution giving them authority over education. At the same time, I can see how a national uniform set of standards is highly desirable to measure what type of programs are effective and identify problems. Outside of that, I will do all that I can to oppose all systems that use race, creed, color, etc., as means of assigning educational opportunities.
[Translate]
A little follow-up to the “why” you posted above. You list a very specific case for your income requirement and college. Suppose medical problems and bills intervene. Grant, loan, and scholarship criteria vary greatly by location and over time. There can be lots of children. When I graduated from high school almost twenty eight years ago, we (my mother and I) were straddling the poverty level, but there didn’t seem to be any scholarship money available despite being fourth in my class of 430. Considering my options, military service seemed to be my best choice.
Anyway, everything above is kind of beside the point really. The bottom line for our church is that we pay what we figure the ministers are worth and they accept it or negotiate or not. I make a pretty good salary and benefits myself. I’m pretty sure my pastor does better. But considering his job, the hours and the stress involved in his duties, I wouldn’t trade places with him for a ten-million dollar a year salary (and I assure you he gets paid a small fraction of that). That’s part of the beauty of the market system. Both sides feel they benefit. If any of the congregation feels that he, or any of the staff members, isn’t worth it, they can leave. For that matter, they can stay and not give a thing to the minister’s support. They still get every benefit the member who contributes to everything gets. If it doesn’t seem fair to people outside of the church, that’s fine. They aren’t paying a thing. Compare that with the system that is being promoted by many associated with the new administration, where people are likely to be compelled to support systems regardless of how wasteful and inefficient. I think the church system we have is a bargain all around.
[Translate]
I’m not particularly fond of lowering the academic bar either.
[Translate]