How to speak about the ministry
Andrea Tornielli recalls some remarks of Cardinal Martini shortly before his term as archbishop of Milan ended. Asked whether he preferred to be called “Father” or “Pastor,” he replied:
I don’t much like these terms. The term “Father” has never meant much to me because it reminds me of that word of Jesus: “Call no one on earth your father.” … I know that, of course, there is a certain fatherhood and responsibility, but that’s not the title that, evangelically, seems most apt. I smile a little when people say to me, “We don’t call you Eminence, but Father, because it’s more evangelical.” The term “Pastor” also isn’t entirely persuasive. It scares me a little.
There are two terms that I personally prefer. One is that of John the Baptist, “the friend of the Bridegroom” (Jn 3:29-30): the friend of the Bridegroom rejoices at the voice of the Bridegroom: “He must increase; I must decrease.” This seems very important to me. In that sense I am in polemics with those forms of dominion, of fatherhood, of possession, of moral superiority. I am instead happy when a priest or lay person encounters Jesus.
The other term is similar. It’s found in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul says: “I feel for you a kind of divine jealousy, having promised you to to a single Bridegroom, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2). That is what most pleases me. People need to encounter Christ. One helps them meet Christ, yes; then he has to step back. The point is to bring people to Christ.
The Cardinal has St. Augustine on his side, who applied the idea of the friend of the Bridegroom to St. John the Baptist and St. Paul (citing the same two texts), St. Stephen, martyrs, and to ordained ministers. He was particularly critical of those who wished to put themselves in the place of Christ, like a Donatist bishop who called himself a mediator between God and his people. For Augustine, the bishop or priest was simply an attendant at the marriage between Christ and his Bride. That’s what Cardinal Martini said: Yes, one helps people encounter Christ, and then you have to step back. “He must increase, and I must decrease.”
Fr. Komonchak, thanks very much for posting these remarks of Cardinal Martini. I’ve sometimes felt that my gut reaction to terms like ‘Your Excellency,’ ‘Your Eminence,’ ‘Your holiness,’ etc. was nothing more than one of my oddities. Cardinal Martini’s comments are a balm.
By the way, I have no problem with the term ‘Father.’ It doesn’t seem to have the objectionable tone of courtly pomp and circumstance. Nonetheless, would you prefer that I not use it in addressing you?
I like Cdl Martini’s points, though they don’t lend themselves to easy translation into everyday usage in parish communication.
I also have no problem with “Father”, though it is a big stumbling block to my evangelical friends and family. All titles are.
Interesting point: I have encountered a few priests who bristle at the term “Father Frank,” which is a common usage as people come to know their pastor well, as friends. Yet they are uncomfortable calling them simply “Frank” (or Joe or Jim Bob or Billy or whatever). Some priests say they understand the search for a middle ground, but it comes off sounding like “Judge Judy” or “Doctor Dave.”
They say that Father is their title, like Doctor, so it would be “Father Gibson” (God forbid) or simply “David,” as you would call anyone you come to know fairly well.
I dunno. I myself fall back on the Title+First Name all the time.
This comes off worst with one of the nicest hierarchs, Boston’s Sean O’Malley, who always liked to be called Father Sean and has tried to upgrade it to Cardinal Sean as he moved up the ladder. Eeeek.
I actually don’t understand what the term would be in the 2 Cor example.
But Philos Nymphiou is too hilarious not to be used.
I knew a Jehovah’s Witness who worked in Administration at a Catholic College who said she would not be able to address the University President as “Father”. I don’t know what alternative she used, though.
friend of the Bridegroom: I like how Quakers refer to each other as “Friends”. That’s a very lovely title.
“philos tou nymphiou” is the phrase in Jn 3:29. I don’t think there’s a separate title for the 2 Co 11 text, which is usually linked with the Johannine passage to explain Paul’s role in betrothing the Church to Christ and in keeping her virginal in the faith until the marriage.
A couple of decades ago I was at a conference in Panama at which a Latin American speaker repeatedly referred to the Catholic minister as “el padre.” Each time he did so, the German canon lawyer next to me grew more impatient, until at the end of the talk he declared that to use the title “Father” was ganz unevangelische, quite contrary to the Gospel. The speaker calmly asked if St. Paul could be considered ganz unevangelische, because he had no qualms about using the metaphor of himself and his role in bringing the Corinthians to faith (1 Cor 4:15).
As I got older I call the priests I know by their first names only. I guess I’m exercising the privilege of my patriarchy. My change was also expedited when I winced at an acquaintance who aways addressed a monsignor we were working with, as ‘Your Excellency’ and was never corrected except by me.
I’m not being facetious with this, because the washing of the feet gives us a gospel basis: “servant”
That would reflect true humility.
OK, so Cardinal Martini was uncomfortable being addressed as “Father” or “Pastor”.
That said, did he have a preferred form of address?
If we address professed women religious (nuns and sisters) as “Sister”, might we consider addressing diocesan/secular ordained male presbyters as “Brother”? If not mistaken, I think monks address one another as “Brother” whether the person in question is ordained or not.
I think we should obey Jesus’ simple command to call no man father.
I never understand how people justify ignoring or disobeying his directives. E.g., when you pray, go into your closet. (Don’t parade around in fancy dresses, ermine, etc.) Don’t grab the Moses chair in the synagogue.
And the biggest stumbling block, imho, is “Don’t multiply words like the gentiles do.” How does the recitation of the Office or the rosary or litanies not offend against that?
Quakers didn’t/don’t doff their hats or use honorifics even for kings. (They were despised and persecuted for those practices.) “Friend James”, they would call the king, instead of Your Majesty.
I think we should call one another by the saints’ names given to us in the sacrament of baptism.
Not sure what we will call one another in heaven.
The thing with deciding on the etiquette of personal address is to accommodate both sides. To overintellectualize it is pretentious and to insist unilaterally on one form of address is controlling. If the cardinal sensed that someone with whom he spoke frequently was uncomfortable addressing him as “Father” or “Your Excellency”, he might profitably have taken time to work out a comfortable middle ground. If he was himself uncomfortable with those terms, he might have have let it be generally known what he did prefer – or suggested it himself at the start of a conversation.
But part of humility, I think, is simply accepting others’ ways of dealing with us. This may apply particularly to public figures, to whom most people instinctively feel some deference. Perhaps that’s what the cardinal did.
“I’ve sometimes felt that my gut reaction to terms like ‘Your Excellency,’ ‘Your Eminence,’ ‘Your holiness,’ etc. was nothing more than one of my oddities.”
How about the British preference for “Your Grace?”
I am in the process of reading “The Married Pope” by Ricardo Planas – wishful fiction, obviously!!!
The writing is rather pedestrian, but the married man (see how fictional this book is!), when ordained pope (yes, he HAD to be made a bishop), was asked by the His Eminences aroud him how he wished to be addressed. He (Pope John XXIV) said that he preferred to be called by his given name, Gonzalo Vrooman , but compromised on being called Father. Not Holy Father, just Father.
“Not sure what we will call one another in heaven.”
How about Damned Fortunate!!!!!!
Catholic Answers to the rescue!
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
Maybe his attitude was formed by being a Jesuit – as spiritual directors, they are like the friend of the bridegroom: they foster a relationship between people and Jesus. Maybe as Gerelyn and Ed wrote, a priest is like our friend and we can use his name.
Hi, Jim:
There’s a vague memory is in the back of my mind of someone, Sister or Father, saying we have secret names that God calls us by, that we’ll learn in heaven.
Maybe I just imagined that or dreamed it, but I think someone said it. It’s back there along with other early Catholic memories: Little Nellie of Holy God; the ecstatic stigmatic of Woonsocket, Rhode Island; Therese Neuman; the fifteen Wednesdays in honor of St. Somebody; etc., etc., etc.
————
I like the word “pastor” for priests. I think that their mission is to lead us to Christ. I certainly view them as being meant for leadership in spiritual matters. But I understand, as I read this text, that there is a difference between “leading to Christ” and “helping to meet Christ”.
I call priests whatever they want me to call them. I prefer baptismal names to last names because I think that baptismal names “should be” a more important part of their identity. I like using some kind of title as a routine reminder of their status (i.e. not available for dating). I prefer priestly titles to honorific titles because it seems to me that a priest’s ordination is the most significant event in his life, even if he later becomes monsignor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, pope,… But if they prefer it some other way, it’s their call. I’m easy.
As a prof, I tell my students that they can call me whatever they want, but mention that I have a fondness for my first name. Some Asian students address me as “Professor Claire”!
Nobody is sure how to address deacons. Or parents-in-law.
In convent histories, the salutation used by American nuns when writing to bishops was “My Lord.” And, of course, the complimentary close was long and groveling.
I think people (priests, professors, in-laws, et al.) should tell their underlings exactly what they want to be called.
Telling them they can call you whatever they want makes it awkward. Better to make it clear and insist on hearing it. “Call me Ishmael. Say it. Good! Say it again. What’s my name? Excellent! Say it ten times.” That way, they get accustomed to saying it, with a little humor, and will not fret about being too familiar, too formal, etc.
I also don’t mind “Father”, because, I think, it is disconnected from any paternal aspect in my mind. I have all but forgotten the initial metaphor. If some priests were women, I would also call them “Father” without much of a blink.
“Nobody is sure how to address deacons. Or parents-in-law.”
Jim P. —
When I was about 40 years old I realized I didn’t know what my father called my mother’s mother, o I asked him. He just smiled and looked kind of sheepish — he never did call her anything! But that’s OK. Neither one ever said the slightest negative thing about the other.
How about calling deacons “Deacon”? And priests “Priest”? I call the only bishop I know “Bishop”.
More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_(Christianity)
I’ve no problem addressing, as appropriate, someone as “Deacon” or “Bishop” or “Monsignor” so-and-so. (The Louisville archdiocese did away with recommending the “Monsignor” title many years ago: Not a bad idea, I think.)
As for presbyters, I prefer — at least for now — the form of address “Pastor” (I say “for now” because I’m leery of a word that suggests we laity in the 21st century are sheep, Jesus’ apparent use of the word notwithstanding). Also, depending on the cleric’s qualifications and duties, I might use “Professor” or “Doctor”.
I no longer address clerics as “Father” because I think this form of address tends to infantilize the laity, regardless of “Catholic Answers” very good background information.
An anonymous blogger recently posted the following at NCROnline:
“the use of the title father for priests has an interesting history. you will note that in the u s a the usage appears with the arrival of large numbers of irish immigrants . prior to this a priest was called mister and a bishop doctor.
“in western europe the secular priest is called the equivalent of mist, herr etc . the title father is reserved to priests in vows.
“way back in monasteries all were called brother. latter an internal caste system developed , perhaps with the increasing numbers of third sons of the nobility entering religious life. priests were called father , those clerical monks pursuing the priesthood the latin frater and the rest brother. clerical monks had a vote in chapter the brothers did not.
“for several reasons in ireland the priests were largely those in vows and the irish were accustomed to call them father.
“some secular priests which includes diocesan priests who know history find the term father awkward . the spirituality of the secular priest is meant to be closer to that of the lay person than the monk. he is to find holiness while drawing a salary , maintaining family bonds and finding friendship as best he can , not as the religious priest who has bonds with others founded on vows.
“in the universal church the title father is a tribute given not claimed for secular priests and is usually limited to the confessional”
Ref: http://ncronline.org/news/women-religious/quoted-priest-bishop-lcwr-i-stand-what-i-said?page=1
” I realized I didn’t know what my father called my mother’s mother, so I asked him. He just smiled and looked kind of sheepish — he never did call her anything!”
Yep, that’s the default position :-). When I was 26 years old, calling mine by their first names didn’t feel sufficiently respectful, and calling them “mom” and “dad” felt inauthentic. I once asked my grandmother, who had her own mother-in-law (my great-grandmother) living in her household with her for something like 35 years, how she solved the problem; she told me that she always addressed her as “Mrs. Pauwels” – for 35 years! – which feels too formal by my lights, but in those days (1930s through 1960s) it may well have been the social convention. It’s a hole in the language, as the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun is a hole.
Btw – when my wife and I married, in the late ’80′s, she bristled at the notion of taking my last name. Eventually she acquiesced, but it was a very big deal for her. It costs something to let go of one’s name; I can see that it’s very closely bound up with one’s identity.
I found Cardinal Martini’s suggestions intriguing, but I suppose my view on the topic is that people in such offices should accept the traditional honorifics, and then let the integrity and holiness of their lives define or redefine what those words mean. If “Cardinal” or “Your Eminence” or “Your Grace” smack insufficiently of what is connoted by “Friend of the Bridegroom”, that seems to me to be an issue with the character of the officeholders, rather than a problem with the language. A church in which we could address our metropolitans as “Your Eminence” with heartfelt affection and respect would be a very good church to belong to. I believe our leaders need our prayers to be more worthy of the offices they’re appointed to.
Joseph J. ==
I’ve never ever heard of a priest being addressed as “Mister”, though maybe after the French Revolution some radicals used the term. Priests in New Orleans in French were usually called “Pere” (with an accent). Back in the 18th century there was an infamous priest here who was known at the time as “Pere Antoine”. (He was actually a Spanish priest.) I wonder where that anonymous poster got his/her info.
Jim P. –
We lived with my grandmother, and my mother always called her “Mrs. Olivier”. It was usual at the time. But in Louisiana we had the Napoleanic Code which gave women some privileges you didn’t find in Common Law, and a women could legally go by her maiden name.
Ann: we used to say “Monsieur le curé” (something like “Mister curate”), but switched to “Mon père” when we had a priest who disliked the former appellation, which previously was the most used but I believe is now uncommon.
Thanks, Claire. My mistake. But New Orleans French deviates from standard French in some ways, or so i”m told.
In pre-Reformation England and Scotland, secular priests who had graduated from a university were called “Mister” and those who had not were addressed as “Sir.” (One of the reasons that Reformation historians have for suspecting that John Knox did not graduate from St. Andrews is that he was referred to as as “Sir John Knox”)
“Father,” as some have already noted, was reserved for most regular clergy – particularly the friars, and, later, Jesuits.
I’m not sure when “Father” was first used of secular priests in Britain, but certainly in the mid-19th century secular priests in England were still called “Mister.”
I thought that I had observed a difference in France. Secular priests were addressed as “Monsieur l’abbé” and order priests as “Mon Père,” but perhaps this is old-fashioned. But the difference was still respected in the council-diaries of Congar and de Lubac.
I was myself more interested in Martini’s self-effacing understanding of the priest’s ministry, which differs from both the idea of the priest as an alter Christus and the idea of his representing Christ the Bridegroom.
Call Me Mr. Tibbs.
I think we should address people the way they wish to be addressed. And people have reasons, most of the time good ones, for choosing one form of address over another.
In my own work (different kinds of non-profit advocacy) I mostly encourage people to address me by my first name when we’re coalition building, I’m usually trying to establish a relationship where people trust me and see me as accessible. Occasionally, though, when I feel the need to establish professional credibility or need a little distance, I drag out my titles and credentials.
By the same token, when I’m providing client services, I usually address the client as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” as a sign of respect. We offer this free foreclosure counseling assistance and people can be a little embarrassed coming to us, so I try to be really respectful in how I address them.
But I just had an odd conversation with a young (very young) co-worker who said when she started working at my agency,her supervisor, now gone, told her to call him “Mr. Smith”. I told her that I can’t recall ever calling any of my supervisors “Mr. ” or “Ms.” and it certainly wasn’t the culture at the agency where we both work. And other people in this agency didn’t address this guy as “Mr.”. I think in that case, he was using a form of address to kind of inappropriately put a young colleague in her place.
Anyway, I think religious titles could be contextual that way too. There is nothing wrong with showing respect for the job men and women religious are doing, they sacrifice a lot to do this work, I’ll address them as “Father” or “Sister” no problem.
“Eminence” and “Excellency” ought to be dropped, since they are virtually meaningless and reek of bygone times and assumptions. Under what conditions today do we still refer to a judge as Your Honor? I haven’t been in court since an appearance for a traffic ticket 50 years ago so I’m unfamiliar with this, but I would jib at using the title for a judge whom I know to be on the take from mobsters, corporations, et al.
Most of my knowledge about the Anglican episcopacy comes from reading (and re-reading) Trollope, so I may be behind the times. But there, bishops are, I think, addressed as Your Grace, My Lord Bishop, etc. Is that still true?
George Washington, upon being raised to the presidency, wished to be called His High Mightiness (a term used for the Stadtholder of Holland), but Congress (I believe) put the kibosh on that.
On the other hand, my thoroughly secular college, at which the Dalai Lama will be appearing presently, in all its publicity for the event, refers to him as “His Holiness,” a title you can be quite sure they would not use in the unlikely event that Benedict XVI should show up on campus.
The only clerical title I like is “Monsieur l’abbé”. “Father” as used in the English-speaking Catholic world carries all the wrong connotations of a dying pietistic clericalist culture, though, oddly, I feel at ease with “Father” for Anglican priests, and they seem at ease with it too.
Nicholas, in regards to Pope Benedict XVI, are you suggesting that he is an apostate or that he is surrounded by apostates?
How about calling priests “Priest”? — no, because that carries problematic ontological associations, and the only terms designating pastoral function is the unwieldy “Presbyter.”"Bishops, on the other hand, are fittingly addressed as “Bishop” and most are happy with that address. It is less charged with negative (even potentially hostile) overtones than “Priest”. And it is also perfectly biblical.
Some sport the title “Padre” for themselves and their co-diocesans. Not a bad solution.
Bernanos deplored that priests “sidle along the wall” — even truer now — but it’s in part from discomfort with how the priest is defined and seen — nor would many with to set themselves up as Bernanosian priests either
I agree with Joseph O’Leary: “Presbyter” is too unwieldy as form of address (although, I think, quite appropriate as a *functional* word). Theologically and, therefore, functioally speaking, I think “priest” is inappropriate to Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general.
“Pastor” seems quite appropriate for addressing both male and female ministers of the cloth, at least in the absence of a better universal form of address.
How about the form of address “Chaplain”? Yes, I know it is generally understood as a clergy person serving special groups — associations, the armed forces, hospital and other institutional settings. That said, it comes — per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaplain?s=t — from the Old French word ‘chapelain’, meaning “clergyman”, derived from the Middle Latin with same meaning.
Returning to Joseph Komonchak’s interest, I was taught in pre-1963 parochial school that every batized person represents Christ when reaching out to others in need. Thus, every Christian man and woman is, functionally speaking, an “alter Christus”.
I recall Komonchak in a blog thread a year or so ago correcting the misunderstanding today of seeing the “priest” as representing Christ the Bridegroom. Properly speaking, as I recall, the presbyter facilitates the work of Christ serving as the Bridegroom; the presbyter attends to Christ the Bridegroom in the Lord’s relation to the Church.
Such being the case, perhaps Catholics could use the form of address “Chaplain” in all settings since it means “clergyman” (or “clergywoman”?) and, like “Pastor”, is today a gender-neutral word that does not have the potentially negative connotation associated with the form of address “Pastor”.
Clarification: In my first paragraph regarding “priest”, I had in mind members of the clergy, Catholic or otherwise. I did not have in mind the “common priesthood” conferred by Christian baptism, an understanding supported by sacred scripture.
To JMJ — no, I’m not suggesting BXVI is an apostate, nor surrounded by same. Simply that my institution would probably think it was “privileging” Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular were it to use His Holiness in the case of the pope, but in the case of a Buddhist (like the DL) it would be less worried.
The last thing I would ever accuse my institution of is a foolish consistency, the hobgoblin of little minds as Emerson said.
Nicholas: to be precise, Emerson said “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
Oscar Wilde had a variation that was not quite so melodious: “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative mind.”
About consistency (Emerson has always driven me up the wall) –
To reach a contradiction is to find that one is wrong about something. The solution is not the insane Emersonian one — to cheerfully embrace both horns of the dilemma — but to try to find out where one has gone wrong. This requires the sort of humility that Emerson didn’t (or couldn’t) understand.
(And you can have Walt Whitman too. Mad.)
“This requires the sort of humility…”
I recall a former cathedral pastor telling us years ago that the root meaning of “humility” had to do with the earth — as in standing on solid ground in one’s belief/reasoning.
It means, in a sense, “getting real”, dealing with reality.
Thomas Aquinas said that humility is telling the truth about yourself — no more, no less.
Joseph: you’re probably thinking of http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=18306 in which, in the comments section, Father (if I may call him so) K (or should I write Father J) wrote: “It’s interesting that Augustine doesn’t draw that conclusion about the priest’s being a “proxy bridegroom.” In fact, he seemed leery of any identification of the priest or bishop with Christ, who, he said, were not the Bridegroom but “the friend of the Bridegroom,” that is, his close attendant, which is what John the Baptist called himself and what St. Paul was when he spoke of betrothing the Corinthians to Christ. The marriage-metaphor referred to the whole Church, clergy included, in relation to the Bridegroom; for Augustine it was not used to distinguish clergy and laity in the Bride.”
I see a connection between the two.
(Responding 8:11 to Ann)
Claire, thank you.
Personally I find it that the relation between Church and Christ is easier to understand than marriage. The marriage metaphor is confusing and introduces many more problems than it solves. I don’t like it at all.
Claire, I share your dislike for the marriage metaphor. If we simply see the cleric as helping the Lord influence the spiritual and temporal welfare of society, all the better as far as I’m concerned. When a conflict arose between religious duty and human need, the gospels portray Jesus giving priority to the latter. Jesus was “blessed” (in more ways than one) with good common sense.
While preaching, St. Augustine often addressed his congregation as “Your charity,” sometimes translated today as “Beloved,” which seems weak.