|
Published: July 27, 2010
Priest pay in San Jose
Basic stipend to stay at $35k; endowment tapped to help fund pension plan
Priests in the Diocese of San Jose won’t be getting a pay raise for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, and diocesan contributions to their retirement fund will drop by 7.8%, a diocesan memo reveals.
 The July 15 memo from diocesan chief financial officer Bob Serventi was addressed to pastors, principals, administrators, bookkeepers and finance councils under the subject heading, “Final Budget Guidelines for FY 2010-11.”
While the memo covered a wide range of positions and expenditures, of most interest was priest compensation, which totals $84,041 a year when all the elements are added together.
The breakdown of a priest’s compensation package for the upcoming fiscal year in the Diocese of San Jose is as follows:
Basic stipend -- $35,041 (no change)
Annual Retreat Week Cost -- $600 (no change)
Clergy Study Week Cost -- $700 (increase of 17%)
Retirement Contributions -- $14,400 (decrease of 7.8%)
Priest Counseling -- $440 (no change)
Comprehensive Benefits -- $8,676 (decrease of 1.9%)
Housing Allowance -- $23,260 (no change)
Sabbatical Fund -- $924 (no change)
The decrease in diocesan contributions to priests’ retirement represents a trend over the last few years because of losses suffered from investments used to fund the pensions. But the diocese is making up the difference by relying on infusions of cash from a private, non-profit endowment called the Catholic Foundation of Santa Clara County.
According to the diocese’s 2008-2009 summary financial statement (the latest posted on its website), “The Clergy Retirement Funds decrease in net assets of $1,800,000 during FY 2009 was $286,000 larger than the decrease in FY 2008 because the decrease in the market value of assets of the funds by over $1,200,000 in FY 2009 and the increase of the unfunded pension liability of $638,000 were only partially offset by increases in revenues and by the $1,200,000 of distributions from the Catholic Foundation. The Catholic Foundation distributions were applied to the Supplemental Retirement Fund, and with the distributions received subsequent to fiscal year end, that Supplemental Fund is now fully funded. This will enable a $1,225 per priest, or 8%, decrease in the clergy pension cost for FY 2010-11.”
According to its website, “The Catholic Foundation of Santa Clara County was founded in 2004 as a 501(c)3 Not-for-Profit Foundation and charged with the management, investment, and distribution of endowment monies and other gifts and bequests placed in its care… It is a legal entity separate from the Diocese of San Jose and not controlled by the Diocese.”
“As a means of initial growth, the Catholic Foundation embarked on a $100 million campaign in 2005 called ‘Rooted in Faith Embracing our Future,’” says the Foundation’s website. “The majority of the funds raised by the Campaign will be for Endowments to ensure a continuing source of funding for the case elements. The Case Elements include education tuition assistance, Catholic Charities programs, parish programming, maintenance and repair, and various pastoral ministries. Also included are non-endowed funds to enable the acquisition of property for the establishment of new parishes in the Diocese as called for in the Pastoral Plan and for the reduction of debt of the Diocese to improve its liquidity and enable it to continue to provide for its ministries.”
As of March 2010, the Foundation had collected $53 million. Of that amount, according to financial information of the Foundation’s website, it had disbursed $1.5 million to “Clergy Retirement.”
By way of comparison, the basic stipend of priests in the Diocese of Sacramento is $27,600 a year, plus room and board, according to a June 8 memo to Sacramento diocesan pastors and administrators. But the Sacramento diocese is facing financial hardships as well. Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto earlier this year instituted a mandatory, unpaid furlough program for “all employees and priests working in the Pastoral Center.”
In a May 4 letter addressed to pastors, parish administrators and parochial vicars, Bishop Soto wrote, “I have made the difficult decision to institute a ‘work furlough’ program for the 2010/2011 fiscal year. The Pastoral Center will be closed on the first Friday of each month beginning July 2010.” ?
The furloughs will result in a 4.6% annual pay cut for employees and priests who work at the Pastoral Center, said Bishop Soto in the letter. “The work furlough is a step that I had hoped would not be necessary,” said the bishop. “However, in light of the persistent difficult economic circumstances and the significant impact on the diocesan budget, I feel this step is now necessary and prudent in order to protect diocesan resources and limit the amount of staff lay-offs.”
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:37 AM By Dante
At $27k/year above room and board the priest's shouldn't have to worry about retirement funds. Is anyone teaching the newly ordained (and other clergy) HOW to invest wisely? Laity would LOVE to have that kind of retirment investment possibility.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:57 AM By Peter
How is this consistent with a vow of poverty?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:00 AM By JLS
$76,000 (seventysixthousand dollars per year salary and benefits): I have better things to do with my money than enable this sort of scandal. A. What does a diocesan priest do with all this money? B. $2000 per month for housing?! That is a three or four hundred thousand dollar house, or a small horse ranch with a couple acres. Yeah, I can think of actual charity destinations for my dollars. There is enough fat in these clergy salaries to do some big time investing ... these clerics would likely have multi-milllion dollar portfolios. I can hardly wait to hear the next bishop's appeal for funds to feed the starving people. Maybe each diocesan priest ought to fly their own plane to Haiti with candy for the poor.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:34 AM By PK
interesting to see how other dioceses deal w/money.
order priests take the vow of poverty/most diocesan priests
don't. besides their salaries,they get a stipend for the masses they offer plus stipend for the funerals they do.
these guys aren't hurting they come out ahead of us lay people. plus they can do their golfing and gambling. am
surprised at all that $$ with all the clergy abuse settlements
paid out, they still seem to be ahead.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:49 AM By Frances
Peter, diocesan priests don't make a vow of poverty, priests and brothers in religious orders do.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:12 AM By P&B
Peter- You are thinking of priests in a religious order, under solemn vows. Diocesan priests do not take vows upon ordination, they make simple promises to remain celibate and obedient to their bishop. They are not bound canonically to poverty.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:19 AM By Bill Keane
Interesting figures. In 1974 I did a brief evaluation of the salaries and benefits etc of priests in rhe Orlando diocese. We had received a raise in 1972 at the suggestion of a particular parish council, which was in a lower income area.
I found that pastors in wealthy parishes averaged about $15,000.00 per year while those in smaller and less affluent parishes averaged about $8,000.00 per year when all the extras were counted! I don't have todau's figures but I gather that the average pension os about $25,000.00 per year.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:01 AM By Tim Rhyne
Peter: Diocesan priests don't take vows of poverty.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:20 AM By JLS
They don't take vows of wealth, either. I think what the dioceses ought to do is have two classes of priests, one with high incomes who work the fat cats, and then ones with sufficient incomes who carry on the Catholic religion.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:32 AM By Antonia
If you knew how hard a priest has to work, twenty-four hours a
day, with all the constant complaints, back-biting, gossip, anger, resentment, etc. along with having to attend endless meetings, having to distribute the Sacraments night and day...all the while trying to maintain the attitude of Christ in every situation, you wouldn't be questioning his vow of poverty nor his pay. Instead you would find yourself praying that he doesn't collapse, lose his faith or despair.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:40 AM By Peter
What does the distinction of "diocesan" confer? How is it different from "Franciscan", for example.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:09 PM By John F. Maguire
One of the traits of the Underblogger as a social type, also one of the traits of Dostoevsky's Underground Man as a social type, is chronic disgruntlement. What interests the Underblogger, first of all, is his or her own emotional response, which response however trumps any objective study of the situation at hand. By contrast, the Church, in God's providence, has canon law to help her members define situations objectively. For example, the canon that governs clerical pay is Canon 281. ~ Commenting on Canon 281, Fr. John E. Lynch, C.S.P. writes: "In general, a cleric's income should be sufficient to live with fitting dignity in conformity with general economic conditions as well as meet the obligations to which he is subject. ~ In addition to basic necessities, a suitable livelihood includes sufficient income for continuing education (c. 279), vacation (c. 283, sect. 2), hospitality, charitable giving (c. 282, sect.), and provision for the future. The canon further specifies that the cleric should be able to pay those who provide him with services." John E. Lynch, "Chapter III: The Obligations and Rights of Clerics," _New Commentaries on the Code of Canon Law_, eds. John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green (New York: Paulist Press, 2002), p.367. The wage factors listed by Fr. Lynch (among other wage factors space precludes my mentioning) are, I would submit, the key factors that figure in the determination of the income of clerics.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:16 PM By bev
Peter: Religious order priests are members of a large group of priests, several hundred to the thousands, who follow the rule of a particular saint (St. Benedict, St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Ignatius) written many centuries ago and adapted to current needs. These priests generally teach at schools and universities, some are missionaries, and a lesser number staff parish churches. They serve throughout the United States and in other countries. They are overseen by a priest-superior usually referred to as a provincial, abbot or superior general who answers to the Holy Father. They take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Because of their vow of poverty, they do not make any significant purchases, such a car etc. and do not receive the same type of stipend as a diocesan priest. (The order provides a car for a priest who needs one in his ministry.) Diocesan priests serve mostly in the parishes of a given diocese and are overseen by an (arch)bishop. They do not take a vow of poverty. They do purchase their own cars and pay for maintenance and auto insurance.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:16 PM By The other Mike
They earn every penny, and are worth considerably more.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:28 PM By Frances
Peter - Diocesan priests are accepted for ordination by the bishop of his specific diocese and are "stand-ins", so to speak, for the bishop at the parishes of his diocese. Priests belonging to religious Orders, such as Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augustinians, etc.., are accepted for ordination by the respective superiors of those Orders. Most of these men live in community. All this is very simplified, but I hope it helps a bit.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:17 PM By JLS
Probably most of the religious do not follow the rule of their founder.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:20 PM By JLS
Maguire, it is always astonishing how you reveal whom you follow instead of the Pope. Today it's Dostoyevsky; next week it will be ........... (fill in the blank).
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:22 PM By JLS
On second thought, it is not the funding of Catholic programs that is the problem, but the problem is that today there is more money than there are actual Catholics to spend it.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:40 PM By Montana
Antonia, bless you for your insight. The Pastor of my parish does everything. Masses, Sacraments, Funerals, oversees the school, finances, renovated the church, Bible Study class, visits the sick, great homilies, plans fun parish dinners to get us all together , all with a sense of humor. He has helped us all find our ministries over the years. I could go on but you get the point. Too much focus on the unfaithful ones!! We need to direct our attention and support to the wonderful priests who help us in our parishes.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:33 PM By Steve
The housing allowance is not cash actually received by the priest. Most diocesan priests live "rent free" in a parish rectory. The $23,260 represents the fair market value of the lodging, meals etc. This amount is not taxable for income tax purposes. However, the priests must pay self employment (social security) taxes on their wages plus the imputed amount of the housing allowance. The self employment tax rate is 15.3%. So each priest pays $8,000 per year in social security taxes plus income taxes on thier $35,000 salary.
The after tax take home for each priest is about $2,000 per month.
Parishes don't provide priests with an automobile. Each diocesan priest is responsible for purchasing a car, gas, oil, maintenance, insurance, etc.
They probably net about $2,000 per month
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:07 PM By Donna
I know that our pastor has taken a vow of personal poverty and he returns all the stipends he recieves back to the parish. This man is a good and holy priest and stays true to the teachings of the Catholic Church. My faith has grown in leaps and bounds with his presence in our parish.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:01 PM By Dave N.
While no one was paying attention, our diocese began diverting a huge portion of the annual collection for retired religious to the priests' retirement fund for the diocese. Also, our diocese provides priests with cars and insurance but priests must purchase their own gas. Our pastor owns his own vacation home and uses it frequently.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:19 PM By Central valley
There is a push for the housing allowance for priests to live off site. They can rentt or lease a private residence as a private person. If Any illigal/immoral acts take place at the private residence it is private and not on "church" property. Some priests have even conned the parish into buying them 300,000 dollar homes because if they live in the rectory people may bother them after regular business hours. Very sad but priests do it because the bishops allow it. If you need a priest in an emergency call the answering service, the recotry is vacant.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:10 PM By Bob
I'm sure that the disgruntled among us haven't thought through what they are complaining about. Our priest are among the best educated people in the country. They have spent years in college and seminary. To think that they can really live well on the amounts listed above is rediculous. Their base salary is close to the poverty level for the U.S. If you figure that if they live in the rectory, they are living in college dorm conditions. Most priest I know cook their owns meals, at least in the evening. They have to buy cars and keep them up. They need insurance. They need gas. They are on call 24/7. They have little for retirement, many relegated to homes for retired priest. It is dribble to think that they are over paid or robbing the treasury. Someone making $35K per year is at the edge of poverty. Is that they way we want to treat our priest?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:22 PM By JLS
ToM, if they are worthy of so much money, then when would they have time to spend it?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:28 PM By JLS
Bob, like I earlier posted, you fat cats have no concept of money; all you do is spend any ol' way you desire. The love of money syndrome is what I call it. You people who would die of starvation on less than a million bucks a year need help from God; have you ever considered what this means?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:39 PM By JLS
Bob, you would no doubt starve to death in a week if you made less than 100 G Notes per year, right?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:55 PM By perrywRinkle
Is anybody surprised at losses in recent investments? Is anybody surprised that we don't want priests to have to worry about sustenance of body as they sustain God's grace in the flock? Is anybody working in a job which has the same scrutiny (CRITICAL scrutiny) of EVERY MOVE the clergy makes? Does anybody suggest that Obama add the clergy to the autos, banks, and other such bodies in order to save any money? You have a chance to move in that direction in about 100 days, more or less. (That's not moraless-necessarily!) Where will we put all those savings?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:01 PM By bev
Bob: Aside from the purchase and upkeep of their cars, personal phone line and clothing (not vestments), diocesan priests have no living expenses. They do not pay rent (or mortgages). The parish pays for the utilities and groceries. Most rectories provide average living accommodations with ea. priest having a suite. And I believe most dioceses still have adequate pension systems in place plus social security. The average priest is not on call 24/7. At least in our cities there is usually more than one priest to a rectory. Sometimes retired priests are in residence or those attending a university will live in a rectory and help w/Masses and sick calls. In suburban and rural areas parishes will cover for one another. I think some priests like to live in retirement homes for clergy because of the companionship and not having to cook and other services.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:11 PM By Fred
Central Valley:
You seem very bitter. Most diocesan priests subsist on a small salary, but have enough to live on. $300,000 homes? I am not sure that I know any priest who has moved into such a home. Perhaps it would be helpful to you to study real estate values in your area to determine whether that cost is excessive. I pray for you. I hope that you are grateful that you have a priest to bring you the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.
God bless you.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:20 AM By FHKJ
The priest at my parish is worth every penny he is paid and more. He is a wonderful Pastor and is kind to all parishioners. I pray to God that our good Father will continue in his ministry as we are a single priest parish and sometimes his "load is quite heavy"! God Bless Him and all of our faithful priests!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:10 AM By Central Valley
Fred: You obviously do not live in the diocese of Fresno.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:19 AM By JLS
It is interesting to discover that so many people see the value in their priest in terms of money. Like I have said, there is the real Church and their is the glitter church. This is why we have legal abortion in the west today. This is why Jesus says clearly, "the love of money is the root of all evil".
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:24 AM By JLS
The primary weakness in the diocesan structure is that the local parishioners can buy their priests, so that you have the wealthier parishioners calling the shots once the priest is in their pockets. And any priest who succumbs to this temptation will succumb to any temptation including the boys of the parish. I fail to understand why so many Catholics refuse obstinately to meditate on "the love of money is the root of all evil", and "sodomy is the consequence of sin".
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:56 AM By Grisha
Being a parish priest is a high pressure job. To Bev's list I'd add a vacation and a couple of get away's a year. Maybe a weekly meal in a nice restaurant with friends, books and magazines. Oh - nobody can get by these days without a computer (My daughter was issued one by her school, but the priest had to buy his own) The only Dioession priests I know of who are financially well off are those who have family money or write books. My pastor BTW is a one man rectory on call 24/7 and in a similar position ( Responsibility, workload) in the civilian world he would be making well over 125 K a year
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:07 AM By Mark from PA
Well, JLS, I think you need to know that more priests succumb to women than they do to "the boys of the parish." At this point I think very few priests are doing anything inappropriate with "the boys of the parish." Priests that have exploited young people, male or female, are being removed. The Church is not tolerating this stuff any more.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:07 AM By FrMichael
Steve's comment about taxes and the housing allowance is right on. Basically, diocesan priests pay 1/3 of their income in federal and state income taxes plus FICA. The housing allowance is, for most priests, not actual money they receive but used for income tax purposes. The exceptions are for priests in the chancery and in other non-parochial assignments. The housing figure is the "rent" the parishes charge if those priests live in a rectory. Or for those priests in such an assignment that rent an apartment, that is an additional amount the diocese pays them to cover rent.
Additionally, many priests I know also don't accept stipends and/or pay for their own grocieries, even though they are entitled to them by diocesan guidelines.
All that being said, $35 grand is quite a bit, even by the high cost of living in Northern California. Next time I hear of a priest seeking incardination in that diocese, I'm going to wonder about his motives!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:51 AM By Grisha
Oh - Having lived where I worked, I've got to say that it puts a special kind of pressure on you over time. If I had my way, we'd subdivide our parish land, (Church, school and rectory) sell off the rectory and use the funds to but a condo a few blocks form the church and set iup a small parish office in the basement. The Protestants have the right idea with the concept of a parsonage.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:06 PM By bev
Grisha; I agree with all you said, however there are many lay people who are working hard to help children through college, pay medical expenses not covered by insurance etc. Vacations, get away's and weekly meals in a nice restaurant etc. are not part of their world. (Nor are bills for college tuition and medical expenses part of the priestly experience.)
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:42 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Since canon law as law is not cognizable as ecclesial law unless it is promulgated by the pope, you're in no position to suggest that my placing the clerical-wage discussion in the context of canon law constitutes -- of all things -- a rupture with the pope; far from it. ~ As for Fyodor Dostoevsky, true, I've taken the liberty of extending this gifted Russian writer's critique of the Underground Man as a man of chronic resentment to include today's Underblogger as a man or woman no less afflicted by the affective disorder Dostoevsky -- with great skill as a novelist -- identified as a specific type of spiritually debilitating syndrome: namely, this, and just this, syndrome of chronic resentment. In this connection, JLS, neither Dostoevsky's original diagnosis of the Underground Man as a social type, nor my extension of Dostoevsky's diagnosis of this type to a certain type of blogger, runs contrary to Catholic Christianity; far from it.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:56 PM By Abeca Christian
I have no problem with this salary for good priests. They are overworked and the cost of living is high in California. FHKJ you are right, a good priest is worth every penny. I know that the priest in my area don't get paid well, I remember a few years ago, at a local parish we attended back then, the pastor there was struggling to pay for his car repairs. Even when our parish was struggling so bad, he donated a lot of his own salary to help pay for church bills. He was so kind that he even helped a parishioner pay with his own money, for her water and gas bill. She had a big family and they were struggling. He hardly made enough yet his heart was in the right place. God bless him. He never shared what he did with the little that he made but parishioners were touched by his love and charity that they never stayed quite about it and everyone knew. I remember that I couldn't afford to help pay for my aunts funeral and he offered to help. I couldn't believe it, what a big heart he had, of course I didn't accept. But I was touched by his sincere offer and willingness to give.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:58 PM By jon
i can´t believe how some of the catholics commenting here are complaining how their priests are paid (which really isn´t much if one looks at these figures. i mean, catholic parochial school principals as well as protestant ministers get way more take home pay) so, come on! with all the complaining these priests get from their flock, as displayed here, they deserve every cent!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:19 PM By TotaTua
@Peter - only order priests (and not all orders) take a vow of poverty. It was news to me too. Please remember that priests also pay Social Security out of their pay.
The housing allowance seems a little high, because most churches have rectories or the priests can live at a seminary if they work there.
These guys aren't rich, but with family behind them they can retire to a decent place.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 6:16 PM By JLS
I cannot see what diocesan priests can spend so much money on. Do they give it to their nieces and nephews, uncles and aunts, moms and dads, siblings, cousins? Other than the ones who manage to involve themselves in digressions from reality and morality, what do they buy with it? Kickbacks? It is refreshing to read what FrMichael posts.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 6:18 PM By JLS
But here for at least the third time we have a post (this time by Jon) saying they deserve it. Jon, you forgot to read the part about the Heavenly reward. Check it out. The priest is intended to demonstrate faith in eternity and not in the world, the flesh or the devil.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:19 PM By bev
TotaTua: Please see Fr. Michael's 10:07a post. The priests do not actually receive the housing allowance in cash. It is given to them by means of free rent in the rectory, utilities and in most cases, groceries. However they need to pay income tax on it, so that figure is given to them for those purposes. It is unfair to say that all priests have wealthy families to help them in their retirement. Yes, some priests do inherit money, but certainly not all.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:00 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: I've already pointed out how nonsensical it is to impute to me a departure from Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) on account of my citing Fyodor Dostoevsky's critique of the chronic-resentment syndrome as a spiritual disorder. Dostoevsky's famous study of this syndrome and other pneumopathologies have won this Russian writer well-nigh universal renown. JLS, you should not be surprised that your arbitrary suggestion that my citing Fyodor Dostoevsky approvingly is counter-papal, stands contradicted by Tomasz Krolak's report that "[Cardinal] Ratzinger's favorite writers are Fyodor Dostoevsky and Hermann Hesse" (T. Krolak, "Benedict XVI -- curriculum
vitae," Papiez Benedykt XVI in Polsce [Pope Benedict XVI in Poland] (2006 KAI i PAP SA). Also see Predrag
Cicovacki's insightful discussion of five major works by Dostoevsky (_Notes from the Underground_, _Crime and Punishment_, _The Idiot_, _The Possessed_, and _The Brothers Karamazov_) in _Dostoyevsky and the Affirmation of Life_ (St. Augustine's Press, 2008).
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:55 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Most priests are worth far more than we could ever pay them. I think the educational, spiritual, organizational, counseling, and leadership demands put on them, as well as the criticisms to which they are subjected, even apart from those since the priest sex scandal came to light, are incredible. A man has to be something of a saint to give up an ordinary life to serve us unworthy parishioners and help us become the best we can be as human beings while alive and increase our chances of eternal salvation. So much is asked of them just in hearing confessions alone that must surely burden their hearts, yet they love us, guide us, and serve us in the most important ways on earth. Sure, there are some stinkers. Every human endeavor has them. But I think priests and other religious are among the greatest living proof there is a God and are held in the highest esteem by most righteous people. They have kept alive the teachings of Christ as well as the learning and knowledge of Western Civilization before its precipitous decline. No, I mean the last time, not our present decline. But it's even possible that the kind of learning they know better than anyone else will become an endangered species itself, as well as their ranks, within the foreseeable future, and history may have to repeat itself, at least insofar as Biblical learning and the teachings of the Church. We are blessed indeed to have even the numbers of men we have as priests, and it's too bad they are not paid better. They are usually exemplary human beings and critical to the survival of our churches. At least let's treat them with respect, friends! Nobody's perfect, but these guys are terrific people.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:42 PM By JLS
That is why, Maryanne, the priests should be paid nothing, because they are worth more than money can buy. But they should be provided for ... not paid. St Paul discusses the laity who managed the money (at least that was the impression I got from his letter) ... I've often wondered how this might be better, and how it ceased to be.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:20 AM By RR
Bob: I have a family that raised a family of 7 and never took a handout from the government all on an income of less than 25K a year. They SACRIFICED worldly things and possessions. So, depending on where you live 35K could be considered a luxury. I live in Illinois and I know a family could live off of 35K a year. That much money is not poverty level when all or most all of a priests expenses are met by the Church.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:28 AM By Grisha
Bev - Come to think of it, when we put our daughter through college, vacations, get away's and nice resturaunts ocasionally wer't part of our "lifestyle" either.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:05 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Provided for, and not paid . . . ? That's what happened to slaves, JLS. And how many new young priests do you think we could expect to see if this were the case? Nobody can be themselves without the freedom to spend, save, invest or give away their own money in this modern society. Money allows personal freedom and a sense of personal worth vis-a-vis the other members of society. It is beyond ridiculous to expect priests to serve us the way our parents serve us, without personal compensation. The only living creature I would treat that way would be a pet. For me the priests and nuns have serve the most important role in my life, the knowledge of Jesus Christ Our Savior, and the care of my eternal soul. I appreciate them beyond my abillity to express it, and I am one who has suffered greatly at the hands of an errant priest. Yet I recognize the value of priests to us, and therefore to human society. I thank God that they exist and certainly should be paid for their work.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:41 AM By Jon
The money is not all that high for the work they do but then again, they have free room and board and no kids that they have to take care of. I'd have quite an investment portfolio if I had to only pay for my car, taxes and a few other things for myself.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:44 AM By FrMichael
JLS, to answer your question as to what priests spend their money on:
You would be surprised how many of the foreign-born priests send significant amounts of money back to their families in their countries of origin. In my diocese there was a proposal by an older Irish-American priest to slightly reduce priest pay in light of our parishioners' economic difficulties. The immigrant priests rose up en masse against the proposal and that was the end of that.
IMHO there is also a lot of income tax evasion in the priesthood. But that's another topic for another day...
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:56 AM By John F. Maguire
Charity overcomes envy -- it's true, even when envy misapprehends the income differentials that provoked it. Here's how Marianne Moore puts the matter: "Envy, on a dog, is worn down by obsession. [...] Envy, on a dog, [is]....maimed by Charity -- CARITAS -- sword unsheathed...."
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:59 PM By JLS
Marianne Moore apparently knows nothing about dogs.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:04 PM By JLS
Thanks for the clarification, FrMichael. It comes to mind, the Twelfth Commandment, "What goes around, comes around"; thus, the clergy sooner or later will be "cleansed". In the meantime I have better to do with my cash flow than support the extended families of priests who all but threaten to go on strike if they can't have enough pablum for the countries that sent them, not as fishermen, but as fishhooks.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:43 PM By Abeca Christian
Some of these priests are moved far way from home, from their families and if they didn't make enough money to visit their families on vacation or so, then they would miss seeing their family. Just a thought. I know that if one of my son's became a priest, I probably won't be able to afford to pay for his flights to visit us.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:44 PM By jon
JLS I think doesn´t like the fact that Catholic priests are paid at all! even Christ said that "a laborer deserves his payment." I pity some of these priests having to face such complaints and criticism from their own flock. and yes, they deserve every cent they are given as pay! and I say this not being a Catholic.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:38 PM By John F. Maguire
No false spiritualization of Holy Orders has ever been permitted by Holy Church, JLS, yet you endorse just such faux-spiritualism when, at CCD July 28: 11:42 PM, you argue that "priests should be paid nothing because they are worth more than money can buy." Paid nothing? Canon law -- as justice itself requires -- holds otherwise. Specifically, Section 1 of Canon 281 states that "When clerics dedicate themselves to ecclesiastical ministry they deserve remuneration which is consistent with their condition in accord with the nature of their responsibilities and with the conditions of time or place; this remuneration should enable them to provide for the needs of their own life and for the equitable payment of those whose services they need." To deprive anyone of a living wage is a grave injustice. See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, _Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the United States Economy_, Section 351 (1986).
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:23 PM By JLS
Depends how you interpreted my use of the word, "pay", jon. The way you quote it, yes, I agree. The difference is in money vs the love of money. I regard it as foolish to give the priests any slack ... they are the ones who represent martydom; so, if they are not trained for it, then what? If they are, then why should it bother them rather than invigorate them to the challenge? You would do well to read the Wisdom Books. I read them because I had none; now I at least know what wisdom is even if I have little of it.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:41 PM By RWhite
Forgive the pun but the devil may be in the details. If you were to look at this purely from an economic standpoint it is not a lot of money considering that out of a 24/7 week of 168 hours how much time off does a priest get? , I imagine they work at least 60 to 80+ hours, break that down as a hourly wage plus them being on call. Also consider the stresses of the job how some priests because of the workload some burn out or leave. Also consider that if a priest is responsible for his own car if he is traveling to other parish's and related calls his expenses (fuel, maintenance, wear and tear) also might be a factor. Finally, if this is such a deal why are we short of priests? consider the workload and the pressures of your average priest , he must ignore his own needs and wants and be there for us, with these conditions I think few of us could do as much with a cheerful spirit, do not begrudge them the means to have simple comforts and time to decompress and destress . God bless our priests and religious !.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:25 PM By Abeca Christian
RR no offense but isn't also bad pride to not accept help? I remember a good friend of my mom's, she was so poor, that she preferred her kids eat can of beans and tortillas everyday than to get government assistance. They wore old beat up shoes because she refused to take handouts. I think that is prideful and down right evil! Humility is also learning to accept help especially when many children are involved. I would rather bless those who truly need it then to give to those who are just sucking the system. How can we deny children a good nutrition especially when our hard earned taxes are paying for it! We are going to be forced to fund abortions, well lets just allow our taxes to truly help families in need, lets begin by feeding those who really need it, so they won't feel the need to have an abortion due to being so poor. I don't mind if a big family asked for help by getting milk, fruit and bread for their children. I think that if a parent is too prideful to get help, they are prideful for their own sake and for selfish reasons. They need to put the needs of children first, there is nothing wrong with accepting food stamps to help them feed their children, time to swallow the ugly pride and permit once in a while, when truly needing it, accept help. All for the love of all children.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:35 PM By Abeca Christian
As much as I don't see anything wrong with what these priests are paid because I feel that is it low still because of the expensive living in California, I still understand what JLS is trying to convey. I do feel ashamed that we are even discussing this because our priests are worth every penny of it and they are not getting rich of off this pay, I hope by our discussing this that it does not offend all those good priests who are working all hours and are there for my family and I, I hope they don't feel saddened at some of the comments here. Perhaps not because many are privately doing a lot of good with that extra money that they are making. I know this for sure from what I have seen from those good priests that crossed my path. God bless you.
|
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:21 PM By Wm. Hamilton
Housing allowance of over $1900 a month? Whatever happened to rectories?
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 12:21 AM By JLS
$1900 per month will buy a $400,000 house. The priest could move in his entire extended family in such a place.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 5:50 AM By RR
Aceca: I NEVER said that the kids suffered in any way, shape, or form. They were NOT poor. They just didn't make a lot of money. They were NOT in a run down house.These kids were ALL very happy kids. What I was saying is that this family did not have all the luxuries like kids today. They lived on a BUDGET and stuck with it. They were not given video games and all the high tech devices. They had plenty of food and a very nice house. They DID NOT need government assisstance. It's amazing the amount of money spent on useless materialism and "stuff." I think you got the wrong impression of what I said about this family. I think you are thinking that the kids were dirty, uncombed hair, stinky, living in squaller, and living in a run down house. Also, this was not a friend, but a close family member, my sister. Her husband was a very hard worker and was and is a great Traditional Catholic with great faith. They were not poor. They just were not materialistic and worldly. There is a big difference. Also, I didn't take any offense because nobody on here can know the whole situation or circumstances in someone's life by the information given on a blog.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 7:32 AM By perrywRinkle
REFRESHING! People actually paying some attention to what (ANYTHING) priests are doing! Or SAID to be doing-besides sins of the flesh other than those of lay people.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 9:51 AM By Abeca Christian
JLS I see what you are saying but in order for someone to buy a house, they need to have a decent amount of down payment and depending on their credit, they would have to be approved for the loan. I don't know how it is where you live but in our area with excellent credit the payments for a house of over $400.000 is actually a little bit more than $1900 per month. (there are mello rues, association costs etc) I believe in most areas of California, rent is or can be very expensive, varies from area to area. I know that on a 20 year loan with an APR rate of just under 4%, paying fee's and a point can cost a lot to refinance a home of a loan of $273,000. The payment for that loan would be almost $1,800 a month. A house rental property of 3 bedrooms could run up to $1,900 a month depending on the area. I know that in some area's, an apartment can run up that much or more for just 2 bedrooms. So I don't know how it is in San Jose but if this priest wants to be close to his church, he may have no choice but to rent an apartment that may cost up to that much. Who knows. Plus maybe that is the allowance they get up to to cover rent. I'm sure if the rent is less then it gets adjusted and less will be directly given to cover their living expenses. There's no way around it sometimes I suppose. I know that in my area some of the priests here live on the church grounds in small apartments, they are just happy that way too but I think that the newer churches don't have space or the money to build a dorm next to the church. They also get paid less too. Oh well, guess we just have to make due with what area a priest is having to live in.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 10:38 AM By JLS
Group ten priests together at $19,000/mo, and the diocese could put up a multi-million dollar building ... gee, I wonder what they could do by pooling their resources. Remember folks, priests do not have wives or kids ... How many of you realize that a single man needs a whole lot less of living space and facilities than a family? From the looks of the posts on this, it seems that most are looking at the situation from the perspective of being married with kids. Why would the priest provide an advantage to anyone by living away from the church building? That's where hermits fit in to society.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 10:56 AM By FrMichael
I think some people are still misunderstanding what the housing allowance is, so I'll try again.
Virtually all parish priests I know live in parish-ownded rectories, either on the parish grounds or off the grounds. The value of the parish-provided room and board is taxable for Social Security purposes. And because priests, like all clergy, are considered self-employed, they pay both "sides" of the SS tax (plus Medicare).
To use the San Jose figures in the article, here is how it works:
$35,041 + $23,250 (housing allowance) + estimated $2,000 for sacramental stipends = $60,291 taxable for Social Security and Medicare.
SS, both sides, with Medicare is 15.3%.
$60,291 * 15.3% = $9,224.52 in Social Security/Medicare taxes on the $37,041 ($35,041 basic pay + $2,000 stipends) this hypothetical San Jose priest actually earns. Add federal and state income taxes and you can see why priests routinely pay a third of their income in taxes. As you can see here, SS/Medicare takes a quarter of income by itself.
So the higher the housing allowance the more priests pay in taxes. But it is not money the priest actually sees in his paycheck. He "sees" it in the value of his housing, utilities, and food allowance.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 12:03 PM By bev
Wm. Hamilton and Abeca: Please see Fr. Michael's post of 7/28, 10:07a. Priests do not receive the housing allowance unless they are living outside the rectory. The vast majority of parish priests live in a rectory adjacent to the parish church. They are not dorms; some are quite nice with a suite for each priest. Priests do not have to pay for utilities and in most cases do not pay for meals. However they do have to pay income tax on their housing allowance.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 12:15 PM By JLS
OK, so the Church is a boat floating in the river of money; and we only need be concerned when it becomes awash in the river of money.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 6:47 PM By jon
jls and some folks here are forgetting that upon retirement, a diocesan priest´s expenses rise, as opposed to lay people who upon retirement experience a decrease in expenses upon retirement. check out wayne lenell´s publications on this. among other things, he will need to provide for his own housing upon retirement. so, where does a priest´s salary go, given the fact he has no wife or kids to support? if he is prudent, he would be saving for a costly retirement. what is becoming more apparent is that jls´ sentiment and others do not seem to come from any sense of charity, but in their refusal to give their own priests the benefit of the doubt in how they spend their money, which again, looking at these figures, are not a lot! catholic school principals earn way more! i simply do not understand this kind of complaining and this feigned concern on saving church money. are the complaints because the catholic church provides amply for its priests? is the complaint the fact that the church is generous? perhaps one should remind oneself of christ´s parable in matthew 20:1-16: "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 7:16 PM By Abeca Christian
RR I didn't assume that they were living ragged, I just wanted to clarify on what you posted. I know that some people are too prideful to get some assistance and I would encourage them to get help especially when they have children to feed. A child should never starve, especially when we are paying for it on our taxes. I may not agree on how the system is and flawed but I do agree in getting help for those who do need it. Thanks RR sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying. : )
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 7:20 PM By Abeca Christian
bev thanks I already knew that, I was trying to convey that in my last posts.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 8:23 PM By JLS
jon, you're simply hooked by the system. Here is what I am up to: What was it like over the ages when there was no such thing as "robo-oldster"? How did people manage their old age? What marketing firm has made the most profit on old age provision? Who does our body and health belong to? Does it belong to the military-industrial complex or the commercial sector? Is old age an excuse to sell out to the world, the flesh and or the devil? Why would somebody want to retire from the priesthood?
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 2:03 PM By John F. Maguire
Whether senior diocesan priests are presently in retirement from their active priestly ministries or facing retirement, they find themselves confronted by a number of issues that have not yet received proper attention. We know from data gathered in 2007 by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) (1) that the median annual pension for all retired diocesan priests is $18,149, that is, in a circumstance in which the average cost of living for these same priests is estimated to be $32,119; and (2) that 50% of those diocesan priests who are still in active priestly ministry expect to retire within the next 10 years, that is, before or by 2019.~ This CARA data is cited on the website of the non-profit group Laity in Support of Retired Priests (LSRP). As Fr. J. Daniel Dymski notes, the LSRP has a threefold purpose: "(1) to develop a minimum pension and benefit plant to present to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, (2) to create awareness among the laity regarding the plight of many retired diocesan priests and (3) to develop a national pastoral association of retired priests and bishops, which will provide them with a forum for them to discuss individual concerns." J. Daniel Dymski, "The Coming Crisis: How will priests fund their retirement?, _America_, September 22, 2008 (citing LSRP's president Thomas W. Hogan). Involvement in Laity for Retired Priests is but one way for the laity to help meet the present challenge.
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 3:33 PM By JLS
Not a good move to create a bureaucracy which has more self proclaimed authority than the local diocesan bishops each in their own diocese. All it is meant to do is set up a rival system to the Vatican.
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 7:38 PM By Abeca Christian
John F. Maguire I like the points you made on your last post. Something to think about.
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 8:06 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Each one of the Church's 108 national bishops conferences is a type of ens creatum, which is to say, each one of the Church's 108 national bishops conferences is -- hylomoprhically -- a form of created reality. As such, each one of these national episcopal conferences is a JURIDICAL and INSTITUTIONAL reality (authorized by Pope Paul VI's 1966 motu proprio ECCLESIA SANCTAE). Accordingly, the operation, authority, and responsibility of each one of these conferences is regulated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, especially by canons 447- 459. Yet, JLS, you post a post bemoaning the very existence of these bodies ("Not a good move to create a bureaucracy..."; etc.). REPLY: Although not a part of the essential structure of the Church, a national bishops conference -- understood precisely as an adjunct (utilitarian) body in the services of the Church's bishops -- is organized and regulated by papal law; see Pope John Paul II's 1998 motu proprio APOSTOLOS SUA (specifying that although a national episcopal conference can assist an individual bishop or individual bishops, it cannot substitute for the apostolic authority of an individual bishop or set of bishops). Now, if regrettably certain personnel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have on occasion appeared to trench upon the apostolic authority of local bishops, nonetheless it is flatly false, JLS, to claim that "All [a national bishops conference] is meant to do is set up a rival system to the Vatican." Your claim fails to take into account the fact that a national bishops conference is, although no more than an extra-apostolic creation, a creation indeed -- I mean, a creation of the Church's own papally promulgated Code of Canon Law.
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 10:56 PM By JLS
Maguire, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You socialist liberals have long defied the papacy in an effort to create an adjunct Church and your modus operandi is assimilation into the Enlightenment movement which as netted the Protestants, the Masons, the socialists, the atheists, and the homosexualists and abortionists. That leaves less than half of the supposed numbers making up the Church in the USA. Your elevated since of academic rhetoric is really dishonest ... for example, when people post using common language, you inevitably turn up your nose, become gnostically inclined and proceed to screw up the intent of the post to suit your caracaturizational constructs. Maguire, your sense of honest is lacking. The reason you fail to understand the intent of common language is due to your extremely shallow grasp of Catholicism. Too bad you incessantly fall for my tactic of feinting, but it always works against shallow opponents. It is simply a set up, Maguire, intended to draw you out, and it never fails. When you perceive a weakness or vulnerability, you lust moves you thoughtlessly to attack ... this is the nature of the bully. And it explains fully why you are able on one side of your mouth to oppose abortion, yet on the voting side you are able to manipulate an unworthy candidate and extreme abortion terrorist into the White House.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:20 PM By John F. Maguire
Canon law is not "academic rhetoric," JLS. ~ In the present thread, I found it necessary to invoke canon law as corrective to your posts three times: first, because you
"spiritualized" the vocation of the priesthood in such a way as to discount the very necessity of paying just wages to priests for services rendered; second, because (failing to distinguish between (a) the personal perpetuity of the sacerdotal priesthood ["Thou art a priest forever...."] and (b) retirement from active priestly ministry), you scanted (without however mentioning it) the canon regulating the retirement of priests; and third, again neglecting canon law, which organizes and ratifies the existence of the Church's 108 national bishops conferences, you gave yourself permission to wish out loud that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops not exist ("Not a good move to create a bureaucracy which has more self-proclaimed authority than the bishops each in his own diocese"). Again, had you consulted canon law, you would have seen that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, like each one of the other 107 other national episcopal conferences, is organized in accord with the law of the Church herself. But no, instead, you vent against the very existence of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "All it [the USCCB) is meant to do is to set up a rival system to the Vatican." In fine, JLS, so lightly does canon law seem to register with you, that you end up talking yourself into believing that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops -- a papally ratified institution, an insitution organized in accord with canon law -- is "set up" to rival Rome. ~ More: you seem to expect your posts not to be contested. At least this: When these posts are contested, you resort -- need I point out? -- to the gambit of incorporating a long list of false imputations within the four corners of a rant ("You socialist liberals....; etc.).
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:49 PM By JLS
Maguire, all intellectual pursuits are academic if the goal of stopping abortion is thwarted by how those pursuits are carried out. And remember one thing that you seem to ignore, which is that you are not authorized to render canon law verdicts. You have no more authority in this than some kid in kindergarten. I'm still holding my breath awaiting your announcement that you are actually doing something to stop abortion, an act of penance it would be. Did you ever see the movie The Mission? If so, do you recall the scene where DeNiro climbs up the falls dragging all his armour and weapons in a bag on a long rope? How's about you and your partner D. Kmiec putting all your pro-abortion baggage in a bag, tying a long rope to it and together hauling it up the face of Half Dome? Good thing for you that I'm not your confessor, huh?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:54 PM By JLS
The short and sweet of it, Maguire, is that someone intrinsically bound up with the prodeath proabortion crowd cannot say a thing with any authority whatsoever, even if quoting Jesus. The devil quoted the Prophets, who were the mouthpieces of God, and there was no authority whatsoever in his pitch. Whereas "even a child shall lead" provides a look at where God places His authority ... a sinless child, leading even though His Mother flees with Him from the great dragon, whose vileness is swallowed up by the earth to save Them from evil.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:48 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: I'm glad you finally conceded -- in a recent thread -- that the common law tradition in Anglo-American law recognizes the humanity and personeity of preborn infants -- that's a step in the right direction towards understanding abortion jurisprudence in general and understanding, in particular, why _Roe v. Wade_ was wrongly decided. At issue in this thread, however, is the proper pay and retirement support for members of the priesthood in service of Christ the Sovereign Priest. In discussing this issue, I've quoted those canons in the 1983 Code of Canon Law that (I think) help us better understand the Church's general approach to the question of clerical remuneration. See Fr. Jason Gray, "The Impact of a 'Leave of Absence' on a Cleric's Right to Remuneration," April 12, 2006, Internet. In this context, JLS, is my decision to quote canon law on both clerical pay and the legitimacy of national episcopal conferences comparable to "the devil quoting the prophets"? When we normally exclude ad hominem attacks from civil discourse, JLS, we normally exclude ad diabolem attacks as well.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:19 PM By JLS
No, Maguire, the bottom line is always credibility. Over the past year you have been talking more clearly the prolife talk, but you have never denounced your advocacy for President Obama. Without any credibility, Maguire, it makes no difference what you know or quote, none at all.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:24 PM By JLS
Almost missed it, Maguire, you perpetual whine about being the target of ad hominem attacks. Why are you so self centered in this regard? Do you not consider the ultimate ad hominem attack to be abortion? There are three things critical to reviewing what you post, and the first is credibility, the second is credibility and the third is credibility. Step up to the credibility plate, Maguire, and then I will seriously read what you post. Until then, why should I bother, since I can find many great Catholic authors, the CCC, and the Code of Canon Law to read for myself. Have you conferred with your friend, D. Kmiec, to find out if he has recanted his act of leading millions of Catholic voters to vote for abortion leader Obama? Creditbility, Maguire, is what it is all about, not technical details, not gnats, but whether you continue to lure people into swallowing camels.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:50 PM By John F. Maguire
Thank you for your comment, Abeca -- I would add here one more comment from Fr. J. Daniel Dymski. "The bishops and their advisors," Fr. Dymski urged in 2008, "must raise awareness among lay Catholics about the financial needs of retired diocesan priests, an effort that involves communications, media and the development of education and advocacy materials. The hope is that Catholics will give their support once they understand the magnitude of the problem." J. Daniel Dymski, "The Coming Crisis: How will priests fund their retirement?," _America_, September 22, 2008.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:39 AM By John F. Maguire
You have yet to cite a single post wherein I "advocated" for one political candidate for the the Office of President over against another. That's because, there is no such post, JLS. Rather, during the 2008 campaign, I stuck to the general question of voting ethics and how -- again generally --such ethics apply in situ. ~ I am happy to agree with Douglas Kmiec, the U.S. Ambassador to Malta, on a relatively narrow but quite specific point: namely, that the Organic Law of the United States of America should serve as the primary guide to the abortion question as a legal question, NOT exclusively, as Justice Scalia thinks, the determinations of state legislatures. When you agreed that the common law recognizes the personeity and humanity of the preborn infant, JLS, you took one step -- how large a step is up to you -- towards the position I've defended on this website. ~ In other archived posts, by the way, I've made clear how my "materio-logical" position on abortion law goes beyond Douglas Kmiec's (so far express) position on abortion as a constitutional question. On this point, JLS, I assure you that your apparent disinterest in "technical details" won't discourage me from revisiting the Maguire/Kmiec difference on the question of abortion jurisprudence, even as I, for my part, protest your flaming the present thread with the abortion question. You know, such flaming carries a cost: namely, the cost of risking the suspicion of Underblogger monomania.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:56 AM By John F. Maguire
To return to the topic before us: This post is a comment on the word *pay* as used -- and used rightly, I would argue -- in this thread's title "Priest Pay in San Jose". Why is the word pay the right word here rather than the word wage? In his _Theorie nouvelle d'economie sociale et politique, ou Etude sur l'organisation des Societes_(Paris, 1842), the French sociologist Constantin Pecquer recommends a specific vocabulary of remuneration. Quote: "Servants -- pay; workers -- wages; employees -- salary or emoluments."
(pp. 409 - 410). Now in keeping with Pecquer's distribution of remuneration-terms (pay, wage, salary/emolument)
by status-positions (servant, worker, employee), it is fair, I
think, to observe that a sacerdotal priest, precisely because he is a *servant* of Christ the Sovereign Priest, is due PAY and not a WAGE. ~ Of course, we are not bound to adopt, for all purposes or occasions, Pecqueur's terminology. On the other hand, we would be mistaken to dismiss the economic point that Pecqueur is making, namely, that the remunerative dynamics of pay-to-servants is not identical (as an economic matter) to the remunerative dynamics of wage-payments-to-workers.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:08 PM By JLS
Maguire, you sound like a broken record.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:26 PM By Bob
Would you not agree, Mr. Maguire, that there are a lot of texts and other documents related to current pay practices that are more practical to the local scene than something written in 1842? I marvel at you ability, however, to find these old references, most of which have been removed from libraries for at leasts 100 years.
I much prefer material written in our day for our day. Just saying!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:27 PM By RR
Maguire: Please, give it a rest. Nobody really cares enough to make sure your references are even real. Instead, here's a novel idea(Pun intended): Why don't you write a response and use your own reasoning, words, and thinking instead of quoting from a book that none of us have ever heard of or even care to read. JLS is right when he says you sound like broken record.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:17 PM By Mark from PA
Mr. Maguire, I think your post of 10:56 AM is over my head. Sometimes it is better to keep it simple.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:32 PM By JLS
PA, if you want a simple, clear and concise and understandable post from Maguire, then you have to restrict the topic to movies.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:02 AM By John F. Maguire
Thanks, Bob, for your post. ~ Well, I do think I've quoted bits and pieces of commentary that are contemporary to today's priest-pay question; but I also favor the maxim, Credit where credit is due. Constantin Pecqueur was the first political economist (sociologist) to make the economic point that the dynamics of PAY TO SERVANTS is a different economic dynamic than the dynamics of WAGE-PAYMENTS TO WORKERS. The point is a difficult one, but shouldn't escape the grasp of anyone willing to ponder it. When, for example, certain clerics adopt a trade-union model of priestly work, they lose contact with the servant/industrial worker distinction underscored by Pecqueur. ~ Bob, you mentioned the publication date of Pecqueur's _Theorie nouvelle_: 1842. In fact, Karl Marx, during the period when he was at work in Paris on what would later become known as _The Paris Manuscripts_ (more commonly, _The Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts of 1844_), in point of fact, read Pecqueur's _Theorie nouvelle_. This fact leads me to my felt-sense of horror at libraries getting stripped of "old" books. A competent librarian knows enough not to get rid of Marx's _Paris Manuscripts_, which wasn't published in English and Russian until 1927 -- yes, but with immense effect, since these Manuscripts placed the entire Soviet/Diamat reading of Marx's _Capital_ into question. Marx's 1844 Manuscripts, then, are a big deal, today no less than in 1844. But Pecqueur's _Theorie nouvelle_? Pecqueur does have a street named after him in Paris, but his _Theorie nouvelle_ is likely to get tossed. Recall the bad days when librarians stripped theology libraries of all pre-Vatican II books, which is to say, all the best work produced by the scholastics.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:47 AM By JLS
Pay to servants vs pay to workers: Maguire has lit upon the most global economics theory shattering discovery of all time!
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:47 AM By John F. Maguire
Right -- the distinction between pay-to-servants and wage-payments-to-workers is a simple distinction; but JLS, in order to demonstrate its import empirically requires a pretty good grasp of statistics in general and econometrics in particular. Our present interest, however, is theological:
Priests ordained to offer up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
are "servants" in Pecqueur's schema precisely because they are servants of Christ the Sovereign Priest.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:50 AM By Abeca Christian
John F. Maguire you made some good points but I think that it's the wording or the way you have presented them that makes it sound un-Catholic. Due to that reason some may be misinterpreting your posts? I suppose? Or it may be me thinking positive regarding what you posted, I may be the one misinterpreting them. I don't know if I'm explaining my self well but I kinda get what you are saying in your concern for the priests retirement funds. I too share that concern because they need our help and they need quality care since many do not have family to care for them when they reach their old age. I just think that you may be coming across the wrong way. I don't know. I'm not important enough to explain it well but I appreciate your concern for that area of topic.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:11 PM By JLS
Maguire, your kind of grasp of statistics leads to government control and ultimate failure. The clear tone of your post is socialist, as if there is an economic law that spells out the correct wage to pay someone. The unions long ago discovered this wage, and now all their workers are out of work which is being done overseas. Servants of Christ, btw, in case you didn't know, are paid with eternal grace, whether they receive coins with Caesar's smiling face on it or not.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:39 PM By JLS
The conflict at the bottom of Maguire's totalitarian pitch is freedom vs slavery. The Calvinist, fatalist, socialist, Enlightenment and demoniacal rulers of the economy always step in when the population mocks its own freedom by growing evermore morally corrupt. Maguire's type of Church rule is ever ready to exert its iron hand on this type of society. It has tried its effeminate hand and its sexually corrupt hand, and these have prepared the way for its forceful hand ... aka the scourge of God. This rule by the Church forceful (to parody something legitimate here) is not exercised by actual believing Church leaders but by those who have always lurked in the shadows tempting the faithful. But when the forces of the scourge do show up with banners flying and heads rolling, what we will see is not simply the Middle Ages princes prancing around in one little skirmish or war or another, but hawks and vultures from over the globe. So, what Maguire consistently proposes in the hidden name of shadow Church, the faux Church, is that the obvious onset of the consequences of sin by an increasingly corrupt society needs to be organized. A well known late priest, professor, and exorcist (who perhaps was corrupt, according to rumors, but perhaps not) taught that it is a kind of ingrown oldness that provides the bedding for the demoniacal. We see it in some of Hollywood's movies loaded with morbid stuff like vampires, werewolves, and other things symbolizing the horrors of death and damnation. Rather than fight it with holiness, charity, and self-sacrifice, the Maguires and Kmiecs of the Church find ways to manipulate hordes of frightened souls and use all sorts of arcane devices such as can be found in the dusty annals of yesteryear. This is what that late exorcist cautioned about; he spoke on a localized level but the pattern is the same, and is supported by Scripture, which I've referred to at times; see the Letters to the Seven Churches in the Book of Apocalypse.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:45 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Abeca Christian: Unless you specifiy what "sounds" to you "un-Catholic" in my "wording," you'll understand why I might be inclined to disagree. If the majority of my posts are annotations; if the majority of my posts quote Catholic sources (papal encyclicals, canon law, the better theologians), then it is because the purpose of these posts is to document the Catholic tradition of discourse on the subject at hand. Needless to say, there is a long tradition of discourse on the question of remuneration of priests. The purpose of my posts in this thread has been to tap into that tradition. I did so, anyway in a small way, on the priest-pay issue and on the priest-retirement issue. In addition, I made mention of an important non-profit group called Laity in Support of Retired Priests, which of course is only among many avenues of possible practical involvement in the cause of supporting Holy Church's priests.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 3:14 PM By John F. Maguire
Hold on, JLS. (1) TOTALIARIANISM, because it contradicts the Gelasian truth that there are two powers, namely Church and State, is a social heresy. From another angle, totalitarianism is a social heresy because, as a practical atheism, it denies the freedom and dignity of persons as creatures of God. (2) CALVINISM, because it subscribes to a doctrine of double predestination (of those born elected to heaven, in one camp; and those born reprobated to hell, in the other camp) is, we know, a soteriological heresy. Recall Max Weber's reference to the heresy of Dordrecht as "a religion of unbrotherly love." (3) "IRON RULE" -- let's agree -- is contrary to the evangelical ethos of caritas and therefore contrary to the graceful spirit of Holy Church's own ecclesiology. ~ Yet JLS, you charge me with all three of these errors. In so doing, precipitously, you end up -- more than evidently -- over-subscribing to the Hollywood Imaginary, what with its "vampires" and "werewolves" and demoniacal powers of darkness keen on "find[ing] ways to manipulate hordes of frightened souls...." Here, JLS, I can't help but recall your commending me for my movie reviews. Let me ask you this then: Have you no misgivings about your post at CCD Aug. 5: 12:39 PM -- read, I mean, as a stray snippett of a script for some horror film you're working on?
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 3:56 PM By JLS
Maguire, even the devil quotes Scripture; thus, it is nothing that you quote that makes you "un Catholic", but your continuing love affair with abortion president Obama, or have you shut it out of your memory now that you are spouting the prolife cause? The devil did that too; he spouted Holy Scripture, looking for the real Son of God, without completely recognizing Him. Just as the angels of God cast a blindness on the residents of Sodom, so God has cast an inability to see on those who mock Him by claiming to support Catholicism yet pushing forward the most intrinsic evil of all time, global abortion.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:12 PM By John F. Maguire
I am opposed to President Obama's abortocratic policies, but
distinguish between absolute antipathy to President Obama as a person and as President, which antipathy is a bad thing, and steadfast opposition to President Obama's abortocratic policies, which opposition is a good thing.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 7:16 PM By JLS
Finally, Maguire, you come forth with your position. Other world rulers in history had their good points and their bad points. Hitler, Stalin, Attila the Hun, Mao, Castro and so forth. Now for the practical take on your position: There is no way to be opposed to the intrinsic evil of abortion while supporting a ruler who pushes it. Do not trot out your theory of proportionality, because it has no validity in the issue of intrinsic evil such as abortion. I am indeed happy, Maguire, that you humbled yourself enough to say clearly and without fanfare what your position is. One little bit of irrelevancy in your post is your mention of Obama's person ... everyone has a "personality", and his is worth little until he repents from his intrinsic evil.
|
Posted Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:07 PM By Abeca Christian
John F. Maguire I apologize, I was unfair by not pointing out what came across as un-Catholic. Well that does not matter. Thanks for caring for the retirement of our priests. Just wish we didn't turn this into a long discussion. While we are turning this into a huge discussion, we could of been visiting a retired priests home, just think that some priests even as they're are losing their eye sight and are old, they are still giving Mass, they are still giving us the support we need in regards to the sacraments. I'll never forget Father Gene, he was very ill, he had Leukemia, even though he was ill, he still was there to perform the sacrament of marriage for us, he was available for us when I was pregnant with my first born. When he passed away because of the Cancer, He left a huge impression on my family. God bless Father Gene.
|
Posted Friday, August 06, 2010 9:15 AM By John F. Maguire
Thank you for your gracious post, Abeca -- and for your loving recollection of Fr. Gene, whose great privilege in life -- manifestly -- was to serve so well Christ the Sovereign Priest.
|
Posted Friday, August 06, 2010 3:22 PM By Abeca Christian
Thank you John F. Maguire and your welcome. Even though Fr. Gene was not a very traditional priest but he did set the tone of charity for us when my hubby and I were newlyweds. I still miss him, every summer I remember him. God bless you.
|
Posted Friday, August 06, 2010 4:31 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, Mr. Maguire, thank you for caring for our retired priests. Most priests are active in ministry far beyond the age of 65 and many beyond the age of 75. We are surely thankful to all the good and faithful priests.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2010. All Rights Reserved.
|