It’s perhaps relevant that, in the circles I grew up in, it wouldn’t be common to address one’s own father as “Father”. He might be “Dad”, or “Pops”, or “Pappy”, or whatever, and it would indeed feel odd to me to refer to some man other than him as “Dad”. I suppose that for someone who is used to calling their male parent “Father”, using that title for a priest would seem similarly odd.
(though I’m not sure if that’s the situation with @Broomstick or other posters here)
Maybe - I did call dad “dad” but I also called dad “father” a lot. Never Pa, Paw, Paps, Pop, Pops, or Pappy.
I guess people get used to it. I once overheard one nun saying to another something like “When I went to Mother’s to see my sister’s new granddaughter, I told Mother what the Reverend Mother had said about Sister’s work and Mother wasn’t too sure about it”. I was (and still am) fairly baffled about which references were to biological relatives and which were to fellow members of the order, but neither of the nuns seemed in the least confused.
Certainly I think people would refer to a rabbi or imam by that title. I’d have no problem addressing a priest as Father X, and I’m Jewish.
Calling people what they expect to be called because it is the social convention doesn’t seem like something to waste time getting angry about, when there isn’t enough anger at justifiable things to go around. Why waste a valuable resource?
Wouldn’t say it makes me angry. It does make me uncomfortable.
Certainly, that applies to doctors, sergeants, captains, etc.
A priest has not earned fatherhood to me, and a noble hasn’t earner his title in any way shape or form other than popping our of the right mom.
Rabbi X or Imam Y is more akin to Priest Z than Father Z. But Priest Z is not a title that’s actually used.
This. Though in all honesty, I’m not going to be in a situation where I am expected to talk to a priest/rabbi/minister/whatever.
As far as social expectations, if I am in the presence of a priest I would not yell, “hide the kids” although that would be on my mind. Cause I’m polite like that.
Pujari is not the equivalent of Father. Pujari just means someone who performs Puja (worship). If you are performing worship, YOU could be called a pujari.
Me too, or rather it did many year backs, when I started as a kindergartener at a Roman Catholic School in India which was setup in 1851. (I was born a Hindu) I spent 14 years at that school and have met many great Fathers/mentors and some foul fathers / sisters. Overall, it has been a great experience. Catholics have provided great opportunity for education for the masses in India. Many of the best schools in India are/were run by Catholics.
Every religion has some honorbased names for the priests like Dalai Lama or Guru etc .
The good Catholic Fathers I have known (and I am not a Catholic) wouldn’t care what you called them. Just like Mother Teresa did not care what people called her.
Again, this very selective approach to “honorific literalism” seems confusing. An ordained Roman Catholic priest, by passing through seminary and ordination, certainly has earned the standard priestly honorific of “Father”.
The fact that you personally are unable to interpret the standard honorific “Father” except in terms of familial fatherhood has nothing to do with the priest’s entitlement to the priestly honorific “Father”, used in the non-familial way that the vast majority of people, Catholics and otherwise, seem able to interpret correctly.
I mean, if we’re going to be similarly literal about the other titles you mentioned, an MD, for example, has not necessarily earned the right to be called a “learned teacher”, which is the original Latin sense of doctor (and the reason that the same word is still used as the official honorific for PhDs).
ISTM that it’s not exactly the priest’s or the Catholic Church’s fault that you are capable of perceiving multiple meanings for the word “doctor” but only one for the word “father”.
Why? Just to cause someone else pain?
I am not mbh and cannot speak for them, but the way I read their remark was that they just find elaborate formal honorifics fun and amusing, and would happily use the hell out of them as soon as they got the chance.
I suspect we probably ought to use names, titles, pronouns and so on that particular person prefers. I suppose there might be exceptions, but none spring to mind.
I also wouldn’t mind “Citizen” or “Friend” for everyone in all circumstances, but I think it’ll take quite a bit of social evolution to get there.
And I guess we have strayed quite a ways from the original Factual Question aspect of the thread…
I’m perfectly able to interpret the term “father” in the different ways it is used. Are you seriously claiming that the reason that priests are given the honorific “father” is not because of the exact connotations that I object to? It’s got nothing to do with being unable to see that the word is used for different things (for example, many faiths refer to God as “Father”). I object to granting that honorific to a priest of somebody else’s deity.
Same with me. Not a Catholic, but spend a fair amount of time watching TV* (Doctor Who, Bladerunner) in the Catholic house, so I ended up talking to Father John fairly often.
*No TVs in dorm rooms, and the shared spaces had TVs that were often “captured” by people who wanted to watch *ball - but for some reason, those people didn’t always remember that the Catholic house had a TV.
Good to know.
Yep. Good advice.
No, of course the standard priestly honorific “Father” originated from those connotations of familial fatherhood. Just as the standard MD honorific “Doctor” originated from connotations of academic learning, and the standard male honorific “Mister” originated from connotations of deference to a master.
My point is that there’s no objective semantic reason to insist that those original connotations override the derived secondary meaning only in the case of the priestly “Father”, but not in, for example, the medical “Doctor” or the generic male “Mister”.
If you don’t object to calling a random man “Mister” because he’s not actually your master, but you do object to calling a priest “Father” because he’s not actually your father, you’re making an arbitrary selective decision based on emotional response rather than on etymological grounds. Again, you have every right to make such an arbitrary choice if that’s how you feel about it, but logic is not on your side when it comes to defending it rationally.