Ironically, if the Church had prohibited using vernacular equivalents for the standard Latin priestly title “Pater”, which also just means “father”, non-Catholics today would probably still be routinely addressing Catholic priests as “Pater” without anyone getting their knickers twisted about its supposed “unearned” connotations of personal fatherhood.
After all, non-Muslims routinely address Muslim clergy as “Imam” (“leader”), and non-Jews address Jewish clergy as “Rabbi” (“my master”), and nobody gets bent out of shape over whether the person in question has actually “earned” the status of your leader or your master. There’s a lot to be said for retaining archaic forms of standard honorifics, rather than translating them into local-language equivalents that upset the literalists.
The mistake (in my case, at least) is expecting me to have the slightest shred of respect for what some religious figure thinks that he is “entitled” to. Just because you call yourself a Hugh Exalted Grand Poobah doesn’t mean that I’m going to. Having said that, as far as I can recall I have only been in the same room with a priest once in my life (a hospital waiting room) so it isn’t like I regularly have to word my way around my lack of deference.
If you met the Grand Wizard of the KKK, would you call him Grand Wizard?
No, of course you don’t have to call him “Father”. For that matter, you don’t have to call the President “Mr. President” or a lady whose name you don’t know “Ma’am”. There are very few circumstances in which honorifics of this kind are actually enforced. (Maybe in a courtroom, with respect to the judge?)
But if the question is, “what is the conventional honorific for a Catholic priest?” then the answer is “Father”. Note that the answer doesn’t depend at all on who you are; it just depends on who he is. It’s generally true that honorifics don’t depend at all on who is speaking; just on who is being spoken to.
The corollary of that is that your use of the honorific says nothing at all about you. If you call a priest “Father” this doesn’t imply that he is your father, in either the familial or spiritual sense; just that he is a father in one of those senses to some. In the same way a non-US citizen would correctly address President Biden as “Mr. President” without any implication that he was acknowledging Mr. Biden as own President.
The difference is that the United States (as opposed to the Catholic Church) does not claim to be the One True Nation, whose sovereignty applies universally to everyone on Earth.
Context matters, as does basic politeness. I might be an atheist (and somewhat uncomfortable with organised religion in general) but if I attend a marriage ceremony in a RC church, I will address the minister as “Father”. If I meet the same guy in the local supermarket, he had better not count on anything other than his given name. If I was attending a function that involved say government officials and diplomats, I would certainly be using the official titles, right up to “excellency” for the governor general. Again, in the street, given names.
I had a rule when I taught at university. You could call me either Doctor Vaughan, or Francis. It was the student’s choice. Everyone called me Francis, except many Asian students who found it impossible to get their heads around anything other than Doctor Francis. Which was both correct by their naming conventions and weird to my ears. However when engaged in serious conversation with the management hierarchy things often turned formal. But university politics can be hard fought and revision to formalities a sign things are getting serious.
Ecclesiastical titles and positions are a deep field of nuance. The ordained minister with his own church and parish in the C of E is a vicar. It is perfectly correct to address him as simply “Vicar” or refer to him as “the vicar”. Vicar means the representative (of God.) But “the Vicar of Christ” is yet another term for the Pope. Ordained ministers without a parish are not vicars. Padre is a more general term, and gets used in the military as a title for the chaplain. Padre is of course derived from father. Even as an atheist it would make perfect sense when visiting a village or a military base to ask to the see the vicar or the padre.
Because you’re supposed to call people what they want to be called. The relationship is one of reciprocity. You call me what I want to be called, and I call you what you want to be called. It only tends to break down when one side or the other tries to abuse it.
That said, I believe most priests (and similar) are aware of the reluctance some have with those titles, for religious reasons. The one I’m most familiar with are the Protestants who say that there is but one Heavenly Father, but I’m sure they are aware of others. I don’t think they tend to get all that upset if you don’t use it in everyday interactions or anything. Catholic priests tend to push ecumenicalism. (And I know of a few who don’t want to be addressed as Father outside of church activities.)
But I do think it is often seen a social faux pas to avoid using their titlein more formal situations. For example, if you were introducing them as a speaker at some event for some reason, I suspect it would seem odd not to refer to “Father [So-and-So].” If you really feel that strongly about it, I suspect the norm would be have someone else introduce them instead. And, in some sort of official written communication, I guess you could have someone else type it out.
Essentially, it only because a social faux pas if you call attention to it. Otherwise, I don’t think people mind.
Desperately trying to claw our way back to FQ here, it’s my understanding that an ordained Church of England minister with his own church and parish could be either a vicar, i.e., a minister who receives a salary or stipend from diocesan tithes but is not in charge of the tithes of his own parish, or a rector, i.e., a minister whose church and salary are self-supporting via tithes.
Most of them are vicars these days, though (vicariously representing or substituting for the bishop of the diocese in his/her own parish).
Yeah. I would agree. Accidents of history make for a whole range of different relationships. My grandfather was the C of E minister for a tiny rural parish in England. His stipend and upkeep of church and rectory came from the diocese. He was vicar. But his previous appointment was to a very small parish where the local squire had the right of appointment. I’m not sure exactly what his status was there, or where his stipend came from, he may have simply been a curate. (I’ll have to ask my father.) He might have been a rector. Rector seems to have mostly fallen back to its administrative meanings.
Self supporting churches are pretty thin on the ground to say the least.
No, I already explained back in post #24 how standard official honorifics such as “Father” and “Doctor”, which are routinely used as part of general social etiquette, are different from cult epithets specific to a particular organization.
So no, I wouldn’t address a Klan leader by a cult title that’s specifically for the members of his organization. Nor, for example, would I address someone who happened to be a Masonic Grandmaster as “Most Worshipful” whatever his name is. Because I’m not a Mason and not participating in a Masonic organization ceremony, which is what Masonic titles are for.
That distinction has nothing to do with how I personally feel about the institutional ethics of the Klan, the Masons, the Catholic Church, or any other organization. It’s just a matter of standard versus esoteric forms of address.
No, AFAICT the Latin honorific “Pater” and its vernacular translations such as “Father” have never been “esoteric forms of address” in the Catholic Church.
Catholic priests didn’t go by “Father” to their own parishioners and “Mister” to members of other faiths, for example. The title “Pater/Father” is just the standard form of address for someone who’s an ordained priest in the Catholic Church.
I have no interest in the issue of whether or how you differentiate theologically between a “church” and a “cult”, but the distinction between an esoteric in-group epithet and a standard official honorific is pretty clear here.
That’s just one of the perks of being the state religion of a powerful empire or any of its successor kingdoms. And if you’re claiming that, say, Jewish people in ancient Rome or medieval Spain referred to Catholic priests as “Father” I’d love a cite for that claim.
The difference is that I don’t use those titles in those other meanings in my daily life. I only call the rabbi “rabbi”. I only call doctors “doctor”. Nearly always, though, “father” is something I use to refer to one and exactly one specific human being, genetically related to me, who helped raise me. It feels weird, unnatural, and uncomfortable for me to use that very specific word to refer to anyone else. Those other titles may have those etymological roots but they have a different meaning and usage today.
^ This.
What made you think I was arguing this logically? I’ve already said it was a visceral reaction that made it uncomfortable for me.
That actually might have worked better, in that I don’t refer to my own father as “pater”. Likewise for “mater” or whatever latin equivalent would be used for a nun.
And there’s nothing “supposed” about the unearned connotation of fatherhood. Indeed, Catholic priests are prohibited from becoming fathers in the usual sense of the word, which just makes it all the more weird for me. Why would they choose a word that refers to something these people are not allowed to be? (Yes, yes - I know it dates back before priests were prohibited from marrying)
^ This.
On a couple occasions of that sort the priest did notice I was stumbling over the title which I was trying to get out and understood my discomfort, and invariably gave me something else to call him.
I’m not a Catholic. I don’t participate in Catholic ceremonies (at most, I have been in an audience for them). So why would I refer to a Catholic priest by his cult honorific?
Sure, when Catholicism was a the state religion back in Europe and participation was compulsory that was one thing, but I live in the US, the Catholic cult is but one cult among many, so why? Yes, I get that it’s tradition but we’ve changed a lot of traditions over the years, why is this one inviolate?
I seem to remember that the late Cardinal Heenan (the senior RC bishop in England) was asked if it was OK to address him as “Father’, said 'Yes, same as God”.
