I agree. And I’d like to add that even the bow that one might do towards the Queen at formal occasions is, nowadays, usually more of a nod with the head than an actual bow from the hip. Kowtows in the literal sense of the word are done by prostrating yourself on the ground in front of the person you’re kowtowing to, and were never common in European etiquette, not even centuries ago (in fact, the refusal of European legations to kowtow before oriental rulers has led to diplomatic incidents in the past).
I doubt that refusal to even do the nodding-with-the-head kind of bow, or uttering of the address “Your Majesty”, towards the Queen would have any consequences today even at a formal occasion such as a royal garden party.
Of course tradition have changed, and can change; this one is no exception. But it’s one thing that a tradition or social norm is capable of changing, and it’s another for it to actually change. I would say that, as we speak, the usual Western etiquette is still to use the forms of address discussed in this thread; social conventions may evolve away from it, but so far they haven’t. You’re free not to act in accordance with that norm if you don’t wish to; it’s not as if it has the force of law. The only consequence of your refusal would be that others would be equally free to consider you rude and boorish.
A friend of mine is an Anglican priest, and I’m as atheist as they come. I tend to greet him with “Padre” when we run into each other.
I don’t cross paths with anyone else higher-ranking than a Sunday school teacher in my day-to-day life, so I can’t remember the last time it came up. I think, if I’m getting dragged to my parents’ church for xmas eve services, I’ll address the head honcho as “Reverend” in the handshake line, but TBH I don’t remember how it went last time.
Slight hijack…my CofE priest friend is a great guy who doesn’t try to convert the heathen around him, and who once dropped this pearl on me: “I have a difficult job because I have to love everyone. But I don’t have to like everyone, which is good because a lot of them are assholes.” and I was like “Okay, now HERE’S a man of the cloth I can hang with.”
There are even a handful of examples of Latin Rite Roman Catholic priests who are validly and licitly married. Priestly celibacy is a rule in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church (which makes up the vast majority of all Catholics), and it’s a very strong rule, but it’s not quite an absolute rule.
The loopholes I’m aware of are that Eastern Catholic priests can be married (Eastern Catholics are Catholics, accepting Francis as Pope, etc.) and married Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism remain priests and remain married
Married C of E ministers who convert also make up a small number of married RC priests. The C of E has a curiously close relationship with the RC church. Conversion is fast tracked, as the RC consider C of E to be only very slightly divergent. King Henry the 8th is said to have died considering himself still a faithful Catholic. Just one that didn’t defer to the Pope.
A few other denominations, as well. The key is something called “Apostolic Succession”. The idea is that a priest is ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by another bishop, and so on all the way back to one of the Twelve Apostles. The Catholic Church (as well as the Anglicans and a few other sects) considers any ordination in the Apostolic Succession to be valid, and any ordination outside of it invalid.
No, it’s on purpose. A pastor of a parish is metaphorically/semantically the shepherd of the flock. A priest is a Father to the faithful in the same way.
It is also true that celibacy of vowed religious in the Roman Catholic church is a doctrine which does not date from the early church, but was a later accretion.
There are plenty of Catholic priests like this too. If there is one thing the Roman Catholic church is NOT, it’s monolithic. There are all kinds of parishes and all kinds of priests, and there are all kinds of Catholics. Some are actual saints. Some are assholes. Varies.
Well you’re certainly not required. But I’m guessing most people don’t have a problem with it. If you met guitarist Sister Rosetta Tharpe, would have you addressed her as that? Would you have addressed Mother Teresa as Mother Teresa?
Personally, I address people however they want to be addressed. YMMV.
Probably the guitarist as Ms. Tharpe and Mother Teresa as Ms. Teresa until asked to do otherwise. At which point there may be negotiations to find something acceptable to both parties.
Again, my experience is that the clergy are generally more understanding than the laity.
I am getting the impression that the OP was not intended to be a Factual Question at all. Because if it was, simply pointing out the fact, that it’s a societal convention with historic roots, like the generality of societal conventions which have greater or lesser meaning depending on the context and the individual, would have caused it to be a rather short thread.
It’s not about a fact at all. It’s about an emotion. The emotion appears to be anger, and the anger is directed at religion in general, and the Roman Catholic church in particular. This is so common on this board that it is eye-rolling. I’m no apologist for the RCC even though I am Catholic, but truly, dragging up 2000 years of history – a very mixed bag like the history of every dominant institution – to throw in the face of some overworked parish priest who, in my experience, does not really care what you call him, seems more like a teenaged temper tantrum than anything else.
You’re Not The Boss Of Me is not a real convincing argument against calling someone by their honorific. The only thing you’ll demonstrate if you pointedly refuse to call a priest Father is that you are socially awkward and childishly rebellious. Knock yourself out.
It doesn’t matter to me what you call a priest or a nun although depending on the situation , the people around you may look at you as if you called the UK head of state Liz. But you do realize that the whole priest/father thing is mainly a Catholic/Orthodox/Episcopalian issue, right ? If you added all three of those groups together, I doubt you would get to “dominant”.