Note of possible interest: In Ken MacLeod’s novel “The Night Sessions,” world-spanning religious wars led to more rigorous separation of church and state - government officials make absolutely no acknowledgement of religious titles in any way, treating “Father” “Bishop” “Rabbi” and “Imam” the same way that today’s police would treat the titles like “Worshipful Master” (a Masonic term) (in fact, in this novel, the police generally have (or feign) complete ignorance of what goes on in religious meetings).
Since that statement has nothing rational about it, I’m bowing out.
I’m kind of surprised I can’t find an authoritative answer for this online, or at least an official Church recommendation. I will note, however, that clearly not all Catholics are down with the “it’s just a job title, no big deal” line of thinking:
For the same reason, it is inconvenient for a Catholic to call a Protestant preacher “reverend,” because this is to indirectly confer legitimacy to his heretical confession. It is much better to call a Lutheran Mr. Jones instead of reverend Jones, or use the title Doctor or Professor, if it is applicable. In writing, it is sometimes necessary to refer to a Protestant as bishop, but the title should be lower case, e.g. bishop Philip Robinson, or Protestant bishop Robinson, as a sign of differentiation from the Catholic Bishop.
Also, clearly a lot of fundie goofballs have a huge problem with calling priests “Father”, on the ground that only God is the Father. 
So it’s possible that a freethinker ostentatiously refusing to address a priest as such could just get mistaken for a Baptist zealot, which would be kind of funny.
The general tone of that cite tells me only that there is a group of bitter people who call themselves “Roman Catholic” and yet refuse to accept anything that’s happened to Catholicism (or the world in general, for that matter) since Pope Pius XII died in 1958.
Getting back from the theoretical to the practical, you’re not. I haven’t been a Catholic in over two decades, but none of the priests I knew back then would have any problem with being called “Reverend”, even by a member of their own parish. (Well, maybe one or two of the younger priests, the ones still in love with the uniform. But I always made it a point to call them “Rev” or “Padre”, just to maintain the right tone.)
If your never going to go to any kind of religious institution where you might be in the position to have to call any of these people the names you do not want to call them then why are you getting so upset over the whole thing?
Still, Father Joe is not allowed to be an actual father to anyone. The title is honorific. Anything else is wishful thinking, unless Joe is donating sperm in his spare time.
I would observe that most societies have held people who devote their lives to their chosen religion and serve others in that religion as some form of priest in some esteem. It is hardly even an Abrahamic religion thing. Holy men of almost any persuasion are accorded some respect.
Even as a somewhat militant atheist I don’t really have much trouble with this. The search for spiritual identity and truth is a near universal part of the human condition.
So again, context and politeness counts. The three forbidden subjects during dinner: sex, religion and politics. If, context it, would be polite to avoid making a point about your religious views, it is probably reasonable to roll with the local social norm.
At least they have Biblical backing for that:
I’m pretty sure Joe’s not allowed to do that either 0.o
Same reason you call a Captain a captain even though you are not in the Military, and a Doctor , and a Senator, and a Professor…
That’s precisely why I’ll call a priest a priest.
Seems like a whole lot of projection there, bucko. If you agree that the “overworked parish priest” “does not really care what you call him” then why make a big deal about it for him?
Wow.
What is it with people thinking I’m angry or upset? It’s like when the Evangelicals are convinced that if you don’t believe like they do you’re angry at God whether or not you even believe in their God.
Also - priest, monks and nuns are not kept locked up. They do very ordinary, mundane things like drive cars, get gas, go to the grocery store… where I happen to work. I regularly have clergy among my customers, whom I refer to as ma’am and sir just like all my other customers, and there’s never been a problem.
I just find it absurd and ridiculous that society expects people outside a particular religious sect to refer to the clergy by those terms.
Because it is a polite social norm. I truly can’t see why this is a problem for people, unless there is an underlying cause. If you can’t read the subtext, I sure can.
Social norms are seldom consistent over wide areas, and they certainly do change over time.
Your posts do seem consistent with my observation that the laity care about this more than the clergy.
The subtext? Ever read the Purim story? I guess Mordechai was the asshole for failing to obey a “polite social norm”?
Do you also struggle to see why Jewish people don’t eat pork, even if you consider it rude for someone not to try your sliders?
Um, so you are equating resisting direct and current violent oppression of your faith, putting yourself in danger of your life, with giving someone an honorific which, in a modern context, means almost nothing? Huh.
As for the second case you present, as a host one is socially obliged to make every reasonable effort to offer guests the foods that they are comfortable eating – it’s another polite social norm. It’s always rude to force any kind of food on anyone. I have no clue why you would think there’s anything equivalent.
No one opposed to using this very particular honorific is publicly standing up for their own religious beliefs here, that I’ve seen, so these examples are not particular apropos. There is a completely different reason at play.
I have zero issues calling a rabbi Rabbi. Why would I? The social context is exactly the same as the OP, even though he or she is not MY teacher. All over the world, people call elders “Grandfather” even though they are not THEIR grandfather, and young men “Son” even though they aren’t THEIR son. They call ambassadors Your Excellency even though they may be mediocre ambassadors, and so on. These titles are not about you. That is the only point I’m trying to make.
No, not at all. Thankfully in the modern world not jumping through another religion’s hoops doesn’t result in persecution. The point is that in Jewish culture we consider it praiseworthy that someone didn’t jump through another religion’s hoops to the violation of his own even under threat of persecution; so we aren’t about to do it just to avoid being labeled rude in modern times when the threat of persecution due to this action is gone. But thanks for purring words in my mouth I wonder if you’re so quick to do so because you’re angry for some reason?
Eta: maybe you are unaware of the story. Mordechai originally crosses Haman not because he is “resisting violent oppression” in an active way, but because Haman gets all butthurt when Mordechai refuses to bow to him; the persecution (and resistance) comes later.
I have zero issues calling a priest Priest. It’s when you insist that I call him a term that inherently implies he is MY spiritual mentor, not just A spiritual mentor, that I take issue.
they do? I’ve never called anyone “grandfather” (or any similar term) other than my own two grandfathers and, more recently, my GFIL. I’d find it very strange to refer to random old people as “grandfather”.
This I HAVE seen, and I agree it’s pretty strange.