Catholic question

[leese]

Hopefully I'll get to visit some family later this year. My mother converted to Catholicism some years ago. One priest spends quite a bit of time at her house. I'm bound to be in his company at some points. What is a secular way to address a priest? I'm very uncomfortable with the title 'Father'. it's not an option.'Hey You' isn't going to work. Etiquette here? Should I ask to use his first name. Can I call you Bob? I'd like to get this straight in my head well before the situation arises. I'd like to be as polite as possible without making a big issue out of my aversion to the 'Father' title.

Thanks.

[David M]

I call my wife's pastor "George".  He ain't my daddy, and George is his name.

Good question.  Stick to your guns.  You can be respectful without calling him "Father".  I wouldn't make an issue of it at all.

[kevin]

he has a name. use it.

if you don't believe in the authority that underlies his title, don't use the title.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Hmm. So far, these answers fail the Emily Post Guide to Etiquette. And it is etiquette, or, good manners, that we are talking about here, not the final disposition of your immortal soul. I don't believe in the authority that could elect a thin-skinned narcissist to the presidency. Shall I call him Barry?

Would it really disrupt the orbit of the earth, Leese, if you addressed him as Father Wright? (or whatever), assuming that you must address him at all? There is something really hard to fathom in this distaste for using his title. I can still manage to call that ranting socialist, Bernie Sanders, "Congressman" and Pat Leahy (a true abomination) "Senator" (or could, when I lived in Burlington and actually ran across them occasionally). Since when do we have to approve of the titles or the people who hold them to address them civilly and in the way in which custom and good manners dictate?

[jill]

I agree with Maggie.

I have a regard for titles too - if they are earned like doctor, professor, president, and pastor and priest.

Although I have the same aversion as such to call someone "Father" (as I already have one thank you) - I don't look at it as a parental title anymore than I'd look at Sister Maria as a sibling.   "Father Mike" would be easy for me.

But that's me Leese.   If you do have a problem with that I'd just avoid addressing him like I did my father-in-law for years.    :)

[kevin]

There is something really hard to fathom in this distaste for using his title. I can still manage to call that ranting socialist, Bernie Sanders, "Congressman" and Pat Leahy (a true abomination) "Senator" (or could, when I lived in Burlington and actually ran across them occasionally).

several of the answers so far have been from quakers, maggie. quakers don't use titles because titles have a long history of assigning authority to people who don't deserve it. extreme cases include "your honor," or " your excellency," both of which are still officially used in the united states. this goes against several of the things quakers believe. and in honesty, we have a long history of being considered rude because we don't grease the wheel of etiquette.

i don't call a judge in court anything except "judge," and for the same reason don't stand when he enters the room or take off my hat when i speak to him.

Since when do we have to approve of the titles or the people who hold them to address them civilly and in the way in which custom and good manners dictate?

since the time it became a legal penalty to fail to offer such homage.

leese, the key is whether YOU consider the title to be an appropriate way of addressing the priest-- not whether he expects it, or whether someone else thinks it is somehow more polite, but whether YOUR integrity is satisfied with the procedure. if you think it's consistent with your beliefs, do it. if not, avoid it.

[jill]

leese, the key is whether YOU consider the title to be an appropriate way of addressing the priest-- not whether he expects it, or whether someone else thinks it is somehow more polite, but whether YOUR integrity is satisfied with the procedure. if you think it's consistent with your beliefs, do it. if not, avoid it.

I agree with this too...

My point was more how I look at titles and how/why I use them.

I agree Leese should go with what feels right for her.

[jill]

several of the answers so far have been from quakers, maggie. quakers don't use titles because titles have a long history of assigning authority to people who don't deserve it. extreme cases include "your honor," or " your excellency," both of which are still officially used in the united states. this goes against several of the things quakers believe. and in honesty, we have a long history of being considered rude because we don't grease the wheel of etiquette.

i don't call a judge in court anything except "judge," and for the same reason don't stand when he enters the room or take off my hat when i speak to him.

That is interesting... another thing I didn't know about quakers.

I would love to hear more on this (another thread?).   So you don't call a judge 'your honor" because of the history of that position or do you believe he/she himself don't deserve it?    Or is it the phrase itself you have a problem with.   I'm very interested.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

several of the answers so far have been from quakers, maggie. quakers don't use titles because titles have a long history of assigning authority to people who don't deserve it. extreme cases include "your honor," or " your excellency," both of which are still officially used in the united states. this goes against several of the things quakers believe. and in honesty, we have a long history of being considered rude because we don't grease the wheel of etiquette.

"Greasing the wheel of etiquette" is what most people would consider to be the conduct which makes it possible for people to live in some sort of harmony.

i don't call a judge in court anything except "judge," and for the same reason don't stand when he enters the room or take off my hat when i speak to him.

That is disrespect for the ideal of justice that he upholds, or strives to uphold. The whole court rises when a lone juror marches in behind the others (as I personally found out when the jury was called back to the courtroom while I was in the restroom). It wasn't my beauty that dazzled them. It was "justice" which I, poor frail mortal, represented.

Since when do we have to approve of the titles or the people who hold them to address them civilly and in the way in which custom and good manners dictate?

since the time it became a legal penalty to fail to offer such homage.

When has there ever been a penalty attached to failing to call a priest "Father" or a physician "doctor" in this country?

leese, the key is whether YOU consider the title to be an appropriate way of addressing the priest-- not whether he expects it, or whether someone else thinks it is somehow more polite, but whether YOUR integrity is satisfied with the procedure. if you think it's consistent with your beliefs, do it. if not, avoid it.

Truthfully, I can't agree with this at all. If she cannot address the priest appropriately, why does she need to address him at all?  Leese's feelings have little to do with it. If she is that intolerant, she needs to avoid the situation completely. What about her mother's feelings? What about the feelings of others who may be scandalized by her incivility?  Is there no moral advantage to putting aside her own feelings and choosing to put others before herself? The only person who is unlikely to be the least bit perturbed is the priest himself. Who knows sin or sinners better than a priest? Who understands bigotry better than he?

[David M]

Hmm. So far, these answers fail the Emily Post Guide to Etiquette. And it is etiquette, or, good manners, that we are talking about here, not the final disposition of your immortal soul. I don't believe in the authority that could elect a thin-skinned narcissist to the presidency. Shall I call him Barry?

Would it really disrupt the orbit of the earth, Leese, if you addressed him as Father Wright? (or whatever), assuming that you must address him at all? There is something really hard to fathom in this distaste for using his title. I can still manage to call that ranting socialist, Bernie Sanders, "Congressman" and Pat Leahy (a true abomination) "Senator" (or could, when I lived in Burlington and actually ran across them occasionally). Since when do we have to approve of the titles or the people who hold them to address them civilly and in the way in which custom and good manners dictate?

Leese - I trust you'll not be taking lessons in manners from one who calls our President "a thin-skinned narcissist" (and wherever would that judgement come from, I wonder?), nor seeing a parallel between duly elected government officials and a man who claims to be an agent of God.

Maggie - Please offer examples of thin-skinned narcissism to back up this outrageous claim.  Otherwise, I will happily dismiss it for what we both know it truly is.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

[kevin]

I would love to hear more on this (another thread?).   So you don't call a judge 'your honor" because of the history of that position or do you believe he/she himself don't deserve it?    Or is it the phrase itself you have a problem with.   I'm very interested.

here you go:

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,42892.0.html

[David M]

Truthfully, I can't agree with this at all. If she cannot address the priest appropriately, why does she need to address him at all?  Leese's feelings have little to do with it. If she is that intolerant, she needs to avoid the situation completely. What about her mother's feelings? What about the feelings of others who may be scandalized by her incivility?  Is there no moral advantage to putting aside her own feelings and choosing to put others before herself? The only person who is unlikely to be the least bit perturbed is the priest himself. Who knows sin or sinners better than a priest? Who understands bigotry better than he?

What you don't seem to understand, Maggie, is that for a Quaker, if we must choose between civility and integrity, we must choose integrity.  If we must choose between honoring earthly authority and honoring God, we must honor God.  If even our own mother should pressure us to regard her own feelings over our own conscience, we would, sadly, disown our mothers before we would disown our Lord.

On the other hand, we can be as civil as you please should you not try to impress these trivial nicities upon us.  We will never fight against you with any outward weapon, and we will defend with our very lives your right to worship as you see fit.

[kevin]

Since when do we have to approve of the titles or the people who hold them to address them civilly and in the way in which custom and good manners dictate?

since the time it became a legal penalty to fail to offer such homage.

When has there ever been a penalty attached to failing to call a priest "Father" or a physician "doctor" in this country?

there is a difference between referring to a priest as "Priest," and a priest as "Father." one is a job title, which is fine with me, while the other is a religious honorific, which is not. calling a physician "doctor" is also fine with me, and falls under the same category.

i address police officers as "officer." should i meet any more ambassadors (i don't do this much, although i did as a child), i have no trouble addressing them as "Ambassador." "your excellency" is out, as is addressing a judge as "your honor." i do this as a religious testimony.

i don't call people "mister," either. i use their first name. if i don't know them personally, i use their entire name.

in the past with quakers, it was a crime to fail to address legal officials by their titles, or to keep one's hat on in their presence. this is still a crime in the united states at the discretion of the judge, under the category of contempt of court. one member of my meeting risked imprisonment for refusing to remove his hat before a judge at his trial for failing to register for conscription.

i find that i can address people "civilly and in the way in which custom and good manners dictate" without compromising my religious beliefs. i simply don't use titles, honorifics, take my hat off, or stand.

"custom" i am not concerned with.

[Brakeman]

As an Atheist, I see no good reason to indulge a man's position as an officer in an imaginary god council. If I met someone on the street that believed he was Cap'n Kirk of the starship enterprise, I wouldn't salute him and thank him for protecting us from the "Borg".

I'd be hard pressed to call him anything nicer than "Dude".

[Maggie the Opinionated]

What you don't seem to understand, Maggie, is that for a Quaker, if we must choose between civility and integrity, we must choose integrity.  

We aren't talking about any situation in which integrity is an issue, unless it is necessary to be rude in one's mother's house to her guests, in order to please God. Just exactly what principle is at stake here other than your desire to show everyone how much holier than they you are?

If she is expected, to be civil about the prostitution ring mom is running, That is a different thing. If she is expected to smile and be gracious to her drug running mom's customers, that is a different thing. If she is expected to help receive stolen goods with a cheerful "thank you"! you would have a point. Addressing her mother's guest by his title just doesn't fall into that category.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

As an Atheist, I see no good reason to indulge a man's position as an officer in an imaginary god council. If I met someone on the street that believed he was Cap'n Kirk of the starship enterprise, I wouldn't salute him and thank him for protecting us from the "Borg".

I'd be hard pressed to call him anything nicer than "Dude".

Quelle fricking surprise! 

-1 for making a naughty euphemism necessary.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

There isn't any need to make a statement by refusing to show proper respect to a guest.  However, it's also never rude to ask someone how he'd like to be addressed.  "Can I call you Bob?" is perfectly reasonable.

So far we have:
- Call him Father.
- Don't call him Father if you don't want to.
- Ask him how he'd like to be called.

With a couple reasons behind each.  That should be enough for you to make an informed decision, Leese.  Good luck!

[Maggie the Opinionated]

There isn't any need to make a statement by refusing to show proper respect to a guest.  However, it's also never rude to ask someone how he'd like to be addressed.  "Can I call you Bob?" is perfectly reasonable.

Yes, I thought of that but I think she would need to preface that remark with a word about her discomfort-- all the priests I know (not that there are that many) automatically assume that they are dealing with Protestants who don't understand that he is to be addressed as "Father XXX". So that is how he might well respond, which, if true, won't help this particular situation.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

"I'm not really comfortable calling anyone besides my dad "father."  Is there some other way I can address you?"

[TrisTennant]

As an Atheist, I see no good reason to indulge a man's position as an officer in an imaginary god council. If I met someone on the street that believed he was Cap'n Kirk of the starship enterprise, I wouldn't salute him and thank him for protecting us from the "Borg".

I'd be hard pressed to call him anything nicer than "Dude".

Captain Kirk never fought the Borg.

[kevin]

We aren't talking about any situation in which integrity is an issue, unless it is necessary to be rude in one's mother's house to her guests, in order to please God. Just exactly what principle is at stake here other than your desire to show everyone how much holier than they you are?

There isn't any need to make a statement by refusing to show proper respect to a guest.  However, it's also never rude to ask someone how he'd like to be addressed.  "Can I call you Bob?" is perfectly reasonable.

interesting. both of you seem to think that the reason for the testimony is to make some sort of statement in front of people.

it's not. it's simply a form of obedience to god.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

"I'm not really comfortable calling anyone besides my dad "father."  Is there some other way I can address you?"

Excellent suggestion.

interesting. both of you seem to think that the reason for the testimony is to make some sort of statement in front of people.

it's not. it's simply a form of obedience to god.

I understand that you believe that. I simply don't agree.

[Kerlyssa]

leese' feelings about the catholic church are no secret. Why be civil to a priest when you say she shouldn't be civil to a junkie?

Oh, that's right. We're basing this on what Maggie is comfortable with. My bad.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

interesting. both of you seem to think that the reason for the testimony is to make some sort of statement in front of people.

No, I said there's no need to make a statement.  A direct, honest explanation and a civil gesture towards a compromise on the issue is not making a statement.  I'm also only addressing Leese, not the Quakers.  I understand that the Quakers have specific beliefs on the matter, and whether they make a scene or peacefully defend their beliefs depends on how they approach the situation.

[kevin]

No, I said there's no need to make a statement.  A direct, honest explanation and a civil gesture towards a compromise on the issue is not making a statement.  I'm also only addressing Leese, not the Quakers.  I understand that the Quakers have specific beliefs on the matter, and whether they make a scene or peacefully defend their beliefs depends on how they approach the situation.

you're right. courtesy is the issue. there's nothing to be gained by being rude to someone who knocks on your door.

[David M]

Then again, Jesus could be pretty rude to the hypocrites of his day.

[leese]

Thanks for all the input, everyone . I was hoping there would be a pat alternate tile I could use. Just evade the whole Father issue by that alone. So, I'll be up front with him  and take mooby's option. I'm the black sheep on a visit, it won't surprise anyone.

Maggie, it's rude not to address someone with some sort of name or title except in very informal situations and relationships. Asking ," would you like another cup of coffee', and gesturing with my eyes and hands to the man, is silly.I was raised to be mannerly and in my mother's house I will do my best to act that way to her guests. As for my aversion to using a familial title for a stranger being unfathomable to you; I'll not go into the whole psychology of it here. suffice it to say, it makes me uncomfortable for multiple reasons, and that should be reason enough for you to try to be helpful rather than disparaging about my reticence to use it.

[TrisTennant]

I would just address him as sir but that's just me.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Thanks for all the input, everyone . I was hoping there would be a pat alternate tile I could use.

You could try "Reverend," though it's technically not a proper title.

[FGOH]

As an aside we had a rather trendy fellow assigned to be our school chaplain whilst I was there. We had not had one before. He became known as "Rev Dude" (though not to his face).

Sorry to butt in, I was just reminded of it by certain comments on this thread.

I was always taught to address priests as Father XYZ rather than just Father.