Would an SOP for this forum be helpful?

[Radagast]

Catholic priests tend to have mandatory retirement, except they keep on working and serving mass, because their liturgical obligations remain.

Catholic priests are celibate. That can be a bit lonely if one doesn't keep working.

 

[jahel]

What many people also don't understand is that clergy and church staff in the U.S. are considered "self-employed" for tax purposes, so will pay federal, state and/or local if applicable AND both the employer and employee shares of self employment taxes and often also pay for their own health, disablity, etc. insurance just like a self-employed person. So that $25,000-$35,000 "salary" stretches even less than if they received the same annual amount while working as an employee at a business.

Oh and since tithing was also mentioned, clergy will often pay 10% of what they are paid back to the church.

If you lived in Canada and stuck to fundamentals (not saying you are) there would be no gvnmnt funding for any youth programs.

 

[Paidiske]

That seems like a bit of a non sequitur?

 

[bekkilyn]

If you lived in Canada and stuck to fundamentals (not saying you are) there would be no gvnmnt funding for any youth programs.

I'm not sure what you mean by fundamentals, but are you saying that the pastor is responsible for paying for the youth programs there in Canada out of whatever the church pays him or her?

 

[jahel]

I'm not sure what you mean by fundamentals, but are you saying that the pastor is responsible for paying for the youth programs there in Canada out of whatever the church pays him or her?

‘m not sure but it was announced last year that youth funding would not be available to certain groups that didn’t fit the ‘box’. From what I could understand it excluded my own beliefs. It may have meant a more ‘radical’ set of beliefs so I could have been mistaken about the format. If according to my understanding of it certain Christian are excluded. Funding would have to come from somewhere to facilitate programs. I have no idea from where, but I’m not down on the politics of that either.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'd say the big perk in the way we do things here is being housed. Yes, my stipend is modest, but I'm not paying rent or a mortgage out of it. (We do, in fact, have a mortgage on a place we intend to live in when I retire; but since we don't currently live in it, we rent it out, and the rental income pays the mortgage; which couldn't happen if the church didn't house us).

And not only does that cut out housing expenses, but it also means, because I live on site, I have basically no commute to work; so I'm not wasting hours a week in the car or on public transport, which is not by any means trivial.



No, I'm not complaining. My stipend and package is adequate to allow me to give myself to ministry without needing to spend large amounts of time earning an income elsewhere (which is the point). If anything, I'm complaining about the perception that ministers who do get paid are only in it for the money. Again, if I were motivated by money, I need not have left my previous - potentially much more lucrative - career!

And yes, while I don't practice a strict tithe, giving to the church out of my stipend is a given.

Sadly, in the US, most parishes either rent out or have sold their parsonages. I haven’t met a minister living in a parsonage. The closest thing would be some regular clergy (clergy in religious orders vs. secular priests) in the Roman Catholic Church who have communal housing arrangements.

 

[Paidiske]

There is a move in that direction here, which (to be fair) is in part driven by some clergy not wanting to live on site. But in my diocese, if you're a licensed clergy person and you work more than .5 of full time, you're entitled to be housed by the parish, and most of us still are; and having done both (being housed and not) I would choose parish housing every time, hands down.

And that's not mostly about the financial benefit, it's about the convenience of living on site (although parish wardens tend to make lousy landlords...)

 

[The Liturgist]

‘m not sure but it was announced last year that youth funding would not be available to certain groups that didn’t fit the ‘box’. From what I could understand it excluded my own beliefs. It may have meant a more ‘radical’ set of beliefs so I could have been mistaken about the format. If according to my understanding of it certain Christian are excluded. Funding would have to come from somewhere to facilitate programs. I have no idea from where, but I’m not down on the politics of that either.

Can you link us to more information on this, like a news article? This is disturbing and I would like to find out more. @MarkRohfrietsch - you are from Canada; without wishing to come across as “that American guy” who assumes every Canadian knows all aboot whatever is happening elsewhere in Canada eh, , perhaps you might have heard of this? Since the traditional morality of the LCMS would likely get it denied funding under such a scheme.

Also do forgive my joke anout Canadian raising; I know it sounds nothing like “aboot.” Actually Canadian raising is a very subtle sound; I can’t imitate it. I also can’t get Australia/NZ vowell shifts right.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is a move in that direction here, which (to be fair) is in part driven by some clergy not wanting to live on site. But in my diocese, if you're a licensed clergy person and you work more than .5 of full time, you're entitled to be housed by the parish, and most of us still are; and having done both (being housed and not) I would choose parish housing every time, hands down.

And that's not mostly about the financial benefit, it's about the convenience of living on site (although parish wardens tend to make lousy landlords...)

Living on site also gives you no excuse* not to offer a ridiculously jam-packed schedule of services. If I lived on site and had enough of a comgregation, I would open the church for morning and evening prayer daily, and make a point of celenrating the Eucharist on midweek feasts if at least one other person was coming (since you only need one person for the Divine Office; in most Protestant denominations there is no set canon on how many are required for the Eucharist, but the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have settled on two, with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox, which wants a congregation present and strongly desires two priests to celebrate every liturgy, in addition to several deacons; in general, I think two persons is a good rule for the Eucharist, and if a second person doesn’t show up, Ante-Communion, a Missa Sicca/Missa Venatoris, or what the Greek Orthodox call a “Typika” seems appropriate, that is a service with the synaxis from the Eucharistic liturgy but no anaphora or communion.

*I joke here, of course; there are so many things a pastor has to do during the week it is a miracle we are able to do the Sunday service.

 

[Radagast]

But in my diocese, if you're a licensed clergy person and you work more than .5 of full time, you're entitled to be housed by the parish, and most of us still are

Some churches never had a presbytery, manse, or whatever it might be called. Other sold theirs and invested the money. In either of those cases, the entitlement presumably comes as some form of rental assistance.

 

[Paidiske]

Living on site also gives you no excuse* not to offer a ridiculously jam-packed schedule of services. If I lived on site and had enough of a comgregation, I would open the church for morning and evening prayer daily, and make a point of celenrating the Eucharist on midweek feasts if at least one other person was coming (since you only need one person for the Divine Office; in most Protestant denominations there is no set canon on how many are required for the Eucharist, but the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have settled on two, with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox, which wants a congregation present and strongly desires two priests to celebrate every liturgy, in addition to several deacons; in general, I think two persons is a good rule for the Eucharist, and if a second person doesn’t show up, Ante-Communion, a Missa Sicca/Missa Venatoris, or what the Greek Orthodox call a “Typika” seems appropriate, that is a service with the synaxis from the Eucharistic liturgy but no anaphora or communion.

*I joke here, of course; there are so many things a pastor has to do during the week it is a miracle we are able to do the Sunday service.

Our rule here is at least two people besides the priest for a Eucharist. I have, however, known that to be ignored.

As to the rest, context is everything. I don't tend to say the office publicly, but that's in part because mornings tend to be times when I can naturally connect with the local community in other ways. I think it's more important, for example, to be doing classroom help at the local school, being seen and known and building relationships outside the parish, than sitting reciting the office with one parishioner (or more likely, none). I've found that I tend not to get a congregation for special midweek Eucharists (my usual little Wednesday morning gathering aside).

 

[Paidiske]

Some churches never had a presbytery, manse, or whatever it might be called. Other sold theirs and invested the money. In either of those cases, the entitlement presumably comes as some form of rental assistance.

We would expect every parish to build and maintain a vicarage. If they are paying additional clergy, then yes, a housing allowance is not uncommon.

Some church plants or authorised congregations which are not parishes have an exception to the requirement to provide a house, and provide a housing allowance instead; but we would view this as not desirable and preferably something which would change over time.

 

[Radagast]

We would expect every parish to build and maintain a vicarage.

Oh, yes, vicarage. I knew I was using the wrong name for the building.

Note to self to remember this next time: "Even the vicar has given me liquor, distilled by Carthusian monks."

 

[Paidiske]

It varies by diocese.

In Melbourne it's a vicarage, in the country Victorian dioceses it's generally a rectory.

 

[The Liturgist]

It varies by diocese.

In Melbourne it's a vicarage, in the country Victorian dioceses it's generally a rectory.

Presumably because in the city of Melbourne, you are a vicar not holding the benefice, whereas in the country you would be the actual rector of the parish?

 

[Paidiske]

Presumably because in the city of Melbourne, you are a vicar not holding the benefice, whereas in the country you would be the actual rector of the parish?

In Australia, in fact, the historical difference between a vicar and a rector no longer applies. It's just that different dioceses have settled on different terms, for no practical reason whatsoever.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Australia, in fact, the historical difference between a vicar and a rector no longer applies. It's just that different dioceses have settled on different terms, for no practical reason whatsoever.

Interesting. In the US, in the Episcopal church, there is still a distinction between rectors, vicars and curates, as in Britain. In Britain however parish finance was reformed in the 19th century due to the notorious corruption of simony, where peopleq not in holy orders would actually purchase the benefice of a parish from a corrupt bishop, to collect the tithes, and then find the cheapest vicar willing to serve, making a profit on the difference. And don’t even get me started on pew rent... (although I do like the visual aesthetic of box pews; given how boring I can be when preaching I would not want to subject my people to the authentic Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox experience of standing during the entire service).

We are blessed in that the Western Church has come a long way from some of the nasty things that used to exist in prior centuries.

 

[Radagast]

It's just that different dioceses have settled on different terms, for no practical reason whatsoever.

There's a kind of glorious chaos among Anglicans that I sometimes envy.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's a kind of glorious chaos among Anglicans that I sometimes envy.

Are you a member of the Uniting Church?

 

[Radagast]

Are you a member of the Uniting Church?

I've been away from CF for a while, or you would realise that I'm a rabid box-thumping Evangelical Calvinist. So, no.