Is it proper to address a Catholic priest as "father?"

[SapereAude]

I'm just going to answer the question as it was stated:

"Is it proper to address a Catholic priest as "Father"?

My answer is, since we are all individuals, it depends how you feel about it.

I personally have no problem calling a Jewish religious figure "Rabbi" a nun "Sister" a priest "Father".

What about nobility in European countries? I certainly don't believe that the system of inherited is valid but when abroad I have no problem with "Sir" to someone of nobility. In a court system I disagree with I would still call a judge "Your Honor" or whatever appropriate title he carried regardless of my feelings for the legal system.

Truly words have only the meaning we give them.

For me, these are titles, nothing more, and making a point of resisting them would be giving the matter more thought than it requires.

But I also see no problem with someone who for whatever reason needs to make a point of it so long as they are still appropriately courteous.

Is it proper? Yes. Should it be mandatory? No. You should do what is correct for you.

[Ifat Glassman]

In The Letters of Ayn Rand she replied to a letter using the 'father' form of address.

To a Catholic priest, who requested anonymity

(remainder of letter omitted)

You don't know though what he wrote her. It might have been something that earned her respect for him sufficiently to want to address him in a way that shows acceptance. It does not say anything yet about how she would normally call priests.

In any case, what Ayn Rand did is a nice addition to consider, but not an argument by itself.

[Capitalism Forever]

I consider formalities to be unimportant. This has two implications:

• I never insist on anyone addressing me using a title;
  
• I don't have a problem with addressing others using the titles they prefer.
  

I get the impression that Ayn Rand thought about these matters pretty much the same way. If she and Immanuel Kant lived at the same time, I would not be surprised to hear her call him "Herr Professor Kant" (before she proceeds to explain why she considers him the most evil man in history...).

[BRG253]

Maybe it's because Catholicism was an instrument of torture during my childhood that I resent the idea that I should be obligated to call him "Father." If the person recognized my right not to say it, I might be less aversive to it.

I can't believe I got banned over this. Make no mistake about the purveyors of medical education, they are every bit as entrenched in mindlessness as everyone else.

Edited December 2, 2009 by BRG253

[musenji]

You say in your first post that you got banned when you said that Catholic priests produce nothing of value whatsoever. So you didn't get banned over "this", if by "this" you mean your unwillingness to call a priest "father".

I would suggest checking the forum rules there for rules against blanket discriminatory statements. It may be true that, as priests, they produce nothing of value to you, or of objective value to anyone. Although I expect that some do produce good rational thoughts, or help organize community events that are beneficial aside from their connection to the church.

They also produce lots of scandal for media moguls. (Oh now he's just being facetious... ridiculous...)

[Tenzing_Shaw]

I would suggest checking the forum rules there for rules against blanket discriminatory statements. It may be true that, as priests, they produce nothing of value to you, or of objective value to anyone. Although I expect that some do produce good rational thoughts, or help organize community events that are beneficial aside from their connection to the church.

To criticize priests as such is not discrimination-not if discrimination is the process of making irrational generalizations based on unchosen traits (e.g. racism, nationalism, tribalism). People have free will, and can choose to become priests or not, and there is nothing discriminatory in condemning this choice. I believe that this is a dangerous package deal introduced by post-modern philosophy (multiculturalism in particular): the idea is to capitalize on the widespread (and rational) rejection of racism in order to shield ideological movements (usually religions) from criticism. Thus, while one can argue with the rationality of condemning priesthood as such, one should not confuse this with collectivism.