Many of you already know that I worked as a restaurant manager for many years before I became a protestant minister. I worked both with the employees and with a number of other managers, and had a good deal of experience. There are certain duties of a manager that are basically the same wherever you go, and whatever business it may be (restaurant, grocery store, etc.). A manager is the "head" of the business and is the one to call the shots. He hires and fires, as often trains as well.
When I became a protestant minister (waaaay back in 1995), I found quickly that some of the principles were the same in being the pastor of a congregation and being the manager of a business. Some of the techniques were the same, and some were different, but much of my experience in being "in charge" of a group of employees was similar. A few of my congregants even called me "boss" or sometimes "the CEO". It was never exactly to my liking, but I tolerated it because no one was mean about it. It did, however, reveal something about people's thinking. "The boss" of the organization was the one whom people were supposed to answer to.
Then I did that (crazy!) thing a few years back and switched to the Catholic Church. Being one of those who was able to move quickly into holy orders (5 months as a layman, 1 month as a deacon, then I was ordained a priest--all with Rome's permission, and only after jumping through a number of hoops), I found that the "taste" of protestant ministry was still remembered. Although there were certainly some differences between Anglican ministry and the rest of protestantism, the similarities are closer between Anglican and protestant, than between Anglican and Catholic.
It did not take long for me as a Catholic priest to realize that I was not playing the same "game" as in protestantism. All of those concepts of "boss" and "CEO" were gone. That was not how it worked, nor was it how it was supposed to work. There is a reason that the Catholic Church wants its priests to be called "father". To look at someone as the "father" of the house is quite different than to look at someone as the "CEO" of the business. One is relational and the other is pragmatic.
The concept of "father" is important for how we behave as Catholics. It connotes authority, but it also connotes relationship and tender care. There is very little of relationship in a "manager"; especially when he can fire the employees and be fired by a bigger boss. Yes, things can change in a Catholic parish, but when it ends up looking like a business, that is a mistake and not the proper nature of what it means for the priest to be the "father" of the "family". The Catholic Church (though she is relatively quiet about the fact) still considers the father of an earthly family to be the "head of the household". This means that he is in charge, yes, but it also means that he is the one who has to give account for the family as a whole (the captain goes down with his ship) before God.
Although both the priest and the manager have authority, it is not the same kind of authority. A father's authority is (supposed to be!) used because he cares about his family and wants the best for them. A manager's authority is used because he cares about the business and wants the best for it. Those two ideas are radically opposed to each other, and we cannot dispense with this distinction merely because we do not like to think about it. Albeit, there may be a manager somewhere who generally cares about his employees (I have met a few), but that is not the same as a manager who is "father" to his people: one who is there with the people at times of birth, marriage, death, trials, and life decisions.
Authority is something that many today struggle with, and the attempt to reduce the priest's authority (as is common in many modernist settings) will only cause less and less spiritual growth for a parish community. Many try to eliminate the idea of submission in every area of life and "democratize" the family and the Church. This is what is leading many down the pathway of chaos. Those who also wish to get rid of the idea of a wife's submission to her husband as head of the home have a big problem. They not only have to overcome numerous passages of Scripture, and a large portion of Church tradition, but they also (by consequence) would need to get rid of the submission of the laity to their priest and bishop (a "father" is a "father").
Priests do not do well as managers, because the parish is not a business it is an organism (no, not an organization). And in this way this "organism" is a spiritual family like no other. A spiritual family needs a spiritual head, and that is the priest. If we get this relationship wrong it will have terrible effects. For the people to treat the priest like "manager" is to invite a host of other wrong views of the Church and the relationship that people and priest should have. It will also foster a sense of competition between priest and people ("us" against "him") rather than a sense of familial unity (this is also one of the reasons why I am an advocate of permanent priestly assignments, but that is another subject).
How do you think of and treat your priest? Although you likely call him "father" is that how you treat him? If he is the "father" of the parish, and you want to treat him as such, then do not get confused with any ideas of him being your "buddy-chum-pal", for that will not help him to be a good priest, nor you to be a good parishioner. Also, do not treat him as a business manager. The Apostle John said he rejoiced to see his "children" doing well in the faith. Every priest would agree, but they cannot be a good priest to those that they are supposed to "manage"; they can only be a good priest to those whom they love as their children.
