Not too long ago we went from permanent pastorates to term limits in our diocese. I was on the committee. One of the points I bought up was that the reason there are two methods (you may have one or the other in a diocese, not one for some and one for others) is that they both come with their own set of problems. Neither is particularly better than the other. With one there is a particular set of difficulties and advantages and likewise with the other. So today we have what we have and while it cleared up a lot of difficulties in the diocese, we are faced with a whole new set.
Many people would like to see a more Protestant form of choosing a pastor: that of a board at any given parish hiring and firing the priest. Once again, that would mean some great advantages and some disadvantages. One of the (depending on who you are this is either a dis or an advantage) is this: because a pastor does not have to worry about teaching and preaching about something that pleases a board, he may be more daring. If a parish has a large percentage of euthanasia proponents, for example, he need not fear for his livelihood preaching that older Americans are people with dignity and rights too and should be treated as such..
Leading a parish, in some ways, is not much different than being the mayor of a town. There are decisions that you make that you know will leave 10% ecstatic, 10% furious, and most the rest just fine. Sometimes you weigh popular demand, sometimes you weigh Church teaching, sometimes you guess and you try to remember that the worst thing is not that someone might be angry because if they are angry, they are still invested.
It is an imperfect world and all of our human institutions, even those inspired by God Himself, are imperfect and are incapable of pleasing everybody so you try not to take it seriously when you’ve not pleased everyone.