About ten years ago the Diocese of Cleveland changed from permanent pastorates to term limits. I was on the committee to assist the then bishop in deciding. I was less than enthused with the prospect. As with most new new things (please, can we never have yet another new miracle method for teaching in schools that will be all the rage for three years and then never be heard from again) it sounded like a cure that would solve all of our problems. The caution that I had at the time was that we were simply exchanging one set of advantages/difficulties for another set of challenges/difficulties and were we sure that we wanted this exchange.
Apparently we did.


A lot depends on the people involved. Will a term limit cause a man not to do some difficult work such a replacing an expensive roof or firing a popular figure who is working against the goals of the parish? Will he tempted to say, “Let the next guy handle it.” Or would permanent pastorates cause another man to say, “Nobody can touch me, I’ll spend my days watching T. V.?”
Is more episcopal oversight better than greater subsidiarity? It is difficult to say. A lot depends. If you have a crummy pastor you are probably glad for term limits, if you have a crummy bishop, you probably wish for permanent pastorates.
We seem to have stuck a balance in the Diocese of Cleveland (and a lot depends on the solicitude of the bishop who is sitting in the cathedra.) We have six year term limits that are indefinitely renewable in theory. So a problem pastor or a pastor who thinks he has run his course can be moved or move on. Or, in theory, he could stay there for years if good still seems to be happening.
Which is best? The answer is bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.