|WikiProject Anglicanism||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
"popular though incorrect" usage?
"Such a parochial vicar is popularly - though incorrectly - called a "curate", "associate pastor", or "assistant pastor" in various regions of the country."
The post-nominals "CC" meaning, well, "curate", are used pretty ubiquitously used of these types in church publications. Is that supposed to be "incorrect", or is that only when it's not in Latin? This assertion needs some sort of source as to what's canonically considered an "incorrect" usage. Indeed, this entire section is unreferenced. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please may I clarify that this is the Roman Catholicism usage to which you are referring?—GrahamSmith (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. (The above is a direct quote from the problematic portion of the article.) I think it's easy to demonstrate that it's "popularly" used; that it's "incorrect" would require a fairly strong source, or set of sources sufficient to demonstrate that . Perhaps it would be better to omit this entirely, and replace it with a statement as to what the official/canonical term is. Or clearly attribute the view that they're incorrect usages. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
== "In Anglican churches, a curate may be commonly called a vicar, a rector or a priest-in-charge (depending upon the way s/he has been licensed by the bishop)" ==
OK I don't pretend to be an expert on these things and I know these rules can be a bit contrived, but I do work in a diocese of the Church of England and I think this statement is a bit "on its head"... so far as our diocese is concerned. In this diocese all clergy are licensed as one of : Rector, Priest-in-charge, Vicar, Team Vicar, Assistant curate, or CURATE. Any one of the first THREE may be an INCUMBENT given the "cure of souls" in a benefice. Team Vicars and Assistant Curates are fully PRIESTED ministers who are licensed to a benefice but NOT the incumbent. CURATES are traineee (as it were) priests who are serving their Curacy and may be either Deacons, in their first years of curacy, OR priested in their last year. To call a CURATE a priest in charge would be incorrect, they are not, though a priest in charge might feasibly be called a curate since they have the "cure of souls". Please correct me if you think I'm wrong!!
- I think Viggenboy is mostly correct, although I'd like to pick up on an implied confusion between curates and assistant curates.
Curate surely means one who has been given the care of souls (as stated in the Bishop's license "your cure and mine...")?
An Assistant Curate is therefore one who assists the curate with this responsibility. However, in common parlance, assistant curates are frequently referred to as the 'curate'; this is confusing, I know, but it's what people say... [sigh] — GrahamSmith (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the light of the above I have rewrittten the first paragraph of the Anglican section to set the historical record straight. I am not sufficiently informed to attempt to deal with the newer mysteries of "team rector", "team vicar" and the like - however they probably don't belong here anyway. The whole situation is further complicated by the current need to bring employment conditions into line with European law.Jpacobb (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Copy Edit December 2012
In this edit together with the preceding one I have tried to put all the specifically Anglican material in one section and to simplify it. I may have pruned the article a little too vigorously, but I am also going to work on the Perpetual curate one and have moved the intricate details of this subject over to the later. I wonder whether the unsourced paragraph on the Charismatic / Evangelical tradition is worth its place. It is slightly misleading in that other churchmanship traditions within Anglicanism also regarded the "assistant curate" as an assistant leader. Jpacobb (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Form of corruption
Just yesterday I read about how Thomas Malthus in the early 1800s had used political connections to obtain a "living" in the rural parish, then hired a "curate" to do the actual work "so he would not have to live there". Similar situations have been described in Trollope's Barsetshire novels focussing on Anglican clergymen. It basically sounds like an abuse -- an upper-class man pocketing the pay while somebody else does the actual work for lesser compensation. The article did not go into this use of "curates". 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have an exact timeline for "correction" of this perceived "abuse" of the system, but this sort of thing was common in the world then. English bought and sold ranks in the Army; they were listed in the newspaper "For sale!" Getting a post could be a problem! :) But you automatically got half-pay for sitting around doing nothing!
- The government supported the church. The often well-to-do major landowner of the surrounding area had influence on who was appointed (if you're American, think Polly Harrington in the book or film "Pollyanna (1960 film)"). Duties varied since the population varied. There were probably "livings" where they reasonably shouldn't have placed a congregation, but to remove it would deprive rural Anglicans of churchgoing. Livings weren't necessarily permanent. The clergy could be replaced so the political situation had to be taken into account. Think of William Collins in Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series).
- Morals analysis changed. Perception of "abuse" changed as well. It wasn't considered "crooked" but just normal procedure at the time.
- Having said that, this information should be somewhere, but probably not in this article. An Anglican church article? Kind of touches on it in Curate#Anglican_Communion. Student7 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)