|The content of Cure of souls was merged into Pastoral care on 1/11/2013. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Education||(Rated Start-class)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pastoral care article.|
A pastor is a minister of religion
Review this paper please.....
Whoever is able to access to this paper, please add a relevant comment on the topic
The article should maybe explain the expression pastoral when talking about a Church leader ; the term pastoral is usually given to the more liberal and populist members of the episcopacy. ADM (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That stems probably (am too shy to put it into the article) a) from the widespread church law phrase that a pastor may dispense himself from church law (e. g. in liturgy) "for pastoral reasons" which can mean quite sense-making reasons, as in allowing an open air mess for a religious festival, and rather not sense-making reasons, as in generally picking one of two lessons on Sunday for making Mass shorter. b) from the widespread, and unjust, accusation that pastors who are not "progressive" ("liberal") and populistic be no shepherders but "only care for orders". --126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Roman Catholic pastoral care
To me, the article appears as not stating much about Roman Catholic pastoral care. E. g. the respective section begins with "p. c. for the sick is very important" which is a) obvious because pastoral care for anybody is important, b) where we would really like to hear first what it is before hearing what care for whom may be specifically important (and it'd be fine to hear what that care is too). Then we hear something about the meaning of the S. o. Penance which belongs into the respective article, and without any properly given connection. No offense; I don't want to make it better know (and I am no expert in any way, either), but just some suggestions.
There should be a distinction between pastoral care and Church hierarchy. St. Thomas seems to take "those who have the cure of souls" as somewhat the upper class of priests, including all bishops (in his age of course, there were no retired bishops, but it might be proposed that by virtue of his ordination rank alone, a bishop belongs to those in at least a symbolical way) and some that are specifically elected from the priests. Whereas there are priests who have no cure of souls, and priests can lawfully reject it. This is reflected in Church law as well when it says that both a parish priest and a Confession hearer must be checked if he fits the requirements. On the other hand, current Church practice seems to put it the other way round, so that there are pastoral workers and among these, some are priests, some are lay religious (and all religious are into pastoral care too, at least it has the look) and some are nothing at all.
There should be said briefly what pastoral care does, in which way it has to do with dispensing the Sacraments, what is the estate conscience of the lay pastoral worker - and an estate conscience of the lay minister must have been developed, or how would we find a 45-aged male married pastoral worker without the rank of Deacon. What does theology say to the lay pastoral worker. What does theology say to the specific role of lay religious pastoral workers - by law that should be the same I think, but it isn't the same to the people? What does theology say about the pastoral work of the ordained - but sacramentology as in things like "ordinary or extraordinary dispenser" etc. may be well dealt with in the sacrament articles; problems however belong here too? Shouldn't the pastoral work of the ordained be the main, chief and model pastoral work to which the other is less in frequency, subordinated as an auxiliary, and modelled after as far as possible sacramentologically? Just some suggestions. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Include "Cure of souls"
The present article Cure of souls is not much more than an (unmarked) stub. Also, its content seems to be about a special case of pastoral care. Thus, I think it should be included into this article (perhaps expanding the RCC treatment a little, and including the reference to the Cath. Encyclopedia).
Alternatively, I'm wrong, and the concepts are indeed different; but then Cure of soul ought to be expanded into something where readers like me understand the rationale for the separate article. JoergenB (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead with this merge based on the lack of opposition. The article should probably be restructured, but I went with what seemed the most sensible place to me. --JFHutson (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No references and not neutral
This article in it's current form is a fail for Wikipedia. It presents a biased religious point of view rather than a neutral point of view. It cites no references to support statements such as ", and its value and helpfulness is now recognised as applicable to people generally in their everyday life." i.e who recognizes this and why? It contains original 'research' by citing the bible directly, and lists no unbiased/credible sources in it's bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)