Talk:Priesthood in the Catholic Church

Merge with Holy Orders?

There are a couple of problems with this article. First, it propertly belongs to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Second, the word "priest" in Catholicism's legal language (Latin) includes both presbyters (which is usually rendered "priest") and bishops. Therefore, it is also inaccurate as to information. Would it make more sense to merge this or correct it?DaveTroy 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is now clearly explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Demographic history

I came to this article hoping to find a chart of the number of Catholic priests throughout history, like catholic-hierarchy.org does for individual dioceses. -- Beland 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, we now have some partial tables going back to 1970. -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Priestation

How does a person becomes a priest? The process and studies must be included in the article.Herle King 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to ordination? (which "makes" one a priest?) or are you refering to seminary studies (required prior to ordination). I agree, both need to be included.DaveTroy 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, there are two levels of seminary. The first awards a Bachelor degree. The second awards a Master degree. This usually takes six years. Then, they are ordained and assigned to a church where there is an opening on staff. Stryteler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.214.136 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is (from the "Rite of ordination" section)is an awful, pathetic excuse for a sentence. I do not claim to know the rites spoken of, soI am asking others to do the work of fixing this: The essential part of the rite is that when the bishop lays his hands in silence upon the each candidate (followed by all priests present), before offering the consecratory prayer, addressed to God the Father, invoking the power of the Holy Spirit upon the one being ordained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.185.21 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. HOLY ODERS????????##########

what holy orders do priests have to take?

what happens at an ordination ceremony???--86.25.14.252 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)--86.25.14.252 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The requested material has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Priesthood, Presbyterium, Holy Orders, etc. Articles

I think that there needs to be some kind of revision of articles, in regard to the Catholic Priesthood (as in the shared ministry of Catholic bishops and presbyters). There is barely nothing at the Presbyterium article, and what should be there at that article is incorrectly found at the Priesthood (Catholic Church) article. Holy Orders, in the Catholic sense, is used mostly in reference to the actual sacrament by which presbyters and bishops are ordained - so I do not think that the Priesthood article belongs there, as DaveTroy suggested in February. And then there is the Catholic Church hierarchy article, which is basically the Catholic perspective of what the Holy Orders article give us. There are just too many articles about the same subject here.

Is there any way that this whole "priest problem" can be submitted to the WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Collaboration Effort? I suggest that Wikipedia move most of the information in Priesthood (Catholic Church) to Presbyterium, and that some sort of merger occur between Holy Orders and Catholic Church hierarchy. Tajm 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tajm. There is too much redundency, and I believe that the profliferation of articles will confuse most people. Unless you know the mintuae of Catholic theology and Canon law, the distinctions between the articles are not sufficient to be helpful. Whereas, if they are merged and people can see the topics together and how they relate, the logic and concepts will be more clear. I think Tajm's idea of sending the whole thing to the Catholic Collaboration would make the most sense.DaveTroy 06:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a link from Presbyterium to this article, but it looks like the other issues above have been sorted out; holy orders is now about that ceremony in general, not just for Catholics. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

dubious

Phrases like "it is actually" always make me dubious when they are unsupported by reputable documentation.Wuapinmon (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Such phrases have been purged from the article. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Issue of gender

This may seem obvious to some, but a lot of readers are non-Christians. I'd like to see the article address whether only males can be priests - preferably with references and context. Anyone up for this? Beetle B. (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree here as well..it should be made clear that the Roman Catholic Church is committed to a male priesthood. Perhaps it would be going too far to discuss specific controversies that have taken place recently in the secular world, but the Roman Catholic priesthood being male is clearly a central part of its identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.159.228 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The word you are seeking here is "sex".

There are 2 "genders" in the priesthood now: male heterosexual, and male homosexual.

Varlaam (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the intro about the sex/gender restriction to men, and in the course of doing that I learned that transgender men are not allowed either. Male is a sex and a gender; heterosexual and homosexual are called sexual orientations, the possibilities of which also include bisexual, among other ways that people identify their own sexual orientation. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ordination rifan.jpg

The image File:Ordination rifan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Trends in numbers of priests

It would be interesting to have a section about the decline in the number of Catholic priests in the USA and Europe but increase in Asia and Africa. SnappingTurtle (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree! As the "third world" "modernizes" it's bucking all the "secularization theory" trends that social scientists have long expected to see. It's also interesting how Ireland, once considered the savior of "Christendom" for supplying the entire Western World with priests, now produces 40 a year at best. Ireland, like the United States is filling up with African and Asian priests. I think in these sad times that is wonderful news! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.159.228 (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

importance

THis artcicle is high importance on the catholicism scale and Low importance on the Christianity scale. This doesnt make sense to me; Catholicism is bigger than every other form of christianity put together. Does the PRiesthood really deserve the lowest level of importance overall?Peppermintschnapps (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Protecting this page

This page should be locked to block anti-Catholic editors from making changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.159.228 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Fullness of Time, or perhaps, sooner

Please do not use the talk page for general discussion. See WP:TALK for more information.
The following discussion has been closed by 142.160.89.97. Please do not modify it.
It is necessary for the Church to consider carefully the dicotomies presenti in the structure and practices of the Church. The Eastern Tradition of the Catholic Church allows priests to marry. While these men may not rise above Parish Priest and will never become bishops, they are, nonetheless, free to marry and have children. In the UK, there are now many Catholic married priests. Usually, these men have converted from Anglican orders. This means that in both the Eastern and Western traditions, there are married priests. It is time that the Holy See considered this on a wider basis. There are many married men who would make excellent priests and who are genuinely called by God to Holy Orders. It has been argued that celibacy has been the root cause of many of the abuses that priests and religious have visited upon children. It is not a natural state, and cannot be successfully argued that it is a sacrifice to God. Married clergy are far less likely to offend in this way. Since Vatican II there have been many changes to the liturgy, and less control by the Bishops over Parish Priests. THe local ordinary may make significant changes to the litrugy at his discretion and unless he violates Canon Law, his Bishop ir powerless to intefere. In recent times unilateral changes have been made tothe content of the Mass by parish priests that have caused great distress to the Faithful. One priest recently remarked "If people do not like it, they may leave." So much for the shepherd seeking the one sheep that was lost. To harmonise the church, married clergy are innevitable, and no part of the Mass should be changeable within a diocese without the express written permission of the Bishop after due consultation with the parish concerned. IN that way, stability would be maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.25.188 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fiction and Literature Portraying Priests section has 84 wikilinks which is way too much trivia

The Fiction and Literature Portraying Priests section has 84 wikilinks - some of which are red wikilinks. This is too much trivial information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This section needs to deal with fiction or literature that demonstrate a strong connection to the subject matter. Then, this information needs to be presented in a proper encyclopediac manner, i.e., written in paragraph form, documented with citations and not have fleeting references to the subject matter of priesthood. Red wikilinks should not be introduced into the article because if the article is not written, chances are the reference is not relevant. Clean-up will commence this week. --Morenooso (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Child rape

Nothing about the ever-growing mountain of evidence of the systematic protection of the thousands (over 4,000 priests in the U.S. alone) of Catholic priests who rape children in this entire article? Nothing?

Unbelievable. Folks, wake up. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is general article which is not appropriate vehicle or forum for discussing the topic you suggest. In addition, please see news reports. --Morenooso (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"The topic"? You can't even think it, much less type it. Tens of thousands of children raped by thousands of priests. I understand. It really is unthinkable, isn't it? Unfortunately, we have to think about it.

It's not appropriate to mention the rape of tens of thousands of children worldwide by thousands of members of the priesthood, and the institutional systematic cover-up of those countless horrors, in an article about the priesthood? Maybe the article on Charles Manson shouldn't mention Sharon Tate? After all, there was so much more to his life than that "news" item.

News reports? You're kidding, right? I'm talking about evidence of what the priesthood has been doing to children, and covering up, for decades (probably centuries, but no actual evidence of that as far as I know). But since you brought up news, this seems apt:

“ After all, few Catholics of any modern stripe actually pay any attention to the Vatican's childish dictums and archaic declarations, even its scandals. The pope is largely irrelevant. Turning a blind eye to the real history of the church and the nasty cadre of creepy old men who rule it? That's just part of being Catholic.

Meantime, the stunning numbers just keep coming. The Vatican has now reportedly spent between two and three billion dollars -- that's with a b -- in legal fees and quiet reparations to the thousands of molested and abused. That's just the current number. It will be growing exponentially, because the cases are nowhere near complete. They just keep coming. And they probably always will.

”

Keep your head buried in the sand, or read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/14/notes041410.DTL#ixzz0l5GwiRTX

--Born2cycle (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly covered up; there are quite a few Wikipedia articles covering the abuse scandals. See Catholic sex abuse cases and the many pages it links to. Tb (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I just find it stunning that this article about the priesthood makes no mention of this enormous problem in the priesthood.

If you can appreciate analogies, consider that even though there is an article about doping in cycling, that doesn't mean the article on Lance Armstrong shouldn't have a section about it, which it does. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, articles about particular criminals should mention their crimes. (Though not every criminal is notable.) The cases of misprision by bishops are more likely to be notable, and you can see them at Bernard Francis Law, for example. The article analogous to this one is of course Road bicycle racing, which, as it happens, does not mention doping or steroids at all. Tb (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you the point about Lance Armstrong, but Road bicycle racing is not a good analogy either, since it's not specific to any particular organization, like the topic of this article is. So I would argue that Festina cycling team is a better analogy, with a doping section as well as an article devoted to the specific topic of doping at Festina. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to be making statements which are not likely to be verifiable. Where is your number 4000 from? What is your metric for deciding whether something is an "enormous problem"? The cases and scandal I know about, and which your articles refer to, are about accounting for past crimes, but I haven't seen much evidence of current criminal activity being covered up, or occurring in some massive number, which is relevant if you make an unsubstantiated claim about what will "always" happen. Tb (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The over 4000 number is from Catholic sex abuse cases#United States, which make the following statement citing the John Jay report: "In the United States, half of the 4,392 priests who were found to have been credibly accused of abusing minors were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of abuse".

Obviously "enormous" is subjective, but that's not an outlandish adjective to apply to such incredible numbers.

And you guys are too much. First, Morenooso objects to including this content on the grounds that this topic is "news", and now you're objecting that it's not current. Only time will tell whether the problem is still current or has been finally substantially and effectively addressed. But the history remains the history, and the raping of children by Catholic priests, and the covering up of these crimes by the Church, was a widespread problem in the 20th century, worldwide. There is no question about that. It's contrary to WP:NPOV to not have a section on it here. I'd be happy to start an RFC on this, if you still disagree. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Morenooso, and I'm not one of "you guys". I'm responsible for what I said and that alone. I'm appalled that after arguing that we should use an analogy, and presenting your own choice of analogy, when it actually argues directly against your case you drop it. I didn't object that it wasn't current; I said that claims of ongoing criminal activity are different from claims of past criminal activity, and you seemed to be presenting examples only of the latter, and using verbs and language suggesting the former. I'll simply say that your analogy was correct, on the assumption that if you had any sense of shame, you wouldn't just pretend you hadn't proposed it. Tb (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough about "you guys", and sorry.

I started my comment (2 back) acknowledging your point about the analogy ("I'll give you the point Lance Armstrong"). Then I provided a better analogy (the Festina team), which you ignored. And yet you have the audacity to say I dropped it?

All I'm saying is that there should be a short section on the widespread rape of children by Catholic priests in the 20th century, and the associated Church cover up, in this article. The current controversy about the current Pope's apparent involvement in that cover up should probably be mentioned too. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you just don't understand your own analogy! Catholic sex abuse cases is like List of doping cases in cycling. Bernard Francis Law is like Lance Armstrong, Festina affair is like Sexual abuse scandal in the Congregation of Christian Brothers, and Festina cycling team is like Congregation of Christian Brothers, and Priesthood (Catholic Church) is like Road bicycle racing. Tb (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I understand.

• Clergy is like Road bicycle racing
• Priesthood (Catholic Church) is like Festina cycling team. It is true that other subdivisions of Priesthood, like Congregation of Christian Brothers, are also arguably analogous to teams as well, but it was the Catholic Priesthood in general (not just the Congregation of Christian Brothers), like the Festina team, that was riddled with scandal, and they are analogous in that respect. If there was an article about professional road bicycle racing it would be even a better analogy to this article, and I would expect it to have a section on doping.
• Catholic sex abuse cases is like List of doping cases in cycling
• Bernard Francis Law is like Lance Armstrong

Anyway, I'm not going to push this any more unless someone else agrees. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Clergy is like Sportsperson. Indeed, you can see how exactly right that is. Doping scandals exist in other sports too, not just bicycle riding, just as sexual abuse is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church's clergy. But the dynamics are very different in the different religious organizations, because their culture is so different, in just the way that doping in cycling is very different from doping in baseball, if you are interested in causes, reactions, economics, and so forth. Tb (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur that this is not the place for this discussion. --Morenooso (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

this article should link to and mention catholic priest scandals

nothing has rocked the catholic priesthood more in 200 years than the sexual scandals of the last 10 years or so. as far as the catholic priesthood goes we're talking about the scandal of the century. that must be mentioned in the article and links to more specific articles on the subject should be present here. not mentioning it in THIS article is scandalous.

See the discussion immediately above. Tb (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That topic is now covered by the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sex abuse cases

I think these should be mentioned in the main text of the article other than as an afterthought in the "see also" section --Thanks, Hadseys 20:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed two sections up and the consensus was non-inclusion. This is a general article and specific articles on this matter already exist which is why it is not necessary here. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is strongly POV to have that as one of only two see-also's on an article about how catholic priesthood as a duty, i.e., how it is supposed to work. I removed it from the see also for that reason - it is reasonable to have it on some page like "Controversies in the Catholic Church", or possibly even on the Catholic Church page itself, but when placed here it basically implies that Catholic priests are obligated by their position to molest kids.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a sensible compromise to have a see also link. The alternative is to have inclusion in the main article. However, it is perfectly reasonable to add more see also's if you think, in accord with the usual guidelines for them. Note that this page is not about "how it is supposed to work", but about what it actually is. Tb (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. 71.102.0.62 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"About what it actually is" is not how the article is written. The article covers the duties, the education, the rites, etc., and the other see also is a link to the heirarchial system. Having the sex abuse link there reads exactly as, "Catholic priests are supposed to molest children."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a short section about child abuse, it's too important and we shouldn't let RC's cover it up in this article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Church will live on

Please do not use the talk page for general discussion. See WP:TALK for more information.
The following discussion has been closed by 142.160.89.97. Please do not modify it.
The Catholic church is the one Holy,Catholic(universal), and Apostolic church. The one true church. I am not saying other Christens will burn in hell, all christens will go to heaven, but they do not receive the true body and blood of Christ. At MASS this happens Jesus puts himself into the form of wine and bread. And there are bad priests, i will admit. But we are not the only ones. We aren't these evil people that go about raping children. Christians, "christens", as they call themselves do it to. But they are not christens. The media just wants to tear down the catholic church. I am becoming a priest and i do not abuse children. Justice will be served to the offenders, but it is not just Catholics. Even after 2000 years, God willing the earth be here that long, the Catholic church will still be here. IN THIS WORLD AND THE NEXT.--Jacobgreen35 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Jacob, this is not the forum for your own beliefs. If you have a scientific study that says the Catholic Church is "the one true church", please bring it forward for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychological profiles, bearing on purpose and content of article?

I'm not sure how the conclusions of a single study from 12 years ago on the "psychological profiles" of priests is relevant to the substance or purpose of this article. Articles on other occupations, and other religious orders / offices, don't include such sections as a matter of form. It gives the article an anti-religious, if not anti-Catholic, slant as currently presented. Recommend it be deleted or linked to a more appropriate discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.68.54 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not slanted at all. The single John Jay Study has been used to justify the mixed reaction to abuse cases. The study was peer reviewed and is accepted as credible. If there was a single study on Football Quarterbacks that showed them to have a unique personality profile, it would be accepted on Wikipedia. Your desire to remove it is not nuetral. (user: johndarth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it's not slanted, but I have to wonder if the article isn't giving it undue weight. That section, which is about one study and doesn't mention the study's importance, is only slightly shorter than the section about the duties of a Catholic priest. If that study is important enough (you say it was references in regards to abuse cases, so it might be), then the article should mention why the study is important. Even then, I would have to think you wouldn't devote more than one or two sentences to it - certainly not a whole section. 184.59.133.78 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This section has to be removed it has only one study as reference. User:Lucifero4

• I restored it, since the given reason (only one study) is not a valid one (perhaps confusion with the general notability guideline which requires sources). I agree it seems a little out of place here, and would be happy to see it moved if we can identify a more suitable location. Fwiw I don't think it is either anti-religious or anti-Catholic - in fact rather the reverse: from what I recall the equivalent studies on UK clergy in general (which I do not have sources for sadly) did not indicate such 'toughmindedness'. Springnuts (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My recommendation is to keep it, but just include it in text as a reference. No reason for this personality profile of priests (based on one non-replicated study) to have it's own title within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.113.98 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The text seems to have been removed again. I think that's OK, because the report has its own article, John Jay Report, which is linked from Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States, and that is linked from this article. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Priests to be rated on-line in Germany

This website allows people to rate their priests. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8681961/Priests-rated-on-new-website.html.86.42.192.162 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Married priest?

Ok, there's a pic from a (supposedly) married priest, they even mention it's wedding ring on "right hand as per slavic tradition". C'mon, if you offer the wedding ring as something that proves your assumption that this particular priest is married, it's fair to have this ring visible in the pic to readers assure it, otherwise it's not rational to believe in the assertive with so little visual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.120.114.153 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I requested a citation for the claim this priest is married, since it's not mentioned on the image page. -- Beland (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

'Call to Disobedience' - undue weight?

Hi all, there are about 400,000 RC priests in the world and 'Call to Disobedience' has the support of, er, 300 or so. That's less than one in a thousand. On a strictly proportional basis that would give them about two and a half words in the article - not the 5% they get. How about they get relegated to a brief mention - or moved elsewhere. Any ideas? Springnuts (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

On reflection I agree call to disobedience has undue weight. New Ways Ministry and Women's Ordination Conference don’t merit important positions in this article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the section on Call to Disobedience with a shorter section, Dissident priests dealing with dissent among priests generally. I've started a new article, Call to Disobedience since Helmut Schüller's proposed tour of the USA doesn't merit inclusion in an article on Austria. If Call to Disobedience becomes an international movement it will certainly need its own article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Much better thanks - I have rewirtten to remove some POVness. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Unsourced section - seriously?

The entirety of Priesthood_(Catholic_Church)#Child_sex_abuse cites no references whatsoever, and hardly seems neutral. Technically, I could remove it immediately as a WP:VER violation. Any thoughts? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it refs the article [Catholic sex abuse cases] which has a load of refs. Is the thrust of the para likely to be challenged? But a couple of suitable refs, perhaps lifted from the main article on Catholic sex abuse cases would I agree be useful, and POV should certainly be removed by careful editing. Springnuts (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did that section go? 2001:569:7192:FB00:9423:55B4:95B8:FEA3 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new paragraph with more detailed content to the History section. -- Beland (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions you must answer to become a priest

1. Mount Angel Seminary

This could provide background information. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

An interesting read, but I don't see anything in there that is suitable for adding to the article text. I'll add an external link. -- Beland (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Title change into: 'Priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church'

Referring to the Roman Catholic Church as 'Catholic Church' (in this article's title) comes to me as (needlessly) Western-centered and thus (needlessly) affronting for all other, non-R-C but Eastern, Catholic Churches. It seems then a very small effort, and a (great) deed of politeness (and even humility) to simply say in the title what apparently is meant: not 'Priesthood in the [whole] Catholic Church' but 'Priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church'. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The article now includes information about the priesthood in Eastern Catholic Churches. -- Beland (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

About the history

The section History can be more understood as a story of spiritual inclination to become a catholic priest than a history of Priesthood in the Catholic Church, i.e. a historical account of the profession of being a catholic priest with its respective documentation sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo Henrique Macedo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to be a history of the profession. -- Beland (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of material in the History section that really has nothing to do with the priesthood but is rather about church bodies.

Besides that, there is a lack of material about the early priesthood which was divided into different offices such as exorcist, liturgist, and visitor. I have no sources for those, just knowledge from graduate-level church history courses. Dismalscholar (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Beliefs

A section that would be really beneficial would be beliefs about priesthood. Things like:

- An indelible change that happens at ordination, comes about around the 4th and 5th centuries.  This is a reason why Priests are necessary for a valid Eucharist.
- There are "powers" listed in several Catholic encyclicals, chief of which is the ability to forgive sins.  
- Ordination cannot be undone.  Clergy who have been defrocked can still theoretically do a valid Eucharist.  For the same reason, Priesthood does not supplant ordination as a deacon but adds, just as ordination as a Bishop/Cardinal/Pope does not supplant ordination as a priest.
- Apostolic Succession.  The idea that the apostle Peter (to whom the keys were given) passed them down by the laying of hands.  All RCC clergy today have been ordained by a line of people who can trace their ordinations back to Peter.  Lutherans and Anglicans can likewise claim this since their first bishops were Roman Catholic (though they usually don't care).

Response to others on the talk:

- The title should be changed to Priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.  "Catholic" simply means "Universal" and refers to the entire Christian Church.
- Though there is quite a bit of redundancy between this page and others regarding priesthood generally, they should NOT be merged.  The recommended section on Roman Catholic beliefs about priesthood would show that their beliefs are distinct and unique relative to many of the other denominations.
- The only married priests (that I know of) are ones who were first ordained as Lutheran or Anglican priests.  Women and actively gay persons do not qualify for holy orders, but for different reasons.  Women, mistakenly reading Aquinas, because Jesus was a man so priests have to be men.  And gay men because the RCC interprets the Scriptures univocally against the practice.  Priests who are actively having any extramarital sex (homosexual, heterosexual, incest, pedophilia, or just regular sex) are equally in sin and so disqualified from orders.
- There is a bit of unnecessary information on the page already.  Adding a section about scandals might be helpful.  Adding a section about beliefs about priesthood would definitely be helpful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khcst5 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 

Requested move 14 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 23:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Priesthood in the Catholic Church → Priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church – to remove ambiguity and WP:PRECISEly describe the scope of the article. The first sentence of the lede explains that this article applies only to the Roman Catholic Church, and says for similar but different rules among Eastern Catholics see Eastern Catholic Church. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support It would avert confusion with other uses of the term Catholic, and there is little doubt that the new title will produce any controversy. Yet this change should make us consider disambiguating the term Catholic Church since there are other Catholic Churches like the Eastern Catholic Churches. Den... (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Den...: How does the proposed change not introduce "confusion", as I explain below? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Priesthood is way different between Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches. The latter allow for married priests, and have levels of priesthood such as archimandrites, higoumenes, hieromonks etc. which have no equivalent in Roman Catholicism. Place Clichy (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Sure, but until someone creates separate articles, I'm afraid an article rename would only serve to confuse. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, a rename would cause less confusion. The scope of this article is clear, but its title does not reflect that scope.

There is no need to make a parallel standalone article a precondition. Per WP:DAB, the other topic(s) can be a section, e.g. Eastern_Catholic_Churches#Clerical_celibacy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are not "levels" of priesthood per se. In the Eastern Catholic churches, there is still only one priesthood even if priests have titles that don't exist in the Latin Church. (Similarly, one would never describe Latin Catholic titles such as vicar general or protonotary apostolic as "levels".) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Correction to your assertion: The first sentence of the lede says "ministerial orders of the Catholic Church". Perhaps you meant to rename the article to Priesthood in the Latin Church per Latin Church? However, not sure it would be encyclopedically relevant to have three different articles: Priesthood in the Latin Church, Priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and Priesthood in the Catholic Church (covering both the former ones). The most convenient way would be to improve Priesthood in the Catholic Church to cover it all. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but per WP:NOTFINISHED please don't obstruct the articles name only for this reason. If none has improved this one single article to that slight improvement, I don't see larger chances anyone would for all three. That said, should you wish to go ahead and create these three different articles, I might reconsider my opinion on your proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I meant the Roman Catholic Church. The POV-pushing obfuscation by you and other editors has now led us to the absurd situation where we have an article titled Catholic Church which begins The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church ... and another article titled Catholic Church which begins The Latin Church (also known as Western Church or the Roman Catholic Church). It's time to start unpicking the insane ambiguity which you intentionally created by this obfuscation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? Like if I was the one who came up with the idea of particular churches in the first place? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Chicbyaccident secretly the Pope? Are we in the presence of His Holiness? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It makes much more sense to build out this article's coverage of the Eastern Catholic Churches, since there is already a large degree of overlap, than to further confuse an already muddled naming convention. Ergo Sum 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Until the coverage you wish is "built out", the title is misleading. Title should reflect current content, not eventual future content that is not there today. Also, the 2006 discussion page you pointed to is not in any way a convention, not even a muddled one. Place Clichy (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  It does mention the differences in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Until there is an article that deals solely with clergy in the Eastern Catholic Churches, this article is to be regarded as covering both. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Place Clichy: Title should reflect current content, not eventual future content that is not there today. On what basis? If that were the standard, that would require, e.g., moving every single article that has {{globalize}}. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Look for instance at WP:TITLE where the very first line says The title indicates what the article is about, elaborated at WP:PRECISE: titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. This article is about priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, not in the Eastern Catholic Churches where priesthood is different in many ways. Therefore, that is its topical scope. Place Clichy (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  Nowhere does that address your assertion that the title must address the "current content" (to use your term) of a deficient article. How would what you're describing not apply to nearly every article with {{globalize}}? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chicbyaccident. The term Roman Catholic Church, as it is used by the Vatican, consistently refers to all 24 autonomous particular churches sui iuris collectively. The proposed move would, in fact, introduce an ambiguity, assuming one is (incorrectly) assuming the term Roman Catholic to be exclusive of the 23 Eastern Catholic churches.

To actualize the intent behind the proposal, the article could be moved to "Priesthood in the Latin Church"; however, it would be much more practical to contain information about the priesthood in all 24 autonomous particular churches sui iuris in one article. The alternative would be either (1) to have a separate "Priesthood in the Eastern Catholic churches" article, which would pose the same problems as having one article given that the Eastern Catholic churches are not identical in their ecclesiology (or theology more generally), or (2) to have 24 separate articles on the subject, which would be ludicrous. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Many wrong or half-true things here: you write "per Chickbyaccident" but this user explained us a lot that the Vatican does not use Roman Catholic Church very much, contrary to what you write next. The term Roman Catholic is indeed also frequently used to refer to the Latin part of the Church, especially by Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics themselves, as mentioned in the opening line of Roman Catholic (term). The proposition of using Latin Church is interesting, howewer keeping Catholic in the title is perhaps preferable for the sake of clarity. Place Clichy (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Many wrong or half-true things here: you write "per Chickbyaccident" but this user explained us a lot that the Vatican does not use Roman Catholic Church very much, contrary to what you write next. Where did I address the frequency with which the Vatican uses the term? I was merely addressing their consistency in meaning when using it.

The proposition of using Latin Church is interesting, howewer keeping Catholic in the title is perhaps preferable for the sake of clarity. I fail to see how that would be any less clear, given there has never been any debate (to my knowledge) as to the meaning of the term Latin Church. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Catholic Church (capitalised) is unambiguous in English. There are issues with the use of Roman Catholic but they need not concern us here. The existing title is unambiguous and trivially more concise. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Nonsense. If it was unambiguous, we woukd not have the Catholic Church (disambiguation) page. --04:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

  One could rather argue the other way around: that the "(disambiguator)" bracket clause precisely proves your assertion wrong, if we take a look at where the article title without these brackets leads: Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  You could indeed argue that. But it woukd not be advisable to do, because that would demonstrate a very basic failure in logical comprehension of the concept of ambiguity. The fact that en.wp editors have selected one meaning as primary topic does NOT somehow negate the existence of other meanings.

  So before going down that road, buy a dictionary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, Roman Catholic Church is ambiguous, it may refer to either the Catholic Church or to the Latin Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Roman Catholic Church" is less ambiguous than the unqualified "Catholic Church". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, that is not correct, the Catholic Church is unambiguously containing both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches. It is bizar that Wikipedia has a Catholic Church (disambiguation) page because of Catholicity which is a concept, not a church institute. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• If ambiguity is the concern, why wasn't "Priesthood in the Latin Church" proposed? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• It is quite a different discussion whether or not this article needs to be split between Latin and Eastern Catholic. The benefit of splitting is not clear to me yet (but I'm open for arguments), and anyway we only need rename this article to Latin if a separate Eastern Catholic article is actually being created. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Marcocapelle: you write the Catholic Church is unambiguously containing both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches. So

1. Why on earth have you so often supported the use of the term "Catholic Church" in categories which very clearly do not involve the Esatern churches?
2. If "Catholic Church" includes the Eastern Churches, why on earth are you supporting its retention as the title of an artcle whose scope explicitly excludes the East?

When presented with stuff like this, I find it very hard to sustain AGF . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Because Eastern Catholic churches are not different from the Latin Church in most aspects, or not different enough to merit a split. I wouldn't support splitting by Lutheran country churches either w.r.t. aspects that are fairly common across Lutheranism, so it is not that I am biased towards Catholicism (at least I don't think so). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• @BrownHairedGirl: You didn't answer the question. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not convinced that splitting the article is the answer either (for the reasons outlined in my top-level comment). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This title couldn't be confused with anything else that's remotely as notable as this subject. The "Roman" version is effectively deprecated on Wikipedia and there's no reason for this article to be the exception. It certainly shouldn't be moved as long as the main article is located at Catholic Church.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of the justification for the move is that the article doesn't (adequately) cover the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic churches. However, out in the real world, "Roman Catholic Church" doesn't always exclude the Eastern Catholic churches any more than "Catholic Church" does. The solution could be a move to something like "Priesthood in the Latin Church", but the better solution would be just adding more coverage of the Eastern Catholic priesthood here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added some material and rewritten the intro (which needed it anyway).--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Priest (Catholic Chruch) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Priest (Catholic Chruch). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reyk _YO! 13:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian Orthodox priest photo

@Andrewrp: I reverted your removal of the photo because I find it is highly relevant to the section referring to the Great Schism, and useful for contrast with the celibate Latin Catholic priesthood. Admittedly, it would be appropriate to find a similar photo of an Eastern Catholic priest who is married and wearing a wedding ring, but until we find such a one, this photo is excellent quality. Regarding the "orphaned link" it is natural to have redlinks to point to articles that might, in the future, be created. If you disagree with this choice, you can simply delink the words and it will turn black. I would certainly not object to such an edit. Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, the {{citation needed}} bugged me enough that I took a second look; I can't find his wedding ring because his right hand is folded under his left. If you can't see it either, then I think we have a clear rationale for removal, and wait for a better one. Elizium23 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)