Jump to content

Talk:Defrocking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major cleric

[edit]

The article uses the term "major cleric", but doesn't define it, or refer to a definition. Is there a distinct such concept (bishops and up?), or is the article speaking somewhat loosely? Alai 07:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) To answer thw above, there are and always been three ranks in the Church. First the Episcopacy, and from their hands and faith the Prebytery and the Diaconite. All other titles, Archbishop,Metropolitan, Patriarch are in honour only for all ordained are ordained by one and the same Grace of the Holy Spirit.

The nature of a voluntary request

[edit]

Um, this seems a little silly, but:

Do you know what the word voluntary means? A priest can voluntarily request laicization for any reason, or even no reason. He could voluntarily request laicization because his toast was burnt this morning. That's the nature of a "voluntary request": something he does when/if he wants to.

The request might or might not be granted for any number of reasons, but this sentence deals with "able to request", not "able to receive". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theory

[edit]

Situation: A defrocked priest is present at a dying person's bed. In the kitchen, we find unleavened bread, natural wine, and olive oil. The defrocked priest is obviously allowed to hear the confession.
Question: Is he allowed a) to celebrate the Holy Mass in order to confer the Viaticum, b) to confer the Extreme Unction, c) to consecrate the olive oil for Extreme Unction?--77.4.122.136 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. WP:COMMONNAME is a strong argument below and there is no evidence provided that Lacization is generally used (official sources don't get special privileges). --rgpk (comment) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defrocking → Laicization – My reading of WP:POVTITLE is that in order for it to apply, a majority of reliable sources must use the term. This is not true for this article and all official sources use the proper, official term, "laicization". So I suggest that we move this article to match the reality on the ground. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is such a common, ambiguous term, then why does laicization redirect here? Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's disambiguate that after this is closed. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has occurred to me that the article should use the root term so I have changed the RM to reflect that - 'laicize'. Let me remind the above commenter that WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia, and 'defrock' is a charged slur that is all POV, used by the anti-Catholic press to attack the Church. Any ambiguity in the term can easily be treated in the lede paragraph. Elizium23 (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension, Defrocking, Laicization and the New York Times Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie archdiocese to laicize 16 convicted priests
“Associated Press” Disgraces Itself With Error-Ridden and Malicious Attack on Pope
'Defrocking' priests: the media keep asking the wrong question
The above articles prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "defrocking" is a completely inaccurate term and the wrong one for this article! To "defrock" is to suspend from priestly ministry, while to "laicize" is to dismiss from the clerical state. Except for the lede paragraph, this article is about the latter usage. Elizium23 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, that's an entirely different issue, isn't it? The problem, then, is that this article is incorrectly titled, not non-neutrally titled. Nonetheless, your sources don't seem as iron-clad as you claim. The first, for instance, is a letter written to the New York Times -- not a reliable source. The fourth, as another example, is written by a biased source (Catholic Culture) and makes no comment on the word being "a charged slur", merely that it's "inaccurate" (if it has no meaning in canon law, how can it be used inaccurately?). Powers T 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laicize (a verb) is definitely the wrong choice, because Wikipedia articles use nouns whenever possible. I don't really care whether the title is "Laicization" or "Defrocking". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, after a consultation of the MOS, I have changed the RM back to the original suggestion. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My feeling is that Defrocking is just a more colloquial term and Laicization is the more formal, and appropriate, term. But not an earth-shaking decision and they should redirect to each other anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The term 'defrocking' has always had a sort of 'protestant', almost 'Baptist' feel to it for me-the proper Catholic term 'laicization' is much more precise, and correct.Lyricmac (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Defrocking" was widely used but was probably a flip term. Something relating to laicization would be preferable because it sounds less pov and more objective. Student7 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Defrocking and laicization. Neutrality is irrelevant here. Defrocking is a far more common term (30,400 vs. 9,180 and 23,600 vs. 1,250) and if these were synonyms then defrocking would be the proper title, regardless of whether it was seen as less neutral, since the world has made that decision, not us. However, as noted, the words have different meanings, but I don't think they need separate articles. The article should start with a definition showing the difference between the two—that one is enforced removal for cause, and the other is simply removal—and continue from there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not official sources that are relevant, it's the spectrum of reliable sources, which by and large say "defrocking" and have literally never heard of "laicization". I don't believe there's a need to put laicization in the article name, which seems to violate WP:COMMONNAME; the redirect works fine. Noticing that, bizarrely, I'm the first person to have brought up WP:COMMONNAME in this discussion, let me refer everybody there and note that it indicates a strong preference for "defrocking", and has the status of policy. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not the first; I just did not link it when I referred to it directly above. The issue here though appears to be that the two terms are not synonyms, so this is not a pure common naming issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'd have to agree that as currently (and poorly) worded, WP:AT could be seen to support this ridiculous move proposal. The policy badly needs clarification, to restore its consistency with other documentation and even with itself. Meantime, I'll instead appeal to WP:IAR and say that nearly all English speakers would correctly recognise the term defrocking, and relatively few laicization (and there seems doubt as to whether it's even the correct term), so we should leave it as is. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vow of obedience

[edit]

A secular priest makes no such vow of obedience to the bishop nor any sort of vow. Secular priests make promises. Only regular priests (and brothers and nuns) make solemn vows, and regular priests make vows of obedience to their superior, who is almost never a bishop. Elizium23 (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public ministry

[edit]

I read three dictionary definitions and none of them specified that defrocking is a removal from public ministry only. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defrock http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defrock http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defrock I welcome other sources that might prove that I am wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Defrocking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Defrocking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defrocking&oldid=1195727435"