Talk:Loss of clerical state

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

Title[edit]

The Canon law (Catholic Church)-related articles generally follow the idiom "WXYZ (Catholic Church)" vs. the idiom "WXYZ in the Catholic Church" found in some Catholicism-related articles. Laicization is primarily a topic within Catholic canon law, so I moved this page due to WP:CONSISTENCY. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 00:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Canon law (Catholic Church) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move page[edit]

I think this page should be moved to "Loss Of The Clerical State (Catholic Church)" since that's the term used in canon law (see here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PZ.HTM) "Laicization" is commonaly used, but informal and not correct. Bwwm (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Laicization" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Laicization. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Community Dismissal" paragraph error[edit]

The page's section entitled "Community Dismissal" has nothing to do with the loss of clerical state. It simply changes the prerequisites that the Religious Order has in dismissing a member, either a "lay brother" or an ordained cleric. Even if the member is dismissed, the Order still has to make the next step in petitioning for the cleric's dismissal from the clerical state - a totally separate process from those mentioned in canons 694, 695, and 729. Non-pupulus-impilium (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 June 2021[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Loss of clerical state . It is clear that disambiguation is not strictly necessary, and that the name of the concept is unique for the Catholic Church. Even though the disambiguator may help recognizability, unnecessary disambiguation is generally rejected in principle. (cf. RM at Talk:Brewarrina I'm about to close). No such user (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of clerical state (Catholic Church) → Loss of clerical state – Disambiguation not needed; there are no other articles with this title. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the concept exists in numerous churches; I believe the title should state clearly what the article is about. Veverve (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it referred to by this name in other churches? Can you be specific? Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. Just because no other article with this name exists at present does not mean that the concept does not need to be disambiguated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment first of all, there is no other article on Wikipedia on this topic, so it is patently untrue that disambiguation is unneeded. Secondly, if this topic applies to more than one church, what is stopping us from adding those to this same article, other than its unnecessarily restrictive present scope? Elizium23 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is expanded to cover other churches, then fine, but at present it only applies to the Catholic Church. Dogma aside (remember, WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE), for clarity's sake we do indeed need disambiguation of concepts like this if they can refer to more than one organisation but do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, I'd be interested to read the policy that says we do need to disambiguate from topics that aren't covered anywhere on Wikipedia! Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly did not read my post properly. Policy is not set in stone. Sometimes common sense has to override it. And that, ironically, is a policy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, oh my, do people love to invoke IAR for no good reason! What about this ugly and unwieldy disambiguation is improving the encyclopedia in a way that removing it would be a disservice to readers and/or editors? Elizium23 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's only "no good reason" in the opinion of those who don't agree, isn't it! I always find it very odd when a policy, which IAR is, is sneered at by those who like to (falsely) claim that Wikipedia is ruled by policy and insist that other editors who disagree with them cite a policy to back up their opinion. I simply don't agree with you that this is in any way ugly and unwieldy. That's my opinion, born of very long experience editing Wikipedia, and just because you disagree does not make it wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you didn't bother answering my question. Elizium23 (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What question would that be? The one I've already answered? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, What about this ugly and unwieldy disambiguation is improving the encyclopedia in a way that removing it would be a disservice to readers and/or editors? Elizium23 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read up, you'll discover I've already answered that question. As I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little taken aback by the argument Just because no other article with this name exists at present does not mean that the concept does not need to be disambiguated. The name of the concept is not the question. Just the name of the article. And there seems no reason to disambiguate that. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To me this is a no-brainer. The article is about a topic in Roman Catholic canon law, and the base name of the current title has no other meanings. It is unambiguous, so there is no need to disambiguate. Yes, IAR is also a policy, but it is only applicable to proposals that improve Wikipedia, and there is no evidence that this unnecessary disambiguation improves Wikipedia. The resulting redirect should of course be kept. Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no disambiguation necessary. When another article comes along with the same title, another discussion should be had.  Mysterymanblue  21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed - no other articles with this title so no disambiguator needed. If other articles are created in the future, we can revisit this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

sense[edit]

Clerical ordination is irreversible, so no-one, whatever they have done, can be "reduced to the lay state". Massive censure can, of course, be applied to major clerical transgressors, but these can only ever constitute forms of suspension. A priest is a priest for ever, just as a person cannot be un-baptised or un-married (provided the ordination/baptism/marriage was valid). This process is therefore better described in terms of being an extreme form of suspension, fiercer than a divinis, with a near-permanence (though only "near-" because the pope can lift it). Any suggestion that clergy can become lay is to deny a key feature of ordination's permanent effects on the candidate's soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:28E4:5387:15F6:3148 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, SYNTH[edit]

@Pbritti: you've allowed a dispute and edit-war on Talk:Frank Pavone to spill over to this related page, and you've decided to make a WP:POINT about the definition of "defrocked" by referencing articles which do not directly say what you want them to say. I've placed a maintenance tag on your assertion and you've reverted it out-of-process. Please follow WP:BRD and also WP:ABF such as accusing me of incivility. Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23 You're an extremely experienced editor engaging in egregiously bad behavior. Cut it out now; next stop is ANI. You are no longer allowed to comment on my talk page unless required by policy. Remove the OR template or I will. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For editors not informed, the citation that Elizium believes is original research uses the following quote: "But what does it mean to be 'laicized,' 'defrocked,' or 'dismissed from the clerical state?'" What follows is a lengthy explanation of those terms. If Elizium took umbrage with "dismissed" as a synonym, too, perhaps they could simply be suffering from an occasion of misreading. However, that is just not the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Lay communion be merged into this article. They appear to cover the same topic, and the former article is of poor quality. — Moriwen (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose: those seems to be two different punishment. Lay communion seems to be temporary, a slap on the wrist; the loss of clerical state seems to be a stronger, definitive punishment. Veverve (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loss_of_clerical_state&oldid=1203760259"