Talk:Priesthood in the Catholic Church

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this is now clearly explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Holy Orders? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Priesthood, Presbyterium, Holy Orders, etc. Articles 

message: Phrases like "it is actually" always make me dubious when they are unsupported by reputable documentation.Wuapinmon (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such phrases have been purged from the article. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: dubious

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Ordination rifan.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: It has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trends in numbers of priests 

message: 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)
thread_title:  importance 

message: 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)
thread_title: Protecting this page

message: 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)
thread_title:  In the Fullness of Time, or perhaps, sooner 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fiction and Literature Portraying Priests section has 84 wikilinks which is way too much trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text:  That topic is now covered by the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: this article should link to and mention catholic priest scandals

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sex abuse cases 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Church will live on 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Psychological profiles, bearing on purpose and content of article? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Priests to be rated on-line in Germany

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Married priest? 

message: Hi all, there are about 400,000 RC priests in the world and 'Call to Disobedience' has the support of, er, 300 or so.http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10991  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)
replies: text: Much better thanks - I have rewirtten to remove some POVness.  Regards,  Springnuts (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Call to Disobedience' - undue weight? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: #Mount Angel Seminary
This could provide background information. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questions you must answer to become a priest 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article now includes information about the priesthood in Eastern Catholic Churches. -- Beland (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change into: 'Priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church' 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Priest (Catholic Chruch) listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: On second thought, the  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)
thread_title:  Ukrainian Orthodox priest photo