Talk:Priesthood in the Catholic Church

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)