Humanities desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 25

Catholic Priests / Protestantism

As far as I know Protestant persons-of-cloth are allowed to marry. Do all of them do marry, or only a few of them do so? And what about the nuns ? Are they allowed to marry too ? In the case, do they all do so or only a few ? And is a Protestant priest allowed to wed a Protestant nun ? Jon Ascton (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Protestant nuns exist? (Or as today's yoof would say: are Protestant nuns even a thing?) —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the article, Nun. Also, there's Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary for an example of Protestant nuns.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether 'most' protestant clergy are married, but at least in the Church of England the idea of the Vicar's wife - as someone who generally helps out and does Good Works around the parish - is, or used to be, a familiar trope, and I think it was sort of expected that Vicars would be married. There are some examples in the Jeeves stories of curates wanting to marry but being unable to afford to until they have a living - in particular the long-running saga of The Rev. Harold 'Stinker' Pinker and Stephanie 'Stiffy' Byng. (WP:OR: my sister is married to a (retired) vicar, but it was a second marriage for both of them, and she never really fitted the standard pattern.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed under Nun#Protestantism, Section 2.3.1 Anglicanism, some categories of religious communities containing people who might or might not be called 'nuns' preclude marriage due to the requirement for a vow of celibacy [which presumably is in contradiction to portions of conventional Marriage vows), while others do not and permit it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our male Anglican priest is in a Civil Partnership. And the other half "generally helps out and does Good Works around the parish". How very modern. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Clerical marriage. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why Catholicism is mentioned in the title but not the question. In any case, married Lutheran priests who convert to Catholicism have been ordained as priests since WWII, and more recently married Episcopalian ministers have been granted this exception. And Catholic ≠ Roman Catholic. Byzantine Rite Catholics who are married may become priests, but they may not marry if they undergo ordination first. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Pastoral Provision#Married priests. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran priests do not exist; same with most protestant denominations. Luther and the other reformers rejected the concept of a Christian priesthood (apart from the priesthood of all believers). - Lindert (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that Apostolic succession#Lutheran claims to apostolic succession and the Porvoo Communion? 92.27.49.50 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article is talking about the succession of bishops, which has nothing to do with the priesthood. The latter is connected to the sacrifice of the mass, whereas protestants do not view the sacrament as a sacrifice. The title 'bishop' (from Greek episcopos) means overseer, that is a leader/pastor/elder in the church. - Lindert (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans are familiar with the reference to "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" which is part of the Communion service. The word "priest" is from the Latin praepositus, which means "person placed in charge". The article cited says:

The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (LEPC) were some of the earliest Lutherans in America. They have autonomous and congregationally oriented ministries and consecrate male and female deacons, priests and bishops in apostolic succession with the laying on of hands during celebration of Word and Sacrament.

There is controversy over whether the offices of bishop and priest were separate in the early Church or simply alternative names for the same function [1]. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that Anglicanism retains many worship elements from Roman Catholicism. That's why Anglicanism is sometimes described as being somewhere between Protestantism and Catholisism.

The origin of the word priest is not from Latin 'praepositus', but from the Greek word 'presbyteros'. However the etymology is somewhat misleading because modern usage equates 'priests' with people who offer sacrifices on behalf of the common people, as the descendants of Aaron did, even though the Greek word does not actually mean that.

If you look at the LEPC's website, you'll find that they use the word 'priest' only in a universal sense: ("All are called as a royal priesthood.") and do not use it to describe a specific church office: ("Men and women may serve as deacons, overseers, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelist ..."). - Lindert (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese and effing Crackers. This is mere semantic point scoring. The Anglicans ordain priestesses. So what!?!?! μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Anglicanism has diversity built into it, a consequence of the Elizabethan Settlement. Those on the Evangelical wing would use "minister" or "clergyman", whereas those on the Anglo-Catholic wing insist on "priest". The in-between Broad Church has increasingly used "priest" over the last century or so, but some still don't. Words are sometimes important. Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How big is the Wikipedia Cabal? Need to know answer for news report on channel 4, tonight at 11

Not a reference desk question.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I am writing a fearless expose on the secret Wikipedia Cabal which, I am told by my sources, rules this place with an iron-fist. How many individuals are in this top-secret cabal? Would any survivors or political dissidents be willing to share their stories? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B10F:CF21:B8D3:599C:4C7E:5E31 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite happy to tell you all. But then I might have to kill you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're a long ways from April Fools Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago i visited an admin i know at his home and he was chatting with someone called "skyorg", "skygov" or alike (something with sky) about the cooperation with google. The admin also asked about some place in a "bunker". When i asked he said that these all where secret encoded names for internal use in server security staff. He was steward or something he said. No idea what that was but when we smoked some pot later he mumbled something about the boss was always online. Guess its only one person at the top called sky-something. --Kharon (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I heard something like that too, I think it was net, but unfortunately they quickly terminated the conversation as I came in. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a category on Wikimedia Commons commons:Category:Wikipedia Cabal, but most of the images are French Wikipedia in-jokes... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:SCREW Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (list of the cabals which dominate Wikipedia), which is "kept because it is considered humorous". —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C11B:49D1:9CF3:5784 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Pistorius's resentencing permissable under South African Law

How come that Pistorius sentence can be increased? Don't they have a double jeopardy clause in South Africa? After all, it's a western country, that surely would have a strong influence from European jurisprudence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.96.85 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the sentence is permitted in America, as noted in the Double Jeopardy Clause article. And not all western nations disallow double jeopardy. Italy, for example, re-tried Amanda Knox after she was found not guilty the first time around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Knox case is not really an example of double jeopardy not existing. Italy, like France, merely allows the prosecution as well as the defendant to appeal a sentence. Double jeopardy is forbidden when no appeal is possible (anymore). Regards So Why 11:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the England or Wales, it is possible to appeal to the Attorney General’s Office if it is believed that the original sentence was "unduly lenient". Anyone can ask for a sentence to be reviewed, they don’t have to be involved in the case. If the application is found to be warranted, it is passed to the Court of Appeal for consideration. See Ask for a Crown Court sentence to be reviewed. It's not a retrial, just a review of the decision making which led to the original sentence. This is an innovation of the last few decades, exactly when it was introduced eludes me at present. The South African system seems to be similar in this respect, although Law of South Africa shows that it is markedly different from the English system in other respects. Alansplodge (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can get a reference to the relevant SA law or constitutional clause that covers this, rather than comments about America, Italy, England and Wales? μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks about other countries are relevant to the "After all..." part of the original question. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Pistorius was not simply resentenced. As explained in our article, "the Appeal Court overturned the culpable homicide verdict and convicted him of murder". He was then re/sentenced for the new conviction. This sentence was then extended by the Supreme Court of Appeal. As to whether South Africa has a double jeopardy clause, not that surprising, Our Double jeopardy#South Africa has the part of the South African constitution that deals with this. As to how this relates to Oscar Pistorius, you can see some commentary here [2] [3] [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 16:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the "double jeopardy" rule to be that once acquitted of an offence you could not be put on trial again in respect of the same matters. This was recently changed following the murder of Stephen Lawrence Double jeopardy#Post-2003. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The double-jeopardy clause was written into the US Constitution to prevent that kind of thing. "Don't get a guilty verdict? No problem. Just re-try them!" No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that if the jury simply fails to agree the defendant can be re - tried later. If the judge asks them to return a formal verdict of "not guilty" then you have problems. Scottish law has a third option, "not proven", but I doubt if the defendant could be retried there after such a verdict. In civil cases, an issue can be re - litigated if the judgment was given without going into the merits. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, if no verdict is reached, then it's still an open case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]