Talk:List of Catholic clergy scientists

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

Merger[edit]

I am in the process of doing a major reorganization of the following three articles: List of Catholic cleric-scientists, List of Catholic scientists, and List of Jesuit scientists. The first two have received new names: List of Catholic churchmen-scientists and List of Lay Catholic scientists, respectively. Previously, there were numerous individuals contained on both of those lists; now, the lists are mutually exclusive (after a major edit of the newly named List of Lay Catholic scientists.

The next major task is merging the List of Jesuit scientists into this List of Catholic churchmen-scientists, since about 90% of the Jesuits on the former were already included here. I just completed carefully moving over the remaining information (new scientists, extending descriptions) so that the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists is complete (the names of fictional Jesuits have not been moved, however). I am about to go through the steps to merge the articles. Akasseb (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.

Because of the similarity of the articles in question, the merger discussion (open for 3 years and running) actually took place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Lay_Catholic_scientists. Please join in on the discussion there. You will see that it appears a consensus has formed around merging articles. Since it is best to merge incrementally, for now the merger would entail the List of Jesuit scientists being merged into the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists. At some time in the future, a new discussion could take place about the prudence of merging the new List of Catholic churchmen-scientists into the List of Lay Catholic scientists. For now, the first merger is progress for Wikipedia.Akasseb (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After an open discussion during which consensus was established, the List of Jesuit scientists has again been merged into the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists. See Talk:List of Lay Catholic scientists and Talk:List of Jesuit ScientistsAkasseb (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Catholic churchmen-scientists which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the edit that reverted then name back to List of Catholic cleric-scientists. This page was renamed List of Catholic churchmen-scientists on August 17, 2017 in order to have more precise terminology. According the Canon Law, a cleric belongs to to the three-fold orders only: deacon, priest, or bishop. Here is the text listed as the first reference: "This list includes priests, bishops (including popes), deacons, monks, abbots, and those who received minor orders in the Church." Those in minor orders are not clerics; monks and abbots are not necessarily clerics either (nor are the religious brothers on the list). Therefore, appropriate terminology is required. All of the individuals on the list are churchmen, and that is why the name was changed.Akasseb (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RM discussion in question was mistakenly placed on a redirect page, and the move has happened anyway. If you want to move it back to List of Catholic churchmen-scientists, you'll need to open a proper WP:RM discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 November 2017[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of Catholic clergy scientists.There is a valid consensus to move and the target title has the highest degree of local consensus. Winged Blades Godric 12:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic churchmen-scientists → List of Catholic cleric-scientists – In its first footnote, the article defines its scope as follows: "This list includes priests, bishops (including popes), deacons, monks, abbots, and those who received minor orders in the Church". Given the ambiguity of the term churchmen, the article should be moved, thus bringing it in line with its correspondent category. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Mahveotm (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as more WP:CONCISE and gender-neutral (there have surely been some nun-scientists).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC) I'm now supporting an alternative proposal below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current name: List of Catholic churchmen-scientists According the Canon Law, a cleric belongs to to the three-fold orders only: deacon, priest, or bishop. Here is the text listed as the first reference on the page: "This list includes priests, bishops (including popes), deacons, monks, abbots, and those who received minor orders in the Church." Those in minor orders are not clerics; monks and abbots are not necessarily clerics either (nor are the religious brothers on the list). Therefore, appropriate terminology is required. All of the individuals on the list are churchmen, however. Religious sisters and nuns are part of the laity according to Canon Law. Thus, several religious sisters are found at List of Lay Catholic scientists.Akasseb (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for members of minor orders not canonically being clergymen, Akasseb? The term clerici minores (minor clergy) is used by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which is the codification used by the twenty-three Eastern Catholic churches. In the twenty-fourth sui iuris autonomous particular church – the Latin Church – they have not made use of minor orders since 1972; however, when we look at the pre-1972 codification of Latin canon law, it also used the term clerici minores throughout. In fact, not only are those ordained to the minor orders clergymen, canon law recognizes anyone who has received the clerical tonsure as a cleric. — 142.160.131.202 05:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
My source is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which abrogated the 1917 code. Can. 588§2: "That institute is called clerical which, by reason of the purpose or design intended by the founder or by virtue of legitimate tradition, is under the direction of clerics, assumes the exercise of sacred orders, and is recognized as such by the authority of the Church." Can. 266 §1 identifies when someone enters the clerical state: "Through the reception of the diaconate, a person becomes a cleric and is incardinated in the particular church or personal prelature for whose service he has been advanced."Akasseb (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Akasseb: The 1983 code presumes that men in the Latin Church will no longer be ordained to the minor orders and that the tonsure is abolished. I see nothing that retroactively removes minor clergy (or other men who have received the clerical tonsure), be they dead or alive, from the clerical state. And note that it does not say that entry into the diaconate is the only means of entry into the clerical state. So on what basis can that be applied ex post facto to historical discussions of those ordained pre-1972?
Additionally, how is that relevant with respect to Eastern Catholic minor clergy, to whom the 1983 code doesn't apply as they use the previously cited Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (which came into force in 1991) which still refers to clerici minores? This isn't merely an historical issue with respect to the Eastern churches as they still ordain men to the minor orders. So as well as being ahistorical, the argument you're making is entirely Western-centric. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to male members of religious institutes who are not in holy orders, I fail to see why they should be within the scope of the article. I can't find any source – reliable or otherwise – that refers to the term "churchmen-scientists". And why would we have a list whose scope would wholly encompass that of List of Lay Catholic scientists, to which you make reference? The term churchmen includes laypeople. — 142.160.131.202 05:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
I would like to point you to the three-volume series by James J. Walsh entitled Catholic Churchmen in Science; in an emphasis to be consise, the term churchmen-scientists accomplishes nearly the same thing; I would be open, however, to renaming the article List of Catholic churchmen in science (although brevity is usually better)Akasseb (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While they are "churchmen in science", that is not a use of your contrived term churchmen-scientists, so that hardly seems relevant. And that doesn't address the question: why would we have a list whose scope would wholly encompass that of List of Lay Catholic scientists, to which you make reference? The term churchmen includes laypeople. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, regarding women religious, I don't see any in the article, so I fail to see why that is applicable. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish mentioned "nun-scientists" above; for this reason, I mentioned that religious sisters are included in the List of lay Catholic scientistsAkasseb (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. And I imagine that SMcCandlish's inclusion of nuns within the class of clergy was just an oversight. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't aware of the separate article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to that phrasing being used anywhere (both in and outside of Wikipedia). Would you be in support of the proposed move as a second choice? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Is that grammatical? The word clergy is normally a collective noun (like staff), in contrast to clergyman. For definitions of the word related to "The clerical estate or order = modern French clergé", the Oxford English Dictionary provides the following:

†1. The estate or office of a cleric or clerk (in ecclesiastical orders); the clerical office. Obs. [obsolete]

2. concr. The clerical order; the body of men set apart by ordination for religious service in the Christian church; opposed to laity. Sometimes, in popular speech, used of the ordinary clergy as distinguished from bishops, etc., as in ‘the bishop met the clergy of his diocese’. Originally a term of the Catholic church, but also commonly used in those Protestant churches which have an ordained ministry. (As with similar terms, its application is often made a matter of principle.)

a. construed as collective plural.

b. as collect. sing.

c. rarely, as numeral pl. = clergymen.

†d. In the last sense, clergies was formerly used.

e. Used of all members of religious orders.

f. regular clergy, secular clergy: see regular adj. 1a, secular adj. 1a.

†3. transf. The priestly order in the Jewish and other non-Christian religions. Obs.

4. As a rendering of Greek κλήρος, and of κλήρων in 1 Pet. v. 3; see quots.

Oughtn't we be using either an adjective or a singular count noun, as one would in the construction importer-exporters? I suppose we could use clergyman-scientists which is identical in its meaning to cleric-scientists (at least provided you're dealing with an all-male clergy [which we are], as some would argue there to be a fine distinction otherwise), but I don't see why we wouldn't use the latter for the sake of conciseness. Additionally, the term clergy scientists isn't one I can find reference to in or outside of Wikipedia. While we needn't blindly follow the majority of reliable sources in matters of style, surely we should be using a term used by at least one reliable source (if not more than one). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've answered your own question with "The word clergy is normally a collective noun (like staff)": there's nothing faintly ungrammatical about "List of Microsoft staff attorneys".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't begin to address While we needn't blindly follow the majority of reliable sources in matters of style, surely we should be using a term used by at least one reliable source (if not more than one). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Why do you prefer the contrived term clergy scientists to cleric-scientists, bearing in mind that there is no difference in the scope of the terms cleric and clergy. Additionally, am I correct in inferring that you would support the original proposal as a second choice? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would. I support it, because an argument's being made that "cleric" has a special meaning in the context, but I'm not seeing the same argument being made about "clergy". At some point we may have to just arbitrarily decide "whatever name we pick, it means what it means in everyday English, not a special sense you probably don't know unless you have a DD degree". And clarify the list inclusion criteria in the lead to make this clear. In the end, I don't care much, other than "churchmen" is awkward, strange, and lengthy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from your second sentence, I agree entirely. The main issue here is with respect to the scope of the article and, secondarily, we need a name that is understandable and that isn't as awkward as churchmen-scientists.
But I think you might be misunderstanding the discussion I had with Akasseb (who I have yet to hear back from). As a quick background, the Roman Catholic Church is made up of 24 sui iuris autonomous particular churches: the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic churches. (Around 95% of Roman Catholics are members of the Latin Church, so the eastern churches tend to get forgotten.) In the Roman Catholic view, there's evidence of ordination to minor orders as far back as the second or third century and ordination to the minor orders (namely, in the west, the acolytate, the order of exorcists [I'm not sure if there's another word for that], the lectorate, and the ostiariate) in both the east and west continued until 1972. That was when the ordination to minor orders was abolished in the Latin Church. Minor clergy continue to be ordained in the Eastern Catholic churches.
The use of the term clergy/cleric in reference to those in minor orders (as well as anyone who has received the clerical tonsure, for that matter, which is prerequisite to ordination to a minor order) is recognized by canon law. But moreover, this isn't an obscure use of the terminology used only by canonists or something – it's in common use. Its use in this way isn't controversial and what Akasseb is saying isn't a minority opinion; it's not an argument I've ever heard made before and I doubt it's an argument that's ever been made before as it's objectively untrue. The fact that the Latin Church's current canon law codification says that entry to the clerical state is through ordination to the diaconate (the lowest of what were the major orders) is irrelevant. Of course that's the only way to enter the clerical state since the abolition of clerical tonsure and the minor orders. And there's a reason why the term clergy/cleric was used in the previous (pre-1972) codification of Latin canon law as well as the current codification of Eastern Catholic canon law.
Most importantly (tl;dr:), if I understand Akasseb correctly – and I'm quite confident that I do – the use of clergy rather than cleric would not alleviate any of their (unsubstantiated) concerns, given that the terms both refer to people in the clerical state. And my largest concern with clergy is the same as your concern with churchmen – it sounds incredibly awkward. That's surely why I can't find any reference to the term clergy scientists outside of this very webpage. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the main proposal as it sounds less awkward than the alternative proposal, but I also have no issue with the alternative as a second choice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why shuold this be an articke in wikipedia? this is nothing but a PR stunt for catholicism. If there should be a list of scientist then that is ok. but what is the use of a list of science-minded persons that happened to be catholics??0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.34.248.66 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists&oldid=1210106862"