Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular clergy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm invoking WP:SNOW here as there are no editors advocating deletion but the nominator and the lengthy discussion seems to have had no impact on influencing anyone's opinion on the matter. Further, I have respect for those advocating to Keep this article and they have gone to great lengths to muster arguments and found numerous sources to support their opinion on whether or not this article should be kept in the project. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Secular clergy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)


 * Delete: This seems an oxymoron. Secular priests? There are diocesan priests, but they are still fully ordained by the Church and are called priests and are allowed to carry out all the sacraments such as consecrating the Host for communion. Lay persons are allowed to distribute the consecrated host at Mass, but they are never considered "secular priest. This seems nothing more than a WP:Hoax article? The sources do not support the claims in the article. Bodding (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)}}}
 * Keep. The topic is notable. "seems an oxymoron" is not a reason for deletion – Wikipedia has an article on Military intelligence.  Maproom (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not my reason for deletion. And yes, military intelligence might seem an oxymoron, but it is real with real secondary sources to support it. My reason here is that there is no such thing as "secular clergy" and I have good reason to believe this article is a hoax. If you think it's 'notable' please provide the necessaryWP:RS secondary sources that say the term refers to ordained members of the clergy. There are no independent sources that support the term 'secular clergy' nor do they describe, identify the titles or duties of this so-called secular clergy. A member of the lay ministry is never a member of the clergy anymore than an altar server would be. Clergy are ordained priests, especially given that none of the sources provided in the article mention such a category. Bodding (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very well-known term and the nominating editor should retract this AfD that runs against guidelines for such nominations. They should also maybe take a look at WP:CIR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * From the front page of googling "secular clergy": Catholic Encyclopedia, a book from your alma mater, Catholic Answers. Please retract this AfD and realize the massive WP:BEFORE error here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, sorry the sources you are quoting are not reliable, secondary sources. Show me a source from the National Catholic Register, or the New York Times religion section, or some other actual bonafide source. Homemade websites are not reliable. Bodding (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're joking or what. Catholic Encyclopedia is such a reliable source that it became the basis for a task force wherein as much content from it was transferred to Wikipedia. Another source is quite literally published by Oxford University Press, the premier academic publisher. In any case, if you're so intent on NYT sources: here. Seriously, this is about the worst AfD I've seen. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this AfD is going to collapse either way, this is the last I'll mention it. However, here, have a source completely divorced for a Catholic-managed institution (as though OUP was not enough). Oh, and here is a source from the Episcopal Church (the American one, not the Scottish one). Next time you nominate, please Google the term first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One need not even Google, but merely click the links in the "Find sources AFD" template to see that the term is not a hoax and refers to what we say it does. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Pbritti. The nomination is a classic example of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am a Catholic diocesan priest and the technical term is, in fact, "secular clergy." It is not a hoax. I'm happy to provide proof of ordination if that would help. Other proof of the term is seen at the Catholic Encyclopedia here and is present in Catholic canon law number of times as seen here. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 00:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And I can put up a website that focuses on Catholicism and even call it a dot org, that doesn't make it a reliable source. Show me an independent source like The National Catholic Register or the New York Times religion section. That is fact checked and reliable. The term clergy is reserved for ordained priests. The laity, even the Lay ministers are never part of the clergy any more than altar servers are. They compliment the clergy they are not themselves ordained snd are not referred to as clergy. As in, Joe is a member of the lay ministry.' Lay ministry is the term used, not clergy. A diocesan priest is not a member of the secular community. He is a member of the clergy in the Catholic Church. Whether they live in a rectory or are wealthy enough to have their own homes, they are always and forever members of the Catholic clergy. They are never called 'secular clergy. Monks and nuns are called 'religious.' Monks are still ordained and are members of the Catholic clergy. John Paul II was as much a member of the clergy as Padre Pio a Capuchin monk. Neither was called secular. Bodding (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * John Paul II was a member of the secular clergy. The distinction between types clergy is secular and religious; religious meaning those who are in a religious order and taken vows and commonly live in a monastic cloister, and secular those who have not taken such vows and "live in the world". Being "secular" has nothing to do with the lay state in this context. As a diocesan priest, I am a member of the secular clergy. John Paul II, as a cleric of the Archdiocese of Krakow, was a member of the secular clergy. Padre Pio, as a vowed Franciscan, was a member of the religious clergy. here are a few peer-reviewed articles that talk about secular clergy in such a way - as well as the aforementioned church law that uses the term. You're simply incorrect. Words can be used in equivocal ways, and "secular," while in the context of people in general would perhaps mean a layperson, in the context of "clergy" means a clergyman who has not taken monastic vows. It is the technical term in this usage and is correct. I'm sorry. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * John Paul II was a diocesan priest. That's what this article should be about. The differences between religious groups that are independent and diocesan priests that go to seminary. This term and very poor quality of this article, the total lack of reliable sources, should in itself have it deleted. At the very least, it should be moved to a the more inclusive diocesan term and the current edits that totally lack reliable sources should be removed. The article is littered with notices to that effect. Don't argue for the sake of arguing. Show me a reliable source and not the websites that anybody can put up. Bonafide published articles about the subject. A diocesan priest goes to seminary, he is Ordained into the priest, he does take vows of celibacy. He does not live in a community like monks. He lives at the rectory of his parish church where he is assigned by the Archdiocese. That should all be explained, but it is not. The title is misleading. You are describing a slang term more than an actual official title. Diocesan clergy, not secular clergy. Bodding (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My brother in Christ, I have now twice linked you to the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law which clearly uses the term in a technical manner. Not slang. I have also linked three peer-reviewed articles, two from JSTOR, that use the term. The fact that you would say a phrase like "religious groups that are independent and diocesan priests that go to seminary" that is frankly nonsensical or state that a diocesan priest takes "vows" (which only religious priests do) shows you're out of your element when discussing this topic. There are also secular clergy who are not diocesan; such as the members of Opus Dei (cf. Code of Canon Law 294, regarding personal prelatures and secular clergy). Swallow your pride. You're incorrect. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We've now linked to a number of reliable sources. It is not a slang term when the world's premier publishers use the term. Yes, "diocesan" priest is very common today, but that doesn't mean "secular" clergy or priest is incorrect. --Johnnygoesmarchinghome (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Johnnygoesmarchinghome Talk


 * Keep. The topic is notable. The Catholic Encyclopedia is considered a reliable source, at least up until the date of publication for certain things, and it is one of the few (public-domain) sources which can be cited easily. Lay ministry really doesn't have anything to do with the term used for the secular clergy, in opposition to the regular clergy, who follow a rule (regular comes from "regula" in Latin, meaning "rule"). from Brill a major publisher of late antique and medieval scholarship, also from Brill, from CUP, from OUP, this is a classic in the field of medieval studies, another peer-reviewed article from a CUP-published journal hereJohnnygoesmarchinghome Talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They all follow rules. Diocesan priests must take vows of celibacy, just like monks. Diocesan priests are under the aegis of the Vatican. and are considered official members of the clergy. Whereas, "religious" are independent. If anybody is secular it's them. They must seek approval to function. They all take vows, they all adhere to rules, and they are all ordained. I think the confusion is with the Lay ministry, and not the priesthood. They all must be celibate, take vows, recognize the Pope and adhere to the oversight of the Vatican. A man who goes to the seminary and is ordained is automatically under the aegis of the Catholic Church. All religious, on the other hand, must seek that approval to form and maintain their collectives and must adhere to the rules of the Catholic Church, just like the Diocesan priests. Bodding (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, not all diocesan priests must take a vow of celibacy. Previously married priests in the Latin Church and married secular Eastern Catholic priests are not bound by those regulations. Please, you are very, very wrong. Retract and move on or risk looking worse. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Married men who seek entry to the priesthood are the exception. If they enter the priesthood as single men, they must remain single and celibate. It is not the practice of the Church to seek married men, but it will make an exception for them under certain circumstances. Bodding (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Secular clergy make promises of simplicity, celibacy, and obedience. Religious take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. There is a difference both in the action (promise vs. vow) and the content of the action (celibacy vs. chastity, simplicity vs. poverty). The fundamental difference between secular clergy and religious clergy is that secular clergy do not make vows and are not "in religion." Moreover, religious priests are just as much "official members of the clergy" and under the "aegis of the Vatican" as I am. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 03:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, it is way off-topic, considering you're not even engaging with the...ten-ish sources you've been given. But, to humor you, yes: the Catholic Church does seek married men for vocations to the secular priesthood. The Eastern Churches will seek them out, and so will the personal ordinariates for former Anglicans (yet another instance where "secular" rather than "diocesan" is the appropriate term for the clergy) ~ Pbritti 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Try as you might to demean me with the Twitter insult and now you're going to "humor me," does not deflect from the fact that I've been nothing but civil and have consistently presented explanations. I've also offered a solution in simply moving the page to Diocesan priest and adding in reliable sources to the term. In Canon Law, I can find no specific reference to 'secular regulars' or "canon secular." Religious are a very different class and the article could become the difference between the two. The use of 'secular' could be stated as "Diocesan priests, also referred to as 'secular clergy,' with the Canon law reference for the use of that term. Bodding (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bodding Not all religious are ordained, such as religious brothers and sisters (frequently called monks and nuns in common parlance). The comments on this page so far have used the word "Diocesan" 18 times but there is not an article for "Diocesan priests" because the correct term is "Secular Clergy" Ante annum (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "religious" refers to monks and sisters. The sisters are not ordained, but they do indeed take vows. and yes, Monks are ordained. All of them. Max Kolbe, Padre Pio, to name two. All took the vows of celibacy, all were granted the right to consecrate the Host, conduct the Mass, hear confessions and absolve sins, and all may administer the sacraments of the Church including baptism, first holy communion, confirmation, and weddings. Sisters are granted permission, just like monks. to form a collective and follow the rules of the Catholic Church. They all honor the vow of celibacy. Bodding (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No, not all monks: they're called "lay brothers." You clearly do not understand this topic as much as you believe you do. Please, just accept that. We want to have you edit productively on here, but your comments here are incorrect and contribute to a deleterious understanding of Christian clerical groupings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they are married men and may not live at the monastery. They can remain in their homes. I've met several lay Capuchin brothers but that is an entirely different class of relgious. Do not conflate religious with diocesan. They are separate. Bodding (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are still (very) wrong, see lay Carmelite monks here. You have not been civil in the way you think you have. Instead of actually examining sources, you've wasted time by proposing a delete on the basis that this was a hoax. Instead of admitting the error, you doubled- and tripled-down and ignored the sources three editors provided that demonstrated this is a more encompassing term than "diocesan priests" once you started trying to change the topic to that. This will be my last message on the topic. Please, consider letting this loss go. ~ 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Carmelites do not receive Holy Orders and are not ordained. This is not a legitimate equivalency to other lay brothers as the Carmelites are not married with families. They are single men and they are cloistered. This is a very different type of "lay monk." Being cloistered, their lives on centered on prayer, not administering the sacraments, thus they do not receive Holy Orders. Bodding (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. Carmelites are monks who many are not ordained (some are). You just said that all monks are ordained. You are out of your element in talking about this, I am sorry. here, once again, is the Code of Canon Law explicitly referencing secular clerics. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 04:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note, Carmelite Lay Monks are an entirely different class as they are cloistered. They do not administer the sacraments and are NOT ordained as they are not monks like the Capuchins who do receive Holy Orders. As I said, they do not represent an equivalency. Bodding (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Could someone please just close this? Bodding, would you be able to withdraw the nomination? StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to let it stand for now without personal attacks and more constructive commentary. Bodding (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has made any personal attacks, but has merely pointed out that you are mistaken. And the only person who has not been constructive is you, because you have refused to accept the evidence of independent reliable sources. I have learnt something from this discussion. You could too if you stopped stubbornly clinging to your prior beliefs. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The distinction between secular clergy and regular clergy is well known and often referred to in works that have occasion to discuss particular priests or monks. The nominator seems to have misunderstood the meaning of secular in this context; see definition 3 of the adjective at Wiktionary. Deor (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I haven't misunderstood. I'm simply referring to the commonly used terms Diocesan and Religious where the former attend seminaries under the aegis of the Archdiocese. They become priests after a time of post-graduate service as a deacon in a parish. They are typically assigned to the area under that Archdiocese can be moved to any other Archdiocese if needs are greater there or there is a legal issue pending that requires removal.


 * Where as religious have formed their own group known as an Order without any direct oversight by an Archdiocese. But after a time, must petition to be recognized in order that they may receive Holy Orders and be ordained as priests. However, as was earlier pointed out, some Religious prefer to serve as lay brothers because they seek to become cloistered and live a life of prayer. Sisters are always considered Religious and form their order, and are approved, in the same way. Each of the orders has stages one must pass through before final vows can be taken. Sisters also take Holy vows to serve and remain celibate. All groups, Diocesan and Religious, remain single and celibate. However, devout married men and widowed women may also join the Orders. Married men typically seek to be Diocesan for practical purposes. Bodding (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You were misunderstading the meaning of secular, as you nomination statement and your reply to Maproom (the first "keep" registered above) indicate. Deor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If your issue is "I'm simply referring to the commonly used terms Diocesan and Religious," then you you seem to be suggesting the title be changed to "diocesan clergy." If that is what you are suggesting, the debate might be close as "diocesan" seems more common is informal parlance while "secular" is the more formal term. Right now "diocesan clergy" and "diocesan priest" redirect to "secular clergy." However, given that hundreds of thousands of people around the world have the official job title of "secular clergy," seems to be a non-starter as far as notability as that is so obviously notable as to be ridiculous. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This is so evidently notable given the references above and the hundreds of thousands of people with this job title. Also, in his last comment user:Bodding seemed to suggest what is looking for is a name change to "diocesan clergy": although I think "secular clergy" is likely still best, that is a much more reasonable suggestion as that term is often used & is currently a redirect. If he wants to do that, he should withdraw this removal request and instead start a debate about a name change on its talk page about changing the name. I am a religious priest but I know secular priests too. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable and well-used term. 's request Show me a source from the National Catholic Register is an unreasonable standard and not supported by policy, but is nevertheless easily satisfied:
 * ... an effort to tamp down the acrimony between the secular clergy and the new mendicant orders
 * Today, Thomas Becket is among the best known medieval saints, and is venerated as protector of the secular clergy in England.
 * ... then the monks and friars, then the secular clergy, each wearing the insignia of their rank,...
 * CodeTalker (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - and I think I detect snow in June. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep A well-attested term ('first used in the 12th cent' - The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) One should note that 'secular' and 'spiritual' are neither opposites nor incompatible categories. -- Verbarson talkedits 09:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per all the above. Bodding, please just accept you're wrong on this one. This is a very old and valid term, whether you think it's weird terminology (and it is, obviously) or not. And claiming that sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia are not reliable is just ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.