Talk:Catholic laity

"Religious" vs "Laity"?

The intro mentions that the members of the Catholic Hierarchy are responsible for the care and feeding of the "clergy, religious, and laity". I guess "clergy" refers to church officials who are not in the top 3 ranks, and "laity" refers to people who have no official position in the church, but who are the "religious"? I think this should be clarified for readers such as myself who are not familiar with Catholic terminology. 138.16.18.24 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm attempting to clean up some of the NPOV issues. Read a bit like an extended essay earlier, and the sections on the CIC are pretty dense/copy and paste. If anyone wants to put back in some of the content I've removed, I don't object. Just trying to get started her on making it more concise and readable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to carry forward your efforts and also done copy editing. I find the article quite objective and factual at this point and so am removing the NPOV tag. If someone restores it I would ask them to please point out where they find that the article is not objective. One could write a whole disquisition on the priesthood from a pre-Vatican II perspective, but this article is less a historical study than an explanation of the situation of the laity in the contemporary Catholic Church. Jzsj (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Catholic laity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727041154/http://www.zenit.org:80/rssenglish-29058 to http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-29058
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424032207/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_pro_17031998_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_pro_17031998_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150625142206/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220062727/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220062727/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge

There has been a proposed merge of this article with Catholic lay organisations by Chicbyaccident. I'm creating a discussion thread here. So that it can be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is in serious need of cleanup (I started earlier and need to get back to it), but I don't think a merger would help. Really, what should happen in my opinion is that Catholic lay organisations be moved to List of Catholic lay organisations and expanded and this article be cleaned up to not be a POV essay about how the Catholic hierarchy sucks, and instead be about the lay state in Catholic theology/cannon law. I'd also be willing to suggest a WP:TNT PROD on Catholic lay organisations. Its in bad shape too, is meant to be a list and doesn't really have all that many orgs on there compared to the probably thousands of lay orgs, and hasn't had much more than minor editting here and there since 2007. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment You mean there should be no criticism on Catholic theology and cannon law? That is not NPOV. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No, of course there can be coverage of it in an encylopedia so long as it is not given undue weight and an article about the topic isn't written in such a way as to emphasize the criticism rather than to actually explain the concepts covered. My issue with this article is that if you look through the history, it was pretty clearly written from the POV that the laity should have more influence in the Catholic Church than they currently do. It even uses scare quotes at one point. It presents the lay state as simply being reduced to cannonical rights and duties that are often in tension with the rights and duties of the clergy. That is a legitimate POV, but it is also clearly a POV that is far from neutral. What it should strive to do is describe neutrally the Catholic Church's theology on the at state, and provide a balanced discussion of criticism of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. The recent movement/editing/deleting on articles related to lay ecclesial movements has been kind of a disaster. Lay ecclesial movements are a specific subset of lay organizations [1] and their role and influence in the 20th century Catholic Church was quite important, especially in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Lay ecclesial movement, being a Catholic theology term, and Roman Catholic lay ecclesial movement should point to the same thing/place. Lay ecclesial movement redirects only somewhat reasonably to Associations of the faithful. I would have strongly opposed elimination of the category for lay ecclesial movements if I had seen that debate.--Jahaza (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What I think should happen here is that Catholic lay organisations should move to List of Roman Catholic lay ecclesial movements based on the content and history of that article, Lay ecclesial movement should become an article on that concept specifically, Associations of the faithful should link to that article internally and vice versa (since they're inter-related, but different concepts).--Jahaza (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)