Jump to content

Talk:J. G. MacManaway

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

Minister versus Priest

[edit]

I had changed the description of priest to a more appropriate one, considering the 'title' of a Church of Ireland clergyman is usually "Reverend", "Minister" and sometimes "Vicar" or "Rector". "Priest" is also used (though usually in official ceremonies and documents, and rarely by the layperson or congregation). In Northern Ireland specifically, the title of priest is generally reserved to specifically refer to Roman Catholic clergymen, in order to differentiate.

While the citation used by User:RodCrosby does specify MacManaway having been ordained "ordained a priest in 1925" and that he "had relinquished all his rights as a priest in the Church of Ireland", it also refers to him and other similar persons in the following regard: "clergy in the Church[..] of [..] Ireland"; "priests who have been ordained by a bishop"; "the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801"; "no similar disqualifications for ministers of other religions"; "the practical effect of the existing nineteenth century legislation outlined above falls on non-Church of England former episcopally ordained priests"; "all restrictions on ministers of religion standing as candidates"; "the Northern Ireland Assembly specifically excluded the disqualification of candidates who have been ordained or who are ministers"; "a person who has been ordained or who is a minister of any religious denomination"; "priests in the Church[..] of [..] Ireland"; "priests and ministers of the established churches to all episcopal ordinations" and "The provisions governing candidacy for the [..] Northern Ireland Assembly specifically state that there are no disqualifications on grounds of being or having been a priest. The phrase used [in the enactment] is: ‘he has been ordained or is a minister of any religious denomination’." etc etc.

Considering the common titles of clergy of the Church of Ireland, I had sought to rectify what I saw as an imbalance wherein the term "priest" had been overwhelmingly applied to MacManaway. The extracts of the House of Commons bill clearly show that Church of Ireland clergy are referred to as "ministers" and "clergy", as well as "priests", and I have stated above that CofI clergy are more commonly referred to using names other than "priest". The text of the bill clearly suggest that the terms "minister" and "priest" are interchangeable. As an aside, the bill also seems to indicate that the local provisions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, all make use of the word "minister" and not of the word "priest". To that end, it is my intention to now revert the latest revert by RodCrosby. However, the reference link to the House of Commons bill is a useful one for the article, and I'm going to attempt to include it. --Setanta747 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just a couple a thoughts, now you've finally decided to attempt to play by the rules and discuss matters... i) MacManaway's difficulty arose not from what he was "called", either in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, but from from what he was in law, and that was a priest... ii) You make a lot of assertions about what Church of Ireland clergy are "called", but that seems to be anecdotal to me, lacking any citations, and depends surely on the circumstances. As we know, in law MacManaway was a priest, so other designations are not relevant for the purpose of explaining his disqualification. iii) by zealously removing the word priest, you confuse the entire article, since not all clergymen or ministers were debarred at the time of MacManaway, or at all. E.g. Church of Scotland Ministers, Welsh Episcopalians, or Ian Paisey, who entered the Commons without difficulty in 1970. So changing "owing to his status as a priest" to "owing to his status as a clergyman" is simply inaccurate and very misleading. iv) I note your location, and while appreciating that such matters can be highly sensitive and contentious to people from Northern Ireland, facts are facts, and, rightly or wrongly, MacManaway was disqualified because he was deemed a priest, not because he was deemed a "minister." I sense your judgement is clouded in this matter because of personal feelings. Unfortunately, personal views and preferences have no place in Wikipedia. It would have been better to discuss all of this first before embarking upon a somewhat obsessive rooting-out of the word priest from this article. Your actions could be seen to be disruptive.
  • A compromise suggestion: I intend to revert the article back to its initial state, with the proper and appropriate use of the word priest. You are then free to add something about Church of Ireland clergy not normally being referred to as priests, hopefully with a citation. Please do not continue to revert or edit this article in an unencyclopaedic manner. RodCrosby (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, RodCrosby, do not play the blame game with me. I made an edit I hadn't thought would be, in any way, 'controversial' - so there was no need (or so I thought) to discuss it on the talk page. When I did, after I realised that my discussion via edit summaries wasn't enough to convince you of the situation with regard to the naming, I offered a fuller explanation here. There was no question of not "playing by the rules", and I'd thank you to not suggest that there wasn't.
You suggest that what he was in law was a priest. However, I have pointed out to you that in actual fact, he was also a minister. You make suggestions of anecdotal evidence, however, I wonder how likely it is that a person from Liverpool (since we're now "noting locations") has ever attended Church of Ireland services. Certainly, if such a person had done so, they would probably be just as informed on this matter as someone from Ireland. So anecdotal it may be, however, it remains the fact of the matter.
You make the assumption that my edits had confused the article. In fact, I had initially been confused when I read the article - thus my edits in the first place. I do take your point about the context of that particular sentence however, and I am prepared to take another look at the article.
I'd like to address your assumptions with regard to my residence, and assure you that "personal feelings" have nothing to do with it. I'd request, respectfully, that you refrain in future from trying to analyse me or my motivations on a personal level: invariably I would suggest that you will be wrong, as you have proven here.
Further more, on yet another personal attack, you suggest that I am being "obsessive". Far from it. Instead, I am actually (as I always do) attempting to inject some clarity. I could equally make accusations of your "zealous" and "obsessive" protection of the word priest, and make assumptions about your faith or politics etc. I haven't and I'd appreciate it if you kept thoughts like these to yourself. Yet another accusation in your edit summary, repeated here is that I have been "disruptive". And another accusation of an "un-encyclopaedic manner". Let me inform you that making all of these accusations and being so confrontational isn't very helpful. I could easily accuse you of disruption through intransigence, or of having an unencyclopaedic manner, for example. In these kinds of situations, you need to take a look at yourself, before you accuse others. Instead, let's concentrate on the issue at hand - I'm sure we can come up with a positive result.
As for a citation which verifies what I have said about CofI clergy being called "minister", I trust that eleven references, of both professional and 'local' usage, will suffice? I see no need to include the references in the body of the article, as it's not particularly pertinent to the actual subject...

--Setanta747 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry if I was too harsh on you. I admit at first glance the whole story of MacManaway's disqualification was very confusing to me also. I also admit that, while not being a member of the CofI myself, I too was somewhat confounded by his description as a priest! However, the Law sometimes does strange things, which to the layman are incomprehensible. I have some experience of the law, and so was not totally confounded by it. I would ask you to read the reference House of Commons(Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill, then read it again, and again, if necessary, like I had to in order to fully understand the logic behind the decision to disqualify MacManaway. Then please read the article as I edited it again. I think when you have done that I expect you will come to the conclusion that.. i) (whatever the rights and wrongs) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council came to the conclusion that MacManaway had been ordained a priest, by a Bishop, and that was the sole and critical reason for his disqualification under the 1801 Act. Not to make this crystal clear in the article, by substituting "minister", etc is to erase this critical legal point, and confuses the article completely, since some "ministers" have never had any bars against them. ii) You will also see I also refer to MacManaway as a "minister", "rector", "man of the cloth", "clergy[man]", and "reverend." In fact, I only refer to him as a "priest" in relation to his disqualification from the Commons, which I must do to retain the very legal distinction upon which his disqualification rested...
Ultimately, his disqualification was a complex matter of law, which had little relation to the realities of the mid 20th century. However, we must be careful not to gloss over the legal points. I thought I had tried to do my best in writing the article in being balanced and concise, while retaining the essential points. I'm sure you will make some constructive comments. RodCrosby (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your unreserved apology. To be honest, the only thing that initially confused me was the reference to him as a priest. I understood straight away though (after my initial confusion) exactly what the source you provided was suggesting. I'd be willing to bet that the legislature, as is often the case, was drawn up specifically with heavy English (and CofE) influence - there are far many more English people than others in the UK! ;) I also fully accept that even the CofI uses the term to describe their clergy. My concern was that each and every description wasn't "priest" because this isn't what they are commonly known as. I feel that the legislation was using the term priest as a catch-all.. and, strictly speaking, "priest", "minister" and "vicar" are all catch-alls that mean basically the same thing.
I understand completely the pride you have in any work you have created, and then some interloper comes along (me) and throws a spanner in the works! I haven't looked at the article since my last comment, but I certainly believe you have resolved our 'conflict'.. and I thank you for entertaining my concerns. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._G._MacManaway&oldid=1208673312"