Humanities desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

Golden Rule buyout in fiction

"In a Golden Rule buyout, the parties agree that in the event they disagree to such an extent that the company effectively cannot function, each partner can offer to buy the other out for a price determined by the offering partner. The other partner then has a period of time (usually thirty days) in which to do one of two things: he or she can either agree to the price and terms offered by the offering partner and sell their ownership stake, or he or she can turn around and buy the offering partner's stake in the company for the same price and terms that the offering partner proposed."[1]

Basically applying Divide and choose on a company.

I'm looking for works of fiction that contain a Golden Rule buyout between two partners, preferably as a major plot element. Dncsky (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Science Fiction suffice? Consider Irvine, A (2009) Buyout Del Ray --Senra (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question, "... the parties agree that ..." reminds me of Pratchett (2007) Making Money p. 9 where "Mr Blister the lawyer" was thinking that "[w]hen parties are interested in unprepossessing land, it might pay for smaller parties to buy up any neighbouring plots, just in case the party of the first part had heard something, possibly at a party" --Senra (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I love SF. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.Dncsky (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what was Robert Ludlum writing about when he died?

Our article says, "Ludlum died on March 12, 2001, at his home in Naples, Florida, whilst recovering from severe burns caused by a mysterious fire which occurred on February 10."

What was he writing about (at home) or working on at this time? --Curiouserandlesscurious (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific writers, as Ludlum was, are likely to have a few manuscripts in-progress at any one time. This article may answer your question: Sandomir, Richard (30 July 2007). "The Ludlum Conundrum: A Dead Novelist Provides New Thrills". NYT. Retrieved February 11, 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) --Senra (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this connected to some sort of conspiracy theory about the "mysterious fire" (THEY wanted to stop him writing about Area X etc)? Paul B (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing suggestion a "mysterious fire" is our very own wikipedia article! It doesn't sound very neutral - was that sentence added by a troll? At any rate, I'm not very interested in the mysteries behind the fire. I'd just like to know what main project Robert Ludlum was working on. Thanks!! Curiouserandlesscurious (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the New York Times article linked above, it seems that Ludlum was not one of those writers who works on one book, completes it, has it published, and then moves on to the next one. He had various projects at work at once, in various states of advancement. Many of these projects which were still incomplete at the time of his death have since been completed by others but published under Ludlum's name. Some of these projects may have been untouched by Ludlum for years before his death, however, lying among his papers somewhere. These books are distinct from new books featuring characters created by Ludlum, like the more recent installments of the Jason Bourne novels, which have been entirely written by other writers like Eric van Lustbader. --Xuxl (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "mysterious fire" seems to be sourced and appears to have been reported after Ludlum's death, as I cannot find it reported in his obituaries. See for example: Allen-Mills, Tony (21 February 2011). "The Robert Ludlum controversy: nephew raises questions about top thriller writer's death". The Australian. Retrieved February 11, 2013. Thirteen days after revising his will, Ludlum was sitting in a reclining armchair in his $US3 million beachfront apartment in Naples, Florida, when he suddenly became engulfed in flames. An ambulance was called and he was taken to hospital with serious burns {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Sounds like a clear-cut case of spontaneous human combustion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to "what was Robert Ludlum writing about when he died?", we may never really know. According to our article on The Sigma Protocol, published posthumously, it was "the last novel written completely by Robert Ludlum". His obituary by Williams, John (14 March 2001) of The Guardian reports "At the time of his death, his publishers were quick to announce that he had been working on several books, which they were going to continue to publish" and his obituary in The Telegraph (14 March 2001) says "He completed at least three books which have still to be published". You could try asking this question on one his his publisher's forums --Senra (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where can I sign up to be the next Pope?

the current pope is resigning, announced today, as of the end of the month.

assuming I'm an estranged pontiff who has been living in a distant village in Tibet and have had no contact with the modern world since 1962, but until that time was a catholic in good standing, and since that time have led a small (local) catholic revolution with what scarce materials were available to me... where would I sign up to be the next Pope? Assume I'm 76, and have a story such that anyone who reads it would say, "wow, this guy needs to be the next pope!" The question is about where such a person would sign up. Assume loss of contact with the vatican, so that contact would have to be made anew. Please be detailed, concise, and specific. This is not homework. --Totallynotaboutme (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the Pope article and see if it gets into the details of requirements or prerequisites for becoming the Pope. Given from the obvious fact that you would need to be elected by the College of Cardinals, unless you're a Cardinal yourself your odds are not good. You would probably need to start out as a priest and work your way up the ladder to Bishop and then Cardinal - all in the next 2 weeks. As an alternative, you could write to your favorite Cardinal and ask for advice. Hey, the worst they could do is say "Nay". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the exclusive means of becoming Pope is election by the College of Cardinals to fill the vacant seat, first of all, your remedy lies there. Obviously you'd have to have a member of the College of Cardinals of appropriate age (i.e., under 80) onside to boost your candidacy. After that, it's up to the College and the Holy Spirit. I recall a book, The Vicar of Christ with a similar theme, a man becomes pope although only a monk, but he has previously served in high secular office before retreating to a monastery after a personal tragedy, and is proposed by a cardinal who was impressed by him to a deadlocked College.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Gregory XVI. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the only formal requirements are that the candidate is catholic, and male. If a layman is elected, he will automatically be consecrated as a bishop. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz is right in terms of the formal qualifications. However, someone who is already a cardinal has a huge advantage, that of being known by the small caste of voters. For a candidate who is not a cardinal, he would either need someone to orchestrate a brilliant publicity campaign in his favor, or have an influential cardinal lobby on his behalf to other members of the College of Cardinals. A pretty long shot. And the question the Cardinals would ask is not "Does this guy 'need' to be Pope ?", but rather, "Is he the best person to be the next Pope ?" --Xuxl (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctions need to be made between what the rules say, and what is possible. The rules are what Stephan Schulz notes: The candidate for the papacy must be a catholic male in good standing. However, it is essentially impossible that the College of Cardinals would elevate someone to the Papacy who isn't themselves a well-respected member of their own number with leadership experience within the Catholic church. There's no reason for the Conclave to look outside of that for its leader, and while there are any number of likely candidates, all of them are Cardinals, and all hold major positions within the Catholic hierarchy, either as important leaders of major diocese or archdiocese, or as administrators within the structure of the Vatican itself. Considering that some Joe Shmoe from some local catholic parish somewhere would be elected Pope is just silly. --Jayron32 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Marco Polo's Pope, Gregory X, was one of the last to be selected without being a bishop or cardinal... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much more recent than that. It was Pope Gregory XVI in the 19th century, still he was both a priest and an abbot and had been vicar general of the Camaldolese order and had been one of the chief missionaries and inquisitors within the church; so he had demonstrated the sort of leadership that candidates for Pope expect to show. --Jayron32 18:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's article, as well as the Catholic Encyclopedia, Gregory XVI was made a cardinal in 1825/1826, at least five years before he was elected pope. - Lindert (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. He was a Cardinal but not a Bishop. Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that detail. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News reports are already saying the Cardinals will "go into lockdown" to elect the new Pope. I just can't wait to be flooded with this breathless, over-dramatised 21st-century-journo-speak. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think 21st century journalism is over-dramatised? Check out yellow journalism, specifically Frank Mott's criteria, and you'll marvel at how objective and reliable modern news is. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, lockdown is such a great hairy masculine Teutonic word both visually and aurally pleasing with its hard and clashing medial stops, its lyrical, almost epic liquid and nasal termini, and its wonderful low and back vowels. Seclusion is just a nambipambic overpaid Latinism with its two lazy schwas and its effeminate medial /ʒ/. You could name your first son Lockdown and he'd never get beat up on the blacktop. I wouldn't even name a goldfish I didn't like "seclusion". μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's it called when someone is intellectually so far above their audience in terms of understanding, that they can just list what they know, knowing it will sound as though it's satire. (An example might be if someone knows exactly what the government is up to while their technical audience does not, and so simply lists it, knowing it will sound like 'obvious' satire - since it has no shared context with anything the audience actually knows or understands). So, what is that technique called, because I think Medeis just employed it. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you guys! you're all so funny ---- _nonsense ferret 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Ex-Pope

In a related question... What happens to an Ex-Pope as far as protocol and titles go? Does he continue to be addressed as "Your Holiness"?... Is he still "Pope Benectict" or does he revert back to being "Cardinal Ratzinger"? etc. etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian reports, that he will revert to his old title(s). Source. Since no Pope has stepped down since 1415, there will probably not be current (written) protocol for the issue. --Abracus (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... that is interesting. (I assumed that the protocol from 1415 would be the "current" protocol... we are talking about the Catholic Church after all, where just because something is "old" does not necessarily make it "obsolete".) Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it was a pronouncement from an Ecumenical Council or anything. Protocols, like canon law, are less... eternal. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True... then again, we are talking about an organization that still wears ceremonial outfits designed during the reign of Emperor Diocletian. A protocol devised as recently as 1415 might still be considered a "recent innovation". :>) Anyway, my question has been answered. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it wouldn't be an ecumenical matter? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how reliable The Guardian is in this matter. Typically, when a bishop retires due to old age, he just adds "Emeritus" to his title and that's it. I can't see why Pope Benedict XVI could not become Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pope" is a bit different than Bishop... I supposed Benny could style himself Bishop (Emeritus) of Rome, but Cardinal is a higher rank than Bishop. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, his rank is still "Bishop". Cardinal is not a rank, it is an honor; kinda-sorta like "knighthood". Any member of the clergy of any rank can be named a cardinal. The only explicit privilege of Cardinals is electing the pope. A clergy member's place in the official Catholic heirarchy doesn't change when they are named "Cardinal", though many cardinals are given important positions within the church, including leading prominent diocese or congregations, or serving official functions for the Vatican itself. Pope is also not a "rank" per se, the Pope's highest official title is Bishop of Rome. --Jayron32 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical to me that he be Joseph Ratzinger, Bishop Emeritus of Rome.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that seems to me to be the most logical style for him to carry. I don't think he'd lose his Cardinalship, however, so I imagine he'd be Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Bishop Emeritus of Rome. But this is all speculation until we have some official statement to that end. As noted, he's going to be the first living ex-Pope we've had in over half a millennium. Allowances should be made while they work these details out. --Jayron32 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't certain if he was "still" a Cardinal, and our article didn't help me much :( . I imagine one of the first acts of his successor, if not, would be to make him one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that, like Pope Celestine V issued a decree making it clear that a Pope could resign before he did so, Benedict XVI could issue a decree making it clear that Popes who resign should be known as X, if he wanted to. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. It should be an interesting few weeks. And for us political junkies, entertaining.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to bear in mind here is that when cardinals, bishops and even priests reach their mandatory retirement age, they don't suddenly cease having any of their "powers" (for want of a better word). They simply cease to exercise their offices and cease to be involved in the running of parishes, dioceses or primacies or whatever. A retired cardinal is still a cardinal; he may be barred from electing a pope, but he could, if the occasion demanded it, consecrate a bishop. A retired bishop is still a bishop and could, if the occasion demanded it, ordain a priest. A retired priest is still a priest and could, if the occasion demanded it, baptise children, hear confessions, consecrate hosts and give communion etc etc. There's no such thing as a retired pope, because the office is for life, barring abdication. An abdicated pope is NOT still a pope, just as an abdicated king is not still a king. The whole point of him resigning his papacy is that he doesn't want to be pope anymore, so continuing to call him "<anything> pope" seems a bit odd to me. Kings always lose their kingly titles on abdication; so will the pope, imo. Ratzinger was named a cardinal, and I believe that is what he will revert to. But we'll have to wait and see. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the pope is also the president of Vatican. A former President of the Republic of Hungary is still styled president, and gets some pension, but no power or function on the account of being an ex-president itself. I imagine this works similar in some other countries. – b_jonas 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"President"? He's head of state and absolute monarch. The only official I can find called "president" is Giuseppe Bertello (see http://www.vaticanstate.va/IT/Stato_e_Governo/StrutturadelGovernatorato/Presidenza/ ) .--Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Benedict... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, a Cardinal is not a 'rank' above Bishop. A bishop is exactly as capable of ordaining someone as a bishop as a cardinal (who is a bishop) is: there are no "powers" a cardinal has which a bishop does not. Is it even usual for a cardinals to go around ordaining? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope is selected strictly by Cardinals, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one power reserved for the Cardinals. Oh, and all clergy can be named cardinals, not just bishops. --Jayron32 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a legal "power" which can be withdrawn. I assumed Jack was referring to supernatural "powers" (hence the quotation marks) which are considered to be given through ordination (in Catholic teaching) and cannot be withdrawn, because Sacraments cannot be reversed. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to the latter power.

Update: I've been advised at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI#Pope Emeritus? that a Cardinal elected pope ceases to be a cardinal because cardinals are always assigned to a church in Rome, and the church is re-assigned once the cardinal become the Bishop of Rome (which is the Pope's primary title). Hence Ratzinger's status upon resignation will become Bishop Emeritus of Rome, unless the new Pope reappoints him as a Cardinal, which would be a hollow gesture as he's above the age of retirement anyway. He may just be Bishop Ratzinger for the rest of his life. (Caveat: That was from en editor who sounded like he knows what he's talking about, which of course trumps any old reference.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a reference at hand either, but what Gugganij wrote on that talkpage makes perfect sense and I actually wanted to write here more or less of the same: Benedict will most certainly become a bishop emeritus of Rome (or pope emeritus for short), but will not automatically revert to his previous cardinal title (cardinal bishop of Ostia), which is currently assigned to Cardinal Sodano. There remains the question of the ex-pope's name; as far as I'm aware, assumption of a papal name is a matter of tradition, not a legal requirement, so there's no legal requirement to revert to one's birth name upon resignation either. And there's no tradition to do so, as this is a completely new situation. Most likely, this will be left to Joseph/Benedict's personal preference. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm presuming it's correct that answers a question of mine, namely is it possible based on current law that a former pope may take part in the election of his immediate successor, the answer apparently being no. Of course that would not have happened here since the pope is older then 80 years old although interesting enough [2] specifically notes he won't take part. I say 'current law' because of course any pope still being pope could change the law to enable him to take part, or I'm presuming even to completely eliminate the papal conclave and enable himself to directly appoint his successor even if she's a 17 year old transgendered lesbian atheist. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord moves in mysterious ways her wonders to perform. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about that. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the title of the former pope is now solved. Quoting our article Pope Benedict XVI:

As pope emeritus, he retains the style of His Holiness, and the title of Pope, and will continue to dress in the papal colour of white.

See references in that article. – b_jonas 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you probos have to be a cardinal Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Deadly Sins Citation Question

I am researching the history of the seven deadly sins and was looking at you article regarding that topic. I came across a citation that I have not been able to track down and was wondering if there was any additional information available. The specific citation I am referring to is number 8: Refoule 1967. That's all the information given and I need to be able to actually track down this primary source. Is it possible to contact the author for more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpediem42276 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the information on print references in the "Bibliography" section of the article in question. In this case, it appears, from the article seven deadly sins, that that text is:

Refoule, F. (1967) Evagrius Ponticus. In Staff of Catholic University of America (Eds.) New Catholic Encyclopaedia. Volume 5, pp644–645. New York: McGrawHill.

I hope that helps! --Jayron32 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version is viewable online, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917). It may or may not help, but good luck with your research. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories

Debate-only question

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

According to some theorists, the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane. My question is, where are, accordging to them, Barbara Olson and the rest of American Airlines Flight 77. Kotjap (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to find out what conspiracy theorists say is to wade through the various conspiracy theory websites. No need for us to give them any attention. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind also that 9/11 conspiracy theorists rarely agree on any details. filelakeshoe (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or even bother defining the details in the first place. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The psychology of the conspiratorially minded is complicated. In general, they'll latch onto an explanation that vilifies those they perceive as the masterminds, and which suggests information manipulation to the greatest degree. To that end, I'm guessing(entirely hypothetical) that the most common explanation would be that there was no such flight, and the passengers listed are non-persons, and any public display of grief is by actors. That's part of why there's a missile theory in the first place, because they have a need for something to be covered up, for there to "obvious" misinformation only the enlightened can see through. i kan reed (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall reading a psychology textbook about some psychological disorder that contrives conspiracy theories. One example of a conspiracy theory is displayed as a picture to illustrate the complexity of the ludicrous idea. 140.254.226.229 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the stereotypical one seems to be a homeless man who insists that the CIA has implanted a microchip in his brain so they can read his thoughts. Why the CIA would care about the thoughts of a homeless man is never explained. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Do you know the name of the actual psychological disorder, though? 140.254.226.229 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this provocative?

Clearly an opinion question

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

I am Japanese so my opinion would be completely biased. After this picture was published, anti-Japan protests erupted in China. Is the picture that provocative? Kotjap (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking us for our opinions? We don't do that. If you want us to help you look for published opinion we'd need the source of that picture. Please provide the link. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're aware, that's a photo of two people waving Japanese flags on an island claimed by both Japan and China. So yes, that would be provocative to some Chinese people. thx1138 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Turn it around. If Chinese citizens planted their flag on the same disputed islands, what would the reaction be? Also consider your country's actions prior to 1945. CS Miller (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/japanese-activists-display-flag-on-disputed-island.html?pagewanted=all Kotjap (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The act doesn't have to be particularly provocative to result in counterclaims of territorial sovereignty over the islands. A flag symbolizes territorial sovereignty. Those who disagree are obviously going to express disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank that we have the U.S. as ally to protect us in case of conflict. Kotjap (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kotjap, how can you possibly argue this is not a request for opinion? You asked "is the picture that provocative?" If that's not an opinion question, I don't know what is. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally answered.

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

Kotjap should not post any more questions here until he explains what "LA" is intended to mean, a few sections above here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I think that most Americans call Los Angeles LA. Kotjap (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the comments in that section above? Your question was unclear. Clarify that question before you ask any more questions, please! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, supposing you mean Los Angeles, what does driving from the state of Michigan to the city of Los Angeles mean? Michigan is a good-sized state and is in two time zones. Where in Michigan is your starting point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Sarcophagus

What is/was in the St Andrews Sarcophagus?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this maybe helps [3] ---- _nonsense ferret 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Unust" in the BBC article seems to be (from the dates given) Óengus I. Our article says; "It is generally presumed that the St Andrews Sarcophagus was executed at the command of Óengus." The reference for that is: Henderson, George & Isabel Henderson. The Art of the Picts. London: Thames and Hudson, 2004. 0-500-23807-3 pp. 155–156; MacLean, Douglas. "The Northumbrian Perspective" in Simon Taylor (ed.) op. cit. pp. 200–201; Woolf, Alex. "Ungus (Onuist), son of Uurgust" in M. Lynch (ed.). It is less certain whose remains the sarcophagus contained. Woolf and MacLean argue for Óengus while Henderson favours Nechtan mac Der Ilei. Clancy, "Caustantín", favours a 9th century date. Alansplodge (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to our article, with the info and refs above. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthood

I am a 20 year old boy from the Philippines, I want to know if taking up the celibacy vow is mandatory and if it's needed to be a virgin at entering priesthood. Thank you. Martyrofus (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not. According to this official website of a Catholic diocese, as long as you remain chaste after you begin your process of becoming a priest, you are not required to be a virgin. A search on google pretty much confirms that. --Jayron32 22:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are assuming, of course, that you are a Catholic. Protestant clergy (such as Episcopal priests) do not have to be celibate, even after ordination. Chaste yes... Celibate no. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most Protestant clergy don't even have to be chaste. They can have sexual relations with their spouse, for example. They are expected to not have sexual relations outside of marriage, but many if not most protestant clergy have children, which is generally hard to do if one abstains entirely from sexual relations. --Jayron32 23:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having sex with your spouse is entirely in keeping with chastity, which is not at all the same as celibacy. Blueboar was exactly right. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case we should point out to the OP that celibacy (i.e. complete sexual abstinence) is required of Catholic priests. Rojomoke (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A vow of celibacy is generally required from Western Rite Catholics being ordained as priests, if they are not already married. Married candidates are usually only accepted in the Western Rite in exceptional circumstances. If a Western Catholic man feels that he is not called to celibacy, but is instead called to marriage, then the Church generally feels he is not called to be a priest, although he could still have an important role to play in the Church. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rojomoke, that definition of celibacy "(i.e. complete sexual abstinence)" is a very new one. Traditionally, celibacy meant choosing not to marry. Of course, that also meant being sexually abstinent, because sexual relations could only legitimately occur within marriage. Hence a decision to not marry effectively meant a decision not to have sex, but they're still distinct things. The modern age with its acceptance of sex everywhere with everyone at all times has blurred things; having sex and being married are no longer connected (as any married person can confirm) . People sometimes talk about "celibate marriage"; that's a contradiction in terms as far as I'm concerned, and what they mean is "abstinent marriage". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a Catholic looking to learn more about vocations, this page is probably the most helpful reference to start with: http://www.vocation.com/

You can also speak to your parish priest, and ask him about how you could learn more. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for permission from random people on the internet to fornicate before you get serious about your vocation is not the best way to start, which I am sure your parish priest will tell you when you next go to confession--perhaps this Saturday. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lecturing our OPs on their personal morality is not what we do here. I read his question about virginity to mean that he's already had sex and was wondering whether that meant he's disbarred from the priesthood. But whatever. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jack said. According to the source I provided above from an official Catholic Church source (what a novel concept, answering the direct question with an actual reference, and without further comment!) he was sufficiently provided the answer it seemed he was looking for. --Jayron32 04:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who he fucks, but if he is serious about a vocation as priest he should talk to his priest and not ask us about his sex habits, past, present, or future. Assuming he wants to be a Catholic priest, confession would be appropriate--"Bless me father, I think I have a vocation, but I have done so and so...or am tempted to do so and so..." That should be quite clear and it's silly to think wikipedia's relativistic morality will be relevant to him as a Catholic priest. Bottom line, get to a priest, not some guys on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, Confession isn't the time to ask about vocations, generally. Talking to his priest is useful, because he can receive a more personal answer that takes into account vocations resources in his area and how the local seminaries work, and can guide him through the next step of inquiry. This doesn't at all need to be during Confession, and probably shouldn't be (among other reasons, because his priest will need to talk to other people about his vocation, and his priest cannot do that based on things said in Confession). And there is absolutely no reason to assume he hasn't already Confessed anything he needs to Confess, so it never needs to be brought up in Confession again.

The Catholic Church does not require virginity from candidates for the priesthood. Martyrofus will almost certainly need to take a vow of celibacy before beibg ordained. Links have been provided with further information, and Martyrofus should probably ask his priest about this (not in Confession). 86.163.209.18 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]