Talk:Abstemius

Notability?

@Elizium23: @Omnipaedista: what do you think about this article? As foe me, it is a mix of unsourced material and material already present in the Catholic encyclopedia. I am thinking about proposing the article's deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, hmmmmm... does the term still exist in Canon Law 1983? I would say that the modern analogue to this is a priest who is alcoholic and must make use of must in his consecration. I do not know how the concession of must was handled in earlier times, but the topic is handled in the article I linked.

So is this a notable topic today? I guess if it were notable 100 years ago then it still is notable today. But it is very niche, in a corner, disused, I am on the fence about whether it deserves an article.

Also, Veverve, where do you FIND these things?? Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the current 1983 law on irregularity. As you can see, many many irregularities have been abolished or minimized. Abstemius would need to be treated as a completely historical curiosity. Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Thanks for your feedback. What do you recommend, then? If I removed everything which is unsourced, we are left with only the Catholic encyclopedia definition, which means the WP article might as weel be deleted at it would be redundant. Therefore, I believe the article has to be either expanded with the 1917 and 1983 canon laws, or deleted.

As for how I find those articles, I have renamed numerous pages related to canon law. E.g. the Catholic concept of approbation had its acticle simply called "Approbation" for 14 years, with the results one might expect: the hyperlink was used most of the time to link to the general concept of approbation and not to the Catholic canon law concept. I am also forced to change all the hyperlinks to "Interdicts" manually, because I moved the page to Interdict (Catholic canon law); by the way, any help is welcom for this one. Hence why I am wandering among obscure Catholic pages. Veverve (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with the assessment that this topic should be treated as a "completely historical curiosity." Very few, if any, 20th-/21st-century sources even mention this term. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend that we flag down anyone with access to the Commentaries for 1983 and 1917 Codes, and this may at least give us a blurb to start from. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I believe @CanonLawJunkie: does have such ressources. Veverve (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)