Humanities desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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 21[edit]

Is it legal for a parent to get their minor child sterilized in a doctor's office without the consent of this child himself/herself?[edit]

In the U.S., it is legal for a parent to get their minor child sterilized in a doctor's office without the consent of this child himself/herself? 68.96.93.163 (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not but this is not a place that gives competent legal advice. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would likely depend on the laws of each individual state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Treatment may be of use here. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the people here don't know if that's legal. Usually, a parent can make decisions instead of their child when talking to the child's doctor, but not about everything. We don't know if it's a good thing that the parent can decide about these things. Because sometimes a child knows better than their parent about what's good for them. And we hope that the doctor would know what's good for the child, and most doctors are nice people who wouldn't want to hurt anyone.

If anyone worries about their mom or dad sending them to the doctor to do something that might be bad for them, they could talk to someone else. They might have a school counselor, or a therapist, or a friend's mom or dad they feel okay talking to. Maybe even an adult you trust in your church, mosque, synagogue, or other social group, if you have one. Maybe even to a police officer. And if none of those, there are many other places online that won't be so afraid to offer legal advice. Temerarius (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik a doctor would normally not be allowed to do that without very convincing medical reasons (child is going to die unless reproductive system is removed etc). Doctors often won't sterilize anyone under age 30 or so even at their own request, unless the person already has children, since they might regret the decision later. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the most populous U.S. metro area who's exact center has been flooded by river levee overtopping?[edit]

Contemporary size, not current. What about after 1950? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for you to begin researching the answer to this question is List of floods. --Jayron 32 15:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What figure of speech is this?[edit]

What figure of speech is "Shakespeare of science fiction" is? Could it be some type of an analogy or a metaphor? Planet Star 02:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the time that Lucy used her womanliest wiles on Schroeder and told him he was "the Beethoven of music". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

A metaphor is a type of analogy. I can't figure out exactly what type this would be, but there are a gazillion examples. The Sporting News was called "The Bible of Baseball". The Montreal Canadiens were once called "The New York Yankees of hockey" (or in reverse). I could be a type of comparison, as in "A is to B as C is to D". (There's a specific word for that, I forget what.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure it out exactly either, but it seems related to metonymy. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something like an epithet or a sobriquet? --Jayron 32 16:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples (e.g., "Athens of the North" for Edinburgh) are indeed included in our article Sobriquet. A related concept from classical rhetoric is antonomasia. Deor (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "antonomasia" goes both ways and therefore is the right answer. Dictionary cites:[1][2][3][4] By the way, in case anyone was wondering, the specific example "Shakespeare of science fiction" was the subject of Final Jeopardy! a few days ago. They asked which British author born in 1866 the phrase was used to refer to. Sadly, none of the three contestants got H.G. Wells. (Two guessed Asimov and Verne, who were not British, and the third guessed Clarke, who was born in 1917.) --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think antonomasia is it. That seems to be more like famous nicknames. So you could say "The Shakespeare of SciFi" or you could say "The Bard of SciFi". I did see that Final Jeopardy segment. I got H.G. Wells, and they didn't. Go figure. Though Verne was a reasonable guess. I do think it's the equivalent of the logic thing with the structure A:B::C:D, read as "A is to B as C is to D". In this case, "The Shakespeare of SciFi" is analogous to "Wells is to SciFi as Shakespeare is to English play writing." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is it: the examples in the dictionary entries I cited are close enough to the one about Wells. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those items all point to "The Bard" as a nickname for Shakespeare. So instead of the Shakespeare of SciFi, you could say The Bard of SciFi, but that's really the same thing. Like "The Babe" for George Herman Ruth. You could say Wayne Gretzky is the Babe Ruth of Hockey. Which is to say Gretzky is to hockey as Ruth is to baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verne is a reasonable guess only if you think France is part of Britain. CodeTalker (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a more reasonable guess than Asimov or Clarke, especially if one has never heard any 19th century author being called "The Shakespeare of SciFi". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was for a bit--Jayron 32 11:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

anonymized data from RCC confessions[edit]

Anyone know if there are church rules allowing or prohibiting release of anonymized or aggregate data from confessionals? Something like a priest saying "this month I absolved 19 cases of blasphemy, 8 fornication, 5 adultery, 3 thefts, and 2 murders" without saying who did them? Is there theological doctrine about stuff like that? Not seeking "legal" or spiritual advice-- question came up during discussion of the usual ongoing RCC scandals so I'm wondering. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Added: Hmm, maybe murder is a mortal sin so un-absolvable. Which raises the additional question: if you commit a mortal sin, is there any point to confessing it? 03:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic notion of mortal sin does not mean it can't be forgiven. As to the other question I don't know. --Trovatore (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A central tenant of Christianity of all forms, including Catholicism, is the forgiveness of sins. See Forgiveness#Christianity. In nearly every major Christian denomination, including Catholicism, all people who both repent of their sin and become followers of Jesus are forgiven of those sins and allowed a place alongside God in heaven. The belief in universal forgiveness by faith in Jesus is the sine qua non of Christianity, for all that the various sects and denominations may differ, that's pretty much what makes them all Christians. The devil, to turn a phrase, is in the details here, and different Christian faiths have different standards as to what qualifies as "repentance" and what qualifies as a "follower of Jesus", which is where the faiths differ. For Catholicism's take on sin, forgiveness, and repentance, a good place to start is at the article Sacrament of Penance, which says "The sacrament of Penance is considered the normal way to be absolved from mortal sin, by which one would otherwise possibly condemn oneself to Hell." --Jayron 32 16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant article may be Priest–penitent privilege. Quoting: "In particular, Catholics are required to confess sins to priests, who are unconditionally forbidden by Church canon law from making any disclosure" - citation is to the Catholic Herald. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even more pertinent is seal of the Confessional in the Catholic Church (which is linked from the article you linked). It says

There are limited cases where portions of a confession may be revealed to others, but always with the penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the penitent's identity. This is the case, for example, with more serious offenses, as some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the Holy See and their permission to grant absolution must be obtained.

The article does not mention reporting of aggregate statistics, unless I missed it. However, as I understand the theory, the priest-as-man is not even supposed to know what has been confessed to the priest-as-confessor, so you might think that compiling stats would be out of bounds.

I do remember a priest once telling an anecdote where he referred to a priest talking about the first confession he ever heard, and giving some details on it. Then another man (who had arrive late or something? not sure) is giving a tribute to the priest, and remarks that he was the first penitent the priest ever confessed.

I think it was just supposed to be a humorous story, so you shouldn't read too much into it, but the priest telling the story didn't sound shocked that a confessor might give a completely anonymized account. I am still ignorant of the official position of the Church on such matters. --Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it would actually be acceptable to share details of a confession in that way. While the chance of such a scenario playing out is so slim that it's not worth worrying about, the chance that the other priest may inadvertently (since to intentionally try and find out after that would itself be a severe mortal sin I believe) learn of the identity of the priest's first penitent is probably significant enough that it would be a major violation. I believe you're right about the priest-as-man bit, see e.g. [5] which discusses how a priest may ask a penitent ~~may ask someone~~ to "remind them" if they bring up the details of the confession. The discussion here points out another thing namely that it's unlikely priests remember all the details anyway as they tend to blur into one another [6]. So unless your priest is ticking a list of various sins (on paper or a tablet), such lists aren't going to be very reliable. An interesting albeit unrelated point mention there is it seems that there is a concept of a "big fish" confession or maybe more accurately penitent, namely with a penitent who's been away for years. Also mention in thsee sources [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. And based on this it sounds like it's not new [12]. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, worth remembering even if the penitent is deceased, the seal still holds. For example, these sources mention a case where a priest did reveal something about a dead penitent and it was only okay because it was viewed as not actually a confession [13] [14] [15].

While I couldn't find sources directly confirming this, my belief is that still applies no matter the gravity of not revealing. So for example, even if the penitent is deceased, the priest still can't reveal that the murderer isn't the person going to be executed soon. (Remembering the church's strong opposition to the death penalty.) And no matter if there is little risk that the penitent will be identified (say a large parish where many people would be suspects and a long time after the crime, so many are also dead).

Another case where related issues came up is this. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] If we put aside the questions of whether a priest should be required to report confessions of sexual abuse, from what I read in those sources it's the church's view that the priest can't 'break' the seal now, even though the penitent's family and the penitent herself (who I think entered adulthood sometime during the case) and are the ones asking him to break the seal. (To be clear, the confession was from the victim of the abuse, not the abuser.) While the reason they wanted the priest to testify was due to their lawsuit, my read is that the church isn't just saying he can't because it's to aide a lawsuit which is arguing he should have done something fundamentally incompatible, they're saying doing it now is also fundamentally wrong.

An interesting point (last source) is that the church's lawyers tried to prevent the penitent from testifying (well I assume so, since common law judges don't just randomly rule one things without someone challenging it). At least in this source [21] the respondent thinks it's generally fine for the penitent to reveal what was said in other circumstances, but it seems there would be related issues to the Baton Rouge sexual abuse case to do so to me.

That the priest can't break the seal even if it's the victim confessing in an effort to protect them is also mentioned in this source [22].

The views of some Orthodox priests seems to possibly be more lax. This source [23] quotes one who seems willing to contact the abused (when an abuser confessors) to help guide them but without breaking the seal. It also mentions a 'not actually confession' loophole, although the Bronx case not withstanding, I suspect the Roman Catholic Church will likewise reject such a broad application. (The closest I could find is [24] which isn't quite the same thing.)

BTW, it's perhaps worth remembering that confessions are supposed to be relatively anonymous anyway, this source mentions that a priest should generally refrain from showing any recognition of the penitent albeit may be required to inquire about personal circumstances [25]

Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! Seal of the Confessional in the Catholic Church is very helpful and it does seem there is some room for disclosure as long as the penitent is not identified. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four white horses[edit]

What were the original lyrics to this song? Temerarius (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article about it. Who wrote and/or sang it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few versions appear immediately on web search. No idea which one if any of them is the original. Actually, this thread from Mudcat Café is probably your best bet: https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=9634 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]