Charles is completely correct; the term is a title, not a class of persons.
I am afraid that the inconsistency in application is part of the general
decay of knowledge about religious groups and the different structures and
doctrines and practices. This is particularly a problem when dealing with
early modern materials, so many of which deal with issues that many modern
catalogers are ignorant of but which were extremely important to those who
wrote the materials.
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[log in to unmask]
Pobre Nuevo Mexico! Tan Lejos del cielo y tan cerca de Texas.--Manuel Armijo
On Wed, June 8, 2016 1:46 pm, Charles Croissant wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "Probably someone ought to propose adding Reverends as another variant
> for Clergy."
> I would hope very much that no-one makes such a proposal, as it would
> undercut the original point I was trying to make:
> "Reverend" is a title or a form of address; it is _not_ a term for a class
> of persons, nor is it the term for an occupation.
> I agree wholeheartedly that "Reverend" or its variant forms should be
> recorded only if justified by the person's usage, that it should be
> recorded in the 368 $d, and that it should be recorded in the form found
> the source.
> Charles Croissant