Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church in the United States

What is the purpose of this article?

Unless I'm wrong, everything here is copied from other articles. What is the purpose of this? It's not a size-based content fork, and no original material about the topic has been added. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to ask that...

The rationale behind creating this article is to bring together material that is currently spread out over multiple articles, some of whose titles are not intuitively obvious to the average Wikipedia reader (notably Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication, a horrible title IMHO).

The title and structure of the article on Catholic Church and abortion suggests that the scope of that article should be global in nature and yet much of the material in that article is very U.S.-centric. My vision is that the Catholic Church and abortion article would be expanded to cover Canada, Europe and Latin America (although the current structure of that article makes it difficult to figure out how to accomplish that). This article provides a place to put U.S.-specific material that would further imbalance the Catholic Church and abortion article if it were inserted there.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure because I'd have expected that, rather than just copying material, you would have moved it (ie. removed it from the other article and left a summary). I think some should be removed/summarized (leaving wikilinks so that people don't have to go through this article if they don't want - something like "abortion/USA/RCC, blah blah blah, excommunication of Margaret McBride, Catholic politicians, abortion, and communion or excommunication, A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion, main article Catholic Church and abortion in the United States," except written for real) and some left as is in the main article (the opinion stuff - yeah, it's mostly surveys from the US, but as I said, I worked hard to include lay opinion in the main article and I think it's important), and also that the material here on politicians and communion should be summarized with a link because it has its own article. (I agree that the title is horrible and have been hoping - see the talk page - that someone would propose something more snappy.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very good at writing summaries. I can do it but it takes me a lot of time and so I often avoid it and hope someone else will write one instead. Also, after getting reverted on my first try at Catholic Church and abortion, I figured it was better to propose a reorganization without removing material and then once the general idea was established and accepted, we could work on removing material and replacing it with summaries.

I don't mind having surveys from the U.S. included in the main article. It's just that the article is currently unbalanced because it focuses only on the U.S. What we need is to find other opinion surveys regarding Catholics in other countries. I'm a United Statesian and I'm guessing you are, too. So, it's a little harder for us to break out of our U.S.-centric focus. Nonetheless, we have to try. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked when I was writing the section, but other than the British survey, I didn't see anything I considered reliable. On the other hand, I just had the brilliant idea of Googling in some of the other languages I speak (shock!) and found this among other things, so I should go write that in, shouldn't I? :D –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the contraception related statistic and reference to 1930

I am removing this because it has been removed from the main page on the Catholic Church and abortion and therefore it seems fitting to have it removed here as well. For extensive discussion see the talk page of the aforementioned article. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Roscelese, please indicate why you call CNS News, Reuters and PRNewswire unreliable sources and mere press releases, as you did here. Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Because when something is a press release, there's no reason not to call it one. Please stop wasting everyone else's time with this idiotic WP:IDHT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, if you insist that CNS News, Reuters and PRNewsire are mere press release services, we must get the views of others. Esoglou (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Pelosi

@Roscelese: You reverted Esoglou's edit regarding Nancy Pelosi. I don't see anything wrong with Esoglou's edit. Can you explain what the rationale is for your revert? Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost entirely lacking in WP:RS was the primary issue, WP:UNDUE the secondary –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Sorry but I disagree on both counts. First, while I would agree that press releases require careful consideration, I would not agree that press releases are inherently unreliable. Moreover, I don't see why www.cnsnews.com and "Our Sunday Visitor" are unreliable. They are, no doubt, sources with a POV but having a POV doesn't make a source unreliable. It's not as if there is a credible assertion that the events in question didn't happen or, for that matter, that either of those sources are believed to have reported them inaccurately.

Secondly, I don't believe that WP:UNDUE applies here. If it is worth reporting that some bishops have threatened to excommunicate or withhold communion from pro-choice politicians, it seems WP:NPOV to report that at least one bishop has declined to follow the same course of action with one of the most famous pro-choice Catholic politicians in the U.S.

I would urge you to restore Esoglou's edit and suggest text that should be removed as based on press releases.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:BLP requires that we adhere to the highest sourcing standards for content about living people. Press releases and other fringe agenda sources simply don't cut it. "You can't prove they reported it wrong" is not a defense; if it were, any tuppenny blog could be used as a source. I will not restore Esoglou's text. If you'd like to try your hand at talking about Pelosi using only reliable sources, feel free. However, keep in mind that this is a summary (see WP:Summary style) of another article, which doesn't talk about Pelosi at all because Esoglou apparently couldn't find any reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I presume, Roscelese, that by "another article" you mean Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication. I will reinsert there the information about Nancy Pelosi that you have deleted. I expect this discussion to resume there. When (and, of course, if) it shows that you cannot justify your deletion of the information about Pelosi, then we can put a summary here. Esoglou (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese: why do feel that these are not reliable for WP:BLP:

• Walker, Katie (2 October 2008). "A.L.L. Calls on Washington, D.C. Archbishop to Enforce Canon 915 at Red Mass Sunday". Reuters.
• Schmaltz, Valerie (28 September 2008). "Return of the 'Communion Wars'". Our Sunday Visitor.

Our Sunday Visitor is a hundred year old publisher and Reuters is a well know news agency.

Including that Pelosi, a Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (one of the highest ranking government officials) was openly challenged by Catholic groups with calls for her excommunication from the Catholic Church is not WP:UNDUE. And the ensuing discussion about excommunicating her certainly did happen. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is from over four years ago and both links are dead (although for Reuters it doesn't really matter because over four years later, it's still a press release from an anti-Pelosi political group, not news reporting). What is the text that you are suggesting we restore, and what language in the sources do you claim supports it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: why do feel that these are not reliable for WP:BLP, why strawman me? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

???–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Q: Simultaneously pro-life and pro-choice

Student7, would you mind commenting on whether the poll you just added identifies the simultaneous pro-life/pro-choice identification as specifically Catholic in any way that justifies adding it? I can't look at the report myself as it has crashed my browser several times. Sorry for the inconvenience - it'd just be good to find out if it really belongs in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither. Linked report may be more readable. The footnote merely supports the link. Student7 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha. Yeah, I'm able to read the sum-up - I tried to read the full document because I didn't see anything in the sum-up that indicated its relevance to Catholics specifically. Would you clarify? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of like rain, isn't it? Falls on everyone.

When you ask the public if they like Obama or McCain, you get a fairly clear answer. It's downhill from there on. Democrat vs Republican will match less with results. Should Obama spend money to "boost the economy?" Heck yes. Should he "balance the budget." Darn right! Never mind that you can't really do both. Maybe half the public is politically naive. If they make it to the polls they vote Democrat  :) Student7 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. The information that most Americans are pro-choice and pro-life doesn't seem at home in this article - it would probably be better in a different one (abortion in the US? US pro-life or pro-choice movement?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Roscelese. A general poll is not indicative of Catholics... anymore that it would be indicative of Mormons. I think it needs to be removed since it appears to be irrelevant to how Catholics feel about abortion. The official position of the Church is that they're staunchly against abortion (see material I just added on Humanae Vitae). Lordvolton (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Humanae Vitae

Roscelese, I'm no Catholic scholar, but this is a seminal document. It applies to the United States and the rest of the world. If you really think it's irrelevant then we'll have to go to a third party arbiter, yet again. The Pope's statement on abortion reflects the official position of the United States Catholic Church. FYI, they don't have a separate Pope for the United States. Lordvolton (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Couple of questions:

1. You're not mixing it up with Evangelium Vitae, are you? Humanae Vitae does have the quote you included, but it's mostly about birth control.
2. We already state at the very top of the article (and elsewhere) that the RCC opposes abortion. Is there a reason you feel that Humanae Vitae is the most important piece of historical background to pull in from the main article, as opposed to anything else?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not confusing them. Humanae Vitae was the turning point for the Catholic Church on the abortion and birth control issues in the United States. What you might want to do is expand the section on Humanae Vitae to include the controversy in the United States since many of the cardinals and bishops at the time were pushing for liberal reforms. From what I've read (again, I'm not a Catholic scholar) the Pope went against the majority... so that would be a legitimate counter point to Humanae Vitae in the United States. I believe some priests were defrocked for refusing to teach Humanae Vitae. However, in recent times I've read Cardinals and bishops promoting it ... although critics could argue that they're simply towing the party line since the Pope was unequivocal. I believe this decision is why the Catholics are so pro life when compared to other denominations in the United States. Pope Paul VI basically rejected the sexual revolution in this document (birth control and abortion). Lordvolton (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources that relate to Humanae Vitae in the US, that would be great and relevant to this article! (Maybe? again, it's mostly about birth control) But simply talking about Humanae Vitae generically isn't really germane. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Relevant discussion at

→ User talk:BoBoMisiu#Re: Polling

@VanEman: Wikipedia does not permit original synthesis. Do the available sources talk about Francis's statement as having particular relevance to the US or do they not? Your own assertion that, as he is also the Pope of the US, anything he does belongs in US-specific articles is weak. Especially when - as you yourself are clearly aware - the source specifically points out that this "widening" does not really affect the United States because it gives an authority that most US priests already had! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The section is on the difference between the views of Catholics in the US and the church, about Compatibility of dissent with Catholic belief. Not everything that the church says is relevant to that topic, but if the issue is something Catholics in the US disagree with the church about, then anything the church says, especially that the Pope says, about that particular topic is absolutely relevant. If Catholics in the US don't disagree that the Sabbath should be celebrated on Sundays, then the church's view on that topic isn't relevant to this article. But when issues have been raised about the different views of Catholics in America, then anything the church says about that topic is relevant. In the case of the Pope's perspective on abortion, there is absolutely a connection to the topic specifically in the US. The Pope has made an announcement that priests in the year of mercy should be able to forgive the confessing sinner. In many countries this is something truly new. But as it turns out, American Catholic bishops have for the most part delegated that responsibility already. Why wasn't that already included in this article about Catholicism in the US? Catholics need to know that their bishop might or might not have delegated this responsibility already, and that for the year mercy, their priests can offer forgiveness and cancel excommunication whether or not their American bishop already delegated that responsibility.VanEman (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have sources which support your argument that this is specifically relevant to the US? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your POV is showing. No one has argued that the reference to John Paul in the paragraph above the one mentioning Francis is somehow inappropriate. If it's okay to mention John Paul when discussing American Catholics, then it is surely okay to reference to current pope.VanEman (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not remove both, since neither are about the US? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a good idea to remove both. As long as a specifically American population disagrees with church hierarchy on something, then the hierarchy's stand on it, whether from a Pope or Cardinal in Rome or a bishop in the US, is totally relevant. VanEman (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a source demonstrating the relevance to the US article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese and VanEman: I reverted a removal, it is about an address to US bishops. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That in itself isn't enough of a reason to include it. Maybe you could pull some salient details from the LA Times article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: why "isn't enough of a reason to include it"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Because based on the quote alone, it's a generic statement that he could have made at any place in the world (would it also belong in a "Gospel in the United States" article or a "sacraments in the United States" article?). Maybe you could pull some salient details from the LA Times article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: the RCC is planetary scale, the teaching would be the same all over the planet. Since you seem to be acquainted with the various abortion articles, would the Catholic dissent of Pamela Maraldo (president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America from the 1990s) be better added to this article or another? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - we use reliable sources here, not users' own assessments of the importance of the church. Do you or do you not plan to look for details in the LA Times article to justify including this here? Re Maraldo, I'm not seeing a lot that indicates that the matter deserves mention in any Catholic articles, but this book might justify half a sentence in the dissent section here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What doesn't matter? I do not understand. The RCC is planetary scale, it is not my opinion. What kind of details are missing in what I changed that I could search for?

Her being the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America made Maraldo a public Catholic dissenter.

About your comment, what I changed is about compatibility of dissent with Catholic belief. Adding the other results into one sentence shows the complexity of answers the surveyed are likely to agree to; the next paragraph compares what is likely to agree to with RCC teaching. The combined comparison of what is likely to agree to shows better what kind of dissent is being described. The other sections should be combined. The published results of the phone survey are quite incomplete and not clearly described in the WP article, e.g. the figures for Latino Catholics are ±9% range in the results because of the small sample size. The 3000 sample size is also not mostly of millennials as its title implies (see methodology in questionaire esp. p.17 and see margins of error in report p.39). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC) modified 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think in both of these instances (Pope, Maraldo) you could stand to review Wikipedia policy. Her being an American Catholic and having an opinion on abortion doesn't automatically mean that we can say whatever we want about her in this article, just as the Catholic Church existing in America doesn't automatically mean that anything the church says about abortion needs to be present in this article specifically. I encourage you again to look for sources that demonstrate relevance to this article. Re the survey, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying: are you aware that this article has more than one subsection about opinion polling? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: which policies should I review? I must be missing something. I read the title as "Catholic Church and abortion in the United States" but you write that "doesn't automatically mean that anything the church says about abortion needs to be present in this article".

Likewise, Maraldo is an American Catholic who was a leader of a major abortion corporation in the United States, her opinion and descisions affected people. Why not include an influential figure like her? She is relevant.

I understand what you are saying and I understand the structure of this article – that is what I am discussing. How are figures for Latino Catholics with ±9% range considered good enough. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Things like WP:NOR and WP:V. This isn't your essay on the church and abortion, so the onus is on you to demonstrate, with reliable sources, that any information you wish to include has support from a reliable source for inclusion. If Maraldo's Catholicism is important to the RCC and abortion in the US, you need a source that indicates this, not your own opinion that "well, as an American Catholic in the big scary abortion industry, she must be important." I could make up my own reasons for including half a dozen American Catholics of either anti-abortion or pro-choice politics, all verifiable as such, but if I don't have sources to justify including them here, it doesn't matter. Similarly, as I've already said repeatedly, "the RCC exists in the United States, so general pronouncements that they make about abortion belong in a US-specific article" isn't good enough when we do have a general article.

I'm no longer sure what you're trying to ask or say about the polling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Maraldo

Maraldo may explain her opinion and observations in:

• Maraldo, Pamela J. (1993). "Pro-choice and Catholic. PPFA's new leader charts a new course". Planned parenthood challenges. 1993 (1). London: International Planned Parenthood Federation: 8–9. ISSN 1350-5106. PMID 12345332.

I do not know how to get the article to read any US content. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion and the Catholic Church in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1298
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611222402/http://www.rcrc.org/perspectives/catholic.cfm to http://www.rcrc.org/perspectives/catholic.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abortion and the Catholic Church in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061212194802/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ncregister.com/daily/17684/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126020556/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040609/news_1n9catholic.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040609/news_1n9catholic.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1298
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110220052337/http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html to http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)