Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Removing other people's comments

Yes, we do want editors to find it— but not find a biased, "summary." Please move it ALL back, leave as is, or write an unbiased summary--Carlaude ^talk 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the summary, address it here -- don't remove other people's comments. --User talk:SarekOfVulcan

This is my point!

(1) I am not removing other people's comments-- I am keeping comments altogether. These comments already moved, copied, but only these pro-move comments have been left here and there!

(2) I would rather that none of these be moved-- be if they are moved they should all be moved-- or at least not leave a notice from only one POV (the notice is now suitable NPOV now in my view).--Carlaude ^talk 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I object that the bias statements made by the "formal Mediation Committee." It was a closed discussion of only certain people, and leaving them behind on Talk:Roman Catholic Church gives them implied status as if they are (a) unbiased (b) Inevitable to be carried out.

I also object that the sub-page name does not reflect what is really at issue. This is not a "Mediation on Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Mediation/Mediation Committee" — it is just a discussion on renaming!

Shell, Please move the subpage to Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal (or the like) and/or state more on why it needs to be done at all. --Carlaude ^talk 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a summary of the mediation that took place over the last several months. If you disagree with the conclusions that the participants reached, you are welcome to participate in the on-going discussion. Shell ^babelfish 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They can participate in 3 hours -- blocked for disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deposit of faith - intro

I just linked Deposit of faith to Sacred Tradition, but the sentence already has Sacred Tradition in it. This sentence, IMHO, is redundant in that the Deposit of Faith is the equivalent or same thing as Sacred Tradition...or is this incorrect thinking? --^StormRider 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To explain it mathematically, the deposit of faith equals Sacred Tradition plus Sacred Scriptures. NancyHeise ^talk 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Still POV

After taking a break from this page and then reading it afresh, it still strikes me as very far from the NPOV Wikipedia is supposed to be written from. The four worst bits are:

1. the continued attempt to rope in secular historians to defend the view that the RCC was founded by Jesus.

2. the section on the church and 20th century politics which is incredibly selective and unbalanced (even in regard to Europe which it concentrates on to the exclusion of South America amongst other places).

3. the section on child sex abuse which is apologist in tone and see-saws wildly between presenting the allegations before seeking to rebut, deflect or diminish them.

4. the reference to the pontifical academy of science with its 'valuable insights'.

Honestly guys, parts of this 'encyclopaedic' article read like a promotional flyer from the Vatican. I think the only way it's going to improve is if more editors who are not practising Catholics begin contributing to it.Haldraper (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, promotional flyers from the Vatican are written considerably better than this . But there are things you can do to help. Rather than resort to such hyberbole which will cause many editors to simply ignore you (or worse), why don't you make a constructive suggestion for one of your points?

Let's take what should be the easiest, the Academy. Here is the current form: "In part because of lessons learned from the Galilei affair, the Church created the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a scientific organization that essentially began in 1603 but developed over time to reach its present form by 1936.[ref]" Suggest an improvement. Go. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The trouble seems to be rather the habit of one or two editors of rejecting suggested changes out of hand in a manner that discourages discussion. Most recently, two attempts to draw attention to the fact that a source spoke of the local Church "in Rome", not of the Catholic Church as a whole ("historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome) only drew the response: "Christian Chrch in Rome, is the Roman Catholic Church per thesources"! I found this response, following a simple reversal of the first attempt to point out the difference between what the source says and what the article presents it as saying, too discouraging to wish to face an inevitably hard fight on the Discussion page in attempting to get the editor or editors to see that the Church as a whole is broader than the diocese of Rome. In the context of this subsection, I just mention this, without intending to enter into combat about it. 62.1.92.168 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if one editor suggests a change, and one or more say no, it is better as is, then that is how things should work around here (but for BLP, copyright etc issues). If it gets discouraging, try to suggest smaller, incremental changes first; those will be more likely to gain traction. Especially as per the OP there are some clumsily worded parts that could really use some tightening, without huge content changes. If you need more eyes, post to Wikiproject:Catholicism, or one of the noticeboards, NPOV and RS may be appropriate depending on the specifics. However, empirically speaking this page gets a lot of views, and went through a thorough (to a fault) GA review recently, so that reaction you describe is probably evidence that your suggestions rally were somewhat wanting. But again, try the other venues if you think you need fresh eyes. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if accurately quoting the source] (nine words, all but one monosyllabic) is not a "small incremental change", I don't know what is. Enough. 62.1.92.168 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's a start, but there is still no guarantee it will be an improvement. Compare, the discussion below mentions cases of changing one word, but its effect could be profound. Back to this case. I don't know why the reverter did it, but if you note, those nine words backtrack with respect to undue weight. And given the context of the mediation etc, it is hardly incremental in meaning.

With those notes, try to think about how such a change would improve (or not) the article per the pillars et al, not just blindly follow legalistic rules. We will not (and cannot) do your thinking for you. It would help too if you got an account; your talk page might come in handy. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

An edit is certainly an improvement if it accurately quotes the source and if the reason for undoing it is to maintain the incredible claim that the local Christian church in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church, which on the contrary is described in the article as "the world's largest Christian church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world's population ... a communion of the Western Rite (Latin Rite) and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising 2,795 dioceses in 2008". I will definitely close now, and make no further comment whatever. 62.1.92.168 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would do two things to improve this page.

Firstly, I would cut it back to facts concerning the Roman Catholic Church rather than contentious opinions, including those couched in weasel phrases such as 'claimed' or 'contended'.

Secondly, given the length of the page, I would remove the section on the history of the Church. There is a link to another page on this (which at a quick glance seems to avoid some of the POV issues we're discussing here). Looking at other Wiki pages, it seems to be common practice to move the history of organisations off their main page to avoid excessive length.Haldraper (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Those two phrases are in most cases not weaselly if they can be sourced. In fact, they are good tactics to maintain NPOV, as otherwise we'd be asserting as truth mere opinions held by whomever did the claiming/contending.

The length of that section has cycled longer and shorter for some time now, and good faith editors can differ as to the ideal length. That said, some level of summary is warranted. Full removal is not. Again, suggest something here, perhaps one paragraph at a time. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Words such as "claimed" and "contended" were demanded by other reviewers precisely to ensure that the article was rigorously NPOV. The point that some new people here often don't appreciate is that this article has had input from literally dozens of editors, and that many passages have been balanced and negotiated, often at great length. This goes particularly for some of the origin of the church sections, much of the history section and the abuse scandal coverage. So significant changes DO have to be negotiated and backed by solid references. It's no use coming here, whipping out a referenced paragraph and complaining when its put back. Expect quite a bit of debate on significant changes.

On the point about the Roman City Church not being the Catholic Church - that is a bone of contention, but Catholics and many historians do affirm that the Church of the City of Rome was the centre of and has always been an intrinsic part of the Catholic Church. Just saying the two are different things, is not that helpful a comment. Berlin may not be Germany, but it is IN Germany. Xandar 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was during the second or third FAC attempt that this was demaned by FAC reviewers. NancyHeise ^talk 13:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested shorter summary of history section

Two things to bear in mind:

1. I have concentrated on the organisational history of the RCC rather than other extraneous matters, e.g. its role in the Spanish civil war, South American missions etc.

2. There would still of course be a link to the 'History of the RCC' page which includes the same material and much more at greater length.Haldraper (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

According to historians, the Apostles traveled to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome to found the first Christian communities. Early Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to worship Roman rulers as gods and were thus subject to persecution.[223] This began under Nero in the first century and persisted through the great persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which was seen as a final attempt to wipe out Christianity.[224] Nevertheless, Christianity continued to spread and was eventually legalized in 313 under Constantine's Edict of Milan.[225]

Early Middle Ages The Rule of St Benedict, composed by Benedict in 530, became a blueprint for the organization of monasteries throughout Europe.[244] The new monasteries preserved classical craft and artistic skills while maintaining intellectual culture within their schools, scriptoria and libraries. As well as providing a focus for spiritual life, they functioned as agricultural, economic and production centers, particularly in remote regions, becoming major conduits of civilization.[245] Eastern and Western Christendom grew apart in the 9th century. Conflicts arose over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Byzantine-controlled south of Italy, missionaries to Bulgaria and a brief schism revolving around Photios of Constantinople.[252][256] Although this was resolved, further disagreements led to Pope and Patriarch excommunicating each other in 1054, commonly considered the date of the East–West Schism.[257] The Western (Latin) branch of Christianity has since become known as the Catholic Church, while the Eastern (Greek) branch became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.[258][259]

High Middle Ages At the end of the 13th century, Pope Boniface VIII was involved in a heated conflict with the French king. Subsequently, the Papacy came under French dominance, with Clement V in 1309 moving to Avignon, then located just outside the French borders.[292] The Avignon Papacy ended in 1376 when the Pope returned to Rome[293][294] but was soon followed in 1378 by the 38-year-long Western schism with separate claimants to the papacy in Rome, Avignon and (after 1409) Pisa, backed by conflicting secular rulers.[295]''

Late Medieval and Renaissance In 1517, Martin Luther included his Ninety-Five Theses in a letter to several bishops.[318][319] His theses protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[318][319] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticized Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into a large and all encompassing European movement called the Protestant Reformation.[234][320] The Catholic Church responded to doctrinal challenges and abuses highlighted by the Reformation at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which became the driving force of the Counter-Reformation. Doctrinally, it reaffirmed central Catholic teachings such as transubstantiation, and the requirement for love and hope as well as faith to attain salvation.[333] It also made structural reforms, most importantly by improving the education of the clergy and laity and consolidating the central jurisdiction of the Roman Curia.[333][334][335][note 5]

Industrial age Although the infallibility of the Church in doctrinal matters had always been a Church dogma, the First Vatican Council, which convened in 1870, affirmed the doctrine of papal infallibility when exercised in certain specifically defined pronouncements.[352][353] The loss of the papal states to the Italian unification movement created what came to be known as the Roman Question,[356] a territorial dispute between the papacy and the Italian government that was not resolved until the 1929 Lateran Treaty granted sovereignty to the Holy See over Vatican City.[357]'''

Haldraper, you forgot to sign your post above. I would like for you to please read all four of RCC's FAC's. You will notice that we had shorter versions of Church history has you have proposed above, yet, almost every FAC comment on all of these FAC's has asked for more information, not less, most of it in history. We would be doing the exact opposite of what has been expressed by over 30 different editors at each FAC if we do what you are asking above. NancyHeise ^talk 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, I also have been meaning to ask you if you are new to Wikipedia or if you have just changed your name from something else. I welcomed you in March 2009. Is this your first time editing Wikipedia? Do you also have another name you under which you edit Wikipedia? There is a policy against WP:sockpuppet I just want to make sure that people on this page are following. We have had a problem with that in the past, perhaps by editors without knowledge of the policy. NancyHeise ^talk 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I signed my post after the initial comments rather than the italicised section.

2. I do not and have never edited under another username.

Haldraper (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, did you read the past four Featured Article Candidacy's? If not, please go to the "Article milestone's" at the top of the page and click on each one, you will see the comments from FAC reviewers there, most of them asking for more information in history section, a persistent request with which we have complied. NancyHeise ^talk 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the history section so drastically is an interesting exercise, but not practical. Major matter about the spread of Catholicism, the Bible, colonialism, and othe r major milestones are not covered. In addition controversial issues like the Cathars, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the War, the abuse scandal etc. are absent. There is no way the article can fail to cover these issues. The main criticisms have always come if issues like these have not been covered. The wikipedia policy against "undue weight" requires that historical coverage should be balanced and not unduly weighted toward certain events. Therefore if we are dealing with some issues in a certain amount of detail, other significant issues should be covered in a similar manner. Other encyclopedias also cover the history of the church in some detail. Xandar 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. I also want to throw out on this talk page that there is going to be another peer review for this page in September. I have asked the amazing, wonderful, renowned Wikipedia editor with over 26 FAC's, user:Brianboulton to help navigate this article through the next FAC attempt (maybe this fall we'll have to see how the peer review goes). Hopefully, everyone will get their two cents in the peer review and we can come to consensus on issues before they pop up at FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a Peer Review - although they tend to have been a little disappointing in the past, with little interest shown until the article actually gets to FAC - when we ghet overwhelmed with critics. The article does need another thorough sort-through to deal with potential problems and have another look at criticisms that were made last time. Then it needs another work-over for prose quality - which has suffered via a lot of small changes over past months. Xandar 09:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Historians and primacy

All that the (non-secular) historians cited have said is that the texts of the Gospel say that Jesus said Peter was to be the rock of the Church. The line as written clearly implies that “historians” agree that the current RCC is *the* church as founded by Jesus. There is no need to be over-reaching. (The Eastern Orthodox Church believes itself to be *the* Church as do others and they have their own historians and parsings of the texts to support their positions). The line reads just fine as edited, no further elaboration is needed as this is still the introduction and the topic is already discussed more expansively within the body of the article. It is not the place of Wikipedia to “prove” the RCC has some primacy. Since contemporary documentation from the time is slim (the Gospels were all written 30+ years after Jesus and based on oral traditions) it is surely unprovable in the modern sense. It can surely be stated as a point of belief and interpretation however. BobKawanaka (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You eliminated a whole paragraph of thoroughly referenced, consensus agreed text. I replaced it. You need to have references to support your point of view and agreement from at least some of the over 30 editors who have worked on this page to make such drastic changes. This article is placing facts on the page as they appear in scholalry works, it is not trying to "prove" anything. If you can prove that the scholars did not say what they say, then we can eliminate it. NancyHeise ^talk 01:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this revert, and quote bold, revert and (now) discuss, but will point out that Bob's first removal was bold and not really vandalism, per the edit summary and good faith. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You need not call me a vandal, I am trying to be helpful here. I have written much to myself on this but in the spirit of trying to reach a compromise rather than inflaming the situation, I will hold my pen and at this point only say that I don’t think that most editors of this page wish to have the page say that historians have proven the RCC is the one true Catholic Church. Intentional or not, this is how that line reads and it should be changed. I believe most editors will agree that this is something to be avoided. BobKawanaka (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you produce the exact text which you allege states that Historians have proved the CC the one true Church? And in any event you removed a lot more than text on that issue from the lead. Xandar 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"the Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians" italics and bold my own ... as written, it implies that the historians are validating the view that the Church is *the* continuation ... not that they are validating the belief. The Church believing itself to be *the* continuation is a perfectly reasonable statement of the Church and wouldn't seem to be to need any references, I simply removed "a view shared by many historians" ... I do understand now how people would be annoyed at the removal of references but they are really not needed to support a statement about the Church's belief in its primacy. Those quotes do not make a statement on any current primacy of the Church. I think the line is fine the way I cut it originally because I can think of no member of the Church that would disagree with the statement "... the continuation ...". If the references are important then I suggest the line be simply changed to "the Church believes itself to be a continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians" (and this is what the quotes say). I actually think the line reading that way is slighter weaker than my original chop as it suggests some outside confirmation is needed on something quite obvious. So Xandar, if you think that's a fair change, I would ask that you make it. Many thanks. BobKawanaka (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's interesting. The proposal seems to boil down to replacing "the continuation of.." with "a continuation of.." Small change, but quite a big shift in emphasis. I suppose that the Church accepts that other good and less good bodies emerged as "continuations" of the original Church of the apostles. The change from "the" to "a" however might be seen as having further implications. I do however think we need to refer to the historians, since many groups claim ancient origins on absolutely no realistic basis - so that needs to remain. What do other editors think? Xandar 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. NancyHeise ^talk 13:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am interpreting Bob's concern as one concerning the conjunction of the Church's own position with that of historians asserting the validity of that position. Clearly the Church believes what it believes. Are there a segment of historians who have corroborated the Church's position with historical scholarship, in a sense of saying "the Church has it right"? I suspect there are but envision that there might not be that many, as doing so would be, at least implicitly, trying to prove a negative ("there are no other continuations"), as well as delving into more theological than historical territory I recognize those need not be mutually exclusive, though. So in short, he may have a point. I would suggest, however, that if so, a gutting of that paragraph is far from ideal, and would recommend in such a case a rewording to make clear exactly what the sources say. The previous solution did not portray the Church's postion the most accurately. But as always, follow the sources. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence Bob eliminated was this one in the lead "Through apostolic succession, the Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians.[15][16][17] " That sentence is a summarization of the text that exists in "Origins and Mission" section of the article. The sentence has three references to support it including National Geographic Society that states historians looked back for centuries and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church. We used the term "many" historians because Nat Geo is referring to many centuries of historians, a fact clearly indicated in the vast amount of historical information throughout history on the Church. This is not a disputed fact. Origins and Mission section includes the only scholarly dispute on the origins of the Church with references to which scholars represent these views. NancyHeise ^talk 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I will assume good faith on this topic one final time and presume that people are simply too busy to read completely what this is about. Nancy, I did not eliminate the sentence. I took out the final bit "a view shared by many historians". I will say again, those quotes do not say that the Church is the only continuation of the Church. As above, I don't believe most editors here want to say, imply or suggest that historians believe that the RCC is the only continuation of the Church as founded by Jesus and Peter. It is not supported by those quotes. You may say historians support it as a continuation and you can say the it is a tenet of the Church and its members that is is the only continuation. But it is not fair to claim that historians/others say the Church is the singular continuation. My proposal is a simple one and should not cause concern, it is not changing much text (one word) but it is an important change. I am only saying that the term "the continuation" needs to be changed to "a continuation". "Through apostolic succession, the Church believes itself to be a continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians.[15][16][17] ". This is a fair change. Frankly, it is important that this page, as all Wikipedia pages, be seen to be one of give and take and compromise among different editors. BobKawanaka (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But that would then make the sentence inaccurate. The sentence says that the Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by.... - the Church does believe it is the continuation, not a continuation. The sentence persists and says this a view shared by many historians. This is a view shared by many historians. Of course there are those who disagree, the sentence does not say it is the view shared by all historians. It is reflecting the fact that historians looked back for centuries and saw Peter as the first pope - no other church in history has a pope except this one. The sentence has three references to support it. NancyHeise ^talk 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Per BobKawanaka's post here, I have added a reference for the part of the sentence that says the Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus. It is the same reference that is used in the body of the article (Origin and Mission section) that discusses this sentence in the lead in full. Leads do not have to be referenced at all according to Wikipedia policy. They are a summary of the body of the article that does contain references. But because every sentence of this article is examined by numerous editors who ask for references, I have added refs to the lead. Please see the added ref which links to the Catechism paragraph number 881 [1] supporting the claim in the sentence. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't had a chance to re-read what the specific three references say. I understand that many of the editors of this page feel set upon by "outside" editors and that can make it difficult to chase down the specifics of each objection, so I can also understand how one might not re-read well-travelled ground. But it is important. Those quotes say nothing on the RCC being the *only* continuation of the Church founded by Jesus and Peter. To say that, they need to say that other Catholic Churches have no legitimacy and claim to the same roots. I do not see that anywhere in the quotes. It would be helpful if you can point out the specifics of those quotes that denies that other Catholic Churches are also a continuation of the Church founded by Jesus and Peter. While I do not believe that a historian without ties to the Church can ever make such a determination based on historic facts, let's at least start with ensuring that the current quotes cited are represented properly. BobKawanaka (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be changed. The quotes clearly do not say the RCC is the only continuation. BobKawanaka (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will wait another 24 hours. The cited quotes do not support the contention that there is only one Church. In the absence of further input, I am going to change "the continuation" to "a continuation" in the sentence under discusssion. BobKawanaka (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob, while I agree that there is a problem with asserting that the Church is the continuation of the church founded by Jesus Christ (implying that it is the only valid continuation), there is also a problem with asserting that the Church is a continuation of the church founded by Jesus Christ because that is not a neutral description. Making such an assertion would suggest that there are multiple valid continuations of the church when the Catholic, the Orthodox and to a large extent the Anglicans would agree that there is only one church founded by Jesus Christ. This is an important theological point. Even most Protestants claim themselves to be part of the wider Christian community. This is why some Protestants use the word denomination rather than churches per se (although they frequently use "church" in the name of their denomination). Catholics reject the concept of a denomination. In their view, there is only one church. If there are divisions within that church, this is the result of human failing and not one that is not intended by God. I imagine the Orthodox feel the same way. This is why Catholics reject Branch Theory. A possible analogy would be the fact that both the Republic of China AND the People's Republic of China reject the "two China" model. Both sides believe that there is only one China and that reunification is both inevitable and desirable.

Now secular historians might consider that there are multiple continuations of the church founded by Jesus Christ and gloss over the theological problem of such an assertion; however, that is a secular POV and cannot be asserted baldly without making crystal clear what the view of the Catholic Church (among others) is.

I admit that I have no clear proposal to offer but I think the solution lies in the direction of "The Catholic Church considers its bishops to be validly consecrated according to the doctrine of apostolic succession, making them valid successors to the twelve apostles. In addition, the Church lays claim to the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the Pope's title as the Bishop of Rome. Other churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion recognize the valid consecration of the Catholic Church's bishops as well as the primacy of the Bishop of Rome although they interpret that primacy differently."

The more I think about it, the less I like the phrase "continuation of the church founded by Jesus Christ". Because of this "one church/many churches" question, there seems to be no easy way to make such an assertion without delving into the nuances that I have outlined above. Neither "the continuation" nor "a continuation" can resolve the conundrums that are raised. I think we are better off to avoid the phrase altogether.

--Richard (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, your "The Catholic Church considers its bishops ..." text is perfectly fine (though some are likely to argue its length). You capture the important distinctions, you allow for other theological interpretations while still asserting what the Church believes and we are no longer casting it so strongly as a point that can be decided by historians in favor of one "side" versus another. I think it reads much more strongly and is less likely to be open to future re-edits. Thanks. It would be best if you or another of the longer serving editors made the change. I will only chime in if the wording leans too much toward diminishing other groups or toward "proving" primacy. Thanks again. BobKawanaka (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

added ref to "official" per comment by Gimmetrow at mediation

I know we are in mediation about the name issue but until that process is complete, I have added the McBrien reference and quote (peer reviewed scholalry source) to the lead sentence stating that "Catholic Church" is the official name because of a complaint by Gimmetrow at mediation. See [2]. NancyHeise ^talk 02:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My ref was eliminated by Afterwriting. It's fine with me if Gimmetrow is OK with it. NancyHeise ^talk 03:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I've slightly rewritten the bit on the pontifical academy of sciences and edited the child sex abuse section to make them both more NPOV. Before people start reverting, sending me messages etc., could you please read them and let me know what if anything you object to and whether you think they are in any way anti-RCC POV.Haldraper (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think both edits improved the article. The Academy stuff needed some defluffing, and the abuse section reads better without having lost balance. Thanks for your consideration of the feedback received. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree but, per WP:BRD, I have reverted some of Haldraper's edit to the sexual abuse section. IMHO, the scandal cannot be limited to the misconduct of the priests because it is really more about the policies and administrative action of the bishops in reaction to that misconduct. Here's the thing: if the reporting of abuse had been encouraged and every priest had been promptly investigated and disciplined (assigned to positions where contact with minors was infrequent, defrocked, etc.), then the scandal would never have surfaced in the form that it did and the visceral reaction to it would not have been so great. People are human and some commit more heinous sins than others. What caused the scandal was the fact that bishops created an environment where a priest could continue to sin over decades. It's much harder to sue an institution for the misconduct of an individual employee if that employee is acting outside of policy and without the knowledge of his/her superiors. However, if the institution authorizes, condones or otherwise enables the actions of the employee, then the institution becomes increasingly liable depending upon the level of complicity. Dioceses and parishes have taken steps to prevent further sexual abuse but, more importantly, they have taken steps to increase the likelihood that any abuse or attempts at abuse are reported and dealt with promptly and effectively. I can't imagine that a bishop in this century would conceal the abuse committed by a priest by covering it up and reassigning the priest to another parish where he would have unsupervised contact with minors. This is the core of the scandal and the Church's reaction to it. Any attempts to explain or excuse the problem can be dealt with in the subsidiary article (currently under the bad title Catholic sex abuse cases). However, we cannot present the scandal as if it is only about the priests and not, in some way and to some significant extent, about the bishops. That would be omitting the core issue. --Richard (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with Haldraper's edit but I disagree with the entire edit that eliminated not only mention of the bishops but also the context within which the scandal erupted. Haldraper eliminated key facts that provided balance to a sensitive subject that is often portrayed in the most negative anti-Catholic way. The sentence that discusses how the psychological community dealt with the problem is key to understanding why the bishops did what they did, to omit that sentence makes the entire paragraph very POV anti-Catholic. The fact that the same problems exist in the US public School system but is far worse is part of the context needed to see the issue in a fair, NPOV light. That paragraph was worked out with much effort by many editors to get it in current form, please do not eliminate referenced consensus text without buiding new consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems with the section as it stands:

1. it is like a tug of war of opinions. The actions of the bishops are contentious I'm afraid, it's POV to try and alibi them with a in any case disputed history of psychological approaches to child sex abuse. I don't see how it is anti-Catholic POV to stick to the facts of the allegations and the steps taken by the Church in response to them. I think Nancy you're reading criticism into the words that isn't there.

2. it is far too US-centric. I can accept that as most abuse cases took place there that should be a major focus but to view a worldwide issue solely through the prism of US statistics and practice is excessive, especially the insistence on comparing the abuse favourably with alleged abuse in US schools and the undue weight given to the remarks by Dougherty who is not an independepent source after all. Haldraper (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just another point to think about: Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. Imagine we were writing an article for an actual encyclopaedia (i.e. a book) on the history of the RCC. Would we include a section on child sex abuse cases? Yes, I think so. Would we then say 'we must have a sentence saying it's not as bad as in US schools and a quote from a controversial commentator saying it's all an anti-Catholic media conspiracy'? I think not.Haldraper (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, these aren't my opinions in the article, they are the referenced facts - agreed by consensus to make the paragraph meet WP:NPOV. You want to remove the stated reasons why the bishops did what they did, a multiply referenced fact. It is POV to remove it. The sex abuse scandal is US centric. The ref notes that almost all of the abuse is in the US with a very minority percentage in Ireland and Australia. The US schools made the comparison to the Catholic Church, context requires us to see the sex scandal in light of the larger sex scandal atmosphere existant throughout the US, the only entity with a greater number of schools than the Catholic Church. The quote from the commentator can be eliminated to state the fact that sex abuse in US school system is ten times worse if you like. However, that sentence was the one preferred by consensus so we left it, and I would like respect that consensus so please do not remove it without building a new consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I hestitate to get into this because it's an unnecessary debate as far as Wikipedia is concerned: we should stick to the facts without reporting what people 'contended', 'commented' etc. My version of the para didn't include criticism of the bishops' inaction or their justification for it because both are beside the point in an encyclopaedia article. Just state the facts - number of allegations, steps taken by the Church to deal with problem - and let people draw their own conclusions rather than presenting them with 'X made this criticism of the Church but Y responded by pointing out' which gives it an inappropriate, apologist tone.

Three things strike me as particularly beside the point:

1. How is it relevant to the allegation that the RCC knew about crimes committed by its priests and failed to report them to police to say that psycholgists at the time thought that counselling was appropriate. Wasn't that for the courts to decide?

2. I've re-read the article on US schools: the two situations just aren't comparable. The 'abuse' in schools covers a wide range of activity, including consensual relationships between young adults - e.g. teenage male students and female teachers - that would be legal but for the student-teacher relationship. None of the abuse by priests was consensual, led to marriage in some cases etc. It also adds to the apologist tone, 'bad, but not as bad as in schools'.

3. Jon E. Dougherty is a Catholic commentator whose writings seek to defend the Church. He is not an independent source and his comments are given undue weight. Can anyone present evidence for his claim that child abuse in the RCC has received widespread coverage because the media is anti-Catholic or is that just his opinion? If this section is going to be US-centric, at least let's base it on relevant, referenced facts rather than opinions. Haldraper (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means representing all sides of an issue. People will want to have a mention of criticism of the bishops etc. Therefore those putting the opposite view have to be represented too. You can't decide to eliminate important viewpoints because you dislike them. And your view over whether the case of the schools are "compatible" or not is not an issue. In any event the priestly abuse covers a wide range of activity too, some of which was "consensual". You cant make excuses for one, and not another. Similarly these are incidents in which very few cases as a whole across society were reported to the police at the time. So singling out the Church and saying THEY didn't report to the police and that is uniquely evil, when that was not done by anyone at the time, is introducing POV bias by selective reporting. Xandar 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon Doughtrey is not offering his opinion, he is a reporter for a major news organization and the article is reflecting that story which is based on actual facts further substantiated by other references in the article. Doughtrey is not the only person to make the connection here, the US Dept of Education also compared the Catholic Church and US public school abuse. NancyHeise ^talk 22:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm against dragging US schools into an article on the RCC but if an independent, verifiiable source exists it would be better to replace Dougherty's POV article with it.Haldraper (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading that section again, two things strike me:

1. the bit about the bishops fails to make clear the central charge aginst them, their failure to report to police abuse that had been committed by priests, not just their complicity in allowing such behaviour to happen again. How about this for a rewrite?

The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops who knew about abuse allegations failed to report them to police. They had also reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[403][406][407][408] Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[407][409] Pope John Paul II responded by declaring that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[3] The US Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers;[410][411] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[154][409][412]

2. as well as the lack of independence/undue weight given to Dougherty's comments, the bit that really sticks out is 'same problem' in relation to US schools. The academic report from Hofstra University just doesn't support that assertion, it does not primarily cover men sexually assaulting boys (which is what we're discussing) but has a much wider range, including consensual relationships between teenage male students and female teachers a few years older than them. I think we could easily lose the last sentence (which also adds to the US-centric tone) without losing balance in this section. Haldraper (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is you're wanting to add accusations about not reporting matters to the police, but then remove the CONTEXT in which such decisions were made. The schools reports are directly comparable. You seem to think the allegations against Catholics are all one sort. No. They vary. And there are many other comparable groups that could have been included in the article. Baptists, Anglicans, Social Workers etc. However it was decided just to use one example - the teachers. Xandar 11:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can support Haldraper's last revision. --Richard (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No Xandar, you are wrong on both points. The context in which the bishops failed to report abuse to police is there: their contention that mainstream psychiatric opinion was that it was possible to alter such behaviour through counselling and therefore that was what they thought it more appropriate to do. 'The schools reports are directly comparable'. Really, have you read them? If the issue in US schools was men raping boys, I'd agree with you. But the tables in the report cited don't reflect that at all. Some of the teachers were engaged in consensual relationships with fellow young adults (some of which have led to marriage). You might think that is inappropriate behaviour but it is not the same thing as what the priests have been accused of. Even if it was, why the need to compare it favourably with other groups unless the you intend like Dougherty to imply an anti-Catholic media conspiracy?Haldraper (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more points: 1. this section, as evidenced by the link at the start of it, is not about child abuse in the RCC in general (if it was it would need to include much more, e.g. the Ryan Report). It is about the US lawsuits brought against priests who sexually assaulted boys. I'm pretty sure none of those lawsuits involved consensual relationships with young women which is classified as abuse in the Hofstra University statistics cited. 2. on putting the bishops' actions/inaction 'into context': surely their defence, as I said before, is 'we thought we were doing the best thing in line with accepted psychiatric opinion at the time' (which I left in my rewrite) rather than 'what we did was wrong but others are more guilty' which is the (much weaker) defence some editors/Dougherty are trying to construct for them.Haldraper (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what country you're from Haldraper, but in the U.S., if a teacher has sex with someone under the age of 18, it's rape - even if the minor wanted to. Some of those occurrences in the Church were consensual too, but I don't see you mentioning that. Need I wonder why?

And honestly - why does the section even exist? The issue has it's own article. Typically, that means we throw down a sentence or two about it with a link to that article and leave it at that. That paragraph in the article really ought to be cut down if anything.Farsight001 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with Farsight001's attack on Haldraper's motives, I do agree with his argument that there may be too much about the issue in this article. I suspect that some editors at FAC would want more in this article but that is a problem with FAC. Everybody wants more about their favorite topic and the article becomes bloated as a result. I support cutting down the text on this topic and relying on the link to the article about it to provide interested readers with additional detail. --Richard (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Farsight, I'm in Britain and the law here too says that if for e.g. a 23 year old female teacher has a consensual relationship with a 18 year old student she has committed a crime. Would you compare that to the priests' abuse in the lawsuits? You ask why I don't mention that some of the cases involving priests and teenage boys were consensual. It's because I'm not aware that any were and they also involved younger boys thus complicating the issue of consent, not as you seem to think because I'm anti-Catholic (I'm actually a lapsed Catholic myself).

Farsight/Richard: if you look at the history page, you'll see that I recently edited this section down to the facts as to abuse allegations and the RCC's policy changes in response to them, without mention of criticism, defences and other commentators' opinions, but this was reverted by other editors on the grounds it was anti-Catholic POV not to put the Church's actions 'into context' by way of citing alleged psychiatric orthodoxy in the past and spurious comparisons with schools. I'm happy for us to revert to the short, factual action with the link still in place to the longer article that duplicates alot of the material anyway.Haldraper (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I supported dropping the apologetics but I continue to feel that omitting mention of the bishops mischaracterizes the scandal as being "just" about misconduct by priests. Those who wish to diminish the gravity of this scandal don't get that, in order for the school and church scandals to be comparable, you would have to have principals and school district superintendents involved in covering up abuse cases and reassigning the malefactors to other schools. Just comparing raw numbers of reported cases misses the point.

I would support trimming the text to a few short sentences. Something like

In the early 21st century, a number of lawsuits and criminal cases focused worldwide attention on a pattern of sexual abuse by some Catholic priests that had occurred over several decades. Although most of the cases were in the United States, cases were reported in other countries such as Ireland, Canada and Australia. A focal point of the scandal was the fact that bishops had concealed the abuses and reassigned some priests to posts where they continued to have contact with minors. In response to the scandal, local parishes and dioceses have instituted measures to raise awareness of , prevent and encourage the reporting of sexual abuse. In addition, the Vatican has instructed that measures be taken by seminaries to discourage the ordination of candidates with "deep-rooted homosexual tendencies". --Richard (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I'd have no problem with your suggested rewrite.Haldraper (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That version is totally unacceptable - since it is removing context and referenced material, for what appear to be POV reasons. It is fair to raise the issue of where Haldraper is coming from. He started off making disruptive edits. His new user page, made 2 months ago, lists the following interests. "baseball, beer, blues/jazz, Civil Service trade unionism, cricket, football, literature, Manchester, Roman Catholicism, rugby league and Trotskyism." Only one religious interest is cited. And from his posts on various topics so far, as well as attempts to whitewash other groups on the abuse issue, it appears that his interest in Roman Catholicism is largely to push negative, and generally uninfomed, viewpoints about the Church. Xandar 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar and Farsight. The paragraph is POV either one way or the other if any of those sentences is eliminated. There is no more trimming that can be done to it without elimination of basic facts that meet FA's comprehensiveness rule. Because the issue was very serious and affected the whole Church, it needs to be included in the article with sufficient facts. Please note that the paragraph was the result of several months of negotiations on this talk page and a FAC that saw the participation of many editors. User:Ling.Nut stated in the last FAC that this page had received a lot of attention, his words were something to the effect that Wikipedia's best editors had crawled all over it "like ants on a dropped piece of candy". The last FAC, with over 34 editors' reveiws, had no problems with this paragraph. NancyHeise ^talk 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, where are you coming from? Instead of personal attacks, why not give an example of where I have inserted 'negative, and generally uninfomed, viewpoints about the Church'? If you don't, I will assume you are unable to back up that allegation and therefore withdraw it. Nancy, it's over the top to say as you do to say that the para 'is POV either one way or the other if any of those sentences is eliminated': it's not like it's the Bible where every word is inviolable :-) I could live with the para as it stands as long as we lose the last sentence, i.e. Dougherty's comment that media coverage of the issue has been 'excessive' which is inappropriate on a number of grounds:

1. it's a weasel construction 2. it's from a non-independent source 3. it is off topic (US schools/media rather than the RCC) 4. it breaches NPOV by introducing an apologist tone

Haldraper (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion. If you don't like the Dougherty ref, look up something from one of the works of Philip Jenkins. Using him would settle your points (2) instantly, and we could easily avoid (3). Points (1) and (4) are dependent on our approach so they could be avoided as well.

Jenkins has written some meta-scholarship, if you will, about the abuse scandal. One of his points is that there is a very old and pervasive bigotry archetype of the "predator priest" in American culture. I haven't seen a directly usable statement to this effect in the two works of his I am partially through, but I have to imagine that he has somewhere made the argument that the media coverage of the scandal has been unduly compromised by the presence of that archetype. I'll try to finish the ones I'm reading and may chime back in. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! The problem with the Dougherty quote and even the comparison to schools and "other institutions" is that it just a slender piece of the argument about "anti-Catholic bias" and the "predator priest" canard. Far, far better to make those arguments explicitly in the article with appropriate references and Wikilinks to other articles. Is there enough to create an article on the topic of alleged sexual abuse by Catholic priests? Consider the 1834 burning of an Ursuline convent. Let's describe the debate rather than making the arguments here. --Richard (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had another go at rewriting this section. I've tried to make it more chronological by describing the lawsuits and comments/coverage of them and then the Church's policy changes following them. On the sentence in question, I had a number of problems: that it presented Dougherty as an independent source, that it placed undue weight on his remarks, that it implied a direct correlation with US schools, that it added to US-centricity, had a POV tone and as it was at the end came across as a last retort/final word on the subject that was not helpful. I think I've avoided these problems while keeping the sentence to provide the context some editors demanded but replaced 'the same problems plague US schools' with the more measured and balanced 'similar problems affect other institutions'.Haldraper (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, I have replaced some referenced text you AGAIN removed from the article without consensus. You have multiple times now, since coming to this article a month ago, removed consensus and referenced material from the article without agreement. You have been informed many times that this is not the way to do things, but you persist in continuing to push your own POV in this manner. It is beginning to appear like disruptive editing. Material removed on the other occasions has included material on the abuse references, scholarly opinion on the history of the Church, ecumenism and the dissolution of the monasteries. All of these changes have been in a POV direction negative to the subject of this article. You say on your page that you have an "interest" in "Roman Catholicism". What exactly is this interest?

On the substance of your latest arguments: The US schools are an EXAMPLE of many other areas of under-reported abuse. There are many others. We selected one. And we are perfectly right to include opinions that refelect a point of view favourable to Catholicism in this article. It is called balance. Xandar 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I deplore the tendency of you and NancyHeise to question the motives and perspectives of those with whom you disagree. What is YOUR interest in this article? What is YOUR POV? I would argue that your edits have all been in a POV direction positive to the subject of this article. (I qualify this assertion with the admission that I haven't reviewed each and every one of your edits). Does your POV in favor of the subject disqualify you from making edits? If not, why does Haldraper's POV in a negative direction disqualify him?

This page does not belong to the Catholic Church. It is about the Catholic Church, both its positive and negative attributes. Now, we may reasonably disagree with respect to what those are and how much weight to give them. However, this questioning of personal opinions and motives is inappropriate and disruptive.

--Richard (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And I deplore YOUR tendency, Richard, to mouth off in a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and simultaneously start accusing me of being biased! It is quite obvious that Haldraper came here with an agenda, and engaged in disruptive editing of the article without seeking agreement or consensus. I have asked several times what his professed interest in the "Roman Catholic Church" consists of, and he has made no response. I, Nancy, and many others have worked on this article for several years trying to produce a GOOD, FACTUAL, WELL-REFERENCED and BALANCED article. We have put it up several times for Good and Featured article status, as well as Peer reviews - so there is clearly no desire to keep the article the preserve of the Church. Your allegastions in this regard are quite unwarranted. What we have experienced, however, are people who come in with anti-Catholic attitudes or misunderstandings who come here and accuse the article of being biased because it does not conform to their prejudices. We have always tried to discuss and debate issues raised. However Haldraper has leapt into this article, casting allegations of bias and POV, while acting in a disruptive and non-co-operative manner and repeatedly removing consensus and referenced text. he has been told not to act in this way, and then continued. You have made no remark about this, so I woukld trust that you be aware of the facts in future before posting such comments. Xandar 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, what was POV about the sentence I wrote? I didn't remove the sentence or the references but rewrote it slightly because the comparison with schools is too narrow and inaccurate and it gives undue weight and prominence to one commentator. You say 'And we are perfectly right to include opinions that refelect a point of view favourable to Catholicism in this article. It is called balance'. You'd have a point if the section highlighted quotations from commentators critical of the Church but as it doesn't you don't.Haldraper (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You took out the reference to the Public schools and you added that it was only Catholics who thought the Catholic element in abuse scandals were excessively reported. Xandar 02:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Haldrapers eliminations are an improvement. He changes the sentence to say that the abuse is in schools period. The references specifically say that the abuse is of much greater frequency in US Public schools. We don't have any refs speaking to other schools so why would we eliminate the plain fact that it is US Public schools? Also, I don't think I have accused Haldraper of anything that requires a scolding here Richard. I just asked him if he was a sockpuppet given the fact that he is a new account who instantly knows how to edit and has knowledge of Wikipedia policies with no apparent training or help from experienced editors, I think my question was fairly worded and should have been asked. NancyHeise ^talk 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, because I think Haldraper does not realize the pronounced seriousness of this problem in the US, I would like to post this link to my local paper that lists all the public school teachers in South Flordia indicted for sex abuse in the past 12 months. [3] In that same time period, there were no priests or Catholic school teachers in South Florida indicted for same. There are also no high priced lawyers suing the pants off the US Public School System here either because there is law placing a small limit on what victims can collect. I believe Phillip Jenkins makes this point in his book too, a point that we have not covered in this small "bare facts" paragraph. If you ask me, the paragraph is just barely NPOV and would be better to include more info on this disparity. It would answer the question of why the Church has paid out zillions of dollars in settlements and the US Public Schools, who also moved abusers around per the refs, pay nothing and get very little press. NancyHeise ^talk 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Nancy's latest edits and think that between us we have now achieved a much improved section.Haldraper (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Haldraper, Im glad we could come to agreement. By the way, here's another link to the list of Public School coaches and teachers in South Florida who have sexually abused children [4]. This is a huge problem in the US. The Catholic Church did something to end it and we presented that in our paragraph. The Public Schools have done nothing yet it is the Catholics who are perceived as child molestors and get all the media coverage. Our paragraph included one single sentence to address this huge and current problem, a problem that our sources have addressed by comparing the abuse of priests and US public school teachers. It is very necessary I believe in order to meet the notable fact criteria of WP:FA. NancyHeise ^talk 19:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

History section and recentism

Just browsing over the history section. It seems like the amount of text space is heavily weighted to more recent events, if you look at how much space the time period since the 19th century takes (especially since the 1950s), compared to absolutely any other period of its history, then it looks very odd. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As per my comment above re WP:LENGTH, I think the opposite is true: the more recent stuff belongs on this page, it's the pre-20th century stuff replicated on the History of the Catholic Church page that doesn't.Haldraper (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP policies such as those on recentism and WP:Undue Weight favour Yorkshirian's point of view. History is a very important part of most faith-group articles, and that history needs to be balanced, reasonably comprehensive, and not give certain events undue prominence by discussing them and not others of equal importance to the subject. Xandar 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the balance is about right. Xandar is aware, as other editors may not be, of the lengthy past discussions that led to the current version. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod, I don't think it's on to effectively exclude newer editors by saying 'we've already discussed this' or expect them to trawl through lengthy archives before expressing an opinion. These things are not set in stone, newer editors may have fresh insights or different viewpoints that should be encouraged rather than stifled with a unamenable 'consensus'.Haldraper (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, things should not be "set in stone" and "fresh insights or different viewpoints" should be encouraged. However, the onus is on the newcomers to understand the rationale for the existing consensus and to present argumetns to shift that consensus. The recently concluded year-long mediation over the lead is an example of such a process. Hopefully, not all changes will take that much effort.

That said, I have read through the entire history section, making some edits along the way. I think it is reasonably well-written and covers the key points. I have some doubts about the need to include a discussion of the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade but maybe I don't have an adequate appreciation of the importance of those events. In any event, my concerns are limited to a sentence here and a sentence there. I don't think the pre-20th century history section could be trimmed much. There are a few places where specific people are mentioned as examples where such mention is not absolutely necessary. However, these really come down to matters of style and wouldn't reduce the text appreciably.

As for the comments by Yorkshirian and Xandar about overweighting the recent past, I think we should remember that Wikipedia is not paper and so we should take into account the existence of History of the Catholic Church, History of the Papacy and a plethora of other articles related to the topic. Since other articles provide a wealth of detail about the history of the Church, we can rely on a tightly-written summary of pre-20th century history in this article. Whenever there is a History of X article, the article on X focuses on the current status of X while History of X provides the detailed historical account of X. Thus, recentism is more acceptable when such a pairing exists. I think a more detailed discussion of "since the 19th century" church history is needed for the reader to fully understand where the Church is today. Discussion of Vatican II, the fall of Communism and even the sexual abuse crisis are far more important than discussions of the Cathars or the Photian schism. If the reader really wants to learn more about those events, there are Wikilinks to the articles about them.

I would challenge Yorkshirian and Xandar to identify specific events in the more distant past to either add or expand upon and to identify specific events in the recent past which are covered in excessive detail.

In twenty years, the sexual abuse crisis will probably not be that important and may very well wind up being reduced to a sentence or two. For now, however, I think (IMHO) it should be given approximately the amount of text it currently has. (Well, perhaps it could be shortened by a sentence or two.)

Let's cater to the needs of today's readers today and change the article over time to serve tomorrow's readers tomorrow.

--Richard (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When the article is read or reviewed, as at FAC, it is always criticised for not covering enough historical events, not for covering too many. We have been through these discussions quite a few times, and we boil down to an irreducable list of historical milestones and important events that need to be covered in the article. These include origins of the Church, persecutions, Constantineand Nicea, survival after the fall of Rome, evangelisation, losses to Islam, monasticism, great schism, crusades, medieval Church, Inquisitions (including Cathars), Church v state, architecture and art, Universities, reformation events, Council of Trent, counter reformation, wars of religion, science and enlightenment, conquistadors and world mission, etc. etc. There is no way a comprehensive article can omit these matters, and they need to be covered usefully, especially when there are conflicting opinions about many of them. In Catholicism you can't say that an event in 1850 is more important than one in 1450, simply because of the date.

The History of the Catholic Church article is there for more detailed coverage, however it cannot substitute for adequate coverage in the main article. The HistCC article is itself not currently in a fit state to substitute for main article coverage anyway. Attempts were made to trim the history section of this article this time last year, but most of the trimmed material very quickly came back. I feel trimming can be a useful exercise in making sections more readable, without removing important information, but I think if we decided to take that route, we would need to involve Nancy in any such exercise when she returns from Holiday. Xandar 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One example, as far as I can see there is no mention of the Council of Florence in which the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church were briefly reunited - a major event in the history of religion in general. Yet in the contemporary section there is all of this drawn out rattling on about what feminists think and how exponents of the sexual revolution hate Catholic teachings on contraception. A lot of this could be cut down. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised the anti-Catholics haven't inserted noisemaker and loonytoon Sinead O'Connor somewheres in there! Perhaps we need a statement from Madonna (entertainer)? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that comments such as this only confirm in the minds of detached readers, whose only exposure to organised religion is what they read here, is that religious articles on wikipedia are full of extremists. Your edits such as this[5] and Yorkshirians checkered past (see his/hers history of sockpuppetry) do nothing to enhance the low esteem for the "scholarship" of these kind of articles. Taam (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam. It would be far more useful to everyone, if instead of throwing out unsubstantiated accusations of bias extremism and bad scholarship, you actually try assuming good faith, and either come forward with specific, well-cited examples of places where the article is wrong, or cease making uncivil comments. Xandar 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The characterization of anyone who dares to question the accuracy of the article as anti-catholic or anti-christian is indicative to me of the generally hostile response to anyone who wants to improve the article. Taking up your offer of providing cited material: The section dealing with "Mit Brennender Sorge" states the following "In the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI "condemned the neopaganism of the Nazi ideology – especially its theory of racial superiority...".[375] Drafted by the future Pope Pius XII[376] and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it described Adolf Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization.[377". If you look at the main article for Mit brennender Sorge you will see that there is cited material that doesn't accept it was drafted by the future Pope Pius XII (he contributed to it), nor do others see the document as describing Hitler as "an insane or arrogant prophet". This section is stating as fact what is opinion. Also Falconi ("the first great official public document to dare to confront and critize Nazism") is quoted out of context since he also thinks the encyclical loses it moral stature because, in his opinion, it held out an olive branch to Hilter. Taam (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the one coming here with a chip on your shoulder, since I don't see any evidence of bona-fide contributors here being called anti-Catholics for providing good faith contributions. If people storm on to the page randomly abusing the article editors, because it doesn't match their preconceptions, and start making abrasive and accusatory comments without bothering to produce evidence, they may well get a less than warm reception. That is not unsurprising. But as regards your example, the difference between the two articles seems to be one of emphasis rather than of differing factual content. The words you cite, do appear in "Mit Brennender Sorge". It is clear to many that these apply to Hitler, others may not believe so - but how representative are such views? What better wording would anyone suggest? There appear to be many views on the document. The Falconi statement: "the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world." appears to be a summation of the pros and cons of his argument, so quoting it alone is not to quote per se "out of context". Xandar 00:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It was an editor who used the term "anti-catholics" in the context of another editor proposing, very mildly, that the article should represent more recent historical events. It was this I objected to. If you are sincere of heart about not "abusing" other editors then I would respectfully suggest you refrain from comments such as "You seem to be the one coming here with a chip on your shoulder". Moving on to one part of the article. 1) The encyclical was not drafted by Cardinal Pacelli. 2) The article states as fact that Hitler is the "mad prophet" when that is simply not true, it's an opinion. The main source of this opinion seems to be Anthony Rhodes, whose main fields of interest appear to have been in the field of travel writing and fiction. He was made a Knight Commander of St Gregory by Pope Paul IV for his services to the Catholic Church and this was before he converted to Roman Catholicism 3) The use of the Falconi quote from Father Thomas Bokenkotter colors the section heavily in one direction when in fact Falconi critizes heavily the moral worth of the encyclical "so little anti-Nazi is it...".. "concerned purely with the Catholic Church and its rights and privileges".."even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. But that was the very thing to deprived the document of it's noble and exemplary intransigence" To simply rip out in mid sentence the aforementioned "limitations" is not doing justice to the source and I can only guess that Father Bokenkotter (assuming he himself has not been subject to unintentional out of context redaction) is that he has read it from another secondary source, because there is no way I could conceive he would have used Falconi in this way if he had the book in front of him. Taam (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"a view shared by many historians"

I just yesterday belatedly noticed that no one had inserted the text proposed by me and agreed to by BobKawanaka back in June which attempted to resolve the issue of "a continuation" vs. "the continuation" so I inserted it. My edit was subsequently revised by 24.127.29.172. Some parts of her edit are good but it restored the issue of "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of... , a view shared by many historians".

The problem here is that it is unclear which historians believe the Catholic Church to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ. Are these Catholic historians, Western historians, the majority of all historians? Orthodox historians would argue that the Orthodox church is the continuation and the Catholic Church split off from them. Anglican historians might argue some version of Branch theory in which the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches are all equally valid continuations. Protestants would certainly challenge the idea that they are not part of the continuation. I have difficulty believing that secular historians would back the claim of the Catholic Church to be the (sole valid) continuation.

On the other hand, we cannot write that "the Catholic Church believes itself to be a continuation of..." as this could be read to imply something that is not true, i.e. that Catholic Church accepts other churches as valid continuations. Well, it probably accepts the Orthodox and some Anglicans as having validly consecrated bishops who are unfortunately out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. However, there is more nuance in that last sentence than can be communicated in the sentence "the Catholic Church believes itself to be a continuation of...".

My proposed resolution was to get rid of the word "continuation" altogether and focus on apostolic succession and the valid consecration of bishops (which is the entire basis of the Church's claim anyways). Most importantly, we must separate "the Church believes itself to be..." from "a view shared by many historians" unless we can more clearly qualify which historians we are talking about.

--Richard (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, in the discussions we've had on this before I've always assumed 'historians' to be shorthand for either the first or second of your suggestions, i.e. Western Church historians rather than all historians in the world. Nancy argued - I thought convincingly - that the references support the view that most historians in the field of Church history do accept that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the early Christian community in Judea. Whether you agree with that view is neither here or there really as far as that statement is concerned. On your point about 'believes itself to be', I don't see that as anti-CC POV and the alternative 'the CC is' would rightly be seen as pro-CC POV.Haldraper (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, we are agreed that "believes itself to be" is neither pro nor anti CC. It is simply a statement of what the Catholic Church teaches.

The problem is with the addition "a view shared by many historians". This asserts that "many historians" agree that the CC is "the continuation..." --Richard (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, you wrote "Nancy argued - I thought convincingly - that the references support the view that most historians in the field of Church history do accept that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the early Christian community in Judea." Can you either provide diffs to her arguments or, failing that, summarize the gist of her arguments?

Also, please consider that I certainly agree that most Church historians would accept that the Catholic Church is "part" of "the continuation". The problem is with the word "the". Does it mean that the Catholic Church is the "entire" continuation or just "part of the continuation" along with the Orthodox and the Anglicans? I think Catholic teaching is that it is "part of the universal Church" along with the Orthodox, Anglicans and, yes, even the Protestants. It also teaches that it is the part that has legitimate authority by dint of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, etc. etc. and that the other parts of the Christian Church are sadly separated from this communion for the time being.

This is the distinction that I am trying to clarify in the text.

--Richard (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The following text was written before the text above but I'm leaving it on this page as part of my response to Haldraper.

I agree with you that my personal opinion on this question of "continuation" is irrelevant. Given the history of strong opinions on this article, I can see why you would jump to the conclusion that I think my personal opinion on this question is important. However, I think it's an unwarranted conclusion. I'm as strong believer in NPOV. Please do not infer that my raising of this issue is driven by my personal opinion. I am neither Orthodox nor Anglican although I do see validity in their POV on this question.

Having worked with other editors who are Orthodox on articles about the Orthodox Church, I think I have gained some appreciation of their POV.

I am interested in finding what I call "the NPOV sweet spot" on this question.

By "Church historians", do you mean "historians who specialize in the history of the Catholic Church"? Since the history of the Catholic Church is essentially the history of the Christian church for the first 800-1000 years, you are then asserting that "most historians of the Christian Church" accept that the Catholic Church is "the continuation". This assertion can be criticized in a number of ways.

First of all, the word "most" poses some difficulties if we consider that there might be more historians in the West than in the East. If this is true, then "counting heads" skews the result in favor of the West. We also have to be careful when we consider "the mainstream of historians" if the "mainstream" that we are most familiar with is the Western mainstream. Fortunately, the article doesn't say "most" but it does say "many". However, "many" is a weasel word. How many is many? 100, 1000? 10%, 20%, 40%?

More importantly, saying "many historians" without characterizing what subcategory of historians the statement applies to is misleading by omission. I could say "Many Americans believe that abortion should be completely outlawed." and it would be a true sentence. I didn't say "Most" and several million surely counts as "many". I could even say "Many Americans believe that illegal immigrants are criminals" and it would also be a true sentence.

To say that "many historians agree that the Catholic Church is the continuation..." begs the question "so are the Orthodox Church and Anglican Communion NOT part of "the continuation"? The Orthodox would argue that they are "the continuation" and the Catholics split off from them. Consider this: even if the LDS church grew to be several times the size of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church would still insist that it was "the continuation". Numbers of adherents don't change theological belief.

So what are we really trying to say? "The Catholic Church believes that it is the continuation of ...". Without bringing historians into the statement, the statement would be true as it stands. That is the belief of the Catholic Church.

What would most historians say? That Christianity was, in fact, handed down from bishop to bishop via valid consecration rites thus establishing apostolic succession? That the mainstream rejects the idea that Christianity was invented or reinvented somewhere between 100AD and 300AD? (truly a fringe position)

If that is our point (as opposed to trying to invalidate Orthodoxy and Anglicanism), we should try to find a way to say that more clearly rather than in a way which appears to support the Catholic POV over that of the Orthodox and Anglicans. ::--Richard (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church could make valid claims that they have just as good of a claim to being a continuation of the church founded by the apostles. And some of the documents I've seen regarding the very early church could be seen as not really looking much like any of them, which could give an argument, conceivably, that some of the Restorationist churches are the real continuation of the church of the apostles. While it is true that the Catholic Church does see itself as being the more or less sole continuation of the church founded by the apostles, it also generally at least grudingly admits the validity of at least the two I mentioned. Maybe something to the effect of, "the CC sees itself as the continuation of the church founded by the apostles. Most historians agree that it does continue the traditions established by the apostles and their successors, although the same could be said regarding other churches, specifically the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, as well." John Carter (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to reflect belief and not present or give the appearance it as historical fact. If you want apologists and church historians we can show a plethora that support the claim, but as soon as we get to historians with a secular background and a number of historians both within and outside of the church we see a much contested presentation about the concept of Apostolic Succession. --^StormRider 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says any statement in an article that all/most scholars ... must be sourced to a statement of exactly that. WP editors counting sources to reach such conclusions would be original research. The case of many may be a bit different. If the article were to cite, say, 20 scholars saying something, that might count as verification.

The weasel words aspect I already mentioned in the peer review section, which has now been archived (presumably someone will disinter it when the PR proces starts). The obvious question, assuming some historians actually do say it's the continuation, is whether those historians are Catholics. If so, the obvious response is that of Mandy Rice-Davies. If not, then it would seem an obvious thing for the article to say so. Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered either way but I think we could lose the start of the sentence and just state that the see of Rome had primacy from the early history of the Church which the refs clearly support.Haldraper (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That runs the danger of being weasel words. What sort of primacy? The main point of the dispute between Catholic & Orthodox is that the Pope claims primacy of jurisdiction, but the Orthodox recognized only primacy of honour. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

confessional picture

I liked the modern confessional we had in June, the new one does not look like any confessional I have ever seen. What do others think? I also liked the previous picture of missionaries baptizing Indians instead of the present picture in Cultural influence. Thoughts? NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the prior picture of the missionaries was better than the current one for Cultural Influence. I would support changing it back. However, I actually prefer the current confessional picture. The current picture is clearly a confession box. The previous picture (of a "modern" confessional) would have taken me a few seconds to figure out. It may come down to what people are familiar with seeing. I've seen both (and used both!), but I find the current picture more recognizable. I also think that the current picture probably comports with what most non-catholics would recognize from popular culture (film, tv, etc.). --anietor (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO the "modern" picture doesn't look definitively Catholic: maybe I just visit older church's but I've never seen one as stripped down and bare as that (travelled throughout Europe). Most Catholic confessionals are closer to the box, especially in majority Catholic countries. Before the images focuses far too much on the New World I think, there were actually two images depicting California (!). France as the Eldest Daughter of the Church (where confessional is located) and Spain one of, if not the, most militantly Catholic force throughout early modern period (represented in the culture section with School of Salamanca) are probably worthy of some pictoral representation to even it out. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)